<p>First, since I "DIDN"T COMPARE TO HARVARD" I'll assume that you're talking to someone else. Second, you can't really compare any school to harvard. Not duke. Certainly not CMU.</p>
<p>Duke > Berkeley. </p>
<p>Don't be so insecure about your school.</p>
<p>Actually many people have chosen SCS and CFA at CMU over much better schools. Harvard doesn't exactly have a good comp sci foundation.</p>
<p>Since this thread is about Harvard undergrad, I find it funny that it is getting such high marks. The standard complaint about Harvard made by people who would know is that the faculty is more interested in research than teaching. </p>
<p>In a 1999 study by Howard Greene, twenty elite colleges were extensively surveyed and data collected from the students on conditions on campus. As part of this, Greene says: "I asked each Select student to react postitively or negatively to facets of academic life on his or her campus, indicating the one thing about it that came as the biggest surprise. Here are the two most frequently cited sets of responses for each college.</p>
<p>Harvard: intense, challenging, stimulating environment; faculty removed, not good teachers</p>
<p>Yale: faculty accessible, devoted, caring; work not as hard as expected</p>
<p>Princeton: faculty accessible, caring, high quality; a positive competitive atmosphere</p>
<p>Berkeley was not one of the colleges surveyed. The purpose of the study was not to compare colleges but rather to gauge conditions at the elite colleges in general. I found it interesting that a number of the colleges were judged by the student body to be cutthroat while others were judged to have a wonderful learning environment with everyone trying to help everyone else.</p>
<p>Do you go to duke, duke3d4?</p>
<p>Wow that berkeley education sure is paying off.
Duke > CMU > Berkeley. That gonna tick u off more? </p>
<p>Get a life dude and stop trolling for berkeley.</p>
<p>Do you go to duke?</p>
<p>Yea. What of it?</p>
<p>You do? Are you sure you want to stand by that?</p>
<p>yep. aaaaand?</p>
<p>So you've been lying in all your other threads?</p>
<p>Last year I got into CMU and UVA as well as Stern and Duke. What's your point?</p>
<p>I give up. If you feel the need to lie on an internet chat room be my guest.</p>
<p>If you feel the need to troll and yell at people on an internet chat room for ur skool then be my guest. 'least i have fun while u get all mad.</p>
<p>it seems that berkeley ucla and ucsd are higher ranked in almost all rankings, including this one, times higher and atlantic monthly, when compared to us news. interesting.</p>
<p>georgetown in the 200s?</p>
<p>Rutgers (State University of NJ) is ranked higher than Brown.</p>
<p>Just thought I'd point that out. Brown is down in the 80s.</p>
<p>The methodology for obtaining the ranks is:</p>
<p>(1) Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals - 10%
(2) Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals - 20%
(3) Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories - 20%
(4) Articles published in Nature and Science - 20%
(5) Articles in Science Citation Index-expanded, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index - 20%
(6) Academic performance with respect to the size of an institution - 10%</p>
<p>The ranking is based almost entirely on the prestige of the doctorates working at the college. Rutgers is much stronger school than Brown in terms of research.</p>
<p>I don't care how prestige the researches are; if you can't teach, you can't teach. Most of the students have to learn and comprehend before they can appreciate the research of their professors anyway.
UCSD... the UCs in general are so overrated.</p>
<p>UCSD isn't overrated. And are you saying that the professors can't teach at the UCs? I'd argue with that, but I'll wait to see if that's what you're saying.</p>