<p>"You are not a student at UCD and you are not qualified to speak about it in the same way as those of us who actually live here and go to school here"</p>
<p>voiceofreason remember THAT the next time you try to say something negative about UCI since you don't go HERE.</p>
<p>I imagine that UCI students are not replying to this thread because this topic has been beat to death. However, I agree with WorriedStudent's responses and wholeheartedly thank you for them.</p>
<p>If there are any specific questions about UCI, please ask away.</p>
<p>Just wondering... is there any students from UCD on this board that wishes voiceofreason to STOP speaking for their school? I certainly would if I were a student at UCD.</p>
<p>"The fall in rankings has been beaten to death. There was a misreporting to USNews regarding the number of professors with PHD's which caused the sudden slip. This same thing happend to UCSB awhile back and it takes several years to recover. UCSB and UCD are tied in the ranking BTW dude."</p>
<p>Take note of how UCD students defend their school without ever questioning the validity of the OP's claim.</p>
<p>I think a healthy dose of school spirit is great, but aggressive false advertising of schools to prospective students is wrong. This forum is supposed to provide useful information for graduating seniors so they can choose where they want to go for the next four years. This is obviously difficult to do with false and biased information.</p>
<p>I never posted anything in that thread (self)Righteous don't brush with such a broad sweep.</p>
<p>Actually there was a mistake in the rankings and it does take a couple of years to recover. How is that not factual? UCD is not back where it was, but if you look at the rankings while the other UC's slipped Davis moved up.</p>
<p>"I never posted anything in that thread (self)Righteous don't brush with such a broad sweep."</p>
<p>No? What's that I see on the bottom of page 2, Voiceof(lackof)reason?</p>
<p>"Actually there was a mistake in the rankings and it does take a couple of years to recover. How is that not factual? UCD is not back where it was, but if you look at the rankings while the other UC's slipped Davis moved up."</p>
<p>Because that's a speculation. A poorly formulated one at that. U.S. News rankings have objective categories and since the misreported section was objective, shouldn't that have restored UCD's ranking in 2007?</p>
<p>And what is this illogical reasoning that you're using? You can't simply prove your case by one incidence. If you want to prove your point, specify another situation where a school dropped 8 spots in a year and slowly regained it. This proves that it in fact takes time for a school to regain its rank. If you can't, you're just using another poorly conceived speculation to prove your point without any facts.</p>
<p>"Because that's a speculation. A poorly formulated one at that. U.S. News rankings have objective categories and since the misreported section was objective, shouldn't that have restored UCD's ranking in 2007?"</p>
<p>Actually it happened to UCSB a few years back. It took a while for them to move back up. Your other point is pretty illogical. Naturally if all things remained the same than UCD would have regained its former spot, but a year later, all things naturally do not remain the same. Look at how the other UC schools slipped. Davis moved up though not completely back to its former position.</p>
<p>"
Actually it happened to UCSB a few years back. It took a while for them to move back up. Your other point is pretty illogical. Naturally if all things remained the same than UCD would have regained its former spot, but a year later, all things naturally do not remain the same. Look at how the other UC schools slipped. Davis moved up though not completely back to its former position."</p>
<p>Proof of this happening to UCSB? Link?
How observant, does that prove your point? No. You claim that UCD was ranked higher than UCI before the mistake. Now that the mistake has been fixed, why isn't UCD ranked higher than UCI once again? The observation that other UC's have slipped a spot or two still doesn't explain why UCD hasn't regained it's place. And if you attempt to explain that with your theory of "it takes time to regain its original rank," that's called circular reasoning. So, prove your point.</p>
<p>"A thing called negative momentum happens when a schools ranking slips."</p>
<p>Is this another one of your speculations? If not, state your sources that this actually applies in college rankings, since this is mostly observed in other areas of study.</p>
<p>Since you are using the same argument that the misreporting of data caused UCD to slip below UCI in 2006 as CE Man stated below:</p>
<p>"Here is the reason why in the previous ranking cycle, UC Davis was the 4th highest ranked UC, behind UCB, UCLA, and UCSD, respectively, but dropped a few slots for the current cycle. It was due to a reporting error."</p>
<p>It is therefore the claim that UCD was ranked higher than UCI. Without such claim, your argument of misreporting of faculty resources to account for the 47th rank in 2007 is essentially pointless.</p>
<p>"Are you claiming all schools remained static over a one year period?"</p>
<p>No, I am not. It's obvious they don't stay the same. Even then, UCD should have moved up a few spots if the misreporting of faculty resources isn't the only variable in the sudden drop of its rankings. But since you've brought up the point that schools don't remain the same, it's only obvious what happened. UCD dropped 8 spots in a year because of a mistake. In next year's ranking, it did not regain its ranking, thus sometime within this one year period, UCD has changed so that it is indeed rightfully ranked at number 47.</p>
<p>TheRighteous you leave out that students and parents see those rankings and think there must be a problem for a school to drop so much. This has the effect of negative momentum which must then be turned around. Things don't occur inside of a bubble.</p>
<p>Voiceofreason- you should stop while you’re behind. You are giving your school a bad name.</p>
<p>Like I said in one of my earlier posts, both are good schools and it’s a matter of preference regarding which one is better. I prefer UCI, that’s my opinion. I would have applied to both UCI and UCD, if I had a better GPA in high school.</p>
<p>To the original poster, visit both schools. You’ll know which one is a better fit for you when you interact with the students and walk around campus.</p>
<p>"TheRighteous you leave out that students and parents see those rankings and think there must be a problem for a school to drop so much. This has the effect of negative momentum which must then be turned around. Things don't occur inside of a bubble."</p>
<p>Please explain in what context of negative momentum you are using or else it's completely meaningless since it's not a phenomenon observed in college rankings.</p>
<p>But from what I'm understanding:
If UCD slowly gains back its ranking, doesn't that perpetuate the negative momentum even more? Users of the rankings would see that UCD's ranking dropped drastically but did not regain it at the same rate, hence concluding that there is in fact something wrong with the school. One would think that U.S. News would want to quickly correct this misconception of the school (if indeed it was caused by what you claim as a mistake in reporting), but yet you are offering the theory that U.S. News does not want to do that and wants to have UCD slowly regain its rank back. So, are you saying that U.S. News is only biased against UCD?</p>