<p>
Lackluster?! It’s just a larger student body compared to the smaller elite privates. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, expand most elite private undergrad student bodies to Berkeley’s size and I doubt the schools would be able to maintain those higher academic averages.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh yes, you DO! Emory and Vanderbilt are ranked among the best twenty schools in the country by USNews. And that is their crime as you consider such honor to belong to Berkeley. Wasn’t made very clear in the thread that asked to rerank the top twenty schools and you could not wait to add Berkeley! </p>
<p>Whom do you think you’re kidding?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some university professors and university presidents do know what they are talking about and might even respond to surveys with knowledge and integrity. There are plenty of examples and recent scandals that clearly show that the surveys submitted to USNews are not necessarily filled by people who share such positive traits. Liars and manipulators are hardly absent from the PA surveys, and neither are they from this forum. </p>
<p>As far as RML, is there any question in which category the man with hundreds of fantastic tales but one obsession does fall?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does the research quoted in the link <a href=“http://mup.asu.edu/research2008.pdf[/url]”>http://mup.asu.edu/research2008.pdf</a> measure the best universities for undergraduate in America? </p>
<p>Undergraduate? Didn’t The Center for Measuring University Performance determines the Top American Research Universities by their rank on nine different measures: Total Research, Federal Research, Endowment Assets, Annual Giving, National Academy Members, Faculty Awards, Doctorates Granted, Postdoctoral Appointees, and SAT/ACT range.</p>
<p>
In fairness, they are probably about as prevalent as those supplying data to USNews on “objective” data such as average SAT scores, class sizes and financial resources rank.
:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that were true, should we not agree to expose all the liars and manipulators? Should we not request the administrators who pretend to fill and sign the survey with a modicum of knowledge and integrity to face penalties for lying about their role? </p>
<p>Lying is lying. Playing games (as several officials were caught doing) could be easily eliminated by making the entire surveys public. Although far from perfect, it should be noted that it is easier to compare objective data as many numbers have to be reported to the government. Subjective surveys such as the PA are complete free-for-all that allow for blatant manipulation and total lack of penalties, except for the very rare public embarrassment that follows being caught red-hand a la Clemson.</p>
<p>A survey of people with knowledge and integrity? We wish!</p>
<p>^ xiggi, PA is based on subjective opinion. There is no right or wrong answer. Sure some PA submitters have agendas and may strategically try to manipulate the outcome. However, USNews says they address this issue. Calling someone a liar because their opinion doesn’t match yours is borderline libelous.</p>
<p>
Submitting false data for some magazine’s silly ranking doesn’t compare to filing a tax return.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those criteria are suitable to no one.</p>
<p>Consider two colleges. One has 15 undergraduate researchers. The other has 5,000. Both spend 100k on research.</p>
<p>The Washington Monthly would do nothing to distinguish between those schools.</p>
<p>It’s clearly trash; there’s really no debate here.</p>
<p>xiggi, take it as what it is. You can rant all you want but the truth will remain that when you combine all the 4 major league tables for undergraduate schools in America, Berkeley would easily outrank those schools that you so much idolized! </p>
<p>Again, this is not my ranking. I’m just the “tabulator”. So don’t put the blame on me. Ha ha!</p>
<p>I still am baffled for why the list stops at Wake at 33.</p>
<p>When you publish something you are responsible for the validity of your methodology. This in fact is YOUR ranking. Your methodology was to combine 4 specific lists. You are responsible for the list because you chose the methodology. Your list does not carry the legitimacy of the sources it references because it is you who created the methodology that created the list. The list is only your own.</p>
<p>(I repeat myself for kicks)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, so what are you saying now? That because the title didn’t mention the word, “undergraduate” so the ranking isn’t for undergraduate?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry; but it’s a lot of work to do that. So I decided to stop at number 33 (based on UNSews ranking for undergraduate.) I could have continued, but I have this feeling that the top 33 would remain the top 33 no matter what, or there will only be minor changes starting from schools ranked at number 30 and onwards.</p>
<p>“Oh, so what are you saying now? That because the title didn’t mention the word, “undergraduate” so the ranking isn’t for undergraduate?”</p>
<p>The ranking isn’t for undergraduate. UCSF is number 52 on the list and doesn’t have any undergraduate students. It is solely dedicated to graduate education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you keep calling rankings “league tables”??</p>
<p>And why does USNews get five question marks and I only get one?</p>
<p>RML,
Your tabulations are inaccurate and you methodology is completely unsound as you combine apples and oranges and pears. Some of these explicitly measure undergrad; some do not. Some rank by classification (National University, LAC); some do not. Some have embedded subjective opinions; some do not. And some measure things that makes one wonder what they have to do with college.</p>
<p>Re the Research rankings, are you aware that well less than 10% of collegiate research spending is done in non-engineering, non-science fields and yet 80-90% of undergraduate students in America study in these fields? I’m not saying that the research data is bad, but it doesn’t have much direct undergraduate relevance unless one is interested in a career in academia doing technical research. It certainly has no place in a ranking of “best” undergraduate colleges. </p>
<p>Anyway, re an Undergraduate ranking, I suggest that you try to find information and data related to metrics that actually matter to most undergraduates, eg,</p>
<ol>
<li> the teaching skill of the faculty and an average student’s access to them</li>
<li> the quality of your peers and how this can help you in your undergraduate learning and contribute to a beneficial post-graduate network</li>
<li> how interesting and good is the life you have in your 150+ hours per week spent outside of the classroom</li>
<li> how good are your postgraduate job opportunities, when measured on a national scale</li>
<li> how much support does the institution commit to serve undergraduates, eg, via financial aid or academic advising or career placement services or even providing sufficient offerings of classes so that one can finish on time in 4 years.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>I’m sure that UC Berkeley will do just fine on these measurements as well and goodness knows that the information would a heckuva lot more useful to the prospective student.</p>
<p>INDEED! These silly rankings are feeding the Las Vegas Gambling Addicts…or carp in the pond…its insidious. What difference does it make? NONE. If it matters to you whether your school is number 25 or 33, then I am afraid you are lost before you graduate. </p>
<p>I know of PLENTY of second and third tier schools that are fabulous and not only profess what they do in glossy brochures and mission statements, but actually DO IT. </p>
<p>Whether you go to Harvard or Sweet Briar really doesnt matter in the long term. If you do well you can get into medical school, law school, graduate school or start your career, or simply become a better human being than when you graduated from high school. </p>
<p>If I were President, I would ask Congress for a statute that prohibited these insidious rankings. Of course, that would never happen because its a First Amendment issue, and it enhances USNWR revenues substantially and they have a lobby in Congress and I would never run for public office because I know better.</p>
<p>But you get the point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, I could be wrong, but aren’t you referring the the PA of the USNWR? The very same “league table” you don’t like because they place Emory and Vandy above UCB when taking other elements into consideration than just prestige??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>RML, I would not have to “rant” so much if you did not make such relentless efforts to manipulate and misrepresenting data for the sole purpose of elevating one school and satisfy your obsession with Berkeley. </p>
<p>Speaking about truth --and interesting choice for you-- there is not an ounce of truth in your statement about “all the 4 major league tables for undergraduate schools in America.” The “tables” you compiled hardly represent “all the 4 major league tables for undergraduate schools in America” and it is your definition that is entirely misleading. </p>
<p>The truth is that you are using a ranking of research universities that does hardly define undergraduate, and two studies with highly questionable methodologies and laughable results.</p>
<p>I acknowledge the Washington Monthly is a pretty weird ranking.
But in fairness, it should be pointed out that 3 of the 5 metrics comprising the “research” ranking are adjusted for school size. The Bachelors-to-PhD score number is adjusted per capita; faculty awards are adjusted per capita; National Academy membership is adjusted per capita.</p>
<p>The magazine has commented on this issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a ranking that focuses on “outcomes”, ones that especially interest the editors of Washington Monthly magazine. In choosing a college, of course, most people are more interested in what will make them competitive than in what is keeping America competitive.</p>
<p>^^ Exactly. I could poll twenty people on the street and claim to be a “tabulator” of data. That doesn’t mean that data is worth considering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But a school cranking out PhDs is not better than another school cranking out PhDs at the same rate. Rewarding a school for its size is a totally useless measure. I mean, it has literally no significance or bearing on the quality of the school.</p>