<p>berkeley was ranked lower than UCLA in the previous washington monthly rankings if I remember correctly.....thus the inclusion of the ranking in UCLA's acceptance package (although from a research point of view I read somwhere that UCLA gets the most research from NSF or something)</p>
<p>This must be some kind of joke.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I like how a link is worded..."Report: Is Our Students Learning?"</p>
<p>Um, our students ARE learning...thus: "Are Our Students Learning?"
finding that error got me a little biased against it...:/
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's a Bushism.</p>
<p>60 Boston University MA 60</p>
<p>BU managed to surive unscathed :O</p>
<p>"It's a Bushism."</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>Perhaps "strength of football schedule" got folded into the mix but wasn't mentioned? That would explain a lot, though not MIT's position at the top.</p>
<p>really caltech 109? I'm sorry but I just don't think these rankings mean much to those applying to universities. I'm not a huge Caltech fan but you have to admit that its academics are much better than others higher. So are bussiness prospects too. I'm not a huge fan of USNews but I think their rankings are much more useful.</p>
<p>UCLA: #4
USC: #33</p>
<p>I agree with these rankings. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Berkeley is #2.</p>
<p>AHAH.</p>
<p>HAHA.</p>
<p>HAHAHAHAH!!!</p>
<p>how do yall do the bold and stuff?</p>
<p>UC Davis- Top Ten
UC Irvine- 7_something</p>
<p>ummmm... no.</p>
<p>So are we all convinced that US News is not so bad?</p>
<p>UCSD at #6? wow, this is my new favorite ranking=). haha, what's the formula for the ranks?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree :)</p>
<p>I'm surprised ITT and DeVry werent ranked higher</p>
<p>In addition, I think I could design a better website for those peeps, I'd charge only like 100 bucks</p>
<p>And also, Bushisms are very bad for an article that I'm supposed to take seriously. Especially considering how ridiculous it appears (and in fact, how ridiculous it is.) Or, maybe I'm just stuck in a rut believing the BS that USNEWS POISONS US WITH.</p>
<p><<dies>></dies></p>
<p>for those who are comparing to US News.... this ranking is NOT MEANT TO BE COMPARED WITH US NEWS!!</p>
<p>the US News rankings are meant to show how good a college is to individual students. the washington monthly rankings are meant to show how good universities are to society (based on social mobility, research, and service). </p>
<p>if you're a h/s student seeking to get into a top college, go check out US News. if you're a state governor and want to make your flagship better, then try to emulate the top schools on washington monthly's list. </p>
<p>the only flaw is your inability to correctly interpret rankings.</p>
<p>"Is Our Students Learning?"
<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.carey.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.carey.html</a></p>
<p>lol?</p>
<p>
[quote]
this ranking is NOT MEANT TO BE COMPARED WITH US NEWS!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>are you serious?</p>
<p>what's on the right hand column?</p>
<p>a comparison! oh snap!</p>
<p>granted, i didnt read the article but my powers of observation picked up on that.</p>
<p>ozym,</p>
<p>my point exactly. students who dont read the article and dont draw the conclusion that the rankings are meant to measure two different things will automatically see that the washington monthly rankings are different than the US news rankings (as shown by the side-by-side comparsion) and thus think that it is a joke. </p>
<p>in reality, the rankings are measuring too different things, and the side-by-side rankings with US news are supposed to be used so that readers can see the difference in ranking of a college when two different methodologies are used.</p>
<p>first, sorry for coming across like a jerk</p>
<p>more importantly though, sure, i believe that different ranking methodologies can yield different ranks. that being said, i disagree with the articles methodology, and in my opinion i do not put much faith in the rankings. maybe you do, and so be it. </p>
<p>at least we can both agree the website needs work.</p>