<p>National Academy of Science membership, peer assessment:
UC Berkeley: 127, 4.7
UCLA: 31, 4.2
Texas: 15, 4.0
UC San Diego: 67, 3.8
UC Santa Barbara: 28, 3.5
UC Davis: 20, 3.8
Florida: 11, 3.6
UC Irvine: 22, 3.5
UC Riverside: 2, 3.1</p>
<p>Chem, the problem with your example is that peer assessment is dedicated to the whole university, not just to one department. The fallacy is that accurate peer assessment can be derived for a university that may contain as many as ten undergraduate schools – some more notable than others. University officials have been cited as saying they have no idea what’s going on within the campuses they’re being asked to judge. Their only knowledge of the school is from previous experiences or lingering perceptions.</p>
<p>^ harvardgator, you seem to have strong opinions of the PA for a new member. :)</p>
<p>Anyways, I’m pointing out that PA sorta corresponds to faculty distinction. Of course PA is supposed to take into account all academic offerings. I personally think UT-Austin in particular is underrated. </p>
<p>But, you mentioned Peer Assessment overqualifying the UCs…looking at National Academy membership as it relates to PA, there is some correlation…and the UCs don’t look particularly out of line with their relative peer assessments.</p>
<p>I think harvardgator is hawkette in disguise… now we know why hawkette hates U Mich…her gators got beat by the wolverines 2 years ago and she’s still bitter about it. :p</p>
<p><em>Just my speculation</em></p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Eh? You presented a Google search for “uc irvine commuter school” and concluded that it is on the same level as UT Arlington. This isn’t argumentation and you have proved nothing.</p>
<p>I agree that the US News rankings are flawed and innacurate, but they are by and large based on quantitative data. It is quite unlikely that they exist purely to attack bastions of conservative education.</p>
<p>Here’s another ranking (for world universities): [QS</a> Top Universities: Top 200 universities in the THE - QS World University Rankings 2008](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/results/2008/overall_rankings/fullrankings/]QS”>http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/results/2008/overall_rankings/fullrankings/)</p>
<p>It ranks the public universities of California and Texas like this:</p>
<ol>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>UC Berkeley</li>
<li>UCSD</li>
<li>UT Austin</li>
<li>UC Davis</li>
<li>UCSB</li>
<li>UC Irvine</li>
<li>Texas A&M</li>
<li>UC Santa Cruz</li>
<li>UC Riverside</li>
</ol>
<p>I’m not saying that this ranking is accurate - I think it is impossible to rank universities overall. But US News is not a liberal conspiracy.</p>
<p>Chem, yes, I may be new to CC…but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. No, I’m not Hawkette, just a fast devotee. </p>
<p>I’ll grant you that PAs can possibly correspond to faculty distinction, but PA should not count 25 percent of a school’s ranking in USNWR.</p>
<p>However, regarding standardized test achievement, UC schools don’t stack up well. To me, these scores correspond to a school’s quality in that bright, high-achieving student cohorts would be attracted to attendant institutions.</p>
<p>It’s fun to see how people always think their schools are underrated. </p>
<p>And actually, I have no idea why some are sensitive to state school ranking. Flagships are always great. If I had not gotten into UCLA, I would’ve gone to Alaska-Fairbanks, Colorado-Boulders, or Wyoming. (no kidding)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The thread ended on the 6th post.</p>
<p>
Contradiction in terms?</p>
<p>
That may be true in comparison to some of the mid- to lower-tier UCs with some other public flagship campuses.</p>
<p>But, as to your statement that high SAT “scores correspond to a school’s quality in that bright, high-achieving student cohorts would be attracted to attendant institutions”, don’t you think it’s the great academic program offerings that attract the best and brightest more so than a group of high scoring SATers?</p>
<p>Faculty is a major component in what makes up a university…shouldn’t its weighting be at least 25%? Why should the ranking only focus on the student aspects? Especially when measured on achievements before they step foot on a college campus…</p>
<p>“That may be true in comparison to some of the mid- to lower-tier UCs in comparison to some public flagship campuses.”</p>
<p>noimagination: Isn’t Alaska-Fairbanks a flagship? What do you mean by </p>
<p>quote: Contradiction in terms?</p>
<p>“That may be true in comparison to some of the mid- to lower-tier UCs in comparison to some public flagship campuses.”</p>
<p>Oops, you see, I am new to the joys of CC – your comment above is a more accurate reflection of what I meant.</p>
<p>^^ You said “flagships are always great”. The words “great” and “Alaska-Fairbanks” generally don’t go together.</p>
<p>To be fair, they do have some high-quality geology and petroleum engineering programs. But the location is hell and the student body is mostly lackluster.</p>
<p>Overall Berkeley campus sucks compared to UT and the overall student body is way too liberal Kool Aid drinking. In three years in the Bay Area I personally could not stand most Berkeley’s graduates and their sense of entitlement. They also obviously lack understanding of economics and world politics in my opinion. And I say this and I am not from Texas, but from W Europe actually.</p>
<p>^So Berkeley isn’t for you. That’s fine. But attacking the politics of its students is hardly justification for a lower ranking of academic quality.</p>
<p>Actually it is since they are so ignorant about basic principles of economics, history and world politics. The institution CLEARLY has failed to educate articulated minds.</p>
<p>The margin between UT and Cal is quite large in the world of academia. I’m not quite sure what your trying to prove here but give it a rest. I do agree though with prior statements about the Peer assessment. US News does not use a holistic approach if 25% goes to such an intangible commodity such as “Peer Evaluations” Thats like asking someone which is better coke or pepsi and what you would give it for a rating in a taste test on the scale of 1-5.</p>
<p>In Texas and in the South they’ll hire a UT or Rice graduate anyday over a Berkeley’s graduate. They’ll probably prefer the A&M graduate too. I wonder why!!!</p>
<p>^ Irrelevant. You could say the exact same thing but replace “South” with “West” and “UT or Rice” with “Cal or Stanford.” Or even replace those with “East” and “Harvard or Princeton.”</p>