<p>I'm not saying that rankings from US News or other organizations are totally accurate but what happened to Cal as it dropped from like top 10 about 4 years ago to the 20s last year? I mean I heard that since it's a public school it doesn't have as much funds and thus lower rankings but last time I check Cal was a public school 4 years ago too...</p>
<p>Maybe its less and less funds. Its still the best public school</p>
<p>We're not the only ones with issues about money... every single school has been facing a crisis with shrinking endowments >< (stupid economy)... I'm not sure why it's dropped, but my theory is they've weighted different areas differently, bolstering the rankings of private schools. It's all subjective anyways; who is US News to say that (I'm making this figure up) 25% of a school's score should be based on it's acceptance rate? (I'm pretty sure that's not true, but it's just an example).</p>
<p>If you <em>want</em> an overall high-ranked school for the overall name, you probably should go to one, and not even consider Berkeley. Basically, I don't think as an overall undergrad school, it has as much special to offer as many private schools -- its real strength is that the faculty here are <em>particularly</em> elite researchers, the school is a research powerhouse, and the programs tend to be great. </p>
<p>This is probably why Berkeley is much more reputed for its graduate programs than for the undergrad programs. The academics are crazily good, but it's more for students who can find their niche + handle themselves on their own than for those who like to have fewer choices, and just a good undergrad support.</p>
<p>These are reasons US News might rank us lower. Having brilliant students + academics isn't the only reason to be highly ranked.</p>
<p>Maybe the funding issues hit us particularly bad, and that turned certain aspects of how well undergrads are treated even lower. </p>
<p>Some of us [for instance myself] have been completely unaffected by all this, but the vast majority of undergrads may be.</p>
<p>I don't get the rankings.</p>
<p>Quality is established over time, and has almost an infinite amount of components.
Caltech used to be number one just a couple of years ago, and now it's number six!
Did that school suddenly drop everything it stood for academically? NO!
It's just USNWR chose to weight the things that favored that school more in that year.</p>
<p>Following taken from: UC</a> in US News and World Report College Ranking
To quote the Regents of the University of California, "Because of the weightings U.S. News and World Report uses to rank colleges and universities, private universities consistently fare better than public ones. For example, UC Berkeley, which is #1 among public universities, is ranked #20 among all universities nationally. The top public universities compare well to the top privates in terms of academic reputation and student selectivity, two factors in the USNWR ranking model. However, public institutions in general do less well than the privates on four other factors used by USNWR– financial resources, faculty resources, retention, and alumni giving rates. Compared with private institutions, public universities have fewer financial resources per student, higher student-faculty ratios, larger undergraduate classes, lower six-year graduation rates, and lower rates of alumni giving. These differences account for the lower rankings public universities tend to receive in this survey."</p>
<p>It's easy to be at the top when you have money, but it takes skill, talent and something special to fare just as well with a fraction of the resources.</p>
<p>That's a good explanation. Other rankings though, like the one from the Chinese university?, place berkeley higher. Like 3rd or something like that.</p>
<p>Yeah generalized rankings are terrible...I think it's better to talk to people who know something about the schools. Figure out what they're like, and their academic + other philosophies. </p>
<p>Killthefifi, that's a nice post. Hope you hear back with good news from Berkeley [since you wrote to me a while back about interest in CS there!].</p>
<p>Cal has been around the 20th position and #1 public for half of the decade so I am not sure what you are getting at. </p>
<p>USNews adjust the rankings change so they can sell their publication. Who the hell would even look at it if it doesn't change. Anyone with half a brain knows Cal is a great school and its global prominence is not likely to change anytime soon in the near future. </p>
<p>Educated people knows what the good schools are. Does it matter if Harvard is #1 in one year or #2, 3, or 50 in the next? Everyone is gonna know Harvard is a top program no matter what any publication says. For instance WSJ's 2007 MBA rankings doesn't even list Harvard or Standford in the top 10. Does anyone here realistically believe that Harvard or Stanford MBA is not a top 10 program? </p>
<p>Wall</a> Street Journal 2007 MBA Rankings Released » Clear Admit: MBA Admissions Consultants Blog</p>
<p>I certainly do not think it is and will would rate with one of them within the top 5.</p>
<p>@Fortify
I hate to generalize or anything, but it seems like the international rankings would put Berkeley ahead of nearly any US university, if for no other reason that they accept more internationals by sheer number, and thus Berkeley has a larger presence in other countries.</p>
<p>Thanks mathboy, I'm realllllly looking forward to just knowing if I get in or not.
Berkeley now seems to be the perfect school for me, in nearly every way =]
If only the Adcoms read CC...</p>
<p>Tax Bear, I know US News changes the rankings to sell issues, but then why isn't there another reliable ranking? A lot of people are going to naturally want to go to one of the best schools, regardless of it's a good fit for them or anything.</p>
<p>"Anyone with half a brain knows Cal is a great school"
Except for many people on the east coast, who's only experience with Cal has been the Free Speech Movement of the 60's.</p>
<p>In the link you provided, it stated that the criteria for the rankings were as follows:
1. Recruiter feedback on each school (for 21 different attributes)
2. Recruiter plans to hire graduates from the schools in the future
3. Recent hiring patterns of corporate recruiters</p>
<p>On the other hand, US News puts a huge emphasis on peer review with respect to prestige and the amount of tangible resources available.</p>
<p>The conflict in the rankings seems to be "process v. product"
At the big name schools, as ranked by US News, the world is at your fingertips, and one would be able to do nearly anything they want. - process</p>
<p>At the WSJ high-ranked schools, emphasis is put on the quality of the product from the schools as useful in the corporate world. - product</p>
<p>It should be obvious why Harvard and Caltech didn't make the WSJ list. They send kids to careers in academia, not private businesses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It should be obvious why Harvard and Caltech didn't make the WSJ list. They send kids to careers in academia, not private businesses.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is exactly what I mean when I say people with half a brain. Caltec doesn't have an MBA program and Harvard has more CEOs in Fortune top 100 than any other schools.</p>
<p>I am saying all the rankings are garbage. You want to know if a school is good or not message me and i will supply you with a yes/no response. </p>
<p>Let's be honest for a second. Why do most people want to attend a good school? To make money. For instance, when I am evaluating business school programs, I mainly focus on two factors: average starting salary and percentage of graduates employed at graduation. I could care less that MIT has crappy facilities or the girls at Cal is ugly or it is cold on the east coast or whether the library has 10 million volumes or no books whatsoever or faculty ratio is 1:10 or 1:50. It doesn't mattter.</p>
<p>I only know two things: MONEY and MORE MONEY! Hence, in my eyes, an MBA at Rice is just as good as an MBA from Yale. </p>
<p>As far as you comment about east coasters mostly just know Berkeley for the 60's FSM, I'll just dismiss that as a lapse in judgment on your part.</p>
<p>I've lived in on both coasts of the US. Basically, everybody in the US knows about the following schools:</p>
<ul>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Yale</li>
</ul>
<p>Go to any of the above and you will pass the "prestige test" for any job anywhere in the US.</p>
<p>When was Cal ever in the top 10 in us news? From what I recall its always been in the low teens to high 20's.</p>
<p>EDIT: This link U.S</a>. News Rankings Through the Years</p>
<p>Shows that Cal was top 10 through 1988, but if you look, something happened in 88 because Cal went from 5 to 24, Umich went from 8 to 25, UNC went from 11 to 23, Columbia jumped from 18 to 8, Stanford went from being 1 in 83, 85, 88 to 6 in 89 and never rising back up. Something looks fishy.</p>
<p>TaxBear, I don't see why we're fighting, since we both agree that rankings have no purpose.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as you comment about east coasters mostly just know Berkeley for the 60's FSM, I'll just dismiss that as a lapse in judgment on your part.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's only been my experience, and I guess my generalization doesn't hold true for others.</p>
<p>Yeah Berkeley has not been in the top 10 US News since the 80s...I'm guessing US News changed the ranking methodology in 88 that killed public schools.</p>
<p>Here's the thing: US News rankings (the one you look at anyway) ranks universities based on it's UNDERGRADUATE program. And if we were only talking about undergrad, Berkeley does not deserve to be in the top 10. I think the ranking it has right now is pretty accurate. Frankly, with all the hate US News gets around here, I still think it's by far the most accurate rankings for undergraduate programs. Not perfect, but more accurate than most.</p>
<p>Why does Berkeley do well in other rankings? Because other rankings take into account the graduate programs and research. In those areas, Berkeley is definitely top 10 in the nation, if not top 5. However, that doesn't really affect the undergraduate program that much.</p>
<p>Sorry to burst your bubble, but Berkeley's undergrad simply isn't as good as that of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, etc. They have smaller classes, better programs, better support, "smarter" students, better professors, better networking, etc. Students get into Med school, Law school, etc. at a higher rate. It's hard to argue against this. But hey, Berkeley can't afford to be as good as these schools. It has to take in so many students a year (because it's public) that the quality inevitably suffers. It's not trying to be the best school, it's trying to be a great school that admits the most students. And it's doing a pretty good job of it so far.</p>
<p>Cal was ranked high for the first few USNews ranking; then USNews changed the rating factors so that the rich, NE privates do better.</p>
<p>Vicissitudes: actually, there are many kids at Harvard that don't think much of its undergrad experience either. Yale and Stanford do much better by undergrads, IMO.</p>
<p>The USNews ranking is, by and large, a measure of undergraduate desirability, NOT a measure of academic quality. It basically measures how much money the school has, how smart your classmates are, how little there are in a class, and things like retention and graduation rates and alumni giving. It does not measure the quality of the university which university rankings should have always been. For example, it does not measure facilities, faculty resources, caliber of faculty, computer facility, library and other factors that make the a school better than the others.</p>
<p>Cal ranks number 7 in the world the last time I checked.</p>
<p>Care to cite your sources, RHA? =]</p>