<p>World's Best Colleges and Universities: Top 200 - US News and World Report</p>
<p>30 University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) </p>
<p>36 University of California, Berkeley
United States </p>
<p>Undergrad World ranking doesnt lie, right???</p>
<p>provide a link?</p>
<p>that one source is inaccurate</p>
<p>Best</a> Colleges - Education - US News and World Report
National</a> Universities Rankings - Best Colleges - Education - US News and World Report Cal 21, UCLA 25</p>
<p>anon2528462- that’s US college rank my one is "world"ranking…</p>
<p>It is stupidly trying to compare US colleges to international colleges, when our systems are entirely different.</p>
<p>no way, thats crap........ really???? mcgill better than UCLA and Cal??????</p>
<p>Ranking does not show the overall quality of a specific school nor does gauge how strong a specific department is at a specific school.</p>
<p>The difference between the two schools in terms of academics is barely visible. The two schools are alike and are only separated by what, 2-4 ranks? While CAL might be better in certain subjects, UCLA is better in others. They even each other out. </p>
<p>The biggest argument here is : UCLA/CAL > USC :] GO BRUINS! ...and Bears (which composes of Bruins as well)!!!</p>
<p>yayuh go bruins</p>
<p>LOL</p>
<p>The data is from THES. Who reads this crap? It's probably the least reputable of the already disreputable field of university rankings.</p>
<p>The world ranking is crappy. That's usually based on the papers and theories conducted by few renown professors and researchers, not by graduate and undergraduate students. </p>
<p>For example, look at the following links I found few years before
<a href="http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/ARWU2006_Top100.htm%5B/url%5D">http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/ARWU2006_Top100.htm</a> (UCSD> UCLA > UCSF )
[url=<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.national.html%5D%22The">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.national.html]"The</a> Washington Monthly College Rankings" by The Editors<a href="UCSD%20%3E%20Stanford">/url</a>
[url=<a href="http://www.paked.net/higher_education/rankings/times_rankings.htm%5DPaked.net:">http://www.paked.net/higher_education/rankings/times_rankings.htm]Paked.net:</a> World's Top Universities - Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) World University Rankings 2008 - The World's Top Universities<a href="UCLA%20%3E%20Cal">/url</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
The world ranking is crappy. That's usually based on the papers and theories conducted by few renown professors and researchers, not by graduate and undergraduate students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You would rather have the rankings be based on papers and theories by graduate and undergraduate students? That's ridiculous: the vast majority of undergraduate students don't know what they're doing.</p>
<p>As for the rankings you posted, not all the rankings include international universities. For example, the Washington Monthly College Ranking only includes universities from the U.S. In any case, you'd be surprised by how many people take world university rankings. As a case in point, the natural science and engineering academias take ARWU seriously.</p>
<p>....maybe I should have said that it's crappy to relate world ranking to the level of knowledge of undergraduate and graduate students in individual schools. I meant to say they don't rank undergraduates. I mean most of people in this discussion forum are undergraduates looking to transfer, and they shouldn't be looking too much into this kind of ranking. Even if some colleges are higher than others, it doesn't mean they have "smarter" students since the ranking is based on the works of professors.</p>
<p>Child molestation > college rankings</p>
<p>Seriously, to debate that one college ranking is "inaccurate" and the other is "correct" is BS, and completely ignores the fact that "college rankings" are themselves sensationalist tabloids driven by financial incentives and select interests.</p>
<p>Worry about it in April, not now.</p>
<p>while there are certainly ulterior motives behind the rankings and, doubtless, biases of all sorts that go into quantifying a university's worth.. as has been mentioned, most of the results are based on research and professors' publishings... the same researches and professors who are teaching our classes, or if not, whose understudies are teaching classes and/or leading section discussions. that means something to me.. to learn under the top minds in my field of study. </p>
<p>on the other hand, if you've got fundamental problems with academia and how gifted people establish themselves therein (or rather, don't)... like, if you're studying humanities or social sciences, where what's taken seriously is seriously limited by formal conventions and the current swing of things... if that's more your qualm, then yeah, rankings probably aren't a valuable indication of the education you'll likely receive.
again, i personally wouldn't be so quick to rule them out.</p>
<p>Lool. this is so funny, Cal has had always a great reputation. Always been better than UCLA although they do come close. UC Berkeley is ranked #1 public school. Most of the college rankings are inaccurate. The only reason why cal isnt in the top 10 is beecause of all those private schools (e.g. Stanford) and Ivyleagues (e.g. Harvard)</p>
<p>Did anyone actually look at the breakdown of the rankings between the two? UCLA scored higher because of a better student to faculty ratio.</p>
<p>I hear that is one of the first thing an employer asks you. "So, how was the student to faculty ratio at your university? Because if it is low, we are more willing to hire you." O_o</p>
<p>Please look at the rankings as references. Every ranking has its own criteria and that is why rankings differ from different sources but that doesn't mean their methedology is false. </p>
<p>What is most important is that: You can rank the schools that you apply based on your OWN factors. I call that reality check. General factors include:
1. Major availability.
2. Major strength.
3. Cost.
4. Location.
5. Campus life.
6. Campus resources.
7. Professors and courses.
8. Reputation (Ranking from references).
9. Others</p>
<p>You may include all or a combination of these factors to make your own ranking. Also make sure you remember give "importance weight" to each factors. A simple approach would be if you have "N" factors, how would you devide 100 points to these N factors. The one you would put more points in would be the more important factor. </p>
<p>Also, if you really want a scientific approach to personal ranking of something, *"Multi-attribute Utility Decision Analysis" * seems to be the right approach. This topic is taught in MBA and other management graduate program. </p>
<p>Oh 1 more thing: Go Bruinssss!!!! I turned Cal down fro UCLA and graduated at UCLA but hey that is just a personal choice. Again, what is important is your own ranking.</p>