<p>Nice attempt at a ranking. It’s hard to deal with the intangibles though. For example, Princeton is ranked higher than Harvard using your methodology. Being a student at Princeton is a pretty miserable experience for many, much more so than for the students at Harvard. I find it very funny that Harvard isn’t ranked in the teaching category, even though the teaching quality at Harvard is stellar, though Harvard is much maligned for using TFs to teach classes (only basic classes, and even then, many of the TFs are incredibly bright and inspiring, some more so than full professors!). In my first year, I’ve had a better multivariable experience, a better intro philosophy experience, and a better you-name-it than any of my friends at Princeton, and they agree. Visiting there for a week this fall semester, I found life to be cramped (literally and figuratively - those rooms are tiny, the campus atmosphere is somewhat stifling, and I find that there are many people with personality flaws). Princeton is great in academics, but not nearly as great as I think people make it out to be in comparison to the other schools. I think the reason Harvard’s teaching is often attacked is that Harvard students are highly involved in academics and also highly critical of anything they see wrong. </p>
<p>^Haha, I’m sorry if I came off that way. I just feel that Princeton should improve by making dorms larger and creating (or at least attempting to create) more culture surrounding classes (such as Harvard’s Ec 10, Math 21, Expos, etc). I love some aspects of “ole Princeton.” I like the concept of eating clubs and the fact that they are more inclusive than people think. I like Hoagie Haven :P</p>
<p>The reason this thread is getting featured is because it’s getting so much traffic. And the reason it gets so much traffic is in part because everyone wants to bash it.</p>
<p>^Agreed. College rankings are perhaps the easiest thing to bash, since a college’s value is personal and subjective. Also, rankings tend to have major flaws, oversights, and biases.</p>
<p>This thread is a poster child for the above (with a heavy emphasis on bias). </p>
<p>I noticed it was recently renamed from most prestigious colleges to RML Rankings. It should be re-named yet again to RML’s California Dreamin’ Rankings (a.k.a. Tori Spelling is a Hottie).</p>
<p>the_prestige, I think we are all equally guilty and delusional when it comes to rankings. That’s the beauty and, sadly, the shortcoming of the rankings game…and precisely why I almost always prefer ratings to rankings.</p>
<p>This said, hinting that schools like Columbia and Penn, much less Emory and Wash U. are somehow equal to top models and, in contrast, that Cal is a washed-up and not so attractive has-been isn’t very classy and certainly does not represent reality. There are many people whose opinions are just as valid as yours who would not be surprised to see Cal mentioned in the same sentense as schools such as Columbia and Cornell. In fact, the vast majority of the highly educated world would. Disagreeing with one’s point of view is one thing, resorting to insult is another.</p>
<p>Kidding aside, while I’ve said as much ad naseum, Cal is a fantastic place to pursue graduate work in many fields, particularly the hard sciences. Its undergrad program isn’t near the level of its grad programs and certainly not at a level near a Princeton, Stanford, Dartmouth, etc. </p>
<p>Don’t take my word for it, USNWR hasn’t ranked Cal inside its Top 20 for over 15 years straight. That’s on the record.</p>
<p>So claiming that Cal’s undergrad program is a tier above a Caltech, UPenn, Columbia, Brown, Duke, Chicago, Cornell, Northwestern, Hopkins. I laugh. I laugh out loud.</p>
<p>Frankly, it’s bias gone wild. And I have every right to call him on it.</p>
<p>The USNWR is a fine ranking the_prestige, but its rankings are not the be-all, end all and are not designed to be fair to all universities. Some universities will be hurt by its formula, none more so than Cal, although other fine universities like Brown and Cornell also seem to suffer from it. Other universities benefit from the USNWR formula. As such, although I think the overall USNWR ranking is fairly good, it is not 100% accurate and some schools will feel the pinch. Just because the USNWR says that Cal is not among the top 20 universities in the nation does not make it so. The USNWR admits to not knowing about universities. They have a formula and they simply apply data given to them by the various universities to come up with a ranking.</p>
<p>This said, I disagree with your assertion that somehow, Cal is inferior. Like I said, many very knowledgeable people tend to think highly of Cal. To them, mentioning Cal in the same league as Chicago, Columbia and Cornell for undergraduate studies is not at all unusual. If you take 1,000 leading intellectuals and indistrialists around the nation to rate universities, Cal will, I am fairly certain, make the top 10 list. The PA rating confirms part of this.</p>
<p>Of course. But there is a reasonable level of how “off” the UNSWR rankings may be.</p>
<p>I absolutely agree that there are imperfect biases baked into the USNWR formula (as you noted, schools like Brown get the shaft). But there is only so much its going to be off – Cal which routinely ranks outside the Top 20 – how much is it going to be off by, realistically? 5 spots? 10?</p>
<p>To claim its the 7th best undergrad program in the nation. 13+ spot jump? That’s a leap way, way too far IMO. HYPSM + Caltech are arguably the best undergrad programs in the US by many measures. That’s 6 spots. Are we to believe the next best undergrad program is Cal?</p>
<p>“I absolutely agree that there are imperfect biases baked into the USNWR formula (as you noted, schools like Brown get the shaft). But there is only so much its going to be off – Cal which routinely ranks outside the Top 20 – how much is it going to be off by, realistically? 5 spots? 10?”</p>
<p>Cal is routinely out of the top 20 according to the USNWR because they have not changed their formula in any real sense for over a decade. </p>
<p>“To claim its the 7th best undergrad program in the nation. 13+ spot jump? That’s a leap way, way too far IMO.”</p>
<p>I don’t think it is too much of a leap the_prestige, but I can see how some would think it is. I guess it depends on one’s own standards and perceptions. </p>
<p>“HYPSM + Caltech are arguably the best undergrad programs in the US by many measures. That’s 6 spots. Are we to believe the next best undergrad program is Cal”</p>
<p>I personally think Cal and Columbia are the two universities that immediately proceed the big 5, not Caltech. I think very highly of Caltech, but to me, it is more of a boutique than a university. But that’s just an opinion. However, the overwhelming majority of the leading thinkers in the US would agree that Cal does in fact belong among the top 10, as evidenced by Cal’s PA score, which is always #6 in the US.</p>
<p>Look, all I am saying is that it is not fair to compare Cal to Tori Spelling! hehe!</p>
<p>the_prestige, the title of the thread (before it was renamed) was: the most PRESTIGIOUS colleges in America. I assume you do understand what the word “prestige” means.</p>
<p>Thank goodness this thread was renamed to “RML Rankings”… Alexandre, yes every ranking is biased but that does not mean that we don’t have the right to “bash” it when its so blatantly distorted. I, myself, never make rankings. Some CCers, like Hawkette, makes them but she(or he?) seperates them into individual categories (like SAT scores, Class Rank etc.) and does not combine irrelevant, outdated data to get favourable results. Regardless, CCers trying to make rankings should make it clear that the rankings are their opinions or at the very least, say that the rankings are based on what THEY find important. My problem lies in the fact that some rankings, especially on CC, try to market themselves as objective and the “truth”.</p>
<p>I’ve already explained why it is important to include teaching standard in a ranking that measures prestige. I said schools with superb teaching standard will benefit from the marketing ploy that their very own students would do. Their great experience at their schools will often be shared to other people and that adds up to the schools’ positive reputation. If your school has a lousy teaching standard, you and your classmates will constantly complain about it until the reputation of your school will be devastated. Apparently, you failed to understand that.</p>
<p>Granted, the quality of Berkeley’s undergraduate education leaves a lot to be desired. But comparing the school to Tori Spelling seems excessively harsh. I’d substitute her for someone like Jennifer Aniston.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that you brought up Megan Fox. She’s very overrated not much unlike certain 2nd tier privates.</p>
<p>FWIW, the heart of RML’s argument is that Berkeley should at least not be ranked below the schools immediately above it in the USNWR rankings such as Emory, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame. Now if we’re strictly talking about ACADEMIC prestige (even on the undergrad level), I can’t say that I disagree with him. That said, the so-called “RML Rankings” seem to be a very roundabout way to make this point.</p>
<p>RML uses Gallup poll data. Puleeze. Really, who bothers to take the time to respond to their telephone inquiries? When they or someone like them call me (in a blue moon), I hang up, preferring to watch a TV commercial than waste my time with a survey. Such surveys are not a cross-section of society, only of those who want to be questioned on the phone (likely not executives who would be doing the hiring of graduates of the “prestigous” colleges, er, universities). And one also needs to look at the methodologies of the other rankings carefully. Some rankings value only public service, while other value scientific research, or cost. But, of course, since RML’s ranking “system” generates a number which can easily be ranked (even to decimal places!! How precise!!), it MUST be a valid ranking system, because numbers don’t lie, right? However, it’s GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). So, RML, trying to write a book, or sell your rankings to a publication? Hmmm.</p>
<p>Not only does ghostbuster dislike rankings-related threads, but also he feels the need to tell us, time and again, why and how he dislikes rankings-related threads (esp. by posting in rankings-related threads such as this one).</p>