<p>True. First time I see HYPSMC is on this website, and I still don't know all the schools it represents.</p>
<p>harvard, yale, princeton, stanford, mit, caltech - many consider these to be "the best"</p>
<p>So the ongoing consensus is that no one even touches Harvard in terms of prestige?</p>
<p>I would disagree Gabe, but you can continue to live in ignorant bliss that many of your CC comrades enjoy.</p>
<p>well please 4feynman, deliver me from my ignorant bliss by showing me the path towards enlightment:-p</p>
<p>I didn't hear about Cal Tech until last year, when they sent me a brochure</p>
<p>it's no big deal...</p>
<p>
[quote]
seriously whos cares!!!!! UCLAri I suggest you just stop trying, Sakky is known for blabbing on and on until you concede...and Sakky seriously, UCLA is an amazing school and it's bio program is world class just because you're too shallow and apparently believe that a school/program ranked #18-20 isn't a good school/program then fine. The only schools/programs that are good are those ranked in the top 10. You win, happy?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Point to the quote where I specifically said that UCLA was not a good school. Can't do it, can you? All right then. You don't even bother to read what I wrote, so who's the shallow one now? </p>
<p>What is undeniable is that UCLA has a #18 or #20 ranked graduate biology department. You can take that any way you want to take it. But facts are facts. We all have the rights to our own opinions, but we don't have the rights to our own facts. The fact is, UCLA's biology department is ranked 18-20. The fact is, UCLA's biology department is one of its weakest science departments. All the kvetching in the world isn't going to change that fact. Like it or not, it's a fact.</p>
<p>Sakky, the horse is not just dead, it's in 1000s of Elmer's glue bottles. Give it a rest, dude.</p>
<p>We'll see if it's really dead by whether my detractors will come back and, once again, claim that I said things that I never said.</p>
<p>At the great personal risk of being drawn into this brouhaha...these 'facts' that are cited as proof of relative superiority of ANY institution or program are simply statistical compilations of largely subjective opinions. Yes yes we have our hard numbers of ratios and scores that play a part, but when you see most of these 'peer rankings', which are heavily weighted, think popularity contests, not any kind of objective measure of institutional or program quality.<br>
You think the 70% (at best) of the respondents to these surveys really have time to keep track of other institutions' research projects or grant proposals or who is on who's campus recruiting? Get real. </p>
<p>I am not denying there is a relative pecking order in the academic world, but it is not nearly as hard and fast as you are implying. I think the most accurate statement that can be made is to 'follow the money'. Where does the university put its limited resources, what programs are bringing in the bacon in terms of grants and private funding and who is placing its graduates into actual paying positions within industry. If this aligns with your precious list, then great.</p>
<p>Otherwise "peer assessments" are like swimsuit contests. Which I enjoy as much as the next guy, but I'd like a least a dinner and to meet your friends before I propose...</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact is, UCLA's biology department is one of its weakest science departments. All the kvetching in the world isn't going to change that fact. Like it or not, it's a fact.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>God, give it a rest. You seem to have missed the train on the point here:</p>
<p>NOBODY CARES. To the "real world" a slight statistical ranking difference is insignificant and meaningless.</p>
<p>but....but....but....isn't CC the real world?</p>
<p>...hahah</p>
<p><3,</p>
<p>Izzie Bear</p>
<p>And sakky, we're not trying to say things you never said, we just don't want to read your novels.</p>
<p>We're just pointing out a general trend on your part to overemphasize the importance of rankings and your figures and statistical compilations. I mean, I can almost repeat verbatim now the difference in Berkeley undergrad GPA applicants and the mean GPA to top law schools.</p>
<p>And the "detractors" thing...man, way to sound self-important.</p>
<p>I too don't really have a firm understanding of one's need to drag slight gaps in ranking into the ground. Honestly, it's nice to attend a university with some sort of 'wow' factor, but this bubbly feeling should only last until your mid twenties or so. Once it is all said and done, degrees obtained, and college sweatshirts retired, we are no longer appreciated and judged by the sole reason that we attended 'so and so' university. </p>
<p>Of course, go to a university with a department that can challenge and support your academic and life goals, but it's really what you make of yourself in the long run.</p>
<p>Those who really know a thing or two about life won't pay attention to comments that seem to overstress the need to base your entire academic future on numbers alone.</p>
<p><3,</p>
<p>Izzie Bear</p>
<p>Continuing that line of thought, I want to say that of course I agree that you should go to the best department in the country that you get into.</p>
<p>But is the best department always the highest ranked? Not really. It oftentimes is, but remember that in the middle of some top 15 or top 25 department there may be some star professor who wants to be your advisor, and then you have a great reason to go there.</p>
<p>And yes sakky, we know that you're saying that the department is weaker than others. We know exactly what you're saying. We're just saying that you're missing the point that the rankings are being overvalued in your argument. You can't just compare biology rankings with chemistry rankings and expect to have a good argument. It would be like me as a political scientist comparing coalition building in a parliamentary system and a presidential system and not bothering to account for the fact that there may be different factors affecting both's coalition process.</p>
<p>And me saying "amongst thousands" when it's really hundreds isn't hyperbole, it's just laziness. </p>
<p>I just had to get that out there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
God, give it a rest. You seem to have missed the train on the point here:</p>
<p>NOBODY CARES. To the "real world" a slight statistical ranking difference is insignificant and meaningless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, obviously YOU CARE! That's right - YOU CARE!. Think about it. If you ** really ** didn't care, then you wouldn't be responding to my posts, isn't that right? Allright then. Can't get out of that one, now can you? It's quite ironic that you managed to disprove your own post with your own post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
we're not trying to say things you never said
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? And what was this old post of yours? </p>
<p>
[quote]
You're trying to show that UCLA's biology department is somehow deficient based on the fact that it's ranked in the TOP 25 departments nationwide. TOP 25 is the key phrase here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's what YOU said I was trying to do. You said that I was trying to show the biology department was somehow deficient. I am still waiting for you to show me my quote where I specifically said that the UCLA biology department was somehow deficient. </p>
<p>So tell me again about how you're not trying to put words in my mouth? </p>
<p>Let's not forget who started insults first. After all, tell me how the following quote of yours was in any way appropriate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you have much else that you do for fun besides peruse rankings of universities? My God, you need a new hobby.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Tell me how that above quote of yours added to the discussion. That seems to me to be nothing more than a flame. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And the "detractors" thing...man, way to sound self-important
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what are you, if not my detractor? You put words in my mouth, you go around flaming me, and then you're peeved that I would dare to call you a 'detractor'. Yet that is what you are, like it or not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
...we just don't want to read your novels
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then don't read them. Nobody has a gun to your head. If you don't want to read them, then do us both a favor and don't read them. But if you are going to read them, then read them carefully, so you know what I actually said. That is, if you even care to know what I actually said and aren't just looking for a way to put words in my mouth again. </p>
<p>
[quote]
We're just saying that you're missing the point that the rankings are being overvalued in your argument.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? And pray tell, what is my argument, exactly? Apparently you either don't know what my 'argument' is, or more likely, that you don't *want * to know what it is. As I have said many times, my 'argument' (if you want to call it that) is that UCLA's biology department is not one of its strongest departments. UCLA's biology department is relatively weak compared to its other departments. Nothing more, nothing less. Any attempts to jury-rig anything more to 'my argument' is just another attempt by my detractors (yeah, that's right) to claim that I said things I never said.</p>
<p>I never said that there is a strong delineation between small ranking deltas. I never said that rankings were omnipotent. I never said that you should use rankings and nothing else. I never said any of these things.</p>
<p>Fine, fine. </p>
<p>I just don't care anymore. I have better things to do with my time. Like stick needles in my eyes. </p>
<p>You really really need to understand that you're reading into this way way too much. Are you always this serious and sensitive?</p>
<p>I don't care though, this thread is off my radar.</p>
<p>Give it all a rest. We all know UCLA isn't as super-duper prestigious as these UC-o-philes make it out to be. There's no need to have extended arguments about that. Some people even stated that they never heard of UCLA and Berkeley in their entire lives. I guess that just goes to show how biased these Californians are about their local schools. The only schools in California worth mentioning in the same sentence as Harvard, Yale, and MIT are Stanford and Caltech. Every other school is too regional and nobody outside California gives a hoot.</p>
<p>I wouldn't put yale in the mix with the other schools you mentioned, it only cheapens the greatness of Harvard, MIT, Caltech and the like. Yale was once a good school, but now they'll let anyone in and they live soley on the reputation that they once had.</p>