<p>we can all agree that California has the best state-funded colleges.</p>
<p>I think California has the best concentration of state-funded colleges, but there are certainly other great state schools (UMich Ann Arbor and UVa come to mind.)</p>
<p>Certainly California has the best concentration of state-funded colleges. That is the result of the Master Plan of Higher Education by Clark Kerr.</p>
<p>I think what's stupid is these UCLAers just overly hype their school. They see themselves as Berkeley and we see ourselves as good as HYPS. However, I can readily admit the differences between Cal and Ivies and I can be quick to point out what they excel at. Then we have these UCLA ppl going omfg we're just as good. No. Shut up. I don't ***** on the StanFUrd board.</p>
<p>Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention please.</p>
<p>Above is an example of an Internet troll. Please ignore him. Follow the directions on this site:</p>
<p><a href="http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm%5B/url%5D">http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm</a></p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>SAT and GPA averages and acceptance rates don't state anything about how good the school is. Yes, LA's statistics are close to Berkeley, but Berkeley's academics are by far greater than LA's. Because LA's stats are close to Berkeley, suddenly people are claiming it is just as good as Cal. But it is not. Cal has better academics, professors, and overall repuation around the world.
London Times, ranked Berkeley as the second best University in the world behind Harvard. Cal's academics are comparable to the ivies, but because it is a public school it does not have as large an endowment. But just because some people get into either Cal, or UCLA doesn't mean they are equal or that one is better than the other. Cal is simply better because of the quality of eduation it provides to its students.</p>
<p>The THES London Times rankings are based on research and graduate depts, not undergraduate.</p>
<p>Although I'd argue that Cal offers a better intellectual experience, this notion that there is this huge gap between any of the top 25 schools to me is so incredibly vain...</p>
<p>Comparing SAT and GPA averages says much about the caliber of students which are accepted into each school which in turn CAN say much about the school. Of course, often inference must be used but it is not at all a faulty means to measure a school's quality. </p>
<p>Yet Oreo, you're using Londom Times figures, which are based on research output to draw conclusions about each school and accusing other posters of using faulty statistical indicators? Please. Simply because the Times rankings says Berkeley has a higher degree of research means that somehow, Berkeley academics and professors are better? The correlation between research output and quality of teaching isn't exactly defined. Is the University of California, Riverside a better school with better academics and professors than Amherst College because of its research output?</p>
<p>I still say that arguing the quality/recognition of the top 25, outside of HYPSM is fairly dubious. Let's be honest here...</p>
<p>Ok, what I am about to write is not intended to bash LA in any way but to just provide some insight. Cal and UCLA are both GREAT, I repeat, GREAT schools. However, when it comes to academics, research, and prestige, Cal surpasses UCLA by far. Cal is considered, by far, the power house engineering school of all UC's. Almost while of their departments are ranked in the top 10 while about 50% are ranked in the top 5 in the country. Also, going overseas, most people know of Cal than UCLA. I guess Cal just has an international reputation. If you go to India, where I am from, and mention Cal, most Indian students will equate that school to schools like IIT. Likewise can be said about other countries. The bottom line is that both schools are GREAT, but Cal is just better known worldwide. This might be due to the fact that research is conducted @ Cal to a higher degree than it is at UCLA. For example, I was reading somewhere that 17 CHEMICAL ELEMENTS have been discovered at Cal. This, of course, adds a great prestige to the university. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind attending UCLA for engineering. In fact, if they offered me a greater financial aid package than Cal, I would seriously consider UCLA as an option. We should stop bashing each school because honestly, most Californian kids would DIE to attend any one of those schools.</p>
<p>Hey! What about USC engineering? :)</p>
<p>Dont get me wrong UCLA and Berkeley are great schools. There are plenty of oppertunities coming out of both schools, but when it comes to academics for both undergrad and grad Berkeley is better (more so in grad). Before some people go and cry foul think of this, if I rember correctly Berkeley sends more students to grad school then any other school in the country. This is a tribute of the academic quality of the undergraduate involving both research and education (and since the school is substantially larger then HYPSM). UCLA is a great school, it may be a little stretch to say it is better then Berkeley.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I don't think that I've ever argued that UCLA is better than Cal, just that the light years ahead argument is moot.</p></li>
<li><p>UCLA is conducting as much, if not more, research than Cal today.</p></li>
<li><p>I don't really care about what people abroad have to say about my university. That is a non-issue since my only long-term career goals lie in the US, where of course anyone born post-1919 has at least a passing knowledge of my school.</p></li>
<li><p>Nonetheless, I agree with the Cal sending more people off to grad school. That almost sold me.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>UCLAri, why do you say that THES is for graduate? It doesn't say that anywhere. Don't get me wrong, I don't think any rankings should be believed whole cloth, but I don't understand why everyone has such a problem with these rankings and feel the need to put a disclaimer on them like "they're only for grad." Read the criteria.</p>
<p>I have, and I think that if you look at the weight, research is the biggest focus. Don't get me wrong, I much rather prefer these rankings (they put UCLA at 16th in the US), but I think that the weight placed on faculty/citation is a fair indicator of its focus on graduate quality, since that's where it counts most.</p>
<p>But those faculty citations create a sense of academic excellence that draws brilliant profs., money, the best students, etc. So while it might not be the very best gauge of ug education, it does play a part. I always get annoyed when people assume that grad and undergrad are these seperate entities. They're not. Most of the time they have the same faculty and offices and tend to blend in to the whole university.</p>
<p>They are the same entities. However, you do realize that there are great undergrad programs that have horrible grad programs and vice versa, no?</p>
<p>Not only that, as an undergrad you do not get the same level of attention as a grad student does from profs. I even did a senior thesis, and I had days where I couldn't get my foot in the door because a grad student was hogging the office.</p>
<p>I definitely believe in trickle down rankings to an extent, but unless you plan on doing research, why does a research based dept. matter to you? I think that many LACs offer better educations if you aren't concerned with doing research.</p>
<p>I'm not saying it matters to me personally, I'm saying that it is part of the school's overall academic reputation, which helps in other areas. I don't want to get into this whole argument about what a good grad department does for its undergrad counterpart because we're talking about TTHES rankings, which look at the school as a whole, not just undergrad.</p>
<p>Point taken. I just don't personally believe that these rankings are "better" than the USNews ones per se. I personally don't believe that you can holistically rank any schools...</p>
<p>I didn't say these ranking are better than USNews. Its up to the individual to look at each ranking's methodology and decide what factors are important to them.</p>