<p>hehe</p>
<p>"Sushi mochi goodasai" :rolleyes:</p>
<p>dude shut up.
I'm not Japanese....</p>
<p>who cares.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it is China's Newsweek and World Report
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This statement is wrong both in China and US. It is pretty much the Chinese version of London Times ranking, and there is no such thing called Newsweek and World Report in US:) China has another ranking focusing on domestic universities, which is the counterpart of USNEWS ranking, and the de facto bible for high school students. In that ranking, Tsinghua University is perenially No. 1 over Peking University.</p>
<p>Another fact is, the educated people in east Asia CAN and DO understand the difference between undergraduate colleges and graduate schools. To say Berkeley, Michigan and UCLA are held high regard is only true for grad school and their research program. But it is Harvard and ivies that can put high school students on news paper and TV when they get into. Certainly some names of US universities are not familar to those laymen and undereducated general public, but if you want to listen to them, more power to you;)</p>
<p>Saying Asian are just thinking highly of some schools without getting the facts in the way, is practically an insult to the people there, at least to their intelligence.</p>
<p>Well put. </p>
<p>Perhaps "maki" instead of "sushi"?</p>
<p>"arigato gozai matzu" :rolleyes:</p>
<p>QW553,</p>
<p>If research and graduate programs aren't of interest in many of these cases, why do the rankings coming out of Asia almost always have a research focus then? I mean, UCSF is constantly listed in many rankings, yet it has no undergraduate program!</p>
<p>The rest of your paragraph, however, is nigh unreadable. Please rephrase it.</p>
<p>QW553: I'll ignore your first paragraph. It would be childish to continue that argument.</p>
<p>"Another fact is, the educated people in east Asia CAN and DO understand the difference between undergraduate colleges and graduate schools."</p>
<p>who said they couldn't/didn't? If you mean to say that sjtu only ranked grad schools and that I implied the Chinese people confuse those grad schools with colleges, then you are wrong. First, take a look at its methodology. Nowhere on there does it say that they only include citations and merit earned by the graduate school. Yes, the ranking is for undergraduate colleges AND graduate schools- to be exact, it gives those schools that have a undergrad/grad program and more research an advantage. In my humble opinion, the inclusion of and undergrad + grad program and the availability of research contribute to a better school. No, a school does not become better schools when, as you “well put” it, “put high school students on news paper and TV when they get into.”</p>
<p>Perhaps, be clearer next time.</p>
<p>“Saying Asian are just thinking highly of some schools without getting the facts in the way, is practically an insult to the people there, at least to their intelligence.”</p>
<p>Oh, wow. I myself am Asian. I am from “there” and most certainly have not insulted the people there. Buddy, I dunno what YOUR facts are, but the schools that are ranked high on sjtu’s ranking are actually pretty good. You must understand, there is no ultimate way of measuring a school, although it would be an insult to measure a school by how frequently it “put high school students on news paper and TV when they get into.” USNews’s and sjtu’s rankings are only tools for reference. A tool can only be useful if you know what it is. For that reason, I believe sjtu’s rankings could be more beneficial (not necessarily accurate), since it actually publishes its methodology so that we can understand why the universities at the top are at the top. For all we know, USNews could be configuring their formula of “retention rates” and “amt of scholarhip given” so that their ranking remains in the bounds of popular thought rather than being MORE reflective of top schools. </p>
<p>Oh, and try to browse through Shrunk and White's Elements of Style, unless if your reading is worse than your writing. Sorry, I had to be a bit of an ass.</p>
<p>alright, so the rankings for 2007 are posted. And I correct my claim that sjtu's rankings are more useful--apparently, USnews also gives its exact methodology.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Princeton University(NJ) </p></li>
<li><p>Harvard University(MA) </p></li>
<li><p>Yale University(CT) </p></li>
<li><p>California Institute of Technology </p></li>
<li><p>Stanford University(CA) </p></li>
<li><p>Massachusetts Inst. of Technology </p></li>
<li><p>University of Pennsylvania </p></li>
<li><p>Duke University(NC) </p></li>
<li><p>Dartmouth College(NH) </p></li>
<li><p>Columbia University(NY) </p></li>
<li><p>University of Chicago </p></li>
<li><p>Cornell University(NY) </p></li>
<li><p>Washington University in St. Louis </p></li>
<li><p>Northwestern University(IL) </p></li>
<li><p>Brown University(RI) </p></li>
<li><p>Johns Hopkins University(MD) </p></li>
<li><p>Rice University(TX) </p></li>
<li><p>Vanderbilt University(TN) </p></li>
<li><p>Emory University(GA) </p></li>
<li><p>University of Notre Dame(IN) </p></li>
<li><p>Carnegie Mellon University(PA) </p></li>
<li><p>University of California—Berkeley * </p></li>
<li><p>Georgetown University(DC) </p></li>
<li><p>University of Virginia * </p></li>
<li><p>University of Michigan—Ann Arbor * </p></li>
<li><p>Univ. of California—Los Angeles * </p></li>
<li><p>U. of North Carolina—Chapel Hill * </p></li>
<li><p>Univ. of Southern California </p></li>
<li><p>Tufts University(MA) </p></li>
<li><p>Wake Forest University(NC) </p></li>
<li><p>College of William and Mary(VA) * </p></li>
<li><p>Brandeis University(MA) </p></li>
<li><p>Lehigh University(PA) </p></li>
<li><p>Univ. of Wisconsin—Madison * </p></li>
<li><p>Boston College </p></li>
<li><p>New York University </p></li>
<li><p>University of Rochester(NY) </p></li>
<li><p>Case Western Reserve Univ.(OH) </p></li>
<li><p>Univ. of California—San Diego * </p></li>
<li><p>Georgia Institute of Technology * </p></li>
<li><p>U. of Illinois—Urbana - Champaign * </p></li>
<li><p>University of Washington * </p></li>
<li><p>Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.(NY) </p></li>
<li><p>University of California—Irvine * </p></li>
<li><p>Tulane University(LA) 11 </p></li>
<li><p>Yeshiva University(NY) </p></li>
<li><p>Pennsylvania State U.—University Park * </p></li>
<li><p>University of Texas—Austin * </p></li>
<li><p>University of California—Davis * </p></li>
<li><p>Univ. of California—Santa Barbara * </p></li>
<li><p>University of Florida *</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I'm guessing that QW553 isn't Asian. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>wallyfus,</p>
<p>Some of my post were directed to sansai, not you. I am sorry if I confused you, but I can tell you are clearly capable of confusing yourself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am from there
[/quote]
Where exactly? I don't want to do this, but I am from Shanghai. I didn't go to JiaoDa (sjtu), instead a better one. Let's make this clear, when Chinese students choose a grad school for their Ph.D degree, nobody even bothers to read that piece of ****, which is pretty much on the level of a term project for a graduate school student. I can point you to several websites where Chinese students talk about choosing American schools, the sjtu's ranking didn't even get mentioned ONCE.</p>
<p>If you don't like my writing, wait until you hear my speaking:) And by simply going through your few posts, I can tell for sure you can not make any good university in China.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm guessing that QW553 isn't Asian
[/quote]
:) </p>
<p>flopsy, did you notice I said "insult to the people there"?</p>
<p>QW553,</p>
<p>You're really quite delightful. Stick around. It's nice to have personal insults to add flavor to the conversation.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>Research and graduate program are the most important thing to Chinese students, simply because most of them come for MS and Ph.D degree. So don't let me say how great Berkeley and UCLA are. We know that better than most of people on this forum.</p>
<p>However, the sjtu's ranking is too biased towards science, so that it blurs the whole picture of higher education. </p>
<p>What I was saying is that when people in China chooses an American school for the studying aboard, they understand the difference of undergraduate colleges and grad schools. When a high school student makes ivy-class schools, people are capable to react by "wow". When a college grad gets into Berkeley for Ph.D, people will know he/she is one of the best.</p>
<p>Yeah, we are capable to add insults:)</p>
<p>You apparently missed my point, however...</p>
<p>UCLA and Cal, at least for graduate programs, are clearly leaders in most fields. They're trendsetters and benchmarks that other schools follow.</p>
<p>However, for undergraduate programs, UCLA and Cal somewhat lose out to "lesser-known" programs like Dartmouth, Brown, and the many top LACs. When it comes to getting into a top PhD program, you're probably better off studying at Pomona than you are studying at UCLA.</p>
<p>That doesn't mean that Pomona can keep up with UCLA as an "overall" institution. However, the "Asian wisdom" that you seem so intent on shilling somewhat fails for undergrad when we look at the reality of which schools are the most successful-- on a per capita basis of course-- at getting their graduates into top grad programs of all stripes and colors.</p>
<p>I'm not even looking at the SJTU ranking exclusively, either. I'm looking at my own experiences with "Asian perceptions" (I'm using the term somewhat lightly), versus the reality that we should probably be willing to accept. Yes, Cal's PhD programs are incredible. However, I'm far more impressed with most Princeton undergrads because I have both anecdotal and objective data to work with that tells me that it's generally of a higher quality.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>It's so frustrating that I can not get my points through. Are you saying CAL and UCLA are great schools but their undergraduate programs are not on par with the research program and graduate schools there? Then we are saying the same thing.</p>
<p>Essentially...yes. I'm saying that [East] Asians look at the great research and their eyes instantly light up. If UCLA and Cal have these great grad programs then without a doubt their undergrad programs must be fantastic!</p>
<p>Except that reality is different. I don't exactly love USNews or anything, but I don't feel that UCLA and Cal really do get "shafted" as much as many proponents (shills?) of both campuses like to believe. First of all, the 25th (26th...pshaw) and 20th(?) best university in the US is an amazing place to be at. Same goes for Michigan. As much as I'd like to say that UCLA's undergrad is on the same level as Penn's...it's not. It's clearly not. </p>
<p>Grad school? UCLA all the way for the vast majority of things. </p>
<p>Undergrad? I don't see who we move down to make way for the top publics, sadly.</p>
<p>Oh, and as far as getting your point across goes...you do a pretty good job. Don't be too hard on yourself. You're at least a couple notches better at this than I am at Japanese.</p>
<p>But Japanese is needlessly complicated anyway.</p>
<p>Yes sansai, I dissed Japanese. I'm sorry.</p>
<p>
[quote]
posted by: UCLAri</p>
<p>What difference do nobelists in chemistry make for me as a poli sci student? UCLA's scientific achievements are great and many, but does this necessarily mean that I'm going to have a better experience as a student? Will it make my classes better? My professors better?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To better illustrate my point, lets take Berkeley (though I think UCLA and Michigan are NOT far behind) as a point of comparison. </p>
<p>Even in programmes such PolSci, Humanities, Literature, Social Sciences and Philosophy, etc people throughout the rest of the world believe that Berkeley is a better school to Duke, Dartmouth, Princeton, Brown, Washington, UPenn, etc, etc. Like I said, in most countries outside of the United States, Berkeley is a powerhouse in almost ALL fields it offers and a degree from there is holds very high regard. Generally, only a Harvard degree holds more respect than a Berkeley degree (except in Engineering and Physical Sciences where Berkeley is tied with MIT and in Law where Harvard and Yale are considered super powerhouses.) </p>
<p>
[quote]
I enjoyed UCLA a lot, thank you. But that doesn't mean that I can't recognize the value of the programs at many other schools as offering undergrads potentially better experiences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What makes you think that they offer better experiences than Berkeley (or UCLA & Michigan)? And like what I asked from you earlier, should experiences weigh more than actual learning and productivity (research output)? Please take not that we are in educational institution not some kind of a social club or something because if we talk about that, then I will just but membership shares in many social clubs or something. And if you agree with me that professors in Berkeley are more respected in their respective fields, dont you think having to interact and taught by them is the best experience one can get as a student??? </p>
<p>
[quote]
research does not necessarily equate to better teaching or undergraduate resources.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why not? Dont these great researchers teach too? Sorry but I really find this ridiculous. Unless youre saying that Berkeley, UCLA and Michigan are nothing but just giant government funded laboratories, then maybe I will understand why you made such a rather absurd statement. </p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLA itself recognizes the fact that much of its name recognition abroad comes from brand recognition
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course. How did the Harvard name make it in the rest of the world?
Harvard, Yale, Duke and the like advertise their school in Asia. Berkeley, UCLA and Michigan do not. People in Asia gotten to know these 3 unis through the books they publish which are widely used there. Asians are not stupid. They dont just rely on advertisements. While Duke and the like do appear in advertisement pages, Berkeley, Michigan and UCLA appear in the written content articles. </p>
<p>
[quote]
many Asians are relatively unaware of the many great LACs in the US, which are comparatively better at getting their graduates into top graduate programs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True. But I guess thats because the claim that they offer better education for undergrad studies in highly debatable. I do not see how Berkeley sucks in undergraduate education in Physics but rated the best for graduates studies. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Who, in all fairness, would you move out of the way then?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Without any doubts in my mind ( and I believe even to the mind of the elite Asians), I will rank Berkeley within the top 3 and both UCLA and Michigan within the top 15. That means Berkeley deserves to be ranked higher than Cornell, Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown, UPenn, Duke, Princeton, Northwestern and those other unknown schools known only in the US.</p>
<p>sansai,</p>
<p>
[quote]
What makes you think that they offer better experiences than Berkeley (or UCLA & Michigan)? And like what I asked from you earlier, should experiences weigh more than actual learning and productivity (research output)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most of the top researchers don't really teach classes anyway at the UCs. Most undergrad and lower div teaching is done by young professors and lecturers. What difference does it make to me that UCLA has a Nobelist in chemistry if I can't even take a class with him anyway? How do I benefit? I get the same text as the kid at every other school, but instead of getting a full-time professor, I get some overworked lecturer/assistant prof.</p>
<p>Yay.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please take not that we are in educational institution not some kind of a social club or something because if we talk about that, then I will just but membership shares in many social clubs or something.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A professor of mine at UCLA once said to me, "College isn't about learning facts. Facts are in books. College is about learning mental tools and making important connections both in your social life and brain. If you want to learn facts you pick up a book and read it. If you want to develop yourself, then you go to college." Again, it doesn't matter that Cal has some great Nobel winning professor if:</p>
<ol>
<li> He doesn't teach classes</li>
<li> He's a terrible teacher</li>
</ol>
<p>Great research doesn't make you into a great teacher. Trust me, I had some "great researchers" at UCLA who were AWFUL teachers.</p>
<p>Besides, you have a couple possible goals after undergrad: get a job or go to grad school. Princeton grads do a better job of getting great jobs and getting into the best grad schools. They must be doing something right over there. </p>
<p>Oh, and college is a giant social club. Some of us are just more willing to admit it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And if you agree with me that professors in Berkeley are more respected in their respective fields, don’t you think having to interact and taught by them is the best experience one can get as a student???
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again...good luck getting into one of their classes...and God help you if they can't teach. The thing you're missing is this: interaction with the top researchers is not mandated. It's not even guaranteed. It's RARE.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why not? Don’t these great researchers teach too? Sorry but I really find this ridiculous. Unless you’re saying that Berkeley, UCLA and Michigan are nothing but just giant government funded laboratories, then maybe I will understand why you made such a rather absurd statement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's basically it. Many of the best professors at UCs will go quarters or even years without teaching classes so that they have time to do research.</p>
<p>Welcome to the research university. Who do you think gets a tenure-track job first? The great teacher or the person with the best research?</p>
<p>(Hint: it's NOT the former)</p>
<p>
[quote]
True. But I guess that’s because the claim that they offer better education for undergrad studies in highly debatable. I do not see how Berkeley sucks in undergraduate education in Physics but rated the best for graduate’s studies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let me tell you a secret: Grad students at UCs get treated MUCH better than undergrads. I should know, I've experienced both sides. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Without any doubts in my mind ( and I believe even to the mind of the elite Asians), I will rank Berkeley within the top 3 and both UCLA and Michigan within the top 15. That means Berkeley deserves to be ranked higher than Cornell, Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown, UPenn, Duke, Princeton, Northwestern and those other unknown schools known only in the US.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Based on research alone? That's silly. </p>
<p>Let me ask you a question, then...why do the best American undergrads consistently choose the schools you moved out the way then? Are they all just dumb?</p>