<p>
</p>
<p>You’re making this argument and saying mine is bad? You’re using a very literal reading of “track record” to try to make UCLA look as good as possible, when in reality other top publics are still consistently ahead. Most would say that other top publics have a better track record than UCLA, in the general sense of the phrase.</p>
<p>And if we’re basing it on “track record,” then Clemson’s way better than UCLA, having jumped many spots over the years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There could be plenty of different reasons. Just to name a few … education of children, cost of housing, quality of life, or even career of other family members could all play a role. Or perhaps departmental politics! Or the esteemed professor might want to see more of Aaron Rodgers and the Packers than Andrew Luck or Harbaugh’s 49ers. Perhaps is more Oscar Mayer Foods’s delicacies than abalone. Who knows! </p>
<p>For instance, one of the often cited reasons why high-flying Caroline Hoxby left Harvard for Stanford had to do with husband Blair’s own academic career.</p>
<p>“Personally, I don’t think you know what you’re doing at all. You didn’t even realize that you bumped up Berkeley one spot, which is completely counterintuitive based on your speculation that UCLA would be pushed a notch down due to budget cuts.”</p>
<p>You really think that I would not care where I rank the #1 public university in the land? I think it is you who places too much emphasis on the UC system. I don’t even think you even realize that I also bumped Stanford up by one spot!</p>
<p>“The argument that Berkeley has an ongoing donation campaign is BS. The campaign isn’t likely to raise the money to make up for the budget cuts and you are making the fallacious assumption that UCLA is not raising money at the same time. Based on your logic, at best, Berkeley should stay the same rank. That you raised it a rank is completely absurd and shows your lack of knowledge.”</p>
<p>The University will raise $3 billion to support Berkeley’s students, faculty, research and programs. Half of the goal, more than $1.5 billion, already has been raised as of June 2009. The quiet phase of The Campaign for Berkeley began on July 1, 2005. The public phase runs for five years, ending June 30, 2013.</p>
<p>[The</a> Campaign for Berkeley - Campaign Goals](<a href=“http://campaign.berkeley.edu/learn-more/goals.cfm]The”>http://campaign.berkeley.edu/learn-more/goals.cfm)</p>
<p>On the other hand, roughly 1/3 ($1-billion) of UCLA’s 10-year-long campaign which ended in 2006 was gone. And I do not see another major fundraising campaign by the school after the recession besides the sporadic donations which amount to a few hundred millions as of late. Last but not least, if by acknowledging UCB > UCLA in academic prestige and overall ranking is absurd and lack of knowledge, then I am guilty as charge.</p>
<p>“If you would like to defend your argument that Berkeley is going to raise a spot based on 2012 USNWR ranking methodology, be my guest, though.)”</p>
<p>I really do not need to justify my own ‘personal’ ranking to anyone. My original intention of starting this thread was to invite you all to chip in your $.02 since the official ranking has not been released. I think it’s good for general discussion over the wkend while in down time. For everyone out there, my ranking is subjective and certainly no bible. So, Relax!! lol Nonetheless, perhaps you (sentimentGX4) would like to share yours instead? I am sure it would be the most complete (no BS) and unbiased!! ;p</p>
<p>
“Literal” does not take away from the validity of my statement and the word “literal” should not be interpreted negatively. Not being “literal” is circumventing truth, reality, etc.</p>
<p>
While this is true, this does not take away from the validity of my previous argument that you had been contesting. It doesn’t make your earlier argument that my statement regarding UCLA’s track record was wrong any more flawed.</p>
<p>
I’ve never even heard of Clemson. -.-</p>
<p>I was discussing “top publics”. UCSD would have been a looser definition of the phrase but still arguably acceptable as a counterargument. As a lower ranking college, Clemson naturally has more ranks to jump. The most ranks any of the top 25 schools can jump is 24!</p>
<p>
The overwhelming consensus in this thread appears to be that we should not make baseless speculation. </p>
<p>(I guess I should lighten up to random rankings, though. I concede I’m not perfect and I’ve made many baseless statements myself. :D)</p>
<p>Haha, y’all make it way too complicated. </p>
<p>Cal and UCLA will stay very close to their prior years rankings, and this because Bob Morse knows how to utilize and maximimize the crutches in his “leveling the playing field” arsenal. </p>
<p>The value of the USNews is not in the numerical rankings, as that is only for the “show.” The value is found in the organization of the underlying data.</p>
<p>“considering that Stanford econ WAS far ahead of Wisconsin econ”
With the additions of top profs from Stanford, Texas, Penn, Northwestern, Michigan the gap is not that much. And UW has never been that far behind.
From COHE-Academic Analytics report
Economics - 2006
Next Page >><< Prev PageNext Page >><< Prev PageInstitution* Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index Number of faculty Percentage of faculty with a book publication Books per faculty Percentage of faculty with a journal publication Journal publications per faculty Percentage of faculty with journal publication cited by another work Citations per faculty
1 Harvard U. 2.48 45 .53 2.13 .78 4.38 .73 26.6
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2.43 37 .41 1.7 .81 3.65 .68 11.76
3 Yale U. 2.16 45 .4 1.58 .8 2.84 .64 5.8
4 Johns Hopkins U. 2.13 15 .27 .33 .87 2.73 .8 6.6
5 Princeton U. 2.12 61 .26 1.56 .72 2.98 .64 13.7
6 U. of Pennsylvania 1.73 31 .16 .23 .61 3.35 .48 11.06
7 Duke U. 1.62 37 .22 .38 .73 2.46 .46 13.14
8 U. of Wisconsin at Madison 1.58 39 .26 .33 .59 1.87 .51 4.21
9 U. of California at San Diego 1.5 46 .37 .78 .61 1.87 .48 4.02
10 U. of Chicago 1.49 28 - - .86 3.21 .75 6.32</p>
<p>^ productivity/impact is only one piece of the pie. Other rankings that take into account other factors put UW econ several places behind Stanford. I wasn’t denying that UW is productive anyway - everyone knows that UW is productive and does well in the Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index (ranking in the top 10 for a huge number of disciplines). Yet rankings that account for other factors still place it lower - with reason.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, circumventing reality is interpreting a phrase in a way that’s different from what most would interpret it as, in order to build up your own school. “Literal” readings are the technical definitions (as you said “technically”), whereas in reality people don’t typically read it that way.</p>
<p>So now that you’ve explained that you were using a different interpretation from everyone else, I’ll rephrase my criticism of your argument: it’s a useless and irrelevant point to make that a school has been consistent in its ranking. Better?</p>
<p>And at any rate, your claim that “Berkeley, Michigan, and UVA have had a consistent decline in rank” is wrong anyway.</p>
<p>Several places is not my definition of “far ahead”. Now you appear to be back-tracking on your outsized claim. I’ll take that. </p>
<p>As to what the rich do with their money–most have it invested in their companies and others.</p>
<p>[How</a> To Become A Billionaire - Forbes.com](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/20/0920newcombchat.html]How”>How To Become A Billionaire)</p>
<p>^ I’m not backtracking - to me “several places” is “far ahead,” though the former is more concrete, which is what I thought you sought in contesting my previous claim.</p>
<p>And I’m not talking about billionaires, who are few in number. It’d be difficult to be a billionaire and not have most of your wealth tied up in stocks, though even that has its problems. I’m talking about millionaires mostly, though my criticism of billionaires is a matter for another day. (I do appreciate those who have signed The Giving Pledge though.)</p>
<p>^^–^^</p>
<p>Debating which school has the best faculty in Economics is an absurd exercise in futility. Both Stanford and Wisconsin have highly recognized and prestigious departments. The differences are meaningless to whom it matters the most, namely the students. </p>
<p>And, in this aspect, it is highly doubtful that many students have the luxury of deciding between the two schools.</p>
<p>
I didn’t want to dissect your budget numbers but I did anyways. My conclusion is that you’re confounding time intervals to make your argument seem more valid than it really is.</p>
<p>Here are some points I would like to make:
<p>
Unsubstantiated ranking movements are an indication of a lack of knowledge, which I had asserted earlier.</p>
<p>^ and how much of those big-dollar donations went to UCLA’s medical activities, which at Berkeley fall under UCSF? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
Don’t know and don’t care. UCSF is not a part of Berkeley. It is listed as a separate institution under both USNWR and ARWU. That Berkeley does not have a medical school is its own issue.</p>
<p>The argument that UCSF is a part of Berkeley is only practiced by Cal students and universally rejected by the ranking authorities, government bodies, the general public, etc.</p>
<p>^ oh, I agree - UCSF is not part of Berkeley. But if we’re going to talk about fundraising efforts, it’s disingenuous to say that UCLA has surpassed Berkeley in that respect when you consider that medical schools are distinct from the whole university and do their own fundraising. Since the goal of talking about fundraising here is to see how each could be relatively declining because of finances, citing big-time donations to UCLA’s medical school is yet another useless argument… especially considering that it will have no impact on the US News ranking (i.e. it doesn’t improve the parts of the university that matter to the ranking). Just saying.</p>
<p>“UCLA received over $400 million in 2011 without heavy campaigning.”</p>
<p>hmm… indeed and I hope you are right that for the next five years or so, every year, UCLA will be receiving over $400 million of donation. After all, it did take the school “10-years of heavy campaigning” to reach the $3 billion mark, no?</p>
<p>Sparkeye, UCLA receives on average $300M/year and has been doing so for well over a decade. I think in 2010, UCLA received ~$290M or so and it was down year. It’s entirely wrong to think that a U needs a fundraising campaign to be raking in $$$. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Zip, none. </p>
<p>Actually, I believe, sentiment, the Lincy Fund=Kirk Kerkorian’s donation, which I hope I’m wrong. 
So the list, I’m thinking s/b:</p>
<p>Lincy Fund, $200M (names of Mr. Kerkorian’s daughters, Linda and Marcy, I think.) I think it’s actually broken up by $100M, for unrestricted usage by U and $100M to do ‘public good’; I don’t know if this encompasses things within the U or without. Mr Kerkorian used the fund originally to help those in Armenia after an earthquake in the region.</p>
<p>Meyer Luskin, $100M, Public Policy, building project not associated with med school.</p>
<p>Total of $300M</p>
<p>Congrats, sentiment, on your graduation, which I happened to see on the UCLA board. Good work…</p>
<p>“Sparkeye, UCLA receives on average $300M/year and has been doing so for well over a decade. I think in 2010, UCLA received ~$290M or so and it was down year. It’s entirely wrong to think that a U needs a fundraising campaign to be raking in $$$.”</p>
<p>Fair enough!! I agreed!! Hence, I shall keep UCLA as #25!! :p</p>
<p>(Update)</p>
<p>1) Harvard
2) Princeton
2) Yale
4) MIT
4) Stanford
6) Caltech
6) Columbia
6) Penn
9) Chicago
9) Dartmouth
9) Duke
12) Brown
12) Northwestern
14) Johns Hopkins
14) WUSTL
16) Cornell
17) Notre Dame
17) Vanderbilt
19) Emory
19) Rice
21) Berkeley
22) Georgetown
23) Carnegie Mellon
23) USC
25) UCLA
25) Virginia
25) Wake Forest</p>
<p>“Congrats, sentiment, on your graduation, which I happened to see on the UCLA board. Good work…”</p>
<p>Likewise, Congrats!! :)</p>
<p>liv4physicz,</p>
<p>“Hahaha Michigan’s the best at like everything”</p>
<p>Yeah, I actually have Michigan moving up by 1 spot this year!! lol</p>
<p>No, Sparkeye, don’t move UCLA up on my account; I can’t speak for sentiment, however.</p>
<p>If I saw that you made tOSU number one, I would respect that. Well, maybe not, but I just don’t place a lot of significance in these conversation-topic threads during the off season. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Because according to the UCLA press release for the donation from the Lincy Foundation:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Doesn’t sound like “zip” to me.</p>