<p>
[quote]
Sakky, your deductive resoning is sound. However, once you look at the evidence in their ranking methodology, it's easy to see why they prefer private schools (faculty ratio and alumni contribution).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Everybody seems to always make a big deal about the 'alumni contribution'. Yet in the last rankings (and presumably the upcoming one), that category made up only 5% of the overall ranking. So even if we were to take that category away, how much would Berkeley really move up? 2 or 3 ranking points, at most? That's inconsequential. </p>
<p>And what of 'faculty ratio'? I think this is a perfectly sound category. After all, you are trying to measure the faculty resources available to the students on a per-capita basis. Why is that unreasonable? One of Berkeley's perennial problems is that it tends to have larger class sizes than the private shools do. I know one former Berkeley MCB student who told me that, except for pure lab classes, not once did he ever have a MCB class that was smaller than 50 students. </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. Berkeley graduate students never complain about having to wade through all kinds of giant faceless lecture courses. You never hear of a Berkeley PhD student complaining that he feels like a number. I know one alum who once gushed about how she and all her classmates always had such close contact and close relationships with all of her profs, a discussion which made no sense to me at all until I realized that she was never an undergrad at Berkeley, but rather she was an MBA student at Haas. Then it all made sense - Haas really is quite famous for its tight-knit class and close relationships with students and faculty. </p>
<p>The point is, I believe faculty resources on a per-capita basis are an important metric. If Berkeley refuses to offer such resources for its undergrads, then Berkeley loses points, and ought to lose points. The answer is for Berkeley to provide more resources. While it is true that Berkeley has plenty of undergrad resources, it also has 23 thousand undergrads competing for those resources. The ratios are far more favorable for Berkeley's graduate students, which is why Berkeley's graduate rankings tend to be better. For example, consider that former Berkeley MCB undergrad who never got a non-lab MCB class that was smaller than 50 students. At the same time, I know a Berkeley MCB grad student who said that she never had a Berkeley graduate class that was larger than 20 students. In fact, most of her classes had 10 students or less. Wouldn't it be nice if Berkeley's undergrads had the same level of resources that the grad students had? </p>
<p>Look, my point is this. I don't see any evidence to believe that USNews is systematically biased against Berkeley. After all, if USNews was really biased, then you would expect that Berkeley's USNews undergrad AND grad rankings to be low. It's like accusing somebody of being a racist just because he gives low marks to one minority person, ignoring the fact that he gives other minorities high marks. If somebody is truly a racist, you would expect him to give low marks to ALL minorities.</p>