<p>to argue that better means four crummy rating points (42 vs. 38) 2008 rankings) is splitting the smallest of hairs… almost as absurd as arguing between Irvine, Santa Barbara and Davis…all within two points of each other. Or arguing between Berkeley and UCLA for undergrad.</p>
<p>Within wide groupings, the issue is much more one of strength in a major, social opportunities, and the geography.</p>
<p>I completely agree with the above poster – UCSD is slightly higher ranked in USNWR (and also significantly higher in the NRC Ph.D. rankings), but when does the location, social scene, and athletics tip the choice in favor of UCSB? Strictly a person decision that has nothing to do with a person being “out of their miind”.</p>
<p>And that is exactly the problem with being better “overall”. There is no such thing as “overall”. I am not “overall”, I am me. Each one is he/she, not “overall”. “Overall” is an irrelevance, an aggregation of weighted values of criteria which mostly are irrelevant to an individual.</p>
<p>I would bet that if you polled the people who were admitted to both UCSD and UCSB, the two schools would split rather evenly on which the admittee chose to attend (based on their <em>own</em> set of weighted criteria, not those of USNWR.) I attended Stanford and UCLA, each for its own set of reasons. If I were applying today, between UCSB and UCSD, I would choose UCSB in a heartbeat.</p>