<p>@atnyu</p>
<p>How does UCB get a higher ranking than MIT in the both lists?</p>
<p>
[quote]
what im saying is that people at my school say these things a lot:</p>
<p>"OMG. washu is like my dream school! notre dame is terrible. so is berkeley."
[/quote]
They may be terrible schools <em>for them</em>, but they're terrific institutions overall. It seems to me that they're underestimating other schools rather than overrating WUStL.</p>
<p>When I said WashU doesn't compare to Berkeley, I meant academically (faculty, programs, etc.). A private school is, of course, going to have a smaller student:faculty ratio, though Berkeley doesn't fare too badly -- only 15% classes of over 50 students, 60% under 20. The lack of professor interaction at Berkeley is a myth. Sure, it might be easier at WashU, but it's still pretty common even at large universities like Berkeley (especially with 2k+ faculty).</p>
<p>afruff23:</p>
<p>"UCSF is not a bad medical school at all (#5), but not as good as WashU's med school (#4)."</p>
<p>... you're being facetious, right?</p>
<p>That wasn't my main emphasis. My main emphasis was that WashU HAS a medical school, while UCSF is the implied medical school for UCB.</p>
<p>Bottom line: for pre-med and med, WashU is the better choice.</p>
<p>Atnyu- Rankings are a joke. NYU is no way no how that high up, no wonder you bring up such rubbish. Berkely is a public school, that alone should discredit it.</p>
<p>Who in thier right mind would choose NYU over Gtown and ND?</p>
<p>"The same faculty which makes UC-Berkeley one of the very best research universities across the board, in the US and the world (top 2-3), far better than WashU, teaches the undergraduate courses as well."</p>
<p>You're correct about the "best research" part. Indeed, research is the heart and soul at some schools. Other schools do not attempt to 'teaching' about 300-500 undergraduates at the same time. </p>
<p>Forgive the few of us that do not consider the mere standing in front of a movie theater-like audience and reciting a lecture a great definition of 'teaching.' Why not tape the darn thing and put it on a closed-circuit TV, if the 'real teaching' is relegated to the army of indentured servants aka GSI.</p>
<p>i might get a lot of heat for this, but i honestly don't think that the rankings are actually based on the "quality" of the student's experience and education, which some of you are saying explains why washu is regarded as a better school than berkeley. if it were, harvard wouldn't be #1 every other year...</p>
<p>my source: i've known five people that have gone to harvard. 2 transferred out, 2 are miserable, one dropped out.</p>
<p>xiggi: the large classes at Berkeley are very few in number. Are you passing judgment on the entire university itself for that?</p>
<p>yeahcollege: don't worry, we all know that rankings aren't basedon ugrad experience/education. It's often based on endowment and such, though others are more centered on paper output, research, etc.</p>
<p>SweetLax88:</p>
<p>"Atnyu- Rankings are a joke. NYU is no way no how that high up, no wonder you bring up such rubbish."</p>
<p>I just cannot decide what is stronger and more impressive, your arguments or your language. </p>
<p>"Berkely is a public school, that alone should discredit it."</p>
<p>Amazing, you are actually so open about your prejudices! Who can take you seriously after such a statement?</p>
<p>You will be such an asset to any university, of course private, that will accept you. Sarcasm is intended.</p>
<p>^^ ahaha, I forgot to address the 'public school' statement. Thanks for that. =p</p>
<p>Addressing the thread title: it's just you.</p>
<p>Nice Ad hominem "arguments" at NYU.</p>
<p>Quoted from Hawkette, now try to refute this.</p>
<p>According to Newsweek International, their List uses the following methodology in composing its ranking:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>50% of score divided equally among three measures
a. the number of highly cited researchers in various academic fields
b. the number of articles published in Nature and Science
c. the number of articles listed in ISI Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities indices</p></li>
<li><p>40% of the score divided equally among four measures
a. the percentage of international faculty
b. the percentage of international students
c. the citations per faculty member (using ISI data)
d. the ratio of faculty to students</p></li>
<li><p>10% of the score is decided by library holdings (number of volumes)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Just to put this in perspective, UC Berkeley is 5th, U Michigan is 11th and UCLA is 12th. By contrast, Princeton is 15th, Brown is 56th, U Virginia is 80th, Emory is 93rd, and Dartmouth, Rice, and Notre Dame (among other notables) are not ranked. Clearly, this ranking is using a methodology that is out of sync with how the vast majority of Americans would view these schools. </p>
<p>In the second List, the methodology is not disclosed, but seems to rely on a combination of factors involving Alumni, Awards, and some factors called HiCi, N&S (Nature & Science?), SCI, and Size. The results are again highly inconsistent with how most observers would see American educational institutions. For example, UCSD is ranked 13th and UCLA is 14th while Duke is 31st, Northwestern is 33rd, Brown is 85th and Emory, Dartmouth, Notre Dame and other top privates are not ranked in the top 100. </p>
<p>It appears that neither of these rankings give any weight to measurements of the quality of the student body nor to nearly all of the Graduation/Retention, Faculty Resources and Financial Resources measurements that are useful for evaluating the quality of an undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>It really appears to me that you just picked whatever ranking put your school at the highest, which would be those you pulled out, which, as hawkette didn't directly state but defiantly intended, a joke.</p>
<p>^^ each ranking will have different metrics. To many, half of US News' metrics are irrelevant. Other rankings seem to have better measurements, but only in the aspects measured, not the school as a whole. There are other rankings that place universities differently because they have different metrics; those who are unwilling to accept that Brown, etc. may be lacking in some areas seem to be too attached to US News.</p>
<p>You point to the fact that UCLA is 14th while Duke is 31st. My question is, why would you want to see rankings that simply affirm what you already know, as US News' rankings do? Why not look at rankings from different perspectives? Schools differ in various aspects, and that's why rankings will vary; not all need to have the Ivies, etc. at the top.</p>
<p>Kyledavid, what you said is true and all rankings have different measurements and there is no one "universal" measurement. However, I must disagree that they ranked Umich, berkely, ULCA above Princeton. Thats utterly outrageous. I am no fan of Princeton but I must shout on thier behalf here. I am no fan of Brown either (I actually despise Brown), but I do recognize that they are "better" unis than the UCs.</p>
<p>As mentioned many times before, those so-called "world" rankings are completely useless in any discussion of undergraduate education quality.</p>
<p>How else do you explain UC San Francisco even being on these lists in the first place (seeing as they don't even offer an undergrad degree) much less having them ranked so high (no. 9 and no. 18) -- so, at best, these rankings are merely a measure of graduate programs (and rather shabby ones at that).</p>
<p>I'd say WUSTL deserves the reputation it has. I wouldn't say it's overrated at all.</p>
<p>I have a friend who has very good credentials, who got accepted at Dartmouth, UChicago, Carleton, Grinnell, and a few other LAC on par with schools like Reed (I don't remember everywhere he applied), and he got waitlisted by WUSTL.</p>
<p>
[quote]
xiggi: the large classes at Berkeley are very few in number. Are you passing judgment on the entire university itself for that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is the definition of 'very few' ... a couple, a handful, a dozen? Please tell us what is the average class size for a typical freshman or sophomore in a scientific track?</p>
<p>washdad, please explain your reasoning. i haven't really had my question answered yet. everyone keeps arguing about comparing it with other schools. but really WHAT IS SOOO GOOD ABOUT WASHU?</p>
<p>don't get me wrong, it's a great school and I'm defenitely thinking about applying there next year. i just want to know why i should apply there over other schools.</p>
<p>SweetLax,
Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not trying to slam NYU at all. </p>
<p>My point with the explanation of those rankings was to expose the utter uselessness of the methodology and how that leads to distorted rankings. For example, how many articles some obscure professor publishes, how many international students there are (regardless of quality measurements), etc. are IMO very poor criteria for creating a ranking. </p>
<p>I actually like what NYU has been and is doing and I am pleased to see their advance over the past decade. It is a fine and improving school and would be especially appealing to the student with a strong interest in the arts and/or Wall Street.</p>
<p>"a. the number of highly cited researchers in various academic fields
b. the number of articles published in Nature and Science
c. the number of articles listed in ISI Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities"</p>
<p>Just being the devil's advocate here, could care less either way bcz rankings are best used as toilet paper, but are these numbers normalized to take into account that some of the larger Unis like Berk and UCLA have wayyyy more faculty that smaller Unis and LACs?</p>