<p>Not trying to offend anyone here (including you IBbear), but I think IBbear also didn’t really understand the general set-up and functions of large, research-led, multi-faculty universities such as Cal, Michigan and UCLA. I think s/he’s having this idea that Cal must be the same as Dartmouth and if Cal couldn’t be like Dartmouth, Cal wouldn’t be a great school. I think that’s wrong. </p>
<p>The WSJ survey/data disregarded the simple fact that large state universities do run by departments, and so they couldn’t be Dartmouth or WashingtonUSL, etc. WSJ assumed that everyone in Cal (all 25k students) would apply to Harvard Medical School or Chicago Law School or Dartmouth-Tuck business school. And, if they don’t, they must or the academic standard of their school would diminish. I think that’s a really absurd idea.</p>
<p>IPBear: Stop taking over RML’s thread. Jeez…</p>
<p>Just because University of Melbourne has Employer review above Brown doesn’t mean that University of Melbourne cannot be as great as Brown or be comparable on the same level. Different institutions have different strengths. Even though University of Melbourne is not an exact carbon copy of Brown in respects such as prestige, national recognition, legacy, etc. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be equal in some areas.</p>
<p>Both University of Melbourne and Brown are great schools. Rankings should not be thought of as a “zero-sum” game. There are plenty of top A+ students to grab from… The world consist of 6 billion ppl and will swell to 10 billion by 2018… </p>
<p>Ivy equivalent universities are set to grow. Rankings shouldn’t be thought of “If [XYZ] is not in the top 10 the natural order of things cannot be right”… Top 30 will probably be the new Top 10 of tomorrow in terms of university rankings…</p>
<p>middsmith - I agree with IPBear. You are the one who doesn’t get it. Although WSJ, which IPBear obviously support, has it’s problems too, your theory has much bigger problem. You are pretty much assuming Berkeley students are somehow less interested in law compared to Brown students, leading to a much smaller percentage of Berkeley’s graduating class applying to law school. This is definitely not true.</p>
<p>RML - Is it more reasonable to assume breakdowns of students’ interest at various schools are similar? How does this sound: Oh, students at Brown are six times as likely to be interested in law compared students at Berkeley? This seems like what you and middsmith are trying to claim.</p>
<p>Phead128 - From what I understood, IPBear was trying to do is provide evidence to support the fact employer rating was influenced by a school’s graduate programs. IPBear pointed out the fact graduate heavy NYU’s rating (96) is substantially higher than undergrad focused Brown’s (83). This convinces me that the ratings (measuring a schools’ undergrad and grad reputation) the OP allocated 10% to made his/her whole ranking about undergrad institutions even more meaningless.</p>
<p>Having taught SAT in Asia, Australia, and Europe, I can tell you although University of Melbourne and other foreign flagship universities (excluding Oxbridge, LSE, and very few others) are very good research institutions, top students in those countries almost always strive to attend for Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Duke, Oxbridge, LSE, etc. for undergrad.</p>
<p>IPbear - You are wasting your time on this public flagship centric board. You will be overwhelmed simply because there are so many more public flagship grads than Ivy & LAC grads on this board, and in the world. Better stop ■■■■■■■■ this garbage before Alexandre gets on your case.</p>
No, I get it. I’ve taken a class at Cal. I’m going to a mini-Brown school. Trust me, all they do is talk about law schools. Ask kwu.
When I was at Cal, my impression was people just want to graduate and find a job.<br>
I stand behind my assumption.</p>
<p>middsmith - No. I believe I started on this board first. Having someone with a display name so close to mine is annoy sometime, but no offense, IPbear is a cool name too.</p>
<p>“I’m going to a mini-Brown school. Trust me, all they do is talk about law schools.”</p>
<p>middsmith - Don’t assign that characteristic to Brown. I believe Brown is the place where people pursue their own passion and interest, whether it be in law, business, medicine, sciences, engineering, whatever. I have seven friends going there from Stuy, 3 are into sciences (non-premed: 2 bio majors and 1 chem major), 1 is into Arabic, 2 doing pre-med, and just 1 doing history to pursue career in law.</p>
<p>God, people on this board are so sensitive.</p>
<p>“I think IBbear also didn’t really understand the general set-up and functions of large, research-led, multi-faculty universities such as Cal, Michigan and UCLA. I think s/he’s having this idea that Cal must be the same as Dartmouth and if Cal couldn’t be like Dartmouth, Cal wouldn’t be a great school.”</p>
<p>RML - I think you misunderstood me. I never suggested private colleges are better than big public research universities. I think top state flagships (Berkeley, Michigan, etc.) are every bit as good as top private colleges (including quality of students, quality of instruction, quality of facilities, quality of financial aid considering in-state, etc.). What I aimed to point out is that it is wrong to use the grad heavy employer’s rating because it gives the misrepresentation that Berkeley (rated 100) undergrad is so much better than Brown (rated 83) undergrad in eyes of employers. I believe these two schools are equal at the undergrad level; neither is better or worse than the other.</p>
<p>Was there ever any other purpose for this futile and misleading exercise than to invent yet another tool to attempt to elevate Berkeley to a higher category and establish a “superiority” over schools our esteemed friend from Manila does not deem worthy. </p>
<p>However, no matter how hard he’ll massage his data, he will never overcome the unavoidable problem that the student body of Berkeley at the undergraduate level is hardly interchangeable with the schools he so passionately wants to see Berkeley join. This will not change until the day Berkeley decides to truly compete for the best students on a national basis, stops offering very large backdoor entrance to groups of students who could never gain admission at highly selective schools, and addresses its undergraduate educational and resource shortcomings. The “problems” of Berkeley obtaining a higher “rank” or higher recognition does not start with its top 10-25% but with everything below the competitive students, namely the huge number of students who did NOT have much of any choice outside the California public system. </p>
<p>Of course, none of this really matter to the vocal group of Berkeley fanboys who alternate their places in the choir, the audience, or the pulpit.</p>
<p>Those people will never be happy. For them, it is NOT sufficient for Berkeley to be considered the best public university in the country and one of the most prestigious research universities in the world. They want something the school was NOT meant to be … a truly national school of undergraduate excellence.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t know anything about this. I don’t talk to people. I lock myself in my room day and night, and I pray. I pray for your soul. I pray for the souls of all men. May the Heavenly Father have mercy on you when the hour of Judgment draws near, wretched wife.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perfect! A perfect analogy to Berkeley! Suppose there are 20,000 undergraduates at Berkeley. I’m not convinced that a large state flagship that caters to state residents can consistently sustain intellectual power, and cultural and ideological diversity. </p>
<p>Let us say that of the 20,000 undergraduates at Berkeley, 7,500 of them are half-wits. There are only 12,500 undergraduates remaining who have real, substantive potential, that spark of passion and brilliance. </p>
<p>Let’s look at Brown, with about 6,000 undergraduates. Due to its Ivy League affiliation and its nature as a private school with more demanding standards, only 1,200 of those students are half-wits, let’s say. Thus, the 4,800 Brown undergraduates are burdened with the far lighter load of 1,200 prodigals!</p>
<p>Are supporters are Berkeley going to assert that the 12,500 students of promise can compensate for the 7,500 flukes who make little of their education and learn nothing from their experiences? That it can be regarded as one of the best colleges, held in the same regard as Brown, when a very, very significant number of its student body contends for and squanders precious and limited resources?</p>
<p>In the same vein, there are around 800 Stuyvesant students who apply to colleges every year. Yet, only 5 manage to make it into Brown. Are you going to hold it in the same regard as one would hold Hunter, another NYC public school? Where 200 students apply to colleges every year and 7 enroll annually?</p>
<p>Berkeley is a good undergraduate university, yes. But, among the best? A far too generous stretch.</p>
<p>like I said, this is a ranking for undergraduate institutions and the criteria used measure academic institutions (for undergrad), not the strength of the student body. If you want a ranking based on the strength of the student body, our good friend, Hawkette, can provide that better than I do. Alternatively, you can refer to the Selectivity Rank of USNews magazine. They have a comprehensive coverage for that category.</p>
<p>And for the record, I am not saying that the general student body of Berkeley is equal to the best private schools such as HYPSM or even that of the lower ivies. But to judge the school solely on the quality of the student body is a myopic point of view, in my personal opinion.</p>
<p>RML, myopic or not, one should not abandon the notion that students remain central to the core of a … college. Fwiw, it’s not surprising that you prefer to focus on elements that represent a clear departure from the central mission of an undergraduate institution, which remains to select the very best students it can, and provide them the very best education possible. </p>
<p>Like it or not, what people who frequent this forum are interested in discussing is student-centric. It is all about how a school can further THEIR experience and help them reach THEIR potential. </p>
<p>Well, at least people who can keep their petty views and narrow agenda in check.</p>
<p>xiggi, I’m sorry but I cannot agree with you 100%. I think issues such as school PRESTIGE, quality of faculty, opportunities after graduation (Quality of Products) and facilities are just as important, if not more important for some, as Student Quality. I find School Prestige more important for me than student quality. My wife find opportunities after graduation as the most important in college selection. I’m sure for some students, it’s another story. But just the same, one important factor alone won’t singlehandedly make a college number 1. You have to factor in other important factors to come up with a fairer and more acceptable ranking for everybody, not just for yourself.</p>
<p>William & Mary is #1 public for undergrad education. Tufts is way underrated. Figure out a way to rank teaching and you will really have accomplished something. Until then you are just reshuffling a limited deck.</p>
<p>I readjusted the criteria for the category, Quality of Products, to give in to the demands of some posters who are from the PRIVATE schools. The criteria now includes ranking/data of WSJ. The result did not startle me; it only reinforces the fact that there is such as a thing as HYPSM (for undergraduate), Harvard is almost always unbeatable (and number again in this category), Berkeley is a Top 10 US school, Michigan is a top 20 US school and Notre Dame, Emory and Vanderbilt aren’t as superior as Berkeley is. I’m surprised though that Northwestern performed relatively poorly on this category given its superior school prestige, rich alumni and superior student quality. </p>
