<p>drj - my placement of Cal Poly SLO, as I noted, was based on the averaging of the 25th and 75th % of SAT scoring (published in common data set) <em>only</em>. I am not making any judgements about size of class, quality of instruction, career center effectiveness, research colaboration, success in grad school placement, or any other measure one might want to make of a university. Cal Poly SLO's student scoring is 1185. UCR's is 1040, UCSC is 1145, and UCDavis' is 1155. To me a higher testing student body is a good thing.</p>
<p>There are higher scoring students at Cal Poly SLO than thee of the eight UCs, and just about even with the fourth, UCSB, which is at 1190.</p>
<p>I don't think Cal Poly SLO has the international reputation to be compared to UCD/UCSB/UCI, which are, in all honesty, internationally known research institutions. Cal Poly SLO is more known (mainly only in California) as a hands-on engineering school for undegraduates.</p>
<p>....what if 'SC fills its Frosh class with 24% of recruits/special admits/legacies (not likely, but, just for example), and what if USC does not use their stats at all? Then, the real bottom quartile (assuming all are low stat kids) just disappers, correct? And, then what would have been the second quartile stat-wise, just moves down to the bottom. Voila: higher published stats!</p>
<p>You may not be aware of UC Berkeley's reputation among researchers. UC Berkeley is usually top 5 in any field that they support. the London Times ranked UCB the #2 University in the world... I think that was about four years ago.</p>
<p>This particular thread is about Undergraduate education. Still, how can the #2 overall educational institution in the world not make your top 5 for undergrad in California?</p>
<p>This is the perennial debate. Is Berkeley great for undergrads because of its research chops, or is it better to go to a LAC/higher ranked private?</p>
<p>Stanford/Caltech
Cal/Pomona/Harvey Mudd (Pomona is known as Yale of the West and Harvey Mudd is known as MIT of the West)
UCLA/Claremont McKenna
USC (California high school kids still prefer UCLA over USC by narrow margin)
UCSD (UCSD is a great institution but better than USC? Well, I don't think so)
Occidental</p>
<p>By the way, it is my impression that there are many posters on this board who bash Cal but literally no one bashes Stanford. Can anybody explain why?</p>
<p>^^Except for the fact that Stanford's admissions are quite unpredictable/random/odd and that they are overrated in my area, there's not that much else to complain about.</p>
<p>^^actually, only one poster bashes cal, and s/he has made it his/her duty to continue to do so 24/7, when, in effect, what s/he is really complaining about is state policy that applies to all UC campuses.</p>
<p>Wait, what? I don't bash Stanford. I think it's an excellent school, though there are overrated bits to it. Same can be said of Berkeley. (Hell, I applied to Stanford before.)</p>
<p>UCB may have been ranked #2 university in the world by the London Times, but that was 4 years ago. That is pretty outdated. Also, do you know what they were ranked on? It could be based on faculty research or number of research papers published. UCB is renown for its research, but I wouldn't say it has the 2nd best undergrad education in the world. Actually, there is no way it would beat schools like Princeton, Yale, Uchicago, Amherst, etc.</p>
<p>I am just curious how we can judge the Cal’s undergraduate education to be inferior to that of Princeton, Chicago or Amherst. Is it because undergraduate students at Princeton, Chicago or Amherst are sheltered?</p>
<p>I think it depends on what you want out of an undergraduate education. If you want a small environment and don't want hundreds of people in all of your classes, Cal is not such a great idea. If you don't care about those things and just want to do a lot of research, Cal should be okay, although the others may be just as good in that area as well. The caliber of Cal's students may not be as high as Princeton's, but that's debatable I guess... though a lot of people who get into Cal would not have gotten into Princeton.</p>