<p>1.stanford + UCB + Caltech (aka, Palm League)
2.Pomona+ UCLA (aka, Saplings)
3. USC+UCSD+UCM (aka Seedlings)</p>
<p>sepitern555: I don't think it's fair to compare well-established and well-respected universities, such as USC and UCSD and compare them to UCM. I'm not saying that UCM is a bad university; it simply doesn't have a reputation at all right now. On the other hand, USC and UCSD have been in existence for decades; no comparision here.</p>
<p>I think it may be another gereration before USC completely sheds it's "university of spoiled children" label. Too many parents went to college when SC's academic rep suffered in comparison to many of the UCs. It has improved dramatically with the money going for academic merit scholars, but reps are hard to shake.<br>
I can't objectively know if SD or SC is a "better" school at this point. It would depend on the kid and major, but I do think I'd rather see my kid at a UC for undergrad than SC. Even though the academics are stronger than years ago, it still has the flavor of rich, conservative, white, pre-professional and privileged. For graduate school, especially in business in California, USC would be excellent.</p>
<p>There's actually a poster in my office that addresses the "University of Spoiled Children" moniker. It says something to the effect of, "but in reality, almost 60% of USC students receive substantial need-based aid packages and more than 70% of our students participate in volunteer community outreach programs. USC was named TIME/The Princeton Review's 'College of the Year' in 2000 for this very reason. </p>
<p>Furthermore, USC offers a world-class faculty, a 14:1 teacher to student ratio, multiple programs that are in the top 10 nationally, and the best and most closely-knit alumni network of any higher education institution. So maybe we do spoil our students -- and we intend to keep it that way."</p>
<p>That facts are USC is harder to get into, its students have much more impressive stats than UCSD's, has higher ranked programs (really, the only fields where UCSD wins are the life sciences), offers more disciplines of study, more job opportunities (via the alumni network, the fact that downtown LA is literally five minutes down Figueroa, and the fact that USC is much more heavily recruited at due to location, prestige, and breadth of majors offered), is financially better off, has more national merit scholars (even more than UCLA, Princeton, and MIT),the list goes on...</p>
<p>UCSD is a superb, underrated institution. But I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why it's above USC. I doubt one exists. A much more debatable and even argument is whether USC is on par/better with UCLA.</p>
<p>I really like USC but unfortunately one obvious weakness at USC is the number of Nobels...1.
How could you have a huge university that is 125 years old and only get 1 Nobel prize? It is a sad fact.
USC has many NAS members but the prestige of Nobel winners goes a long ways.
It doesn't make a lot of sense at the undergraduate level to rank the quality of education on the number of faculty that win awards but that is the way it is in higher education rankings.
That is one of the biggest reasons that makes it is hard for USC to be ranked as high as Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech.
USC has recently invested huge amounts of money into science programs and likely will improve their reputation in many areas of science. Engineering for example is already making great progress at USC.</p>
<p>How can ANYONE rank Berkeley ABOVE Caltech??? </p>
<p>Caltech is far more selective than Berkeley, and they are usually far more qualified. Pushovers can't get into Caltech. </p>
<p>Berkeley??? well....</p>
<p>Caltech is WAY better than Cal.</p>
<p>I agree with you, but one thing I have learned is that collegeconfidential is teeming with people who overhype Berkeley. Of course Berkeley can never be as selective or impressive as the ivies and top 20. Yet they have the cojones to rank Berkeley above Caltech. It is clearly absurd.</p>
<p>If somebody came up to me and said that Caltech was better than Harvard or Stanford or Yale or MIT, I wouldn't dispute it since all the HYPSMC schools are better than each other at certain things, and worse than each other in other things. They are true peers. But to say that Berkeley is better than Caltech is simply ludicrous. They aren't even on the same plane of existence.</p>
<p>I agree Gutrade. I'd rather go to Berkeley than Caltech, but as far as rankings are concerned it is Caltech without question.</p>
<p>"as far as rankings are concerned it is Caltech without question."</p>
<p>-Tell that to people in the social sciences....</p>
<p>Stanford and Caltech are leagues above Berkeley in any ranking of the quality of undergraduate education. If we're ranking the universiteis as a whole, the three are all equal in my mind, with berkeley possibly being more impressive than caltech. </p>
<p>what the hell is merced doing on this board.... do you people pay no attention to what a university's mission is? Sure, its going to grow very fast, and will soon be a beautiful college campus and so on... but the whole reason why the university was founded was to serve poorish people (farming families) in the central valley who otherwise wouldnt go to college. This is how they plan the university to be for another 30 years, and after that theyre going to see what needs to be done, based on how the valley has developd at that time. </p>
<p>UCSD is underrated, USC is a fine school, but it does not come close to comparing in any respect to the quality of academics and education as stanford, caltech, pomona. This is reflected still in admissions... i know several people who were awarded scholarships to USC who were rejected at stanford, pomona and the lower ivies.</p>
<p>Why are there so many repliers putting Pomona colleges in their rankings? Is there some kind of brainwash cult thing going on there? Please elaborate on what makes the Pomona college cluster a good place to spend one's college years. What academic disciplines are strong points for the Pomonas?</p>
<p>huh? Pomona College is regarded by everyone in academia as on-par with Williams Amherst and Swarth. They have all the same resources as these LACs, plus more because Pomona College can pool its resources with the other Claremont Colleges. It is respected for all of its Liberal Arts majors.
Claremont McKenna is also very well respected, particularly for polisci and business, though the other majors are not as well respected as Pomona.
harvey Mudd is one of the best engineering schools in the country, and virtually the only one with strong liberal arts studies to support it. </p>
<p>These schools are also great because they have the resources of nearby LA (its an ugly city, but a city no less) and resources more like a mid size univ. than a LAC because pooled together, their are over 6k students at claremont colleges.</p>
<p>Gutrade:
I must ask: Why are you always condescending Berkeley and why are you always posting about California schools, when you don't even attend a university in California? </p>
<p>Oh--so Caltech and Berkeley aren't on the "same plane" of existence? Really....</p>
<p>Let's see:</p>
<p>Berkeley's engineering is third in the nation: OH wait only after MIT and Stanford, and NOT Caltech.
Berkeley's chemistry department is first in the nation.</p>
<p>And these are just TWO of the science fields in which it excels at. (i am too lethargic to look the others up--why don't you help me out and tell me how "bad" or "retarded" Cal is huh (note I am being sardonic, in case you are really as academic-oriented as you deem to be.)</p>
<p>(It is only proper to compare science/math departments because hello..Cal TECH.)</p>
<p>So seriously, why do you continue berating Cal--(what is your association with it, if any, or in that case, what is your association with the state of California)? How can you compare Caltech (science/math focused--students are antisocial,but extremely intelligent in their field (yes they are prodigious), only discuss technology, can't converse in a non-academic environment let alone in one, etc. (this is taken from a Harvard friend's account of Caltech--he rejected the FULL RIDE to Caltech for only 30k to Harvard))
with Berkeley--which is a multifarious university? Maybe your comment about them existing on "different planes" should not be construed as a statement to sustain the "educational hierarchy" that you spout and reiterate in every single post that is anti-Cal (even though you aren't in California) , but as a notion that yes, these different planes exist in that these two universities are incomparable because of their differences rooted in their academic nature, and the very students that thrive in these contrasting milieus.</p>
<p>... are obviously just prejudiced against USC and in favor of complimenting a UC. US News and World Report ranks UCSD considerably LOWER than USC. Looking at individual programs, in general USC STILL beats UCSD. UCSD is really a great school, but it's not exactly on-par with USC, and certainly not better. Now, you'll probably think I'm saying this because I'm going to USC, but if you look at ACTUAL NUMBERS that people before me have posted, it's still true that USC >>>> UCSD. </p>
<p>"Even though the academics are stronger than years ago, it still has the flavor of rich, conservative, white, pre-professional and privileged."</p>
<p>Uh, NO.
1. WHY would USC have more rich kids than any other large, private, research university?
2. The average family income for a USC student is LESS than at UCLA (don't forget all the wealthy Beverly Hills kids who are Bruins).
3. 60% of USC kids are on financial aid
4. I hardly think of only "white" when I think of USC. You know, because whites compose only 47% of the student body. There are large percentages of Asians, a good representation of Latinos, and a fair percentage of African-Americans. Actually, USC is slightly more DIVERSE than UCLA, because while the percentage of Asians is lower, the percentage of black students is higher. </p>
<p>ALSO, remember that this diversity is achieved at a "private university" level, which means that to varying degrees, almost all students are paying some money to go to USC. Hispanic and African-American families- in general- have lower incomes than whites or Asians. So the level of diversity achieved at USC is more impressive because it is a private university (meaning substantial tuition compared to a public school). </p>
<p>If you actually LOOKED at the numbers, you wouldn't get that stereotyped old flavor of "rich, conservative, white and priveleged." I won't say the same for "pre-professional" though. Because they are.</p>
<p>SotonsSaints, you are a Berkeley incoming freshman. Of course you willbe biased for you school. Seeing as how I go to neither Berkeley nor Caltech, I can give a much more unbiased answer. Caltech is just...simply....superior. I don't know what else to say. Let's say there was this job that I wanted. If I had to go into a head to head competition with a Caltech student, I might pee in my pants. If I have to go into a head to head competition with a Berkeley student, I'll laugh and celebrate.</p>
<p>Gutrade is only concerned with how much money and power and prestige a job will get you and could care less about the actual quality of the education. If the University of Mississippi all of the sudden only let 5 percent of all applicants in Gutrade would be fist in line to get in. He's a snob. He doesn't undestand what school is about, but you have to forgive him because he's young and has never been to college. He'll be singing a different tune in a couple of years.</p>
<p>i do not attend or will attend Caltech or Berkeley. </p>
<p>I agree wholeheartedly that Caltech would give an undergrad a better education, but not in the social sciences or humanities. Also, one has to think about the financial consequences of attending a private school when compared to a public school. But in the humanities and social sciences, there is no competition. Berkeley fields top 3 english department, top 5 poli sci, top 5 history, top 5 economics, etc etc. </p>
<p>Gutrade - go ahead and compete with a Berkeley grad. I know MANY berkeley students who rejected ivy-league schools to attend Berkeley (my good friend rejected yale and columbia, 2 rejected stanford, LOTS of people reject penn,brown,cornell an such.) and they are all VERY VERY strong students. Someone out of Berkeley's engineering or science/math departments are just as good as people in more "elite" schools. You are making a major mistake in underrating the University of California, Berkeley.</p>
<p>the only person who would reject an ivy for berkeley is either poor or from out of state
on the flipside, there are many many reasons to reject an ivy for caltech.
when it all comes down to it, caltech is home to much superior students than berkeley. All you people from out of state have to realise that your idea of berkeley is biased because for you, its practically as hard to get in to as an ivy. I would say that of all the berkeley students i know, only about a quarter could ever dream of going to a school like caltech or stanford, and less than a tenth would stand a likely chance of being accepted.</p>
<p>Of course now your going to counter with " oh but the research and professors at berkeley are better and it has more world renown"... at the level of caltech and berkeley, I dont think your going to find ANY professors who aren't magnificent, and if I was an undergraduate with a choice, i think i would prefer caltech's 3 students to one professor rate of attention to berkeley's 16 to 1, not counting all the profs at berk who dont teach.
So, you can see, not based on reputation or job money or whatever, categories where, for an undergrad, caltech is more respected for the begin with... but based on actual indications of the strength of the student body, breadth and depth of the education, and actual academic feel, caltech is superior.
Berkeley is undoubtedly the best public school in the country, and through that one of the best universities in the world.. but for an undergraduate attending college, the experience cannot compare to smaller colleges of similar stature, such as caltech.</p>
<p>TheCity, a survey conducted with stanfurd students shows that one of of every three was in fact rejected from Cal. Now, had those students actually been accepted I have no doubt that 9 out of 10 of them would go to stanfurd anyway, but the idea that Cal is strictly the dumping ground for stanfurd rejects is a myth that people like you try your hardest to advance in places like this and it makes you look sort of pathetic.</p>
<p>TheCity, a survey conducted with stanfurd students shows that one of of every three was in fact rejected from Cal. Now, had those students actually been accepted I have no doubt that 9 out of 10 of them would go to stanfurd anyway, but the idea that Cal is strictly the dumping ground for stanfurd rejects is a myth that people like you try your hardest to advance in places like this and it makes you look sort of pathetic. As for your agument about Caltech vs Cal, I can see why someone would rather go to the smaller, private university if they want to study math/science, but why would anyone choose Caltech over Cal for any of the hundreds of other majors that exist? Dont delude yourself into thinking that everyone wants to be a doctor or work for microsoft.</p>