USNWR 2012 Best Colleges Rankings (Prediction)

College Search & Selection
41

<p>“No, Sparkeye, don’t move UCLA up on my account; I can’t speak for sentiment, however.”</p>

<p>It’s ok. I think both him and his school deserve it (as if my ranking really worth a dime!! :p). Although I still can’t seem to agree that UCLA = UCB in terms of overall academic ranking. But, it’s no big deal. Anyone noticed that I also did bump USC up by 1 spot?! :)</p>

<p>“If I saw that you made tOSU number one, I would respect that.” </p>

<p>I did!!! In my dreams however… keke…
No really, I am easily satisfied if TOSU made it into the Top-50 (as it should imho) some day… </p>

<p>“I just don’t place a lot of significance in these conversation-topic threads during the off season.”</p>

<p>yeah, me too! (chilling) </p>

<p>Still, no one knows WHEN exactly will this year’s ranking come out??</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>I find the usage of the term ‘university system’ incorrect because it wasn’t intended for all of UC.</p>

<p>I’m taking this quote to mean essentially ‘unrestricted,’ for at least 1/2, not portions specifically for the med school. How the U uses the funds is entirely up to it. </p>

<p>In fact the U has started using the funds for undergrad scholarships for this current frosh and xfer classes entering in 2011.</p>

<p>If I can find something better, more specific, I’ll post it. So if you want to count yourself correct wrt my statement, feel better about yourself, then feel free. But that doesn’t belie your being schooled by sentiment.</p>

43

<p>Does anyone know when the new rankings will be published?</p>

44

<ol>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Duke
.
.
.</li>
</ol>

<p>It is pointless not to keep Columbia and Penn together, especially they saw the effect of placing Columbia at 4th last year. If they don’t want to move Columbia down, the only way to do is to move up Penn. And one day, Penn would become number one on their ranking. All they need is time, if by that time they still exist.</p>

45

<p>My predictions:</p>

<ul>
<li>Harvard remains at 1</li>
<li>Princeton falls to 2</li>
<li>Yale rises to 2</li>
<li>Stanford rises to 4</li>
<li>Columbia falls to 5</li>
<li>Penn remains at 5</li>
<li>MIT rises to 5</li>
<li>Caltech falls to 8</li>
<li>Duke rises to 8</li>
<li>UChicago falls to 10</li>
<li>Dartmouth falls to 10</li>
</ul>

<p>The rest don’t matter.</p>

46

<p>

</p>

<p>There is little chance for this to happen. </p>

<p>While USNews will not repeat the same mathematical errors of last year, the reporting gimmicks that catapulted Columbia past Stanford are still there.</p>

47

<p>drax12,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>According to the LA times:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That specific enough for you?</p>

<p>So that brings the big-dollar amount that UCLA has raised for non-medical purposes to $200 million.</p>

<p>It’s tiresome to hear these feeble attempts at claiming superiority over Berkeley when everyone knows UCLA is leagues behind it. I’m a Stanford alum and even I can see that Berkeley is still far ahead. UCLA could raise billions this year and it’d still be behind, because it takes years and years of heavy fundraising to surpass a heavyweight like Berkeley.</p>

<p>If you consider sentiment’s comments to be “schooling” me, then I think I just gave you a PhD. ;)</p>

48

<p>I’d like to see Hopkins break 10. No reason to expect it, though.</p>

49

<p>Thank you phanta for setting the 'ruins straight…</p>

<p>The only ranking that really matters is peer assessment:
Cal = 4.7</p>

<p>UCLA = 4.2</p>

<p>In other words,
Berkeley = distinguished
UCLA = strong</p>

50

<p>

</p>

<p>From whom did you gain this notion? </p>

<p>From sentiment? No… he/she (I’m guessing she) has often said that Cal is the better school. Same with me. But the last thing on earth I would want is UCLA to be more like Cal, based on a moderate or even a ‘large’ jump in prestige, the latter more your words. </p>

<p>UCLA =/= Cal; Cal =/= UCLA. And that’s great to us, and to them, also. I can live without the Robert Rizzos or William Hungs of the world if it means less, even far less prestige. But there isn’t a large gap in prestige, as you would say.</p>

<p>In fact, I would like a little proof that Cal is ‘far ahead.’ In what? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hahaha…spoken like a true scholar … nice argument, with no overstated points.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m glad you feel better yourself already, but please be far less delusional.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think you’re confused…</p>

<p>Let’s recap:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>$100M, Mr. Luskin, clearly non med-school based.</p></li>
<li><p>$100M, Unrestricted from Mr. Kerkorian for the U to use any way it wishes, provided it handles the charitable side of…</p></li>
<li><p>$100M, ‘charitable causes around the nation.’</p></li>
</ol>

<p>If med research is a large component of 2), then it would indeed be < $200M for the U’s betterment in non med-based things.</p>

<p>But, like I said, UCLA’s started using some of the money from 2) for undergrad scholarships. The statement you noted was just a general umbrella statement because the med school and med research are part of the U. </p>

<p>The U has no restrictions on its usage as long as it tends to the other half, as Mr. Kerkorian wanted, for UCLA to administer the charitable side to whomever. And though I haven’t heard how UCLA will administer this side 3), Mr. Kerkorian probably felt the fund was too burdensome for his handling, so he just donated it to UCLA, without restriction on UCLA’s half, at least, and because he has had ‘good experiences of donating $$ to UCLA in the past.’ </p>

<p>These are between-the-line facts wrt 2). Not some dumb notion one has obtained by skimming over a couple articles in the last couple hours. So I guess you’re right in a round-about way: $200M for the U’s non-medical betterment, because I’m guessing little will be used for medical research wrt 2).</p>

<p>And UCB, we’re talking about donations, not some of your perfunctorily stated spiels about peer scores or rankings. Try something new for a change. Cal has hotter women, anything new. ;)</p>

51

<p>Sparkeye,
Last year SC was ranked at 23 in a tie with Carnegie Mellon. In the 2010 edition, using data from 2009, there was no longer a peer assessment score. It is now called the Undergraduate Reputation Index. In that index USC received the same score as Emory University and Notre Dame. The university was one point below Rice University and Washington University at St. Louis.</p>

52

<p>drax12,</p>

<p>Oh, yes, I’m sure you’d just dread becoming more like Cal… I mean, why would anyone want to go to one of the top-5 most highly regarded schools in the world? What a terrible aspiration.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Most departmental rankings, most research, and most importantly, faculty. Berkeley leaves UCLA so far behind in faculty it’s not even a comparison. And guess what? Faculty are the core of the university and determine its quality, because the stronger the faculty you have, the more funds you’re going to garner, the stronger the graduate students you’ll attract, the more high-impact research you’ll produce, the more prestige you’ll have, the stronger the undergraduates that you’ll then attract, etc. Ask anyone worth their salt about how universities work and they’ll tell you: it always comes down to faculty. Everything, directly or indirectly, depends on the faculty.</p>

<p>That’s why I said it’d take years and years of heavy fundraising to beat Berkeley. That’s because for each faculty member, you have to raise a few million dollars to pay them a competitive salary (i.e. endowed chair). And for each faculty member, you have to spend millions more in additional sq ft of facilities, funds for their graduate students, funds for their research, funds for their initiatives (like centers and institutes and programs), etc. It’s extremely expensive to build up a better university. You can’t make a huge dent with a campaign that raises a couple billion. That’s why it takes so long for the rankings to change: universities change slowly because it’s hard to gain the funds to improve yourself. That’s exacerbated by the fact that as they improve, so do their competitors, so UCLA would have to accelerate its improvement to a rate faster than Berkeley’s. Given that Berkeley is far more prestigious and pulls in top faculty with its name as well as its money, it’s going to be hard for UCLA to accelerate that much.</p>

<p>I’m not going to take the time to parse your “but-but-but…” argument/book, but here’s how I read the article: $200 million to UCLA. Half to medical research, so $100m. That leaves $100m. That plus the other $100m = $200m to non-medical research. Explain away all you want, but that’s what the article says. This is a pointless argument anyway, because in the end, it says nothing about UCLA and Berkeley relatively.</p>

53

<p>In 2010 the Chronicle of Higher Education listed the institutions which raised the most funds:</p>

<p>Stanford-------$598.9 million</p>

<p>Harvard-------$597 million</p>

<p>Johns Hopkins------$427.6 million</p>

<p>Univ. of Southern Californa------$426 million</p>

<p>Since Dr. M. Nikias was installed as the new president, USC has raised over $600 million. The new initiative will begin in September 2011.</p>

54

<p>^^ hmm, it is extremely difficult for me to rate USC over traditional academic power of CMU (The MIT of the Midwest imho) based solely on ‘Undergraduate Reputation Index.’ Do you happen to know CMU’s URI last year?!</p>

<p>You see, schools like #45 Wisconsin consistently with PA score of 4.1 vs #25 UCLA’s 4.2 was ranked “20 spots” apart last year!! Such result only means that there must had been numerous other factors involved which contributed to this drastic overall ranking. </p>

<p>[How</a> U.S. News Calculates the College Rankings - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/08/17/how-us-news-calculates-the-college-rankings]How”>http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/08/17/how-us-news-calculates-the-college-rankings)</p>

<p>In short, I reckon that academically, USC is certainly on the rise!! Therefore, I shall go ahead and bump it up by 1 spot as discussed. G’nite, All~ :)</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
22) USC
24) Carnegie Mellon
25) UCLA
25) Virginia
25) Wake Forest</p>

55

<p>^^ Georgia Girl: well, the $600m is pledged, not given, so the several big-dollar donations that USC has garnered recently (very impressive) will be spread out over multiple years of the campaign. I assume that since the new initiative hasn’t started yet, USC is still in the “quiet phase” of the campaign (i.e. before the campaign formally begins), where $600m is respectable. FWIW, Stanford raised $2.2 billion in the quiet phase of the campaign it’s finishing this year, so USC still has a long way to go to reach the top in its fundraising. Just being clear that Stanford hasn’t been dethroned as the top fundraising school :p</p>

56

<p>I believe the rankings use how much was spent, not how much was raised.</p>

57

<p>Phantasmagoric, </p>

<p>How did you determine all the funds were only pledged and not donated outright? The Annenberg and Mork scholarships dollars were partially given out for the class entering in late August. Funds for buildings such as the Annenberg Complex of $50 million and the Student Health Center of $15 million as well as the $50 million addition to the School of Cinematic Arts for animation are being used now as the buildings, among others, are well underway. </p>

<p>The new U.S. News rankings will be available online in September this year, rather than August.</p>

58

<ol>
<li>Washington State University</li>
<li> Florida State University</li>
<li>University of Oklahoma</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>University of Dallas</li>
<li>Mizzou University of Science and Tech</li>
<li>University of Wyoming</li>
<li>TCU</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
</ol>

59

<p>I agree that Ohio state should move up and not just because my daughter is applying. :)</p>

<p>But seriously, the average act of incoming freshman is a 28. It is getting harder to get into as a freshman on the main campus - if that counts for anything. I have no idea how they base the rankings.</p>

60

<p>Georgia Girl, I determined that simply by my knowledge that big-dollar donations are nearly always pledged and extremely rarely donated outright; they’re usually spread out over multiple years and thus contribute to the yearly total donations for a while. Also, since the initiative hasn’t started formally yet, it’s very likely that those fall under what’s called “quiet phase donations,” i.e. the university is gauging its alumni base and asking around to see just how much they can raise, and so they’ll get a few big-dollar donations for the campaign, which of course lasts for several years.</p>

<p>Consider Stanford: it has raised over $5 billion in 4 years for its campaign. That would mean that it raised $1.25 billion each year on average, but we know that’s not true. The most it’s raised in the past few years - or has ever been raised by any college in a single year - is $911 million. The reason for the difference in the figures is that pledges count toward the total raised for the campaign (i.e. it’s only been recorded as “coming in the future”), while the yearly total donations include only the funds that have actually been received that year. These yearly donated funds include parts of previous pledges, which are of course broken up and spread out over several years.</p>

<p>Thus, it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison: USC’s pledged donations vs. the actual donated funds received by other universities.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The university can - and often does - cover the costs of construction and takes in the donation over time (either using previously available funds, deficit spending, or paying the construction costs over time as they receive the donations). Either way, the ones you list are not the big-dollar donations I was talking about anyway, but even smaller donations for concrete things like buildings can be pledges spread out over several years.</p>