<p>I know you didn't. I think we're going in circles, however.</p>
<p>My beef is just with this whole rankings game to begin with. It seems to me that once we get to the top 25 (HYPSM excluded), the notion of one of the universities being dramatically better than another is fairly moot.</p>
<p>^ Actually UCLAri, THES rankings are NOT based on JUST graduate rankings.</p>
<p>They also take into account the undergraduate department through two ways. The student faculty ratio, as well as research of both graduate and undergraduate professors at the school. (even Nobel prize winning professors must teach undergraduate courses, usually upper division ones) Also the makeup of the student body is also taken into account, and universities like Berkeley has a much greater undergradaute student body vs. the graduate student body. </p>
<p>Overall, I don't want to really argue about which school is better UCLA or UCB. I just wanted to point out that THES London Times ranking is for OVERALL Universities, not just graduate or undergraduate, but the ENTIRE UNIVERSITY.</p>
<p>The future of the entire state of California rests on Berkeley and UCLA agreeing on what is best for California. Lets start there, and once we succeed, both of our schools will naturally rise to the top on its own.</p>
<p>I suppose, but I just don't see how research isn't the main component when the research giants are dominating...</p>
<p>I may be entirely wrong here, however. I need to look into it more.</p>