<p>I'm very intrigued by these London Times rankings. I was considering a school in the North east, but I love San Francisco and I see that the University of California San Francisco is ranked all the way up at #11 in the London Times article. Like many high school seniors I sometimes look at these rankings to help refine my college choices.</p>
<p>I'm thinking about double majoring in bio/chem-philosophy. How is the University of San Francisco in bio/chem-philosophy and how selective is their undergrad school? Is it worth trying to get in, or am I just dreaming? I'll pm you my stats if you feel like responding. </p>
<p>Thanks again.</p>
<p>Also, like most high-school seniors I plan on entering the over-seas job market so I am especially sensitive about how US colleges are viewed in places like Spain or Bulgaria. Would UCSF be a good choice for me?</p>
<p>The London Times poll attempts to evaluate reseach and does so quite poorly. None of the 3 national publications that have ranked US undergrad programs display the same ignorance (putting top 200 schools in the top 20). You will not find this same stupidity in the US's three most respected rankings:</p>
<p>Princeton Review (Top 20 Toughest Schools to Get Into) </p>
<p>1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
2 Princeton University
3 California Institute of Technology
4 Yale University
5 Harvard College
6 University of Pennsylvania
7 Stanford University
8 Swarthmore College
9 Duke University
10 Columbia University - Columbia College
11 Georgetown University
12 Brown University
13 Pomona College
14 Amherst College
15 Dartmouth College
16 University of California-Berkeley
17 Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering
18 Harvey Mudd College
19 Emory University
20 University of Virginia</p>
<p>US News</p>
<p>1 Princeton University (NJ)
Harvard University (MA)
3. Yale University (CT)
4. University of Pennsylvania
5. Duke University (NC)
Massachusetts Inst. of Technology
Stanford University (CA)
8. California Institute of Technology
9. Columbia University (NY)
Dartmouth College (NH)
11. Northwestern University (IL)
Washington University in St. Louis
13. Brown University (RI)
14. Cornell University (NY)
Johns Hopkins University (MD)
University of Chicago
17. Rice University (TX)
18. University of Notre Dame (IN)
Vanderbilt University (TN)
20. Emory University (GA)
21. University of California Berkeley<br>
22. Carnegie Mellon University (PA)
University of Michigan Ann Arbor
University of Virginia<br>
25. Georgetown University (DC)</p>
<p>I'm very intrigued by these London Times rankings. I was considering a school in the North east, but I love San Francisco and I see that the University of California San Francisco is ranked all the way up at #11 in the London Times article. Like many high school seniors I sometimes look at these rankings to help refine my college choices.</p>
<p>I'm thinking about double majoring in bio/chem-philosophy. How is the University of San Francisco in bio/chem-philosophy and how selective is their undergrad school? Is it worth trying to get in, or am I just dreaming? I'll pm you my stats if you feel like responding. </p>
<p>Thanks again.</p>
<p>Also, like most high-school seniors I plan on entering the over-seas job market so I am especially sensitive about how US colleges are viewed in places like Spain or Bulgaria. Would UCSF be a good choice for me?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, these rankings are largely ranking graduate international prestige- which are largely based on funding and research. UCSF has one of the premiere medical schools and hospitals in the world(also arguably the most cutthroat). But it only exists at the graduate level with medical, nursing, pharmacy, and dental schools. You can't do better than UCSF if you want to go into the medical field, however they are graduate schools so you would apply to them after college.</p>
<p>pcessly: why would you use PRs ranking of toughest to get in to for ranking best undergrad colleges? thats like saying that admissions % is the only factor that makes a college good... doesnt make any sense, especially considering that PR has a ranking of undergrad schools based on a collection of criteria: "Best overall experience for undergrads"... just because "the toughest to get in to" has more "names" on it.</p>
<p>Obviously, how hard a school is to get into reflects its academics somewhat...There is no denying that. It's not the only factor, but it is a major one; if its that popular, then it's doing something right...</p>
<p>yeah, i agree blackbelt, but we need to be weary of selectivity, there are too many arbitrary factors such as if a college uses commonapp, if, like the UCs, you can apply to all or just one college with the click of a button. Also, things like how good a schools basketball team or football team did have an affect on admissions, but not on how good a school is (For example, NU had its lowest admit rate the year after it went to the rose bowl, just because now more people knew it existed)</p>
<p>I think the PR rankings are good because anyone who reads the whole book can get a feel of what their philosophy towards college is, and then they provide a ranking based on their philosophy. Unlike USNWR which doesnt have a student-based philosophy.</p>
<p>Correct City and Blackbelt!
PR's "Toughest Schools To Get Into" ranking is the best I have seen because it not only contains "hard" data (not derived from surveys) but the criteria is also self adjusting/selecting. For instance, the criteria rewards schools that receive high quality apps and penalizes popular schools that do lots of marketing and receive many unqualified or junk apps. Further, it does not consider yield alone which can be easily manipulated. The PR formula is the most comprehensive there is. It is obviously the product of much experimentation. Moreove, unlike some of these one shot wonders (like nber) it is used by everyone in the business and has withstood the test of time.</p>
<p>"Admissions Selectivity Rating
This rating measures how competitive admissions are at the school. This rating is determined by several institutionally-reported factors, including: the class rank, average standardized test scores, and average high school GPA of entering freshmen; the percentage of students who hail from out-of-state; and the percentage of applicants accepted. By incorporating all these factors, our Admissions Selectivity Rating adjusts for "self-selecting" applicant pools. University of Chicago, for example, has a very high rating, even though it admits a surprisingly large proportion of its applicants. Chicago's applicant pool is self-selecting; that is, nearly all the school's applicants are exceptional students. This rating is given on a scale of 60-99. Please note that if a school has an Admissions Selectivity Rating of 60*, it means that the school did not report to us all of the statistics that go into the rating by our deadline."</p>
<p>It sounds like UMass is pretty HOT in Europe! Look out UMass, the British are coming!!
Im sure many people will be re-thinking their college choices after seeing the MIGHTY London Times rankings, lol!
Maybe next (WooHoo!) Westside will provide us with the view of The Times of Libya...what schools are HOT-HOT-HOT in Libya? I can't wait to find out!</p>
<p>Again, they aren't college rankings. They rank the prestige of the overall academic institution, which relies on its graduate students and professors to publish journals and scientific findings. I know for a fact that UT-Austin is an academia powerhouse and consistently puts out quality findings every year. This can be showcased again in UC-Irvine's political science department as well. Is UC-Irvine considered elite at the undergraduate level? No. But, their political science faculty are among the most well known in the world, and they publish some of the best journals every year. In effect, UC Irvine is seen as one of the foremost prestigious academic institutions when it comes to politics. I've explained this twice, and people still are taking the rankings the wrong way.</p>
<p>Amazingly, The Times of London's rankings weren't meant to be a tool when deciding on a college or starting your college search. Their premise is a foreign concept to us, because we compare them to PR and USNWR which are intended to be tools when choosing a college.
Why don't you ashats read the entire Times of London article, then you'll find out what they're measuring. They weren't being so pretentious as USNWR to be selecting "America's Best College," but were measuring something else.</p>
<p>US News and Report bases the undergrad programs by the level of the graduate programs. So these two lists are comparable.</p>
<p>UCSD is ahead as a result of literally all their finances going to their academia while having none for intercollegiate sports. In addition, they won a grant from the state of California to pursue research in the biology sector (I believe, or some type of research) which UCLA did not win any; therefore, they are slowly gaining prestige.</p>
<p>There are many flaws with the US News and Report ranking methodology academically, but they do give a good sense of how well financed the colleges are. But they are still repected by the corporations and businesses of the world, so you still got to look at them even though they may be misperceived.</p>
<p>trump, what the hell are you talking about, USNWR does not use graduate school rankings to determine undergrad. Otherwise, places like chicago and berkeley would be higher. They list what the criteria for judgment are in the book, and even list how schools did in each of those. Come back when you know what you're talking about.</p>
<p>and probably 20 years later you'll all realize that you were wasting your time talking about rankings that did not make any significant impact in your life and does not matter anymore (other than to fill some thirsty egos)</p>