yes @ucbalumnus but he was using it as some kind of proof that the school wasn’t as good or desirable as UNC Chapel Hill,or as a reason the stats of UCSB don’t matter, so it is a little confusing to say the least.
@CU123 What? How did we jump from my comment to “opinions don’t influence behavior”? I didn’t say anything close to that. I simply claimed that it has no inherent correlation with education quality.
OMG, Berkeley students are losing it! =)) For those on this site that says "students don’t actually pick where they go to school based solely on the US News ranking
http://www.dailycal.org/2018/09/13/uc-berkeley-ranks-below-ucla-as-2nd-best-public-school-in-us/
(quote from article, below)
“It’s disappointing. It just sucks that we can’t say it (we’re No. 1). Yesterday in my chem lab, that’s all anybody was talking about,” said campus freshman Natalie Gonzalez.
But others placed more weight in the ranking. Campus junior Charmaine Lai said they shouldn’t tell their parents about this ranking, because they take “pride” in UC Berkeley being ranked No. 1.
“It’s just shocking. Knowing that UC Berkeley was No. 1 was the reason why I picked this school,” campus freshman Anay Pelaez Jimenez said. “It would have definitely affected my decision to go here.’
@IzzoOne Ya, sorry, I must have googled the wrong CDS, maybe it was the CDS for the entire UNC system and not just for CH. My apologies.
But as the stats that you posted show, the differences between the two schools are negligible, but for the acceptance rate and that’s probably a function of the UC app and checking multiple boxes. As someone mentioned earlier, the “conventional wisdom” of UNC-CH being a better school might not be correct one.
The difference between #1 and #2 is huge, one is the champion and the other is an…also ran. Opinions influence reality, top students will now choose UCLA over UCB which will further enhance UCLAs reputation (and opinion of, and quality of education). UCLA recognized this, UCB didn’t.
@KTJordan78 I had to make sure that wasn’t an Onion-type article. We’re a mixed family with a Berkeley parent and a UCLA child. It’s some consolation knowing that at least our money is going to #1.
@CU123, perhaps that will prove to be true with UCLA an UCB, but only time will tell. Princeton has held the top spot for years and I suspect it loses on cross-admits to Harvard, Stanford, and Yale.
This UCLA vs UCB debate seems silly in my mind. They’re both good schools.
But rather than get all caught up in “which one’s the better school” between some 19th ranked university or one ranked 22nd, just go to one of the ones ranked 1st thru 18th…it’ll save a lot of time and headache in the future for those so inclined to believe it makes any difference at the undergrad level.
Remember, WSJ/THE is ranking which place is a better place to go for UNDERGRADUATE. I don’t know much about BU/Case Western/NYU but I do know a lot about Berkeley. One of our family friends with a Ph.D. from MIT is a full professor there … It is a HUGE CROWD there. That is what I heard. Hard to imagine it is a good place for undergraduate. Berkeley is best for graduate students. World class research. I do believe for CA residents, UCLA/Berkeley are your best value schools. BTW, the “Asian” comments is simply to point out that CA has a lot of Asians and they tend to have high stats so it is no surprise that CA schools’ stats are high.
WSJ/THE gives you sub-component scores so you can focus on what is important to you. I am sure those folks at WSJ/THE actually stole some ideas from USNWR, according to https://washingtonmonthly.com/2000/09/01/playing-with-numbers/
WSJ/THE stole those ideas and implemented the “Engagement” metric. Yes. It costs money but News Corp. is rich.
Read WSJ/THE’s methodology (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/wall-street-journal-times-higher-education-college-rankings-2019-methodology?mod=article_inline) to decide which metric is important to you and on WSJ website, you can see all detail data. As opposed to to USNWR which …
WSJ/THE uses data that’s 2 years old, and how can you say you focus solely on undergrad yet don’t quantify SAT/ACT scores in any way? US news is still the lady in the red dress.
Ok I was being a bit facetious with the #1 vs #2 thing but there is a ring of truth to it.
@IzzoOne True but there are significant differences between H/S and P, and I don’t think it loses on Yale. (unless you want to go to Yale Law school which is another discussion). There is little difference between UCB and UCLA however.
It looks like the data is accumulative …
Read this article https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/What-college-rankings-really-measure-hint-13222915.php and you will know
I applaud WSJ/THE’s approach which is the exact opposite of what USNWR is doing.
Do SAT/ACT scores affect quality of education per se?
In theory, a college with stronger students (note that SAT/ACT scores are not the only measure of that, although they are often used due to convenience) could have courses and curricula that teach more, but that is not necessarily the case in real life. For example, Penn State and Florida State appear to be more selective than UC Santa Cruz, but the first two teach economics at a relatively low level, not even using single variable calculus that is the typical standard (UC Santa Cruz is one of the schools that goes a bit further using some multivariable differential calculus).
Of course, a survey that asks “how challenged and inspired students feel inside and outside the classroom” may have results skewed by the strength of students. Strong students may feel less challenged than weak students for the same material and rigor taught in the course. (But then students who choose colleges mainly for the prestige value of the credential or as a stepping stone to something else like medical school or top-14 law school may find more challenge to be undesirable.)
People seem to be surprised that UCLA (#19) is ahead of Berkeley (#22) in US News rankings. However, in WSJ/THE’s rankings, the discrepancy is even bigger …
University of California, Los Angeles >>>>> University of California, Berkeley
Rank 25 >>>>> 33
Overall Score 83.1/100 >>>>> 79.3/100
Outcomes score 37.1/40(22) >>>>> 36.2/40(30)
Resources score 19.6/30(119) >>>>> 17.8/30(181)
Engagement score 17.5/20(16) >>>>> 16.8/20(126)
Environment score 8.9/10(8) >>>>> 8.5/10(24)
Enrollment 30,510 >>>>> 28,745
Student-Faculty Ratio 17:1 >>>>> 18:1
Academic Spending Per Student $45,360 >>>>> $21,140
Salary 10 years after entering college $59,167 >>>>> $61,767
Default Rate 2.1% >>>>> 2.1%
Survey Results: Results are on a scale of zero to 10, with 10 representing strongest agreement.
Right Choice (If you could start over, would you still choose this college?) 8.8/10 >>>>> 8.4/10
Inspiring (Does your college provide an environment where you feel you are surrounded by exceptional students who inspire and motivate you?) 8.6/10 >>>>> 8.1/10
Career Preparation(Is your college effective in helping you to secure valuable internships that prepare you for your chosen career?) 8.4/10 >>>>> 8/10
Notice that “Academic Spending Per Student”-- the amount of money that each institution spends on teaching per student (11%), is not ideal. But there is no other data available. It can be used to get some sense of whether the school is well funded, with the money to provide a positive learning environment. This metric takes into account spending on both undergraduate and graduate programmes, which is consistent with the way that the relevant spend data is available in IPEDS. Schools are required by the Department of Education to report key statistics such as this to IPEDS.
Speaking of surprise, why is that UCLA’s academic spending per student is more than twice the amount of Berkeley’s?
Probably because UCLA has a medical school, while UCB does not.
@ucbalumnus Maybe (medical school), I’m sure they are using the IPED’s calculations (Instructional Expenditures / FTE or Student-Related Expenditures / FTE) and UCLA is way out of range of the other UC’s. I think it has something to do with how UCLA is counting FTE students or doing it’s internal accounting. It’s something of a mystery.
The IPED calc’s can be found in the following link under the Funding and Faculty tab:
http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/search1ba.aspx?institutionid=110714,110705,110680,110671,445188,110653,110644,110635,110662
UC-SD and UC-Davis spend slightly more per student that UCB, and both have medical schools so that’s a possibility. Still, it’s no where near UCLA’s numbers.
Uh oh something smells fishy here…
I hope someone from the UC system can explain the huge discrepancy between UCLA’s Instructional_Expenditures/FTE number and other UC’s numbers. Although the link provided by @Gator88NE has a lot of information schools sent to government, it is unlikely that government has actually verified the information. USNWR might also use this number. Nobody knows. The whole rankings thing from day one at USNWR might be just a scam. But as one of my favorite quotes from Seinfeld put it:
I think Yale is far ahead of Harvard in IPEDs instruction spending. I think the biggest difference is how the schools are doing the calculation, which is self-reported. And although this is supposed to be for undergraduate education, you can be pretty sure that they probably have research, graduate education, and undergraduate education all rolled together.