If Berkeley was a private schools, how would it rank?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>I think the primary reason why Berkeley cannot be in top 20 schools (according to USNW) is that it is a public.</p>

<p>Cons of Public:
-Low faculty:student ratio.
-Large classes
-Less "guiding hands"</p>

<p>If you Berkeley was a private school, how would its rank change?</p>

<p>Pros of Private:
-High faculty:student ratio.
-Small Classes</p>

<p>Cons:
-Heavy Tuition</p>

<p>Do you think Berkeley's rank would go up? If so, by how much?</p>

2

<p>
[quote]
I think the primary reason why Berkeley cannot be in top 20 schools (according to USNW) is that it is a public.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>uhhh no, the reason Berkeley is not in the top 20 is its low graduation rate, lower SAT scores than the rest of the top 20, etc. etc. </p>

<p>It's not like US News automatically drops a school 5 spots because it is public.</p>

3

<p>"not in the top 20 is its low graduation "</p>

<p>which is another characteristic of a public university.</p>

4

<p>I think this is a specious question. If Berkeley, or any other school, improved the numbers that count for the US News ranking, its ranking would improve.</p>

<p>Making Berkeley private would not magically improve all its numbers. Generally, that takes money.</p>

5

<p>I think rankings are very superficial, as they are just based on numbers. I mean there is stuff that you just can't compare based on numbers. It would be like: hey you, rate from 0 to 10 every single part of my body, then add everything up, do the same for someone else, and from those numbers determine who is better looking. I mean, it's just stupid.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
I mean, it's just stupid.

[/quote]

By the same token, class rank is "just stupid." I mean, we all know there's no difference between the valedictorian and #536. :rolleyes:</p>

7

<p>r6:</p>

<p>When you buy a product, do you do some sort of internal rating in order to choose the one you think is best?</p>

<p>It's human. It is what it is.</p>

8

<p>sfgiants:</p>

<p>if you go back to the earliest ver of USNews ranking, several publics (Cal, UMich, UVa, UNCC) were in the top 20. Of course, the hue and cry from the bluebloods back east forced revisions in methodology, including adding endowment size and alumni giving rates (two things where publics don't do as well, at least back then).</p>

9

<p>bluebayou:</p>

<p>Endowment size is not a factor in the US News rankings. Spending on students, in certain categories, is.</p>

10

<p>bluebayou: Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the earliest versions based purely on peer assessment? </p>

<p>The OP's question is nugatory. If Berkeley were not public, it wouldn't be Berkeley. It'd be a completely different school.</p>

11

<p>sfgiants: You're right. When USNews first published a rankings issue, it was based on peer assessment only.</p>

12

<p>sorry, my bad. Spending per student is correct.</p>

13

<p>also the problem with some publics is that the instate students can bring down the average stats.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
also the problem with some publics is that the instate students can bring down the average stats.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yep, and in my opinion is that this should be reflected in the rankings.</p>

15

<p>What's the point of this thread?</p>