<p>Combining the scores of these universities in all 4 league tables that measure the best universities for undergraduate in America, the result came as follows:</p>
<p>20 UNC 82.00
21 Virginia 81.50
22 Brown 81.25
23 Emory 81.00
24 Rice 80.25
25 William & Mary 80.25
26 Dartmouth 79.75
27 Brandeis 79.25 </p>
<p>28 Tufts 76.00
29 Georgetown 75.75
30 USC 75.50
31 NYU 74.00
32 CMU 73.75
33 Wake Forest 73.00 </p>
<p>Again, Berkeley is in the top 10 and is a - no-brainer - superior to Emory and Vanderbilt. Michigan in the top 15 ahead of two Ivy schools. And Harvard and Stanford are the perennial leaders in American academia for undergraduate education. </p>
<p>Take note that I did not make this up; this is a result of the combination of the 4 major ranking league tables in for American colleges.</p>
<p>It seems a little strange to make a composite from rankings that use such different criteria. What does that tell you? It would be different if we were talking about rankings that were intended to measure more or less the same things, but came up with slightly different conclusions. But we aren’t.</p>
<p>I have no personal axe to grind here; my alma mater does extremely well with your ranking. But I just don’t see the utility of this list. If you want to look at the rankings for guidance, you’re better off looking at the different methodologies and going with whichever ones most reflect your priorities.</p>
Give me a break. Any ranking that has South Carolina State as the 9th best university in the country (as Washington Monthly does) is obviously not worth the time it takes to read.</p>
<p>It’s worth noting that you excluded the WSJ feeder school ranking, which has Berkeley at #41. I find this a superior combination: </p>
<p>Washington Monthly ranked UCSD as #2 overall – SERIOUSLY?! I didn’t know UCSD, along with UC Davis, were better than Harvard. I’ll also call BS on the MUP article too…University of Arizona over Dartmouth? come on now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems like a shameless way to make schools you like or dislike ranked higher or lower in this seemingly “superior” list. </p>
<p>I love off-the-wall rankings like Washington Monthly. What makes that one seem so weird is the Mother Theresa factors (Social Mobility and Service). But it’s really 8 rankings in one. For either LACs or universities you can click-sort on any of 3 sub-factors, or the overall, to get the one that makes your college look best (or Harvard worst). Isn’t that what we’re all after?</p>
<p>Their “Research” ranking is not so bizarre (though it dose surprise me in a few places.)</p>
<p>hippo2718: I only tabulated the scores that came out in 2009, and there were only 4 league tables that came out last year, all of which are in my data. The WSJ data is obviously obsolete, aside from it was utterly flawed. Why was it flawed? The survey omitted several leading professional schools and focused only to a few. For example, for MBA, WSJ included Tuck, but did not include Kellogg, Booth, Sloan, Haas and Columbia. Honestly, what is Tuck compared to those business schools I mentioned? That’s just one glaring mistake of the WSJ ranking. </p>
<p>I have nothing against Emory and Vanderbilt. I think they’re both fantastic schools. But they’re the best sample I could get to prove it that the USNews ranking isn’t perfect as those schools are not superior to Berkeley, but were ranked higher than Berkeley in USNews ranking. </p>
<p>Baelor: All league tables are not perfect. Each table has its own criteria. The Washington Monthly just happens to have a different criteria. Those criteria might not be suitable for you, but they are for some people. Thus this table I made. </p>
<p>prodigalson: And who are to say which league table is correct? You? Those high school students? Those college students? USNews???</p>
<p>Mikecarang: If I would remove one of the four, it would make the table wrong, because each league table that came out last year has its own set of criteria, which are obviously different from the rest. </p>
<p>But just to give in to your request, this is what happens when I will remove the WM league table:</p>
<p>74.67 William & Mary
74.67 Wake Forest
74.67 USC
74.33 NYU
74.33 CMU
74.00 Georgetown</p>
<p>Berkeley would still rank higher than Emory and Vanderbilt. Again, I have nothing against Emory and Vanderbilt. But to say they’re superior schools to Berkeley is just a mistake and shouldn’t be tolerated.</p>
Although this quote wasn’t directed towards me, you also have to apply this to yourself, RML. </p>
<p>Who are you to say that Berkley is better than Emory and/or Vandy? What makes your knowledge on the subject better than those from USNWR (who rank both Emory and Vandy above UCB) or Forbes (who rank Emory above UCB)? Its simply a matter of opinion.</p>
<p>Well, the ranking wasn’t mine. Again, that is what will come out when you combine all the league tables that came out last year. And, since no league table can tell an absolute, infallible result, thus that table I made. </p>
<p>The PA of UC Berkeley is significantly higher than either Emory or Vanderbilt. That was the opinion of those people with the best minds of the best schools in America. So, subjective wise, Berkeley winds over Emory and Vanderbilt hands down.</p>
<p>That’s because “those people” consistently fail to keep in mind Berkeley’s lackluster undergraduate student body while lavishing praise on its prestigious graduate programs.</p>
<p>One “shouldn’t tolerate” you asserting that Berkeley is better than any of its peers or superiors, because it’s not so clear cut, at least for those who actually know what they’re talking about.</p>
<p>Hey, everything counts in the learning environment. As an undergrad in a large school, you’ll likely learn a lot more from your grad student TA’s, smart buddies, and friends than from a prof. The prof simply runs the show. You learn by osmosis by immersing yourself in the learning environment … figuratively speaking.</p>
<p>As you can imagine, past graduates who choose to live in the city and the intellectuals attracted to the melting pot from across the world matter as well, if you make the most of it.</p>
<p>kwu, so tell me, who exactly “knows what they are talking about”? Clearly, RML, university professors and university presidents don’t “know what they are talking about”. So tell me, who does “know what they are talking about?”</p>
But I just don’t see the utility of this list. If you want to look at the rankings for guidance, you’re better off looking at the different methodologies and going with whichever ones most reflect your priorities.</p>