<p>Here is the methodology used. I don't really know how to describe it, but the rankings seems to primarily measure the quality of the doctorates at the school in terms of their research.
<a href="http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Methodology.htm#Meth1%5B/url%5D">http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Methodology.htm#Meth1</a></p>
<p>If you would do a little research on Washington you would find it has a great faculty with nearly 80 NAS members, in the top 3 in federal research funding, and does well in other major facuty awards and it also has a great campus in a beautiful city. Very underrated as it takes few OOS.</p>
<p>Noone in academia trusts that list. Go to the list of Times Higher education magazine.</p>
<p>Noone believes in the rankings made by some Chinese university over there.</p>
<p>why is UCB always ranked high in world rankings of colleges, yet lower in us rankings of colleges?</p>
<p>Because Usnews has it in for Berkeley!!!!!!!</p>
<p>that university list..simply....sucks!!</p>
<p>Berkeley is only on 20th place in over all college rank
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php</a>
Though Berkeley is one of the most respectful and famous colleges in the world, it has the most amount of Nobel Prize winners. I guess it ranked low just because it's not private school and it doesn't charge up to $50k each year</p>
<p>Berkeley is ranked low because it is not focused on undergrad. It is a graduate school (which also explains the number of Nobel Prize winners).</p>
<p>Then why is Harvard ranked first? If we're talking about focus on UG, shouldn't Dartmouth, or brown be ranked higher?</p>
<p>Berkeley is not focused on undergrad so its undergrad is not that good.
Harvard is not focused on undergrad, but its undergrad is already amazing (the best, next to Princeton). </p>
<p>See the difference?</p>
<p>The methodology for obtaining the ranks is:</p>
<p>Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals - 10%</p>
<p>Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals - 20%</p>
<p>Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories - 20%</p>
<p>Articles published in Nature and Science - 20%</p>
<p>Articles in Science Citation Index-expanded, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index - 20%</p>
<p>Academic performance with respect to the size of an institution - 10%</p>
<p>Wow, interersting logic! So Harvard's ug, although there isn't a focus on it, is just naturally great? While Berkeley's is bad? I can see how you got into a fine school like CMU!</p>
<p>The rankings are based on the prestige of the doctorates who are doing research at the college!!!! It doesn't have anything to do with the prestige of the college itself or whether it focuses on undergrad on grad.</p>
<p>Harvard's ugrad is great because of the quality of student body and post-graduate success. You seem to have trouble following my points. Don't let your bias cloud your judgement. I am only saying Berkeley's ugrad is not as good in comparison to Harvard's. </p>
<p>I base ugrad success off post-graduate data (such as salaries and job opportunities). Obviously we can agree that the avg Harvard ugrad will do better on the market after graduation than the average Berkeley graduate.</p>
<p>Let me refresh you're memory, because who can expect someone to remember what they wrote ten minutes ago. You said, "Berkeley is ranked low because it is not focused on undergrad. It is a graduate school." Which implies that Harvard is ranked high because it does not focus on grad. I've never argued that Harvard won't as a whole offer more opportunities than Berkeley. My point was that Harvard is just as grad focused as Berkeley. You did nothing to refute that.</p>
<p>No, but I see where we miscommunicated. My implication was that if Berkeley had as much strength in Undergrad as it did in Grad, it would rank a lot higher. </p>
<p>My further point concerning Harvard was it could focus on whatever it wanted since it had no trouble opening doors and getting great jobs for its Ugrad students(which is mainly what I focus ugrad success off of).</p>
<p>Well great, but that's not what the conversation was about. You just start writing post that have nothing to do with what is being discussed. BTW, you're not really going out on a limb by claiming that Harvard grads will have a head start on Berkeley grads. It hardly seems worth mentioning.</p>
<p>The success of the graduates from a college has been shown to depend more on the personal characteristics of the individuals than on the college itself. This came out of the Dale & Krueger study that concluded that there is "no significant difference in income between those who had gone to elite schools and those who had been accepted to those schools and had chosen to go elsewhere." It is just that people who are accepted to Harvard are more likely to succeed in life, as measured by income, than those who did not.</p>
<p>Once again, it should be obvious from the stated methodology used to create these rankings that the rankings are based almost entirely on the prestige of the doctorates who are doing research at the college. Whatever.</p>
<p>"You just start writing post that have nothing to do with what is being discussed."</p>
<p>Once again, as I've posted in the other thread, YOU were the one to address MY post on why I thought Berkeley was ranked low. Us News is a ugrad based ranking. I don't see the problem?</p>
<p>I read this thread and it really ****es me off how biased berkeley people are. YOU CAN'T COMPARE TO HARVARD JUST SHUT UP.</p>