<p>I’m not telling the OP that finances do not matter. But at what point have we learned that he/she will go into debt?</p>
<p>admissionsgeek, you claimed that graduate engineering programs can’t be used to gauge the quality of undergrduate engineeering programs. Then, when presented with undergrduate engineering rankings, you claim that those don’t mean anything.</p>
<p>seriously, there is no comparison regarding UC Berkeley’s engineering program to Columbia’s…</p>
<p>UC Berkeley’s is in the top 3 in the country and Columbia’s isn’t even in the top 20.</p>
<p>Here’s a way to rank undergraduate programs in specific departments: take the average of the graduate ranking for that dept (which captures the quality of the faculty and the research going on) with the overall undergraduate ranking (which captures the overall undergraduate experience, the quality of the student body, etc). So Columbia is #4 undergrad and #16 graduate (well within the top 20) according to usnews. Berkeley is #22 undergrad and #3 graduate. So if you average them, then Columbia comes out a little ahead. </p>
<p>Of course, you might want to give more weight to grad (dept strength) or undergad (student and education quality), in which case you’ll get different results. See how arbitrary it is? That’s essentially what <em>must</em> happen in per-department undergrad rankings…you just have to pick what factors to weigh over something else. The two factors above are as good as any. At least with the overall grad and undergrad rankings there are some pretty obvious criteria to use (though even those are subject to different weightings and subjective biases also, hence the differences between usnews and other ranking systems).</p>
<p>^^^herenow, why are you using the graduate school USNWR engineering rankings and not the undergraduate school USNWR engineering rankings in your analysis, as has been provided earlier?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought this was clear from my post – that undergraduate rankings in specific departments or areas are very arbitrary. To illustrate that, I gave a way of creating such rankings yourself, just average the grad school rankings (measuring department/area strength) with the overall undergrad rankings (measuring student quality etc). You can then change the weightings of these two main factors yourself. Unless you fully understand how usnews is doing their engineering-specific undergrad rankings and agree with their weightings and judgements, you’d be better off with the more transparent method outlined above.</p>
<p>seriously ladygogo: the two are comparable. if they were not comparable (yet different) students who were admitted to both wouldn’t choose columbia over berkeley many times.</p>
<p>if, for some reason, you could prove to me any of the following metrics, i would concede that berkeley is better than columbia.</p>
<p>1) they admit higher quality engineering students
2) engineers from berkeley have statistically significant advantages over columbia seas undergraduates in career placement.
3) berkeley has a better undergraduate experience for engineers.</p>
<p>all three points or any of them is sufficient to say that berkeley is better. but in the end they are all and each unprovable. indeed any attempt to prove that harvard is the best university in the world is an exercise in reductionism. there are things in the world in which liberty university is the best, but every school has its achilles’ heel. failing to recognize such and to use rankings as absolute truth is lazy.</p>
<p>are you lazy ladygogo?</p>
<p>^^^^geesh, this is sad</p>
<p>very sad</p>
<p>look at the extent that you have gone to compare a reasonably good engineering program that is somewhere in the 20-30 range (Columbia) to what many people consider among the top 3 engineering programs in the world (UC Berkeley)</p>
<p>there is no comparison whatsoever…</p>
<p>unbelievable…</p>
<p>oh, by the way, those Columbia Engineering students are truly brilliant I tell ya. What does it take, a GPA of 3.0 and you are in from a low ranked school?:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-university/1105386-guaranteed-admission-columbia.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-university/1105386-guaranteed-admission-columbia.html</a></p>
<p>USNWR Recruiter Assessment Ranking for Engineering Departments</p>
<ol>
<li>MIT - 4.9/5.0</li>
<li>CalTech - 4.7</li>
<li>Stanford - 4.7</li>
<li>UC Berkeley - 4.6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.</li>
<li>Columbia - 3.7</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>You keep hanging on to these meaningless undergrad engineering rankings. Start with what’s reasonably clear: Columbia is ranked #4 undergraduate. This measures the overall quality of the undergraduate experience and the quality of the students. Columbia’s graduate engineering ranking is at #16. This measures the quality of the faculty and the research they do. So the undergrad engineering program is somewhere between those two. Berkeley suffers from being relatively weak at the undergraduate level with much lower admissions standards.</p>
<p>USNWR undergrad rankings are just as arbitrary. They apply arbitrary weights to stats that schools manipulate.</p>
<p>Besides, Columbia just ranked #4 this year…its a great school, but I can think of others that should be #4.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, all rankings are somewhat arbitrary. But there’s much more agreement and transparency on the general parameters with both the undergrad rankings and the graduate/research rankings. You know pretty much where they come from and can adjust accordingly. The per-department undergrad rankings are much more arbitrary. It’s hard to know what they even mean. That’s why I suggested a weighting of the other two as a much better proxy.</p>
<p>LadyGogo:</p>
<p>So you are refusing to answer my questions. Thanks for letting me know.</p>
<p>And USNWR National Rankings is for the United States (not to be confused with the world rankings they do, which often end up being Anglocentric because of the USNWR partner), it never says it is for all the World. But that is a degree of nuance perhaps lost on you.</p>
<p>And your ignorance about the Combined Plan program is laughable. Not only must one maintain a 3.0, they must also attend a top flight liberal arts school, complete all the pre-engineering requirements, complete major requirements at their school. It means they might need to take summer courses to finish, and must make a reasonable attempt to find courses in computer science or electrical systems that may not be offered at their school. It is so rigorous that many of those that actually enter Columbia end up winning many prizes and awards for their achievements even in a brief stay at Columbia. It is nothing to sneeze at. Oh and great engineering programs like Michigan also have combined plan programs.</p>
<p>^^^^again, Columbia overall is higher ranked than UC Berkeley for undergraduate school.</p>
<p>However, for both undergraduate engineering and graduate engineering, there is absolutely no comparison between these two universities - UC Berkeley is a significant level above Columbia.</p>
<p>explain your logic of incomparability. what metrics are you using? just rankings? is that the limit of your imagination?</p>
<p>USNWR’s graduate and undergraduate engineering specific department rankings use the same methodology.</p>
<p>NAE Members:</p>
<p>Berkeley: 91
Columbia: 16</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, that’s fine – it explains why Berkeley is ranked #3 in graduate engineering and Columbia is #16. On the other hand, look at the statistics of the incoming freshman for undergrad and Columbia comes out way ahead (for sciences, engineering, humanities, anything). So balance those two plus whatever other factors you care about.</p>
<p>Here’s a link to Wall Street Journal’s college rankings. “These schools produced the best graduates in each major, according to recruiters”. Different ordering than USNWR’s list.</p>
<p>[School</a> Rankings by College Major Job Recruiter Top Picks - WSJ.com](<a href=“School Rankings by College Major – Job Recruiter Top Picks - WSJ”>School Rankings by College Major – Job Recruiter Top Picks - WSJ)</p>
<p>Berkeley’s engineering undergrad stats are strong. Learning from top profs who are leaders in their field, the technology hub that is the SF Bay Area, and on-campus recruiting by many top engineering and tech firms should weigh more than scoring a few more points on a 3 hour multiple choice test.</p>