<p>Stanford
CalTech
Berkeley, Pomona, Harvey Mudd</p>
<p>I am biased, but I don't really understand why people would rate UCLA/Berkeley over Pomona. I can understand that large research universities will have larger dept. and more notable prof. but that comes with the territory. I suppose LAC's and Universities shouldn't be compared. Here would be my ranking on undergraduate experience/the best colleges:</p>
<p>Stanford
Caltech/Pomona
Berkeley
CMC/Harvey Mudd
UCLA
USC
UCSD
Scripps</p>
<p>Pomona and CMC were the most selective LAC's in the country this year. People wouldn't rate Amherst beneath Cornell. Personally, I feel like LAC's like Pomona are equivalent to some of the Ivies like Dartmouth/Brown. The reason I rated Caltech the same as Pomona would be because Caltech is a specialty school and Pomona offers a wider range of majors. This applies to CMC and Harvey Mudd as well.</p>
<p>Rankings, shmankings, you all deserve spankings. Get back to work.</p>
<p>some people aren't even putting pepperdine on their lists :(</p>
<p>Your point is?</p>
<p>"Undergraduate Engineering:
1. Caltech
2. Mudd
3. Stanford
4. Berkeley
5. UCLA"</p>
<p>Fellow Mudder,
I honestly do not necessarily agree:</p>
<p>Undergraduate Engineering:
1. (guess)
2. Caltech
3. Stanford
4. Berkeley
5. UCLA</p>
<p>Undergraduate Science:
1. Caltech
2. Mudd
3. Stanford
4. Berkeley
5. UCLA</p>
<p>I will get a lot of heat for this but Mudd engineering is grouped with MIT and Olin... Caltech engineering has a bit more of a science flavor to it...and is basically unparralleled in that regard. MIT engineering has a bit more practicality flavor to it (see industrial and process eng stats).</p>
<p>Different flavors means different rankings even within technical fields. I hope I didn't offend anyone but these judgements were made by talking to seasoned engineers and scientists in affiated institutions with each school.</p>
<p>How is UCSD above USC and Berkeley above Caltech? VVtf are you evaluating? Cafeteria food? Gas prices?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Pomona and CMC were the most selective LAC's in the country this year. People wouldn't rate Amherst beneath Cornell. Personally, I feel like LAC's like Pomona are equivalent to some of the Ivies like Dartmouth/Brown. The reason I rated Caltech the same as Pomona would be because Caltech is a specialty school and Pomona offers a wider range of majors. This applies to CMC and Harvey Mudd as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would disagree. First off, you ranked Pomona two spots above Mudd. I think looking at Pomona and Mudd objectively, disregarding the fact that they have different focuses, they're essentially at the same level. I agree that CMC is at a slightly lower level than Pomona, though. </p>
<p>Also with the "most selective" bit. It seems like you just looked at acceptance rates to determine selectivity. Harvey Mudd is more selective than CMC, and about equal to Pomona. Selectivity isn't the acceptance rate exactly, but the quality of the applicants who are accepted. If you look at the quality of applicants that are selected to Mudd and Pomona, they are about equal, maybe even with a slight edge going to Mudd. That's why last year USNWR ranked Mudd (not CMC) and Pomona tied for first with Amherst in selectivity.</p>
<p>Atomic Fusion -</p>
<p>I agree with you. I wouldn't give Pomona the edge, but the reason that I ranked CMC and Mudd together was the fact that they are both specialty schools. I understand your view though and I can see that you are right. Even though Pomona does cater to a wider range of students doesn't mean that HMC is not academically equal.</p>
<p>Below are non-biased groupings that combine US News Rankings, acceptance rates, average sat scores, percent valedictorians, etc to rank all colleges/unis in the nation and demonstrate how CA schools hold up against those in the rest of the country.</p>
<p>Group 1:</p>
<p>Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT</p>
<p>Group 2:</p>
<p>Amherst, Williams, Brown, Pomona, Dartmouth, UPenn, Swarthmore, Columbia, Caltech (sorry, but MIT is harder to get into), Duke, Rice, Harvey Mudd</p>
<p>Group 3:</p>
<p>University of Chicago, Middlebury, Bowdoin, Claremont Mckenna, WUSTL, Georgetown, Cornell </p>
<p>Group 4:</p>
<p>Carleton, Northwestern, Berkeley, UCLA, UVA, Vassar, Tufts, Wesleyan, Davidson, Haverford</p>
<p>IMO:</p>
<p>Top 5</p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>CalTech</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Pomona</li>
<li>... UCLA? Eh, none really stand out after that.</li>
</ol>
<p>University UG
1. Stanford
2. Caltech
3. Berkeley
4. UCLos Angeles
5. UC San Diego
6. UC Irvine
7. UCDavis</p>
<p>Darnshorty - That's the best and most accurate grouping of schools I've seen in a long time, IMHO.</p>
<p>darnshorty i disagree..
just because caltech has a higher acceptance rate does not mean it is easier to get into..I read somewhere that its harder to get into caltech than stanford..
basically, the caltech applicant pool is very self selective, thus the slightly higher acceptance rate..
caltech belongs up there.with HYPSM..
also, berkeley does not belong in group 4! it should be group 3 at least..</p>
<p>darnshorty, that is a very good grouping. </p>
<p>
[quote]
darnshorty i disagree..
just because caltech has a higher acceptance rate does not mean it is easier to get into..I read somewhere that its harder to get into caltech than stanford..
basically, the caltech applicant pool is very self selective, thus the slightly higher acceptance rate..
caltech belongs up there.with HYPSM..
also, berkeley does not belong in group 4! it should be group 3 at least..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's pretty well known that MIT is harder to get into than Caltech. Just look at applicants that applied to both and you'll see that there are far more applicants who are accepted to just Caltech than applicants who were accepted to just MIT. Stanford is definitely harder to get into than Caltech as well. Maybe for the normal applicant, Caltech is harder, but the applicant pool to Caltech is self-selecting in that they are all extremely qualified in math and science. You don't really need a hook to get into Caltech, you just have to have an excellent SAT, GPA, and great science achievements. For Stanford, an applicant definitely needs a hook to get in.</p>
<p>Sorry, 20 pages of posts is too much to bother with.
However, no real Californian ever calls UCB "Cal".</p>
<p>I think groupings work better than rankings which you can quibble about the exact order.
In any case, UCI is definitely higher than UCD or UCSB or either Cal Poly as some posts rank it.
UCR, UCSC and other misc. are at the bottom.</p>
<p>I think most real Californians who attend or have attended CAL would be surprised to hear it referred to as UCB, something I have mostly seen on this site and nowhere else that I can think of. Take a look at the school logo merchandise online and in the bokstore and the logos on the athlete's uniforms... the school is generally referred to as CAL. Go Bears!</p>
<p>atomic fusion, i dont think thats right..i'm pretty sure there are many mit students who were rejected from caltech as well...i dont know if there is any report on this, but it would be interesting to compare the number(or ratio, rather, because of the huge difference in the quantity of students at both institutions)..
and about needing a hook in stanford, not everyone needs a hook to get in..although having a hook does help at stanford..
imagine a person with a hook and lower sat scores, gpa, etc..he may get into stanford , but not caltech since the hook may not help him much there..for him, getting into stanford is easier than getting into caltech..
counter example - a person with great gpa, sat scores, etc but with no hook may get into caltech but not stanford..
Another example- A legacy at both stanford and caltech may have better chances at stanford since the legacy hook doesn't help much at caltech..
For different people, getting into one over the other may be easier..But, i did read somewhere that in general, it is harder to get into caltech than stanford..
the point is it is extremely hard to get into any one of HYP, MIT, stanford and caltech..Caltech's higher acceptance rate does not really justify it being in tier 2 instead of tier 1..</p>
<p>
[quote]
atomic fusion, i dont think thats right..i'm pretty sure there are many mit students who were rejected from caltech as well...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but I said that the number of people accepted to Caltech and denied to MIT is greater than the number of people accepted to MIT and denied to Caltech. I did not say that there aren't any MIT students who were denied admission to Caltech.</p>
<p>ok..so, i'd say the number of caltech rejects in MIT are more than the number of MIT rejects in caltech..nd i may very well be right, since the number of students accepted to caltech is much less than the number of students accepted at MIT..
again..neither you nor I can prove what we are stating..which is why i said that some survey or some report regarding this will help us know what the situation really is..</p>