<p>Hard to do as the quality of individual departments in each university vary so much.</p>
<p>For example in the PAC 10 Oregon State is very good in engineering or forestry but not so good in other areas. I am not a fan of overall ranking unless you know what you are studying. I do tend to have an engineering bias in my rankings</p>
<p>Given that</p>
<p>Mountain West</p>
<p>Air Force
BYU
TCU
Utah
New Mexico, Wyoming, -- Tie
San Diego State
Colorado State
UNLV</p>
<p>Pac - 10
Stanford
Cal
USC
UCLA
UW
OU
ASU
OSU
UA
WSU</p>
<p>Like I mentioned in a previous thread, If UCSF where UCB's medical campus they would state it that way. Cornell's medical school is hundreds of miles away from Ithaca, yet it is called Cornell Medical School in NYC.</p>
<p>Colonial Athletic
1. William & Mary
2. James Madison
3. Delaware
4. Northeastern
5. Hofstra
6. George Mason
7. Drexel</p>
<p>Conference USA
1. (Tie) Rice + Tulsa
2. Tulane
3. UAB
4. SMU
5. Central Florida</p>
<p>Horizon League
1. Valparaiso
2. Loyola - Chicago</p>
<p>Best Independent School: NJIT</p>
<p>Ivy League
1. Princeton
2. Brown
3. Yale
4. Dartmouth
5. Columbia
6. Pennsylvania
7. Harvard
8. Cornell</p>
<p>ROFL!!! What in the world is your ranking system? Harvard at 7, Brown at 2? Rice, ranked 17, tied with Tulsa, who's like 80 something? What crack are you smoking frenchboy?</p>
<p>Gerhard Casper (Stanford President from 1992-2000 and Stanford Law professor from 2000-present) would disagree with you nyccard. In a letter to the USNWR's new Editor, Dr. Casper referenced Cal as "Prima Facie evidence" (exhibit A as it were) why he felt the USNWR was flawed.</p>
<p>"I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27." </p>
<p>In this letter, he was obviously referring to undergraduate education. Very few people are as knowledgeable about Cal as Gerhard Casper and most of his learned peers would agree with him. </p>
<p>And your equalities above are WAY off. Allow me to correct them:</p>
<p>Stanford PhD = Berkeley PhD
Stanford Law > Berkeley (Boalt) Law
Stanford Biz > Berkeley (Haas) Biz
Stanford undergrad > Berkeley undergrad</p>
<p>Stanford and Cal are equally good at the PhD level and Engineering. </p>
<p>In Law, Business and undergraduate education, Stanford is indeed slightly better than Cal. Stanford is generally ranked between #1 and #5 in Law, Business and undergraduate education whereas Cal is generally ranked between #6 and #10 in Law and Business and in the top 25 for undergraduate education. That is hardly a major distinction.</p>
<p>I don't think it makes much sense to rank PhD programs overall. For grad school, a lot can depend on what subject you're studying, and even your area of specialty within that. For instance, if I'm a mathematician studying number theory, UCLA is probably a better school than Stanford (or at least it was a couple of years ago). However, if I'm a psychologist wanting to research sleep disorders, I'll take Stanford over UCLA any day.</p>
<p>As long as we're ranking DIV III schools (academically), how about the Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (SCIAC)?
1. Cal Tech
2. Pomona
3. Harvey Mudd
4. Claremont McKenna
5. Pitzer
6. Scripps
7. Occidental
8. University of Redlands
9. University of LaVerne
10. Whittier College
11. California Lutheran University
All very good schools - not a conference know for its athletic prowess...</p>
<p>Just for fun last year I took the rankings in the 5 areas of Ph.D. discipline from the NRC study and aggregated them yet further (41 -> 5 -> 1) to see whether Stanford, Harvard or Berkeley were #1 in Ph.D. aggregate rankings. Let me point out first that any aggregate ranking is silly because on cannot earn Ph.D.s in all 41 disciplines if five lifetimes.</p>
<p>Methodologically, I adjusted the score downward for a school missing one of the five concentrations, and further for missing two of the five. The second thing I did is throw out the fifth worst rank leaving the top 4 for each school.</p>
<p>Berkeley came out #1 by a wide margin, with Stanford coming in #2, and Harvard #3. I think Berkeley is often overlooked as the #1 Ph.D. school because its professional schools rank below Stanford and Harvard, and of course the bias toward publically funded universities.</p>
<p>And I agree with you that a Stanford educator would be well aware of Berkeley's #1 position in (overall) Ph.D. work, which it has held for at least 40 years. That educator would also understand the synergy between cutting edge research at the Ph.D. level, and the quality of material transferred in undergraduate classes.</p>
<p>I really don't know enough about the others to rank them. I also think some of them are really hard to compare because of how different they are.</p>