<p>is number 23 according to the preferences of top students. People admitted both to Berkeley and to the other 22 schools ranked above it tend to choose the higher ranked schools. This college ranking system is unbiased because it is based upon students’ choices, not the whims of some editor. </p>
<p>1 Harvard 2800
2 Yale 2738
3 Stanford 2694
4 Cal Tech 2632
5 MIT 2624
6 Princeton 2608
7 Brown 2433
8 Columbia 2392
9 Amherst 2363
10 Dartmouth 2357
11 Wellesley 2346
12 U Penn 2325
13 U Notre Dame 2279
14 Swarthmore 2270
15 Cornell 2236
16 Georgetown 2218
17 Rice 2214
18 Williams 2213
19 Duke 2209
20 U Virginia 2197
21 Northwestern 2136
22 Pomona 2132
23 Berkeley 2115
24 Georgia Tech 2115
25 Middlebury 2114
26 Wesleyan 2111
27 U Chicago 2104
28 Johns Hopkins 2096
29 USC 2072
30 Furman 2061
31 UNC 2045
32 Barnard 2034
33 Oberlin 2027
34 Carleton 2022
35 Vanderbilt 2016
36 UCLA 2012
37 Davidson 2010
38 U Texas 2008
39 NYU 1992
40 Tufts 1986
41 Washington & Lee 1983
42 U Michigan 1978
43 Vassar 1978
44 Grinnell 1977
45 U Illinois 1974
46 Carnegie Mellon 1957
47 U Maryland 1956
48 William & Mary 1954
49 Bowdoin 1953
50 Wake Forest 1940
51 Claremont 1936
52 Macalester 1926
53 Colgate 1925
54 Smith 1921
55 U Miami 1914
56 Haverford 1910
57 Mt Holyoke 1909
58 Connecticut College 1906
59 Bates 1903
60 Kenyon 1903
61 Emory 1888
62 Washington U 1887
63 Occidental 1883
64 Bryn Mawr 1871
65 SMU 1860
66 Lehigh 1858
67 Holy Cross 1839
68 Reed College 1837
69 RPI 1835
70 Florida State 1834
71 Colby 1820
72 UCSB 1818
73 GWU 1798
74 Fordham 1796
75 Sarah Lawrence 1788
76 Bucknell 1784
77 Catholic U 1784
78 U Colorado 1784
79 U Wisconsin 1780
80 Arizona State 1774
81 Wheaton (Il) 1750
82 Rose Hulman 1745
83 UCSC 1736
84 Boston U 1736
85 UCSD 1732
86 Tulane 1727
87 U Richmond 1714
88 CWRU 1704
89 Trinity College 1703
90 Colorado College 1698
91 Indiana U 1689
92 Penn State 1686
93 American U 1681
94 Hamilton 1674
95 U Washington 1629
96 U Rochester 1619
97 Lewis & Clark 1593
98 Wheaton (MA) 1564
99 Clark 1551
100 Skidmore 1548
101 Purdue 1525
102 Colorado State 1513
103 Syracuse 1506
104 Scripps 1479
105 Loyola U 1221 </p>
<p>Also, apparently Princeton isn’t that great because it chooses to admit people who fall just under the threshold for getting in to Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and MIT. By admitting people who do not get in to HYS, Princeton artifically appears to be very selective when in fact it is not.</p>
<p>This is no closer to a definitive ranking than anything else. It contains obvious absurdities, such as UCSC and UCSB above UCSD. Although many people may choose between Harvard and Yale, not very many people are choosing between Berkeley and Middleburry, the whole idea is silly. </p>
<p>In the end for a Stanford student, the "definitive ranking" is the one that's going to have Stanford closest to the top, and for a Berkeley student the "definitive ranking" is going to be the one that has Cal near the top.</p>
<p>its a stupid way to rank cuz not everybody picks the school they wanna go to. some just pick the schools that give the most aid or whatnot. its ineffective. the only way to effectively rank anything is to have 10000 people go to EVERY COLLEGE IN THE UNITED STATES and vote on whats the best</p>
<p>Implicit in this--yet another stupid ranking system--is name recognition, which determines where students will apply in the first place. "Name recognition" has only marginal correlation with quality of education. There are dozens of absurdities in this list.</p>
<p>The least amount of bias is in scientific research. Everyone can agree that a cure for Aids is incredibly important. If UCSF found it, that means they let in students as well as have the right kind of faculty, environment, allocation of resources, people in positions of power. There will also be a knowledge transfer to the people in that program. Secondary insights that will be dissapated to other universities in time, but at the moment where being the first in lightning fast experiments are key, that secondary knowledge transfer may make all the difference in the world for a smart student looking to become the best.</p>
<p>So in other words, highlighting excellent research is something that even a super biased person will admit is important. because thats the crux of research and education. </p>
<p>National Research Council rankings in that respect can be argued as the least biased ranking. But in regards to the London Times THES rankings, I see no need to include % of international students for a state school, but I do agree that the THES ranking is less biased than other publications because of its extremely high emphasis on core research. Although I don't agree with all of the criteria used, I must admit that academic reputation/research should be the single most important factor for international prestige.</p>
<p>So you're saying that if a school doesn't participate in big-league scientific research, then it must be a bad school? So I guess Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, and heck all of the LAC's must be terrible terrible schools - some of the worst in the world, right? So if a guy got into both Amherst and to UMass and chooses Amherst, that person is obviously being a fool, UMass is the #20 school in the THES ranking of top US schools, and Amherst doesn't even rank, so that guy is clearly being stupid, right? Is that what you're saying, West Side?</p>
<p>Sakky. You said it, not me. I personally think that a Democratic government would make Arts/Humanities/Social Sciences more legitimate and appreciatable. Just like how the Soviet Union government did an excellent job promoting art and culture. Which is why the worst Soviet artists were better than the Best American artists. </p>
<p>Anyways, what I am saying is, you want all universities to become private. Well, let me tell you one thing. In order to have a culture of arts and humanities appreciated by the public (Soviet Union had much higher status for artists/writers), you have to change the system from the top down. Its not my fault that today's Republican administration hates the environment, and places a low priority on artistic talent, as opposed to Clinton's cultural programs that flourished in a wonderful decade of development.</p>
<p>An interesting thing about the ranking is that Berkeley's #23 rank is almost exactly the same as its US News #21 rank. Maybe years of US News bias has made people percieve Berkeley as a 2nd rate university. Even I have to say that that sucks because as much as I try remind Berkeley that it is our inferior rival, I don't believe it is a 2nd rate university. I would have chosen Berkeley over Notre Dame, Georgetown, and Rice. But the rankings show that top students tend to choose those schools over Berkeley. Even though I disagree with their decisions, it's not like my opinion is more important than thousands of other top students who actually made these real choices. Nonetheless, I'll just say that Berkeley is a good school.......just not good enough to be our rival. :)</p>
<p>The Soviet Union did an excellent job promoting art and culture, eh? Is that why the Soviet Union throw so many artists into the gulag? I guess that was their special way to promote art? </p>
<p>And when did I say that I wanted all universities to become private? Do I want UCSF Medical School to become private? Do I want the Berkeley PhD programs to become private? Do I want the Haas School of Business to become private? I don't think so.</p>
<p>Heck, I never even said, nor did I ever imply, that I wanted the Berkeley undergraduate program to become private. But I do want its problems to be fixed. I think you do too, even if you don't say it.</p>
<p>Sakky, honestly stop acting like you are an expert in Soviet and European arts. Really at this point, you know you're just making bs up. The connection between government supporting arts, and governments who place more emphasis on egalitarian values is definitely prevalent in history and conceptually. </p>
<p>Sakky, btw, you're getting nastier and nastier. Did you move to NYC or something? jeez man.</p>
<p>So are you saying that you are an expert on Soviet and European arts? Hey, you were the one who brought up the subject first, so I suppose you are an expert, right?</p>
<p>Furthermore, how many times have you insulted me personally? Need I go back to some of your old posts and reprint some of your old quotes, full of insults? And you're telling me that I'm the one that is getting nastier? </p>
<p>Now, to bigbrother, I think you misunderstood. I have never attacked the fundamental idea of public universities per se, I attacked specific pieces of the public-unviersity philosophy. That's not to say that I have a problem with all public universities. If you could provide me what I said, or what context you are referring to, then I could explain it to you.</p>
<p>I think it was before the forum got redone, so I'm not going to bother searching for it. But anyway, you were suggesting that California private schools benefit the state as much as the public schools, and thus why shouldn't they get state money for students just like a public school would. Perhaps you were just playing devil's advocate.</p>
<p>Yes I was, and now I know exactly what you're talking about. It was one of my old discussions with kryptic (where is kryptic anyway? He was always a guy I respected, even if we rarely agreed).</p>
<p>Here's what happened. Kryptic was talking about how Berkeley should be funded by the state for its externalities effect on the local economy - that Berkeley helps the economy of NorCal by producing educated people and spurring tech advances and so forth. In fact, outgoing Chanellor Robert Berdahl was defending the funding of UC in the teeth of budget cuts on the grounds that funding UC helps the local economy.</p>
<p>My riposte is that private schools like Stanford are also beneficial to the economy (after all Stanford was integral to the development of Silicon Valley), yet they don't get official state funding. And my point to kryptic is that if the state should fund public universities on the grounds that doing so helps the local economy, then private schools should also get state funding because private schools also help the local economy. My point was that what Berdahl said actually doesn't really prove that UC deserves state funding, but really goes toward proving that private schools like Stanford should get state funding, which I'm sure is not what Berdahl intended. But if you are basing your argument on what helps the local economy, then the logical conclusion is that the politicos in Sacramento should be giving money to private schools like Stanford. </p>
<p>My goal was to point out a logical flaw in what I saw before me. Not to question whether public universities as a whole should exist or not, but that the fact that they are beneficial to the local economy is not a good argument to use to defend public universities. All universities benefit the local economy, not just public ones. If you want to talk about defending the funding of public schools, then you have to talk about what makes public schools different from private schools, not just something that is true of all schools.</p>
<p>No, Sakky, but all experts in arts agree that Soviet arts are much better than American arts. Now, for some reason, you seem very sensitive about criticism about America, but for some reason you must not want America to improve ourself. Thats why you criticise Berkeley so much right? Cus you want to see the problems fixed? </p>
<p>But you can't take criticism of America well can you. So is it because you don't care if America's problems get fixed?</p>
<p>There are actually two versions of the Hoxby study floating around. Teen-age preferences are apt to swing wildly from one year to the next, based on peer pressure, parental pressure--you name it. Compare the 2004 results to the 2002 results [choose the "hoxby" pdf file]:</p>