<p>We were talking about reed blckmgc</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only ranking i know of where UCSD beats both Cal and UCLA is Washington Monthly. But that’s not a ranking of educational quality as much as it’s a ranking of social mobility. So, it doesn’t really support your position.</p>
<p>As for your latter point, find me one ranking where that’s the case, because i’ve yet to see it.</p>
<p>^ I have no dogs in either school but I found this ranking using google:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[UC</a> San Diego Ranks 6th Among U.S. Universities for Research & Development Dollars](<a href=“http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/features/uc_san_diego_ranks_6th_among_us_universities_for_research_development_dol]UC”>http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/features/uc_san_diego_ranks_6th_among_us_universities_for_research_development_dol)</p>
<p>@beyphy
[The</a> 50 Best Colleges & Universities 2011-2012 Top School Rankings](<a href=“http://www.thebestcolleges.org/rankings/top-50/]The”>http://www.thebestcolleges.org/rankings/top-50/)
“According to the 2011-2012 Top 50 Colleges and Universities in America published by The Best Colleges, UC Davis is ranked 27th nationally and 2nd among the UCs after UC Berkeley”</p>
<p>And if you click sort on the Washington Monthly rankings on the Research Tab, you’re right, Berkeley tops UCSD, but UCSD tops UCLA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Notice that aside from Hopkins (which is a research beast) and Duke university (which is located in the Research Triangle) all of those universities are big name publics; Additionally notice how UCSD is also ahead of Stanford and Penn; other big name Privates (Harvard, Caltech MIT) aren’t even in the top 10. What’s most likely the case is that R&D is very specialized, and most universities don’t invest too heavily in it.</p>
<p>Also, although UCSD is “ranked higher,” this isn’t really a ranking as much as it is a measure of some criteria. (spending in R&D) Rankings, imo, generally include many criteria.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve criticized this ranking in the past. It says it focuses on ‘what really matters to students’ (whatever that means.) My main criticism of the ranking is that the ‘quality of life’ category accounts for 30% of the ranking. </p>
<p>Notice how UC Davis is also ranked above Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern, WUSTL, and Emory. Aside from Cornell, these are all in big cities, which increases the cost of living, which accounts for 15% of the total ranking. Their other 15% are also laughable. Why on earth would any undergraduates be concerned with what the median income/age is of people in their town or city? Perhaps it’s important in a small town, but in a huge city like Los Angeles or New York? It’s most likely completely irrelevant.</p>
<p>But you did indeed find a ranking where UC Davis is ranked higher than UCLA. That’s good for something, i guess…</p>
<p>^Haha, beyphy, that was the funniest ranking I have seen in awhile. I didn’t even know it existed until that post. Very nice and amusing. So why would anyone count that as a ranking if the metrics are quite possibly the most subjectively arbitrary things in the world? “Quality of life” is a pretty good one, because I assume some random people on the internet know how old I want the the median age of the citizens in the city I’m located.</p>
<p>But ya, we have to give credit where credit is due, they did actually find a ranking that places UC Davis higher than Columbia, UChicago, and Harvey Mudd. Bravo. Bravo. I didn’t think I would actually ever see that, but then again, that’s probably why no one’s ever heard of that ranking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is contradictory to your post #36 and #41 on this thread:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-berkeley/1382154-berkeley-us-news-2013-rankings-predictions-2.html#post14835846[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-berkeley/1382154-berkeley-us-news-2013-rankings-predictions-2.html#post14835846</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Berkerly and UCLA have very limited land to expand. UCSD and UCD have lots more land.</p>
<p><a href=“[700+] California Wallpapers | Wallpapers.com”>[700+] California Wallpapers | Wallpapers.com;
<p>
</p>
<p>US News’ methodology is sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. For instance, in terms of percentages for two peer schools, </p>
<p>Colby:
Students who applied for aid 54.6
Students whose need was fully met 100
Students who received aid 41.2
Students who received scholarships or grants 40.9
Average percentage of need met 100</p>
<p>Apparently, for Colby, 100 percent of 54.6 is 41.2. Or to put it another way, Colby gets away with declaring approximately a quarter of those who apply for financial aid “not in need”.</p>
<p>Bates:
Students who applied for aid 52.2
Students whose need was fully met 90.1
Students who received aid 45.4
Students who received scholarships or grants 44.0
Average percentage of need met 100</p>
<p>Doing the math, it turns out that 9.6 of Bates’ applicants who applied for FA were found to be not in need. These are peer schools and have a huge overlap in applicants. There’s no way two and a half times as many kids without need put in applications for FA to Bates as do to Colby. In other word, Colby is LESS generous with FA than Bates.</p>
<p>So Bates declares more kids in need and gives a higher percentage of students FA than Colby but is ranked (at #28) 9 places behind Colby (#19) in value.</p>
<p>Those at the college who prepared the Colby numbers were probably not trying to get away with anything but this highlights the problems with the US News rankings.</p>
<p>Sloppy.</p>
<p>I’m having trouble understanding exactly how i ‘contradicted’ myself. My whole point in bringing up the hospital is that hospitals are very expensive. Lacking such an expensive, elite hospital, i believe, UCLA could probably put much money into its graduate programs. I could be wrong, but that’s what i think.</p>
<p>The ‘honor roll’ hospitals rankings are also done according to a multitude of criteria. Hence, this still follows my definition of what a ranking is, and i don’t see how i’ve contradicted myself.</p>
<p>The reason i said Geffen’s expansion should have an increase on its rankings is because i thought i remembered the faculty at the school saying that they don’t have room to grow. It appears that the quote i was remembering wasn’t stated by the Geffen SOM but by the Jule’s Stein Eye Institute. (which is adjacent) Here’s the quote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Campus</a> plans world’s leading eye research and patient-care facility / UCLA Newsroom](<a href=“http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/campus-plans-world-s-leading-eye-159053.aspx]Campus”>Newsroom | UCLA)</p>
<p>So, although this was said by the Eye Institute, similar reasoning can be extended to Geffen. This is because Geffen will be utilizing half of the floors on the six-story building.</p>
<p>Your final point about being limited in space to expand is essentially moot since universities can build up. By this i mean they can build tall buildings which encompass more facilities. Additionally, UCLA has dealt with its space constraints by destroying old buildings, and enacting new ones in their place. This is what they’re going to do with the new engineering building, what they’re doing with wasserman, and what they’re going to do with the Luskin faculty center.</p>
<p>As an aside, a statement in your quote is deceptive. Specifically this one:</p>
<p>“In all, $2 billion worth of brand-new facilities are in the planning, design, or construction stages at UCSD.”</p>
<p>Although these facilities may be in the ‘design’ or ‘planning’ phases, they could be delayed for years. This wouldn’t be too much of a stretch if UCSD really lacks the state funding to begin or complete these projects. This happened, for example, with UCR and its medical center.</p>
<p>Everyone, please excuse beyphy. He suffers from a chronic case of insecurity and inferiority. He will manipulate any data so that UCLA is better than all. He will never make any sense… Never. </p>
<p>Trigger buttons for beyphy are: USC, Cal, UCSD, UCSF, Michigan, Stanford, Caltech, and yes, even your local community college.</p>
<p>Your post is so immature it isn’t really worth adressing. There are some false claims however that i will address.</p>
<p>I have respect for all of the universities you stated above; However, i have deep respect for Stanford and Caltech. The latter i consider to be arguably the finest university in the world (unlike USC students who say that Caltech ‘doesn’t really count’); the former i believe i’ve held in nothing but high regard. Well, with the exception of making fun of their mascot (a tree, really?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you are wrong. Hospitals can raise a gazillion dollars in donations to fund buildings and new equipment. (How do you think Geffen got his name on the building? Even hallways become “named hallways”, i.e., partially funded by donors who can put a plaque on the wall.) Hospitals also recieve a gazillion dollars in revenue from the State and feds and attempt to be self-supporting.</p>
<p>The Russian Lit department, not so much. Or, ‘Geffen Department of Sociology’ just doesn’t have the same cachet as Geffen Med Center.</p>
<p>How about NOBODY CARES. UCLA and UCSD are both fine institutions. Please stop arguing over these absolutely subjective ratings that have no impact on a school.</p>
<p>
The tree isn’t their official mascot. It’s cardinal, the color. The tree is part of the LSJUMB.</p>
<p>No one outside of the UC system really cares which UC is ranked higher. It’s like if you ask me which SUNY school is ranked the best, I really don’t know. I’m aware UC > SUNY but just getting a point across.</p>
<p>Binghamton, of course.</p>
<p>Not sure what “best” means in USNWR. If it means the quality of undergrad instruction, then I do not understand how Harvard makes the list other than through the reputation of its grad school and the top students attending there. Harvard has no thesis requirement for most majors, developed a core a few years ago based on a Columbia-lite model, has many intro classes with over a hundred students, does not rank highly on student teacher interaction (notwithstanding or perhaps because of its “star” professors who have many outside interests), and lacks a well developed writing program. </p>
<p>Here’s my view of the top universities/LACs based on undergrad instruction:
(1) Princeton, (2) Williams, (3) Reed, (4) Columbia, (5) Chicago, (6) Swarthmore, (7) Yale, (8) Washington University (SL), (9) Brown, (10) University of Virginia.</p>
<p>muckdogs07, Dartmouth? Duke? Amherst?</p>
<p>Pomona? Cornell?</p>
<p>Middlebury? Wesleyan? MIT? Carleton? Caltech? Harvey Mudd? JHU? Rice? Vassar? Vanderbilt? Haverford?</p>
<p>How come muckdogs didn’t include all of these in his list of 10 colleges? What’s wrong?? I can’t figure it out!</p>