Overrated Colleges as of 2006

College Search & Selection
81

<p>The last posts are yet another Exhibit of the futility of this discussion.</p>

<p>Like a broken record, the same refrain plays, over and over and over ...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley should be second tier because their international reputation is as good as the top rank; even in the US Berkeley has a better rep than the entire third tier. No way should they be fourth tier.</p>

<hr>

<p>No matter how you slice it, schools like UVA, Cal and Michigan are practically unbeatable, from professional and graduate placement to academics and from "non-academic reputation" to alumni power, influence and loyalty.</p>

<p>Slipper, your groups are way off. There is absolutely no distinction between groups 1.5, 2, and 3. Also, the top 3 publics all belong in the same group as Cornell and Penn.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Always, always, the same trite and tired arguments that pepper about every darn thread in this forum. Yet, if the infidels who are not drinking the indian whiskey dare to point out the most minute deficiencies of the "chosen ones" the arrows and stones start to fly. </p>

<p>Years after year ... just the same utterly pathetic display of partisanship masquerading as a factual discussion. The only thing that'd ever stop this pitiful and moronic charade would be for USNews to lob Berkeley, Michigan, and the rather innocent UVA that is typically dragged into this BS, in the stratosphere by boosting its peer assessment to double digits, and place them in FIRST, SECOND, and THIRD place in the ranking.</p>

<p>Since that won't happen soon, we'll be collectively subject to more of this annoying Wailing Wall with only the occasional change in details or scope. Actually, if it did happen, the cheerleaders would start harping on the chasm between the first 3 and the rest of the pack.</p>

<p>If you picked the school, why can't you just be happy without having to also win a popularity contest of dubious value. Why can't you drop the senseless insecurity about your choice? Did you not pick the school because YOU liked it? </p>

<p>Pfffttttttttttttttttt!</p>

82

<p>Because, xiggi, this isn't a popularity contest. We are supposed to be giving real advice to impressionable students. Telling them that Cal or Michigan aren't as good as other schools is miselading and dishonnest. There are literally thousands of factors that make up the overall quality of an undergraduate education and none of us can claim to know exactly how each university measures in every one of those variables or how those variables work together.And Xiggi, I am not suggesting that Cal, Michigan and UVa should be ranked #1-#3. I am suggesting that they get the respect they deserve.</p>

83

<p>Yes, Alexandre, and since when is "telling them that Cal or Michigan aren't as good as other schools misleading and dishonnest" since there ARE schools that are recognized as "better" than the named ones? </p>

<p>What is the criteria used to define "best" or "better?" The USNews report or only the second column of the ranking? The report of preference or other Avery's reports? Isn't it supposed to be an individual appreciation? How does one really compare Berkeley to Dartmouth or Michigan to Princeton? </p>

<p>All this abject cheerleading does not accomplish anything as people have to do their own research, and weigh what matters to them. If they want to be prestige whores, so be it! If they care only about the rankings at USNews, so be it! But, debating which school is "better" does not make any sense.</p>

84

<p>
[quote]
Telling them that Cal or Michigan aren't as good as other schools is miselading and dishonnest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alexandre, you give a tier ranking and according to you HYPSM are in the first group and Cal, along with bunch of others like Duke, Penn, Cornell, JHU, Chicago...etc are in the 2nd group. Most people find your groupings pretty reasonable. But many people have problem with pro-Cal people translating grad ranking into undergrad and then claiming it's as good as Stanford (and YP) and that's why pro-Cal cheerleading generates so many responses. All those rankings by foreign press are simply repeats of graduate rankings (i.e. faculty research rating). But when it come to undergrad rankings, academic/fellowships/premed/prelw advising, career services, grad/prof school placement, research/honor thesis opportunities, flexibility to pursue desired majors/programs..etc should all be part of the equation and in those, Berkeley appears to belong to the 2nd group, not along with Stanford just like your grouping says.</p>

85

<p>"So, like, are the chicks better looking at tier 2 or tier 3 schools?"
:D</p>

<p>Most definitely!</p>

86

<p>
[quote]
But when it come to undergrad rankings, academic/fellowships/premed/prelw advising, career services, grad/prof school placement, research/honor thesis opportunities, flexibility to pursue desired majors/programs..etc should all be part of the equation and in those, Berkeley appears to belong to the 2nd group, not along with Stanford just like your grouping says.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>indeed. and more like the 3rd group... but the point stands - its definitely NOT in the 1st group.</p>

87

<p>they don't belong in the second for sure, not even the third. All of those PRIVATE schools are wayy too rich per student, have overall better students (selectivity is a HUGELY underrated factor- it allows you to trust that everyone you know at your school is brilliant) and they have way too many strong connections into recruiting plus a history of working with the top grad schools AND they generate many more "wows" (in the US, I don't think international is relevant for undergrads). If Michigan or Cal had 6000 undergrad students they could argue being in the second group, but with student bodies 5 times the size they just aren't close. Maybe in Michigan or California people think of Cal and UM as top notch, but no way are they considered that way nationally.</p>

88

<p>The problem with all these lists is that they view colleges and universities as a sum of their parts without considering whether certain schools are "Tier 1" in particular areas. The notion expressed in this thread that all schools beyond the Top 30 or so are "crap schools" is ludicrous depending on what someone wants out of college. If you want to be an engineer, "crap school" Purdue beats the crap out of virtually every college on the Top Tier lists. If you want to be a journalist, "crap school" Missouri-Columbia is "Top Tier" in any analysis you'll read, and many of the "Top Tier" schools do not have journalism majors or schools. There are numerous other examples of same. Basically, the lists are for people who are looking for the widest variety of top ranked choices, often because they have not yet decided the study path they wish to emphasize. That's great, and it's the case for a majority of kids who go to college, but those who have a specific interest may have a completely different list of what constitutes a "Top Tier" school.</p>

<p>FWIW, I attended the University of Michigan, which makes all of the "highly ranked" lists, as an undergrad, and Northwestern University (again, on the "Top Tier" lists) for law school. As an alum of those schools, I still find the overreliance on lists regardless of context to be silly. To use a sports analogy, the best basketball player in the league might not be the one you'd want on the line with a one and one to win the game. Choice often depends on context.</p>

89

<p>Hey, SLIPPER, why do you rate UVA a FULL TIER above Virginia. No way is UVA that much better than Virginia. What do you base that on?</p>

<p>I can think of nothing that better demonstrates the futility of this exercise!</p>

90

<p>I still like DHL's list.</p>

91

<p>ITs ridiculous when for undergrad people say Cal, Berk, and UVA are as good as the actual second tier elites - Dartmouth, Duke, Penn, Columbia, and Brown</p>

<p>It just is, look at any selectivity factor or undergrad ranking or grad placement stat (atleast for professional schools which is whats available)</p>

92

<p>
[quote]
It just is, look at any selectivity factor or undergrad ranking or grad placement stat (atleast for professional schools which is whats available)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What's that list done every ten years that just gives a huge list of schools which are supposedly strong in subjects with regard to undergraduate studies? Mich and Berkeley and UCLA and UVa are all over it.</p>

<p>Does more than just one person here think that saying something isn't as bad as people make it out to be equate to uproar, zeal, and lamentation? </p>

<p>UCLAri for president . . . ial advisor to the Pacific Rim. :)</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
UC Berkeley deserves to be in the top 5!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ummmm.....ABSOLUTELY NOT. If Berkeley deserves to be in top 5, then so do UVa, Georgetown, UNC, Northwestern and others.</p>

94

<p>
[quote]
pro-Cal people post BIG and LOUD like they are riding in Bentleys and pro-Harvard people post humbly like they are riding Vespas... makes you wonder what they are overcompensating for...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll quote Indira Gandhi: "Don't be so humble, you're not that great".</p>

95

<p>
[quote]
Besides, why would you want to leave the West Coast?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because it's less expensive to live in suburban New York than in suburban SF or LA. Besides, I can afford a bigger house for less money on the east coast, and unlike California public schools, New York public schools are overflowing with state funding. And unlike California, New York State knows how to manage its finances.</p>

96

<p>"And unlike California, New York State knows how to manage its finances."</p>

<p>tell that to SUNY Binghamton.</p>

97

<p>
[quote]
But many people have problem with pro-Cal people translating grad ranking into undergrad and then claiming it's as good as Stanford (and YP) and that's why pro-Cal cheerleading generates so many responses.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Many people? I have been on CC for quite a while and I only remember two people ever claiming Berkeley undergrad to be at the level of HYPS. One of them only posted in one thread back in 2005. The other one is sansai. So I don't know why some people think there are so many "Berkeley cheerleaders."</p>

<p>ONE
Harvard
Stanford
MIT
Yale
Princeton
CalTech</p>

<p>1.5
Dartmouth
Penn
Brown
Columbia
Duke</p>

<p>TWO</p>

<p>Cornell
Chicago
Northwestern
Berkeley
UVA
Johns Hopkins
WUStl
Rice</p>

<p>THREE
Georgetown
Carnegie Mellon
Notre Dame
Vanderbilt
Emory
Michigan
UCLA
UNC</p>

<p>Floppy's list, revised. Honestly though, making colleges into tiers is pretty pointless. The undergrad education at colleges don't "clump" together into tiers as nicely as we would like. So, this list isn't really that valid. I just made it for fun.</p>

98

<p>2.5
John Hopkins
WUSTL
Rice
Emory
UVA</p>

<p>... Then move Georgetown up to TWO.</p>

99

<p><em>Splits hairs</em></p>

100

<p>I understand Plato's allegory of the cave, the infield fly rule, and what Britney sees in KFed. But I still don't understand why Duke is ranked above U of Chicago.</p>