<p>Are we talking academics or athletics? Atheltically, comparing Princeton to Cal is unfair to Princeton. Even Princeton’s relatively strong Basketball program is no match for Cal’s. Cal’s athletic programs are superior to Princeton’s, regardless of what the Director’s Cup or RPI says. </p>
<p>But I doubt the OP is too concerned about athletics. Academically, at the undergraduate level, Princeton is too good to pass up. Cal is amazing too, only not as good as Princeton. Even in Engineering, where Cal does enjoy an advantage over Princeton, particularly at the graduate level, I think Princeton is worth going to over Cal. It is nothing personal. I would recommend Princeton over any university in the nation save MIT and Stanford…unless cost of attendance seriously favors Cal.</p>
<p>Vegas; Sagarin; Pomeroy; RPI OSU -13; OSU - 14; OSU -16; Illinois -2.5; Illinois -4; Illinois -4 UNC -9; UNC -8; UNC -11 Clemson -3.5; Clemson -2.5; Clemson -3; Boston College: 44, Clemson: 60</p>
<p>I’m not going to transcribe the whole list, but you’ll find that the Vegas lines map very closely to the Sagarin predictor and Pomeroy, while the RPI doesn’t.</p>
<p>This is wrong… You’re wrong as usual, onecircuit… ; )</p>
<p>Depending on how you worded things, should read, ‘the lowest seeded at-large team s/b… 11th, 12th.’</p>
<p>…and they’re still projecting Duke with a one, despite finishing 2nd to UNC during the regular season. What happens if Duke doesn’t win ACC tournament, what seed?</p>
<p>UCLA after the beat-down to Oregon will get an 8th? Could this loss be a blessing in disguise because all the guards are sick or hurting, which means less Pac 10 tournament games?</p>
<p>‘Seed’ is a tennis term, methinks, that denotes placement based on some prior performance marker, in this case prior tournaments played by player.</p>
<p>When one says ‘higher seed,’ it means a higher placement within the current tournament, which means a lower number placement 1, 2, 3, 4…higher seed doesn’t mean 13, 14, 15, 16.</p>
<p>That’s wrong. The way the Matrix works is that it’s simply a compilation of many mock brackets. The people who have Princeton 13th are assuming Princeton will win the Ivy League and get into the NCAA tournament, where they will be seeded 13th. Also, Harvard is now the projected 13th seed, with Princeton being an alternate possibility.</p>
<p>thsfan, if you read my later posts you will find that I also said that the highest seeds that are chosen for the Tournament are the 11th and 12th seeds, thereby making it impossible for Princeton to be chosen if they lost. If Princeton’s seed was 10th on the chart then it would most likely be chosen to participate in the Tournament even if it lost to Harvard. For instance, Washington and Marquette display 10th seeds and are included in the Tournament.</p>
<p>by the way Harvard’s RPI is now at #32, compared to #43 for UCLA and #49 for Princeton.</p>
<p>A loss to Princeton would certainly hurt the Harvard RPI, but if it doesn’t hurt it substantially, I wonder if Harvard would have a chance of being chosen as an At Large.</p>
<p>if so, then please apologize for you comments below, as you have falsely included UCSB’s numbers for UCSD…</p>
<p>geesh</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>================</p>
<p>therefore the following post by me stands:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>so, in summary, if you don’t know the differnce between Santa Barbara and San Diego, let me know, and I will gladly provide some map links to their locations</p>
<p>But RML, mine was not a typo…in fact it was specifically UCSD because that was the topic of the conversation AND YOU CALLED ME ON IT AND STATED THAT I WAS WRONG WITH THE UCSD FIGURE…Let me repeat my post:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and this is what you stated about my UCSD figures:</p>
<p>but RML, “repeately” implies more than once.</p>
<p>you mentioned UCSD 3 times in your post and UCSB only ONCE - AND YOU COPIED A POST OF MINE WHERE I NEVER MENTIONED UCSB BUT MENTIONED UCSD THREE TIMES.</p>
<p>In case you have trouble remembering, here is your post:</p>
<p>I will repost my statement with the corrected school name:</p>
<p>A quick browse of the NCR survey revealed that UCSB is a superior school to Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, Michigan, Caltech, Brown and Harvard. Furthermore, it stands on equal footing with Berkeley in CS. REALLY? I mean, come on. Let’s get real here. Though I have a lot of respect for UCSB, I don’t think it is as great as Berkeley for CS, and I certainly won’t believe that it is superior to CMU, Cornell, Michigan, Caltech and Brown for CS.</p>
<p>UCSB has risen significantly in many disciplines; check others, like MSE, ECE, etc. and you’ll see that UCSB is high there as well.</p>
<p>You say that UCSB can’t be as well-known for CS research as these other schools, but that’s what the data shows. Broad-reaching surveys of academics show that, based on tons of criteria (analyzed through various statistical models), this is how CS departments are viewed.</p>
<p>But your objection seems to be that there’s a ranking that implies that UCSB is “better.” That is not what the rankings are saying. Again, they are stated in ranges to capture the fluidity of rankings. Essentially, the rankings are giving you ballpark figures for each department, but they don’t say that UCSB is necessarily “better” than X, Y, or Z. From these very inclusive surveys, UCSB CS is well-regarded.</p>
<p>^ If UCSB is that great, why is it that it was never ranked in the top 30 in USNews, ever since? At least, Princeton has made it in the top 10. Though it never has been in the top 5, which is quite believable. </p>
<p>I already addressed this. If you want to think that a simple “rank on 1-5” survey taken from far fewer academics and analyzed with no complex statistical model is more valid than the NRC, feel free to do so. I’m not going to convince you otherwise, because you clearly don’t want to accept a ranking that doesn’t jive 100% with your intuitions (even though the NRC and US News rankings in CS are extremely similar, except that the NRC ranking identified a couple schools that US News missed).</p>
<p>FWIW, the NRC rankings are from a respected institution in academia, are the effort of hundreds (or thousands, counting those at individual institutions) of people, took millions of dollars to produce, were analyzed with careful, thoughtful, and deliberative consideration, and took a few years to finish. They were, are, and will continue to be the “gold standard” of departmental rankings. US News’ half-assed attempts at ranking departments don’t even compare.</p>
<p>That means that, within the top 10, or top 15, or top 20, or whatever, for each ranking, you’ll mostly find the same schools. Except for the couple schools that US News missed – so you will find UCSB in the top 10 or top 20 for CS. But they’re strikingly similar otherwise. Even if they weren’t, I wouldn’t care; I’ll believe the NRC ranking over the US News one any day.</p>
<p>I’ll add that I’m not surprised at all to see Princeton so highly ranked in the NRC ranking in CS. It is well-known to those actually in the field that Princeton is easily top 5 for CS.</p>