<p>That was what * I * was trying to indicate in my post. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I was trying to say that most people think Harvard=Taj Mahal and that every other school=a cardboard box in comparison.</p>
<p>The OOS tuition for Berkeley, etc. -- all of that is delving further into the issue than is needed. Read the following statement carefully: Harvard has extremely nice dorms, but the price of them is high. (Not to mention that Harvard probably had the finances at one point to build them.) We know that one can get financial aid, etc. but that's beside the point. I'm simply saying: Harvard's dorms are pricey.</p>
<p>"My 'implication' is that your assertion that Berkeley has more infrastructure than Harvard does is without foundation. Why don't you just concede this point so we can move on?"</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? I KNOW that's the case, why can't you grasp that? I'm saying, as an ADDED note, that many Berkeley grads simply don't go for university housing.</p>
<p>"Are you saying that these administrators were working under a fallacy too?"</p>
<p>Perhaps they were trying to make Berkeley seem more desirable (not necessarily to boost rankings), but I still concede that a somewhat high student-to-faculty ratio isn't that bad, especially since the higher level a class is, the lower the student-to-faculty ratio tends to be.</p>
<p>"So now you say that you cannot quantify quality."</p>
<p>Perhaps you need to look further in this case. I'll clarify: you cannot quantify quality to the point that you can rank universities with precision. But this is most true as you get higher on the rankings. See below.</p>
<p>"Like I said, maybe you should talk to some people that couldn't get into the major they wanted. I am quite sure they would tell you that impaction is a serious problem."</p>
<p>They would, wouldn't they? And I would be apathetic.</p>
<p>"Exactly. So you agree that Berkeley's standards for undergrad are not as high."</p>
<p>Are you daft? Of course they aren't, considering the undergrad student body is 20,000+; the standards aren't as high if there're that many students.</p>
<p>"Hence, it is not an overall explanatory variable. So we are still left with the question of why Harvard is more preferred to Berkeley for undergrad."</p>
<p>Exactly. There are many variables that aren't explanatory, and that's why rankings don't work.</p>
<p>"But I think USNews is pretty decent."</p>
<p>You're one of the few here.</p>
<p>"Aha, so you concede that the other 17,000 Berkeley students who are not in the top 6000 are not as good as Harvard students."</p>
<p>I don't remember refuting that. What I got from what you were saying: all the Berkeley students are substandard to Harvard students. Of course there are some Berkeley students that aren't as good, but I'd say the best students are definitely comparable to Harvard's. And I don't find much substance in the "lopsided in Harvard's favor" argument, because there are many other merits that can be taken into account. Further, aren't these scholarships more needed at Harvard, considering that Harvard is double the price of Berkeley?</p>
<p>"I personally think that Berkeley can reform itself to greatly reduce the need for impaction, and perhaps one day, eliminate it entirely."</p>
<p>I agree, but as of now, I don't find impaction to be such a terrible, terrible issue.</p>
<p>"You don't know anything about me, yet you insist on attributing personal characteristics to me."</p>
<p>Er, the way you were talking of Berkeley made you seem to have a disdain for it. =)</p>
<p>"that Berkeley is less selective than Harvard and that students who are not in the top 6000 don't really match up to students at Harvard. So that must mean that overall, the student quality is not as high as that at Harvard. QED."</p>
<p>Er, it was "just a thought"; I really don't know. (Didn't I say, "this isn't part of the discussion"?)</p>
<p>"The truth is, you can probably get a much better PURE education at a small LAC."</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>"I say that because you keep decrying the fact that Harvard draws people because of the prestige, yet we have to recognize that Berkeley does the same thing. A lot of Berkeley students are just there for the name."</p>
<p>I know that, but, as you said, in the cross-admit between Berkeley and Harvard, people tend to choose Harvard. Thus the "Harvard magnet" is much stronger. The fact that people tend to choose Berkeley over, say, UCLA or UCSD isn't germane to the discussion. As was said, we're comparing Harvard and Berkeley, and so the prestige factor is more important between those two.</p>
<p>"I think you would agree with me that Berkeley is better than UCDavis."</p>
<p>I don't. I think they're different; one isn't better than the other. They're unique. Uniqueness cannot be compared easily.</p>
<p>By the way: as you approach the #1 spot, it gets harder and harder to tell the difference in quality. Within the top, say, 40, it's already difficult to say that one is better than another. But as you go further from that, then the differences between, say, #76 and and #80 are more marked. There are factors that are quantifiable, but there are many that aren't. When you get into the best schools, there isn't enough precision to rank them. And then comes fit, a different matter altogether.</p>
<p>Harvard is no Taj Mahal. It, like every other school in the country, is imperfect.</p>
<p>As I have stated repeatedly, there is no way to measure an entire university against another entire university. No matter how long and hard you all debate Berkeley and Harvard, there will never be any conclusive answer because neither school, on the whole, is better than the other simply because better can't, and doesn't, mean anything. For that same reason they aren't even "equal" simply because nobody know what the hell is actually being compared.</p>
<p>A person could logically make the argument that Harvard is the more suitable school for more people than Berkeley, but that's not what you guys are debating. And even if that's what y'all were debating, that would just be silly. What's the point in arguing which school is more suitable for more people. Its not like that will make anyone want to go anymore or anyless, or think higher of your school. </p>
<p>The only reason why this issue is being debated is for the sake of stroking people's egos. The people arguing for Harvard argue for that school because they enjoy the prestige associated with it as they think it validates their self-esteem; while the people arguing against Harvard are making their arguments because they want to feel validated about their choice of school.</p>
<p>This is of course ridiculous, nobody should have to feel validated about where they want to school, nor should anyone have to feel like they need their intelligence validated. We all pick where we want to go to school for different reasons and you shouldn't have to stroke yourself by saying "good choice."</p>
<p>Just_Browsing:</p>
<p>"No matter how long and hard you all debate Berkeley and Harvard, there will never be any conclusive answer because neither school, on the whole, is better than the other simply because better can't, and doesn't, mean anything. For that same reason they aren't even "equal" simply because nobody know what the hell is actually being compared."</p>
<p>That's my point exactly. Neither is better than the other, and I've tried to refrain from saying "they're equal" but rather "each will give you a damn good education." They're different, and both are extremely good. As I've stated, it's difficult enough to quantify qualities, but when you get higher in the US News rankings, it gets even harder--so hard that, I think, it's basically impossible. No method will lend enough precision to state unequivocally that one school is better than another; each one has pros and cons, which are dependent on one's taste and "fit."</p>
<p>"while the people arguing against Harvard are making their arguments because they want to feel validated about their choice of school."</p>
<p>I wasn't arguing so much against Harvard as for Berkeley, but it certainly wasn't because I want to feel validated in my choice (considering I'm not exactly aiming for Berkeley, and definitely not Harvard).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you kidding me? I KNOW that's the case, why can't you grasp that? I'm saying, as an ADDED note, that many Berkeley grads simply don't go for university housing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you 'knew' that was the case, then why did you claim otherwise, in your previous post?</p>
<p>Here is what you wrote in post #82. Basically, you are claiming that Cal has more resources than Harvard does, a contention that I think we can now agree is unsupported. I think the least you can do is withdraw your initial assertion. If anything, it is Harvard that has more resources to handle more students. They just don't use all of it. Plenty of Harvard classrooms go unused or only lightly used throughout the day. Plenty of Harvard houses and dorms have extra unused rooms. </p>
<p>"By resources, I didn't mean endowment, of which little is used each year. Cal's organization--both physical and educational--is designed to accommodate more students. More dorms, more classes, more teachers, etc."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps they were trying to make Berkeley seem more desirable (not necessarily to boost rankings), but I still concede that a somewhat high student-to-faculty ratio isn't that bad, especially since the higher level a class is, the lower the student-to-faculty ratio tends to be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now you're changing your story. You now say that a high student-faculty ratio is 'not that bad', whereas you previously contended that it wasn't bad at all. So which is it? </p>
<p>Besides, that's irrelevant anyway. The key is that, right or wrong, people seem to THINK that a low student-faculty ratio is good. That is why even Cal is trying to reduce that ratio. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you daft? Of course they aren't, considering the undergrad student body is 20,000+; the standards aren't as high if there're that many students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you keep insulting me like that, you should prepare to have a conversation with a moderator shortly.</p>
<p>But furthermore, so you now concede that Berkeley is less selective than Harvard is. Hence, by definition, it must mean that Berkeley's undergrad student, on average, are less qualified than Harvard's. Before, you asserted that there was no difference. So which is it?</p>
<p>And, again, I would point to the example of Harvard Business School (HBS) vs. Haas. Haas is literally about 1/3 the size of Harvard Business School. Yet apparently the standards at HBS are higher than at Haas. Hence, that demonstrates that size does not equate to low standards. Like I said, HBS is the largest full-time MBA program in the country. Yet it also happens to be ranked #1. </p>
<p>Now, I know what you are going to say - that B-schools are not entirely comparable to undergrad schools. Of course not. But the general idea still holds. It is possible to have a large school that still has high standards.</p>
<p>You can think of other examples. Berkeley is almost twice as big as UCSC or UCRiverside, yet Berkeley is also more selective. It is possible to combine size with selectivity. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Exactly. There are many variables that aren't explanatory, and that's why rankings don't work.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? Rankings don't work? So should I believe that Cal-State East Bay is just as good as Harvard, or even as good as Berkeley? After all, in a world without rankings, there is no way to judge anything.</p>
<p>You said it yourself - you believed that Berkeley was better than Ohio State. But why? If you aren't using the rankings to make that determination, then what are you using? You are clearly using something. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"But I think USNews is pretty decent."</p>
<p>You're one of the few here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I highly doubt it, and certainly I am far more in the mainstream than you are in stating that "rankings don't work". I think what you mean to say that rankings are not perfect, something about which we can all agree. But to say that rankings don't work is clearly a minority opinion. </p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>""Aha, so you concede that the other 17,000 Berkeley students who are not in the top 6000 are not as good as Harvard students."</p>
<p>I don't remember refuting that. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, so you concede the point that the average undergrad at Berkeley is not as good as that at Harvard. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What I got from what you were saying: all the Berkeley students are substandard to Harvard students. Of course there are some Berkeley students that aren't as good, but I'd say the best students are definitely comparable to Harvard's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And have I ever said otherwise? But see below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>And I don't find much substance in the "lopsided in Harvard's favor" argument, because there are many other merits that can be taken into account.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, just do the math. Even if what you are saying is true and the top 6000 undergrads at Berkeley are comparable to Harvard's, then that means that the remaining 17000 are not. Hence, that means that about 75% of the undergrads at Berkeley are not comparable to Harvard's undergrads. Is that not 'lop-sided' to you? It seems so to me. </p>
<p>But like I said, I have reason to believe that even the top 6000 are not really comparable to Harvard's. Like I said, if that were really true, then you would expect Berkeley to be winning a comparable number of national awards like the Rhodes Scholarship, Marshall Scholarship, Truman Scholarship, and so forth. Berkeley last won the Rhodes in 2002. This academic year alone, Harvard won 7 Rhodes Scholarships. Seems pretty lop-sided to me. The same could be said for most other major scholarships and honorariums. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Further, aren't these scholarships more needed at Harvard, considering that Harvard is double the price of Berkeley?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The question is, which is a better deal for you. Obviously there are rich people at both Harvard and Berkeley who don't care what the price is. If you come from a family of millionaires, you don't really care about your college costs anyway. </p>
<p>The real issue is what about poor people who really need the money. And the fact is, frankly, Harvard is a better deal for poor people than Berkeley is, because of Harvard's highly aggressive financial aid. Like I said, I know people who found out Harvard would be cheaper for them than Berkeley would be, once aid was factored in.</p>
<p>And like I said, you continue to talk with a California-centric mindset. California has only about 33 million people. Hence, almost 90% of the country's population lives outside of California. For them, they are not going to get any in-state tuition subsidy. So there is no cost advantage for them to choose Berkeley over Harvard. The same is true of international students. Harvard actually provides full need-based financial aid to internationals. Unless the policy got changed recently, Berkeley does not. Hence, for an international student, Berkeley is probably going to be at least as expensive as Harvard is, and perhaps more so. </p>
<p>I think what you mean to say is that Berkeley is a pretty good deal for the California middle class (hence, those people who are not rich enough to not care about money, yet not poor enough to qualify for extensive financial aid). That is a position upon which we can agree. But to assert that Berkeley is a good financial deal for all people is far from the mark. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"I personally think that Berkeley can reform itself to greatly reduce the need for impaction, and perhaps one day, eliminate it entirely."</p>
<p>I agree, but as of now, I don't find impaction to be such a terrible, terrible issue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not trying to compare Berkeley impaction to, say, the situation in Darfur. But it is a problem that ought to be eliminated. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"The truth is, you can probably get a much better PURE education at a small LAC."</p>
<p>No.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Says who? Says you? Then why are the LAC's so highly regarded for their teaching then? Looking at the RP rankings and other consoliated rankings, it is shown that several LAC's are preferred over Berkeley. </p>
<p>What LAC's have to offer is a highly personal education where profs are selected for (primarily) their teaching skills. Contrast that with Berkeley, where most profs are selected for their research skills, and can (and often times are) terrible teachers. </p>
<p>For example, I remember wishing that my lower-division math courses were taught by my high school math teacher, and not the math profs I got. True, my high school math teacher was not a world-famous researcher. But, as a student, I didn't care about that. I just wanted somebody to explain to me clearly what was going on, and that could express an enthusiasm for math. The math profs, while certainly great researchers, were not good at expressing their ideas in a way that was exciting or easy to understand. Heck, I ended up rarely going to class, because, frankly, I determined that I could learn more by just sitting in my room reading the book than by going to class. </p>
<p>You can go to the Berkeley section of CC and hear similar complaints of profs who are just terrible teachers. You can go to <a href="http://www.ratemyprofessors.com%5B/url%5D">www.ratemyprofessors.com</a> and notice some of the horrible teaching rankings that some Berkeley profs get. There is a lot of evidence that indicates that Berkeley, like most other research universities, is not all that effective in delivering a great PURE education. Just because somebody is a good researcher does not mean that he is a good teacher. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"I say that because you keep decrying the fact that Harvard draws people because of the prestige, yet we have to recognize that Berkeley does the same thing. A lot of Berkeley students are just there for the name."</p>
<p>I know that, but, as you said, in the cross-admit between Berkeley and Harvard, people tend to choose Harvard. Thus the "Harvard magnet" is much stronger. The fact that people tend to choose Berkeley over, say, UCLA or UCSD isn't germane to the discussion. As was said, we're comparing Harvard and Berkeley, and so the prestige factor is more important between those two.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All discussions are relative. Berkeley does the same thing as Harvard does in that both have a prestige magnet that tends to draw students. There is nothing wrong with Harvard drawing students away from Berkeley because of prestige just like there is nothing wrong with Berkeley drawing students away from UCDavis because of prestige. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"I think you would agree with me that Berkeley is better than UCDavis."</p>
<p>I don't. I think they're different; one isn't better than the other. They're unique. Uniqueness cannot be compared easily.</p>
<p>By the way: as you approach the #1 spot, it gets harder and harder to tell the difference in quality. Within the top, say, 40, it's already difficult to say that one is better than another. But as you go further from that, then the differences between, say, #76 and and #80 are more marked. There are factors that are quantifiable, but there are many that aren't. When you get into the best schools, there isn't enough precision to rank them. And then comes fit, a different matter altogether.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I thought you said that rankings don't work anyway. Yet here you are talking about 'marked' differences between #76 and #80. Well, if rankings don't work anyway, then who is to say that there really is a marked difference between 76 and 80? I think you should now withdraw your claim that rankings don't work.</p>
<p>Second of all, again, how does that jive with your prior contention that Berkeley is better than Ohio State? Again, maybe that's all a matter of uniqueness and fit too, right? </p>
<p>The bottom line is this. If you really believe that rankings don't work, then you have no defense when somebody goes around claiming that, say, SE Missouri State is just as good as Berkeley (or Harvard).</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's my point exactly. Neither is better than the other, and I've tried to refrain from saying "they're equal" but rather "each will give you a damn good education." They're different, and both are extremely good. As I've stated, it's difficult enough to quantify qualities, but when you get higher in the US News rankings, it gets even harder--so hard that, I think, it's basically impossible. No method will lend enough precision to state unequivocally that one school is better than another; each one has pros and cons, which are dependent on one's taste and "fit."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
As I have stated repeatedly, there is no way to measure an entire university against another entire university. No matter how long and hard you all debate Berkeley and Harvard, there will never be any conclusive answer because neither school, on the whole, is better than the other simply because better can't, and doesn't, mean anything. For that same reason they aren't even "equal" simply because nobody know what the hell is actually being compared.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you will find very few people who will agree with you that you are truly unable to compare school to school. Obviously every school has its imperfections, and its list of strengths and weaknesses, but at the end of the day, one can make a comparison from school to school. </p>
<p>For example, Harvard is better than CalState-East Bay. That is not to say that Harvard is better than Cal-State East Bay in every single possible dimension or for every single person in the world. But in the aggregate, I think we can safely say that for most people and in most arenas, Harvard is better. </p>
<p>Just think of it this way. We have rankings of plenty of qualitative measures. For example, movies, restaurants, hotels, fashion, cars, and so forth. Most people will probably agree that 'The Godfather' is a better movie than, say, Gigli. Now, I am sure that there are some people who prefer Gigli to the Godfather, but we are still able to make a mainstream judgment that Gigli, on the whole, is not as good of a movie as the Godfather. Otherwise, you inevitably enter a world where nobody can ever rank anything, and you might as well just slack off in high school and end up going to a community college. After all, if you really can't rank universities, then there is no reason to go to a selective one, which therefore means that you might as well go anywhere. So why not just slack off and get straight C's to barely graduate from high school? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The only reason why this issue is being debated is for the sake of stroking people's egos. The people arguing for Harvard argue for that school because they enjoy the prestige associated with it as they think it validates their self-esteem; while the people arguing against Harvard are making their arguments because they want to feel validated about their choice of school.</p>
<p>This is of course ridiculous, nobody should have to feel validated about where they want to school, nor should anyone have to feel like they need their intelligence validated. We all pick where we want to go to school for different reasons and you shouldn't have to stroke yourself by saying "good choice."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Trust me. I don't feel a need for 'validation' or 'prestige'. Heck, if I was looking for personal validation, I would be touting Berkeley.</p>
<p>What I 'want', if anything, is for Berkeley to fix its problems, which means that we have to talk about its problems. I have laid out a case for why Berkeley, at the undergrad level, is simply not as good as Harvard, and I would like to see these problems remedied. If Berkeley wants to get to the level of Harvard, then Berkeley will have to reform itself. Otherwise, to just say that Berkeley is an excellent school will simply serve as an excuse for Berkeley administrators to sit on their hands and do nothing. The only way that things ever get better is when people candidly acknowledge problems.</p>
<p>"for Berkeley to fix its problems, which means that we have to talk about its problems."</p>
<p>lol you aren't going to change a damn thing by debating its problems with Berkeley hopefuls, etc. on a forum.</p>
<p>"I have laid out a case for why Berkeley, at the undergrad level, is simply not as good as Harvard"</p>
<p>A weak case, I find. I don't find that Berkeley's problems are bad enough to make it subpar to Harvard. Nor do many others, apparently.</p>
<p>"The only way that things ever get better is when people candidly acknowledge problems."</p>
<p>Then I suggest you go out and protest at the university -- the old Berkeley way, no? Obviously it isn't too big a deal here since this topic sank back a few pages (that is, until you resurrected it).</p>
<p>In addition: I find that it's possible to compare universities with the facts, but to take those facts, assign them weights, and award points based on them is pointless. Why? Because different people will care about different aspects (disregarding some) and will want them to be weighted differently, and because there are other factors that can't be measured. Comparing is possible, yes. Ranking, no.</p>
<p>
[quote]
lol you aren't going to change a damn thing by debating its problems with Berkeley hopefuls, etc. on a forum.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You'd be surprised by how many people have been convinced by me. Shall I introduce you to a few? Or perhaps you'd like to hang out in the Berkeley section of CC and see for yourself. </p>
<p>
[quote]
A weak case, I find. I don't find that Berkeley's problems are bad enough to make it subpar to Harvard. Nor do many others, apparently.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet many others apparently DO think that Berkeley is not as good as Harvard. Again, why do so many people prefer Harvard to Berkeley? Just prestige? Then ask yourself, how did Harvard get that prestige in the first place? </p>
<p>Now, that shouldn't be taken to mean that Berkeley is all bad. Far from it, in fact. Berkeley is clearly the best public school in the West Coast, and arguably in the entire country. I would probably prefer Berkeley over the vast majority of schools in the country. </p>
<p>But this is Harvard we are talking about. And that's a tough comparison. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Then I suggest you go out and protest at the university -- the old Berkeley way, no? Obviously it isn't too big a deal here since this topic sank back a few pages (that is, until you resurrected it).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet what's wrong with this tactic. If I am wasting my time, then it is only my time that I am wasting, as well as the time of anybody who cares to read my posts. But since it is our time to do as we please, if we choose to use it this way, then that's our business, and nobody else's. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In addition: I find that it's possible to compare universities with the facts, but to take those facts, assign them weights, and award points based on them is pointless. Why? Because different people will care about different aspects (disregarding some) and will want them to be weighted differently, and because there are other factors that can't be measured. Comparing is possible, yes. Ranking, no.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, obviously there are different comparisons that people can make. Nobody is disputing this. But we are talking about AGGREGATE comparisons here.</p>
<p>For example, again, I am quite sure there are some people in the world that will argue that the movie Gigli is the greatest movie ever made. But that would hardly mean that Gigli can really be ranked similarly to the Godfather or Casablanca. </p>
<p>But again, have it your way. Use your own logic against yourself. You have stated (and I agree) that Berkeley is a better school than Ohio State. Yet one could just as easily use your logic to say that some people would weigh different aspects and then determine that Ohio State is actually better, and hence you can't "rank" Berkeley higher than OSU. But come on. The mere fact that you agree with me that Berkeley is ranked higher than OSU must inherently mean that there is such a concept as aggregate ranking and that it can be used to rank schools. If there is no way to come up with a system that ranks Harvard over Berkeley, then by the same logic, there is no way to come up with a system that ranks Berkeley over OSU.</p>
<p>"You'd be surprised by how many people have been convinced by me. Shall I introduce you to a few? Or perhaps you'd like to hang out in the Berkeley section of CC and see for yourself."</p>
<p>Is that fixing the problems? No, it isn't.</p>
<p>"Yet what's wrong with this tactic. If I am wasting my time, then it is only my time that I am wasting, as well as the time of anybody who cares to read my posts. But since it is our time to do as we please, if we choose to use it this way, then that's our business, and nobody else's."</p>
<p>Good catch. I’m saying: you complain about the problems and say they need to change, yet you don’t do anything about it except “convincing” others that it’s a problem. But I was just letting you know that you’re wasting your time (I wasn’t telling you that you couldn’t do it).</p>
<p>“You have stated (and I agree) that Berkeley is a better school than Ohio State.”</p>
<p>For certain people. This is the pivotal point.</p>
<p>“Yet one could just as easily use your logic to say that some people would weigh different aspects and then determine that Ohio State is actually better, and hence you can't "rank" Berkeley higher than OSU.”</p>
<p>I’m glad you’ve caught on. =)</p>
<p>“The mere fact that you agree with me that Berkeley is ranked higher than OSU must inherently mean that there is such a concept as aggregate ranking and that it can be used to rank schools.”</p>
<p>It’s not so much that I “agree” with you as that I can look at a list and tell which ones are ranked higher. There is such a thing as aggregate ranking; the mere existence of US News proves this (I didn’t think we’d have to resort to such basic concepts). The validity of these rankings, though, is another story altogether.</p>
<p>“If there is no way to come up with a system that ranks Harvard over Berkeley, then by the same logic, there is no way to come up with a system that ranks Berkeley over OSU.”</p>
<p>There is a system that ranks Harvard over Berkeley: it’s US News (not to mention a few others). Whether that’s accurate is a different matter. And then comes the “it’s different to different people” point. </p>
<p>In the end, there is such a thing as “aggregate ranking,” but to me US News might as well rank by the number of trees on the campuses, because their methodology is just flawed. A person can try his/her own rankings, taking into consideration different aspects and weighing them differently. But he/she also has to consider that there are many things that can’t be quantified, and oftentimes a certain proxy is a poor indicator of quality. In one system, OSU is ranked higher; in another, Berkeley. </p>
<p>But I would also add that I don’t find it very accurate to take all the numbers into account (the ones that you can get) and come up with an overall value. For instance, let’s say that I find that cost is an extremely important factor, but also student-to-faculty ratio. If a university has a cost too high for me, but it has a good s:f ratio, and I were to rank on these aspects alone, how much more weight should I put on one than the other? This is where it starts to get difficult. Not to mention that many rankings try to use many factors, the positives outweighing negatives, etc.</p>
<p>So there are three problems:</p>
<p>1) There are certain factors to take into consideration, others not. (For me, USN uses some irrelevant data points.)
2) Weighting factors to come up with an “overall” value (“despite its high cost, its s:f ratio is great …”) is difficult and arbitrary (USN seems biased in its weightings).
3) Many things can’t be quantified (yet USN tries to quantify ‘em anyway).</p>
<p>Thus it would best be said: ranking definitively is impossible.</p>
<p>Yeah but there is plently of evidence that is available to actually compare schools....so you are saying "Lets not even try and figure out which schools are better" and to let everyone think every school is equal. Its nice to try to be egalitarian...but your point of view is completely useless for anyone who comes to this website.</p>
<p>There isn't much point in presenting arguments or critiquing each other's logic if you don't agree on the premises upon which the arguments are based (in this case it's the USNews' categories, weighting, and what the whole thing is supposed to measure). Why don't you guys agree on the premises first, THEN present your arguments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, Harvard is better than CalState-East Bay. That is not to say that Harvard is better than Cal-State East Bay in every single possible dimension or for every single person in the world. But in the aggregate, I think we can safely say that for most people and in most arenas, Harvard is better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why is Harvard better than Calstate East Bay? Really, why? I don't know why. Both of us though could probably list a set of reasons as to why Harvard is better FOR US, why its better for more higher-achieving students, why its better for people who want to become ibankers, but not why its "better" in the totally generic sense of the word.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just think of it this way. We have rankings of plenty of qualitative measures. For example, movies, restaurants, hotels, fashion, cars, and so forth. Most people will probably agree that 'The Godfather' is a better movie than, say, Gigli. Now, I am sure that there are some people who prefer Gigli to the Godfather, but we are still able to make a mainstream judgment that Gigli, on the whole, is not as good of a movie as the Godfather.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but is it worth it for anyone to get in long drawn debates about whether the Godfather is better than Gigli? Does it help anyone? Not really. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Otherwise, you inevitably enter a world where nobody can ever rank anything, and you might as well just slack off in high school and end up going to a community college. After all, if you really can't rank universities, then there is no reason to go to a selective one, which therefore means that you might as well go anywhere. So why not just slack off and get straight C's to barely graduate from high school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Becuase some schools are better than others FOR ME. Calstate Eastbay is not the school that is best for me, the school that I got into is the school for me. There is no way I'd have been able to get into the school for me by slacking off and getting straight C's. One of my good buddies though on the other hand, Calstate Eastbay is his top choice, because it is the best school for him.</p>
<p>thethoughtprincess:</p>
<p>"so you are saying "Lets not even try and figure out which schools are better" and to let everyone think every school is equal."</p>
<p>I'd suggest reading these threads. I said, "Comparing is possible, yes. Ranking, no." Later, I amended the second sentence to, "ranking definitively is impossible."</p>
<p>I agree that ranking universities is impossible. I think grouping universities is a far more plausible alternative.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why is Harvard better than Calstate East Bay? Really, why? I don't know why. Both of us though could probably list a set of reasons as to why Harvard is better FOR US, why its better for more higher-achieving students, why its better for people who want to become ibankers, but not why its "better" in the totally generic sense of the word.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a ridiculous argument. In the end, school is an academic endeavor, not a pair of shoes. You do not go to a school solely based on "fit". You go for an education and a future career. And the fact that many factors can be compared between schools allows for a ranking system, although not perfect, certainly plausible. That is why the majority of rankings disclose their ranking methods allowing you, the end user to interpret the other "personal" factors, teaching quality, etc that you deem necessary</p>
<p>However, one of my current selections, actually a top choice for my next fall transfer is cal state fullerton. I will not defend my choice by debating whether it is the best fit , even though it may be. Rather i will argue that the price and future career prospects for my major (accounting) are what personally makes this my top choice, or number 1 ranked. But this is a personal decision, with other factors considered, it obviously cannot compare with the metrics of a school such as Harvard.</p>
<p>Ranking universities is possible, but not in the same sense as ranking a marathon runner as number 1, 2 or 3.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"You'd be surprised by how many people have been convinced by me. Shall I introduce you to a few? Or perhaps you'd like to hang out in the Berkeley section of CC and see for yourself."</p>
<p>Is that fixing the problems? No, it isn't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But certainly denying that problems exist is clearly not fixing the problem. The first step towards fixing a problem is simply identifying it as a problem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Yet what's wrong with this tactic. If I am wasting my time, then it is only my time that I am wasting, as well as the time of anybody who cares to read my posts. But since it is our time to do as we please, if we choose to use it this way, then that's our business, and nobody else's."</p>
<p>Good catch. I’m saying: you complain about the problems and say they need to change, yet you don’t do anything about it except “convincing” others that it’s a problem. But I was just letting you know that you’re wasting your time (I wasn’t telling you that you couldn’t do it).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, convincing others that a problem exists is most of the battle right there. The hardest part of creating change is simply convincing people that things should change. </p>
<p>And besides, why are you so concerned about the efficacy of my tactics anyway? If what I am doing is ineffective, again, that's my problem. It doesn't seem that you care in the least about fixing the problems at Berkeley anyway, so if I am using poor tactics, why would you care? I don't need you to judge whether something is a waste of time for me. I decide what is a waste of time or not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
“You have stated (and I agree) that Berkeley is a better school than Ohio State.”</p>
<p>For certain people. This is the pivotal point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Certain people including apparently you. And THAT is a pivotal point because it means that you agree that there is hierarchy of school quality. </p>
<p>
[quote]
“Yet one could just as easily use your logic to say that some people would weigh different aspects and then determine that Ohio State is actually better, and hence you can't "rank" Berkeley higher than OSU.”</p>
<p>I’m glad you’ve caught on. =)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet you apparently don't agree from a personal basis, because you yourself have stated that you believe Berkeley is better than Ohio State. Yet notice that you did so without offering any 'statistical proof' or any other standards that you now demand of others. You simply asserted it as such.</p>
<p>
[quote]
“The mere fact that you agree with me that Berkeley is ranked higher than OSU must inherently mean that there is such a concept as aggregate ranking and that it can be used to rank schools.”</p>
<p>It’s not so much that I “agree” with you as that I can look at a list and tell which ones are ranked higher. There is such a thing as aggregate ranking; the mere existence of US News proves this (I didn’t think we’d have to resort to such basic concepts). The validity of these rankings, though, is another story altogether.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So are you saying that Berkeley is not really better than Ohio State, in your own personal opinion? </p>
<p>
[quote]
There is a system that ranks Harvard over Berkeley: it’s US News (not to mention a few others). Whether that’s accurate is a different matter. And then comes the “it’s different to different people” point. </p>
<p>In the end, there is such a thing as “aggregate ranking,” but to me US News might as well rank by the number of trees on the campuses, because their methodology is just flawed. A person can try his/her own rankings, taking into consideration different aspects and weighing them differently. But he/she also has to consider that there are many things that can’t be quantified, and oftentimes a certain proxy is a poor indicator of quality. In one system, OSU is ranked higher; in another, Berkeley. </p>
<p>But I would also add that I don’t find it very accurate to take all the numbers into account (the ones that you can get) and come up with an overall value. For instance, let’s say that I find that cost is an extremely important factor, but also student-to-faculty ratio. If a university has a cost too high for me, but it has a good s:f ratio, and I were to rank on these aspects alone, how much more weight should I put on one than the other? This is where it starts to get difficult. Not to mention that many rankings try to use many factors, the positives outweighing negatives, etc.</p>
<p>So there are three problems:</p>
<p>1) There are certain factors to take into consideration, others not. (For me, USN uses some irrelevant data points.)
2) Weighting factors to come up with an “overall” value (“despite its high cost, its s:f ratio is great …”) is difficult and arbitrary (USN seems biased in its weightings).
3) Many things can’t be quantified (yet USN tries to quantify ‘em anyway).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If all of the above is true, then why did you previously assert that you believed that Ohio State was not as good as Berkeley? </p>
<p>Look, don't get me wrong. Nobody is saying that USNews is perfect. I have never based this discussion specifically on USNews. Clearly USNews has some flaws. All rankings do.</p>
<p>However, the point is, there is such a general ranking of schools. You can in fact rank them. Obviously you can't rank them perfectly, but that's a far cry from saying that you can't rank them at all. Whatever criterion (which you did not identify) you used to determine that Berkeley is better than Ohio State, I can use comparable criterion to conclude that Harvard is better than Berkeley (at least for undergrad). If you want to constantly assert that rankings are flawed, then fine, take that to its logical conclusion and you will realize that you can never compare any school to any other school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why is Harvard better than Calstate East Bay? Really, why? I don't know why. Both of us though could probably list a set of reasons as to why Harvard is better FOR US, why its better for more higher-achieving students, why its better for people who want to become ibankers, but not why its "better" in the totally generic sense of the word.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then, again, using that logic, nobody can ever compare anything against anything. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, but is it worth it for anyone to get in long drawn debates about whether the Godfather is better than Gigli? Does it help anyone? Not really.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you personally don't want to get drawn in, then don't get drawn in. If other people want to get drawn into it, then that's their business, not yours. Whether it helps anybody or not, what is it to you? You don't have the right to tell people what they should be drawn into and what they shouldn't. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Becuase some schools are better than others FOR ME. Calstate Eastbay is not the school that is best for me, the school that I got into is the school for me. There is no way I'd have been able to get into the school for me by slacking off and getting straight C's. One of my good buddies though on the other hand, Calstate Eastbay is his top choice, because it is the best school for him.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And even if that were the case (southpasadena's comments notwithstanding), apparently a lot of people seem to believe that Harvard is the best school for them. After all, look at Harvard's yield ratings - nearly 80% of admittees choose to go there, the highest yield of any school in the country. Or look at cross-yield data or revealed preference data, and, again, it seems to me that Harvard is highly preferred by more people than any other school is.</p>
<p>Hence, when you aggregate people's preferences, you can get an overall preference ranking, and it is fairly clear that Harvard is more preferred than Cal State East Bay. Note, again, that's not to say that EVERY person prefers Harvard. Rather, it is when you AGGREGATE preferences over a population, that is how you obtain an overall preference rating. </p>
<p>Again, to use the movie analogy, obviously there are some people in the world who think Gigli is the greatest movie in history. But when you aggregate preferences over an entire population, you will find out that Gigli is not a highly preferred movie.</p>
<p>I think you really need to just let this debate die. =)</p>