<p>UCLA still has a better world rep. than U$C</p>
<p>Of course we do... we've earned it. We didn't just throw money at it.</p>
<p>well we just finished fundraising like $3 billion dollars. so perhaps the effect of that money will be felt in the near-future. </p>
<p>then again, ucla administrators were never big fans of the rankings. for example, they could've stocked up on scholarship money to attract top students instead of building 3 new dorms and renovating 4 old ones (all of which wont mean a thing in terms of rankings). but i think the latter will benefit more students.</p>
<p>but a good ranking "can" benefit even more students in a different way.</p>
<p>Yep, these are the real rankings. I'm the one who originally posted them- I bought the new edition at Barnes and Noble. Here's a link to a scanned image:</p>
<p>i doubt the reality of either lists, because they wont be launched untill, august 18th, check out this link:</p>
<p>Yes, but apparently some Barnes and Noble employee didn't know that and put them out early, since I have the rankings sitting right here in front of me. Here are some scanned images:</p>
<p>Can't you take like clearer pictures? Those are kind of hard to read.</p>
<p>jesus christ just wait two more days</p>
<p>I honestly don't get this bias towards "buying" one's way in the rankings. Crazy as it may sound, money drives higher education. Why is Harvard so much better than all of us? Because it's endowment is in the twenties of billions -- enough to fund the very best research facilities and tenure the very best professors, both of whom attract the very best students. The ivory tower is not exempt from the workings of free market economics.</p>
<p>Consider: In the first half of Stanford's existence, it played second-fiddle to Berkeley which benefitted from both California funding as well as the Hearst family (until the 60's when Stanford raised loads of money). Funny how people don't accuse Stanford of "buying" its prestige. NYU also used to be a pure commuter school until a capital campaign in the early 90's.</p>
<p>USC recently completed what was the largest fundraising drive ever in the history of higher education and is now just seeing the fruits of that. It's able to not only able to attract the best students with hefty scholarships but its funding the construction of 30 (including housing too) buildings. Rest assured, UCLA just capped off an even bigger capital campaign so who knows what may happen rankingswise when those funds are applied. </p>
<p>Assuming of course, UCLA decides to spend it on building itself academically rather than gymnasium additions.</p>
<p>My frustration with Campaign UCLA is that it was completed right as the current chancellor departed, guaranteeing that a long bureaucratic process lies ahead. The UCLA community has to wait for an academic year before Carnesale's permanent replacement takes the reins, and then another year (or more) before he/she announces how these assets might be invested (hopefully to prevent more UCLA faculty from being lured away by WUStL and Michigan)... In the meantime, we can only cross our fingers that US News revamps its criteria to acknowledge public merits (like the Washington Monthly's "College Guide" or Newsweek's "25 New Ivies" and "100 Global Universities", all three of which conspicuously lauded the UC system) and that USC doesn't rise another two spots during UCLA's temporary vulnerability... it would be unthinkable. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>It makes no sense to me why Carnesale left. I'm assuming he helmed Campaign UCLA or at least was responsible for the majority of it... and then right at the culmination of this great success, but before he gets to put everything in place, he leaves? What odd timing.</p>
<p>right on themegastud, money is the driving force in rankings, students and techers are fickle they will go to wherever they have better opportunities, more money, more research stuff, better professors, more demand more students, UC's aren't that bad and would be comparable to top private institutions, if they didn't have an undergrad student body of about 48000 people , but then again, it is a state school and it has to meet the demand of the state that is why all the UC's have a huge student body, which makes research and other opportunities, very hard to get................</p>
<p>UCLA gets about 3 billion dollars, which comes to about $61000, per undergrad student, i am not even including grad at this point which will lower it quite a few notches............</p>
<p>compared to harvard's 25 billion for 10 k students, which comes out to 2.5 million per undergrad student................</p>
<p>you can do that with others and see if the rankings generated by this method are comparable to USNEWS's rankings.............</p>
<p>u guys have to stop comparing UCLA with privates...one of the charms of schools like Cal, UCLA etc. is the quality of education you receive for the money you pay. How many people can afford harvard?</p>
<p>And you have to stop assuming that people at public schools pay less than private counterparts. While yes, the majority of students who go to a public school have a lower tuition bill than those at private schools, one of the pro's of deep pockets is the ability to give out hefty need-based aid in addition to hefty merit-aid which supposedly "buys" students. In theory, if a school like USC or Harvard determines one student's financial need to be greater than the difference between UCLA tution and USC/Harvard tuition, it is then cheaper for them to attend USC/Harvard over UCLA as 100% of their financial need will be met. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong: UCLA's an amazing school at an amazing price. But for many more people than you would think, USC (and other privates) are better financial options. Especially considering the more wealthy private schools commit to meeting 100% of demonstrated need and public's do not... even though the difference in their cases is smaller.</p>
<p>
[quote]
which supposedly "buys" students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha supposedly. As if it it's only "supposed." But like you said, for some students, it's cheaper to attend certain private schools than certain public schools. Then again, some publics give full-rides to top students in certain states based on merit (and sometimes also need).</p>
<p>i m not comparing, i am just talking about the rankings in general............ besides like themegastud said...... the tuition isn't much different, people can get a lot of fin aid at privates too........ beside harvard is free to people whose families earn less than 60k per year, but that student would have to pay at least 5k out of his pocket for a UC because thats how much the efc wwuld be around, and the grants still wont cover the whole tuition, i was stuck with having to pay 9k after efc and grants, they offered me loans and work study, luckily GMS covered that................... yeah privates can turn out to be cheaper in several cases................unless you are hella rich and instate and don't get any grants and stuff.............</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you have to stop assuming that people at public schools pay less than private counterparts. While yes, the majority of students who go to a public school have a lower tuition bill than those at private schools, one of the pro's of deep pockets is the ability to give out hefty need-based aid in addition to hefty merit-aid which supposedly "buys" students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i understand your point, but like you said, this case is not for the majority of students accepted into private schools. if this were the case, everyone would start going to privates and the news would be out about how privates actually cost less than publics since they're shelling out all this aid from their deep pockets. in reality, for the general college population, the publics are still more cost-friendly than the privates.</p>
<p>Indeed. I am by no means rich (my dad is a carpenter) and yet I got pretty much 0 (well, around 2000 dollars) in financial aid to a few of the ivies and other private schools, so I don't think it's fair to say that yeah, for a large number of students, private schools are a better deal because, like kfc4u said, why would we even need public schools? It may be cheaper for a certain amount, but the vast majority (especially the middle class) would find cheaper education at a public school.</p>
<p>for middle class the publics are still a better bargain</p>