<p>About the whole UC vs. Caltech claim - notice how I posed my original post. Obviously there are many people who would never want to go to Caltech (just like there are many people who would never want to go to MIT). But I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about people who choose to apply to UC and to Caltech. Obviously if you choose to apply to Caltech, then you are somewhat interested in going (otherwise, why are you applying?). Of these people, I think it's safe to say that the majority of them would choose Caltech, unless they want to save money. Not all of them - I didn't say all of them would make this choice. What I am saying is that of those people who apply to both (and are hence obviously interested in both of them enough to apply), that the majority would prefer Caltech. </p>
<p>And finally, joining it with the rest of the conversation, again, I have never disputed that the graduate schools and the research at Berkeley really are great. If we were just talking strictly about a graduate-school/research ranking, then I would have little quarrel with the Times ranking. The problem becomes how do you extend Berkeley's graduate school and research strength to the undergraduate program? It's not a simple one-to-one translation. </p>
<p>So I would again pose the question I asked before. Where is Williams College on the Times ranking? How about Swarthmore? And Amherst? Oh I see, they're not listed on there. So I guess that they absolutely suck, don't they? Oh but wait, Harvey-Mudd isn't on the list either, yet most of us agree that it's a pretty darn good school, nor is Pomona. I think it's plain to see that the Times ranking strongly discriminates against schools that don't have prominent graduate schools. </p>
<p>Look at it this way, guys. I think most of us would agree that AWS are indeed very good undergraduate schools, as are Pomona, Mudd, and the other top LAC's. They just don't have prominent graduate schools, but that fact by itself doens't mean that they don't have good undergraduate programs. Furthermore, a lot of you keep bashing the 'lower Ivies', and in particular, Dartmouth and Brown. Well, think of it this way. Dartmouth and Brown are basically LAC's. Dartmouth is basically a LAC with a med-school, a B-school, and a few graduate programs thrown on top. Brown is basically a LAC with a med-school and a few graduate programs thrown on top. If it weren't for these programs, we would be treating both Dartmouth and Brown as LAC's. And not just any LAC's. They would be considered as some of the elite LAC's. Just look at the statistics alone and you will see that statistically speaking, Dartmouth and Brown are basically equivalent to AWS, and yet we have already established that AWS are very strong undergraduate programs. The point is, why are we castigating Dartmouth and Brown for not having the breadth of graduate schools that Berkeley has, when we all agree that it's not fair to castigating AWS or Mudd for not having graduate schools at all? </p>
<p>Finally, I would say that clearly the most misleading part of the Times ranking is that clearly I don't think anybody is going to turn down Stanford undergrad for Berkeley undergrad, except possibly to save money. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a lot of people who would do such a thing. Even california1600, you have admitted you would not. Yet the Times says that Stanford is #7 and Berkeley is #2. So again, that just goes to show you that the Times ranking is skewed towards graduate schools, especially PhD programs. I would probably agree that on the aggrgate, the Berkeley PhD programs probably are better than the Stanford PhD programs (Although not the professional schools - very few people are going to turn down admission to the Stanford MBA program to go to Haas, except to save money, very few people are going to turn down Stanford Law for Boalt, except to save money). However, I think you are going to find very few people who would seriously argue that Berkeley undergrad is better than Stanford undergrad. Not even the biggest Berkeley-boosters in the world are going to try to argue that one. Hence, again, that goes to my point that the Times ranking does not capture the quality of undergraduate programs. Again, hardly anybody seriously believes that Berkeley undergrad is better than Stanford undergrad.</p>
<p>Now, does that mean we should reject the Times ranking post-haste? Of course not. We should see it for what it is - a ranking that confirms that Berkeley is indeed a PhD and research powerhouse, and so are UCLA and UCSD. The perennial problem is of course that Berkeley will not use this as an excuse to not improve the undergraduate program. This just gives more fresh ammunition of excuses to the Berkeley undergrad administration to now sit on their butt and do nothing.</p>