What happened to Cal rankings?

yawn · January 28, 2009, 9:58pm

[quote]
I've lived in on both coasts of the US. Basically, everybody in the US knows about the following schools:

<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>

Go to any of the above and you will pass the "prestige test" for any job anywhere in the US.

[/quote]

Your "everybody in the US" only constitutes about 10% of the population, if not less.

vicissitudes · January 28, 2009, 10:18pm

[quote]
Cal was ranked high for the first few USNews ranking; then USNews changed the rating factors so that the rich, NE privates do better.

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.

[/quote]

And there are many Yale and Stanford students who don't think much of their undergrad experience either. They protest and whine like everyone else. But if you look at most indicators of undergrad quality, HYPSM are all way up there.

[quote]
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.

[/quote]

This is where you are wrong. Some of US News' criteria:

Peer Assessment (25%): surveys of faculty from other universities. This would probably include faculty caliber and facilities. These kind of things get around in the academic circles.

Faculty Resources (20%): measures faculty resources, directly contradicts you right there.

Financial Resources (10%): this probably includes facilities and libraries.

Alumni Giving (5%): also contributes to facilities and libraries.

Also, I would argue that how much money the school has, how smart your classmates are, class size, and things like retention and graduation rates and alumni giving are immensely important. More resources = better support, smarter classmates = better class discussions, class size = more personal attention, and graduate rates? Do I even need to do this one?

Look, I'm not saying US News is perfect, or that I agree with all, or most of its criteria. But whatever means they used, it is my opinion that their rankings are fairly accurate for undergrad, as far as rankings go. There are so many people who seem bitter that Berkeley isn't ranked as high, because they fail to realize that Berkeley's undergrad program isn't as good as Berkeley's reputation, which is built mostly on the strength of its graduate programs and its research. If we look at the big picture, Berkeley's undergrad is still superior to the vast number of schools out there, so why can't people accept that it probably doesn't deserve to be in the top 10?

RML · January 29, 2009, 1:02am

[quote]

Peer Assessment (25%): surveys of faculty from other universities. This would probably include faculty caliber and facilities. These kind of things get around in the academic circles.

[/quote]

The Peer Assessment of USN&WR is a subjective assessment of the prestige of the university and/or its department. It does not measure the faculty caliber as well as the facilities per se, but how reputable the university name is and how reliable the academic quality is.

[quote]

Faculty Resources (20%): measures faculty resources, directly contradicts you right there.

[/quote]

You're correct that 20% of the criteria are devoted to faculty resources. But let's take a closer look at what faculty resources are for US News. Here's a clip from the magazine:

*Faculty resources (20 percent). Research shows that the more satisfied students are about their contact with professors, the more they will learn and the more likely it is they will graduate. We use six factors from the 2007-08 academic year to assess a school's commitment to instruction.

Class size has two components:
the proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students (30 percent of the faculty resources score) and
the proportion with 50 or more students (10 percent of the score).

In our model, a school benefits more for having a large proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students and a small proportion of large classes.

Faculty salary (35 percent) is the average faculty pay, plus benefits, during the 2006-07 and 2007-08 academic years, adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living (using indexes from the consulting firm Runzheimer International).

We also weigh the proportion of professors with the highest degree in their fields (15 percent),

the student-faculty ratio (5 percent), and

the proportion of faculty who are full time (5 percent).*

If you've noticed, some of the criteria used by USN to measure faculty resources are highly debatable. For example, how would one professor who makes more money from one school a better faculty than those who make less at another school? And, if you've noticed again, that constituted 35% of the faculty resources criteria.

The student-faculty ratio is fine. But what about the proportion of professors with the highest degree in their fields, which constituted 15% of the criteria? Do PhD holders suggest that they are better teachers in the classrooms? My personal experience on this does not suggest to be so.

[quote]

Financial Resources (10%): this probably includes facilities and libraries.

[/quote]

Probably. But it's also probably not as we can see that most schools with excellent library and library collections are the best research schools such as HYPSM and a few elite public.

[quote]

Alumni Giving (5%): also contributes to facilities and libraries.

[/quote]

Again, probably. But how would that be a better criterion than say, measure the quality of facilities instead? Why won't USNWR count the books of the library or the seating capacity of the library or the quality of book collections of the library or the internet access of the school and other things related to facilities per se? I think those a re more reliable measure of the school/university than the Alumni giving rate.

[quote]
Also, I would argue that how much money the school has, how smart your classmates are, class size, and things like retention and graduation rates and alumni giving are immensely important.

[/quote]

I didn't say they're not important. I only said that they are measures for desirability of the school, not really the academic standard of the school.

[quote]

More resources = better support, smarter classmates = better class discussions, class size = more personal attention, and graduate rates? Do I even need to do this one?

[/quote]

I agree. But at some point, the difference becomes negligible or even zilch. How would a class having an average of 1,500 SATs a better class or learning experience with a class having an average SATs scores of 1,490?

I personally don't see any difference there. But the way USNews emplasize it, as it as if the difference is substantial. That's the problem of ranking schools. And, that's the reason why I support the bracketing system instead of the ranking system.

[quote]
because they fail to realize that Berkeley's undergrad program isn't as good as Berkeley's reputation

[/quote]

Hmmm.. it takes a lot of years to build a school reputation. whether the strength of its reputation was derived from postgrad, facilities, faculty caliber or research output makes it a less school than those that have better undergrad desirability. Many students would rather go a school that has a resounding name than a school that has little or no name.

But then again, I have no questions about USNWR ranking. I just thought that the magazine needs to highly emphasize it that what they measure is not the academic standard or quality of the school but the schools' desirability.

RML · January 29, 2009, 3:13am

Sorry, I was typing too fast awhile ago that I've missed to type some words. Let me repost the last paragraph.

Hmmm.. it takes a lot of years to build a school reputation. Whether the strength of its reputation was derived from postgrad, facilities, faculty caliber or research output doesn't make it or should not make Cal a less school than those that have better undergrad desirability. Many students would rather go a school that has a resounding name than a school that has little or no name at all.

But then again, I have no questions about USNWR ranking. I just thought that the magazine needs to highly emphasize it that what they measure is not the academic standard or quality of the school but the schools' desirability.

aberdeen15 · January 29, 2009, 3:32am

[QUOTE]

I've lived in on both coasts of the US. Basically, everybody in the US knows about the following schools:

<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>

Go to any of the above and you will pass the "prestige test" for any job anywhere in the US.

[/QUOTE]

Actually, before CC I didn't think of the University of Chicago as a top school or as a prestigious institution. Maybe I'm just uninformed, but I'm sure I could ask 50 people I know and maybe about 10 of them would know UChicago, for example. I would hesitate before using such broad terminology, like "everybody."

biomech · January 29, 2009, 4:31am

I have a few things to say. Realize that I'm someone who wants to go to grad school in the sciences so I don't really know that much about med school admit rates. Actually, as far as I'm concerned I don't understand why people obsess about schools for med school. Just go to cal state, intern and get a high gpa for less money.

<ol>
<li>I chose berkeley over harvard and don't regret it at all. Many of my friends are at harvard and I personally believe I'm getting an equal (if not superior) undergrad education.</li>
<li>I don't understand the separation between grad and undergrad rankings. The grad programs are ranked highly because of excellent professors and research which allows grad students to get good post docs. It's the same professors you'll want to work with as an undergrad to get on papers and get into grad school. I'm a freshman and I'm taking grad classes. The grad students are mostly pretty chill and there's no reason why you can't just interact with them if you don't like the undergrads. I guarantee you the average math/physics grad student at berkeley is way smarter than the average harvard undergrad so if you're worried about that just hang out with grad students (or some of the really smart undergrads).</li>
<li>Faculty pay is a bad way to measure faculty quality (or faculty resources). Faculty willingly take hits financially in order to work at places like berkeley that do great research. Duke effectively bought their entire lit department under Fish and then experienced a mass exodus after he left.</li>
<li>It's important to realize that student to faculty ratios are different in different departments. If you really care about this and have a good idea as to your major it's a good idea to look up the ratio in each department. For instance gov. and econ. at harvard have a large number of concentrators for fairly few faculty (similar with poli sci and mcb at Cal). In many fields however the ratio is almost 4:1. Also, if you actually want to go to grad school in the field professors are typically quite helpful as there aren't many (raw numbers) of people who are looking to do that at any university.</li>
</ol>

vicissitudes · January 30, 2009, 2:58am

I've done huge quote battles before; I'm getting too old for them. You know where I stand. I agree that some US News criteria are very questionable, but I still think they rank schools according to their academic quality better than any other major rankings I've seen. Also, the difference between Berkeley and Harvard isn't THAT much. We're talking about schools in the top 25 in a nation with thousands of colleges.

biomech:

<ol>
<li>Good for you. Statistically you are in the very small minority. I hope you did it because of cheaper tuition. It's one factor that I really believe Berkeley wins out over the privates, assuming you're not poor. Because of that factor I wish more people would consider Berkeley. But in terms of educational quality I think there's little comparison to be had. Harvard beats Berkeley in almost every measure of academic quality.</li>
</ol>

However, is that really important? I would argue that it's actually not, for most Berkeley students. Let's face it, most Berkeley students are not going to become the most important and powerful people in the nation. Most of them are going to get decent - good paying jobs, or go into the academia, and live their lives. If you're aspiring to be president, picking Harvard over Berkeley will make a big difference. I don't have to argue this; just look at past presidents' undergrad degrees. But most people at Berkeley don't aspire to be president, or to get on the supreme court, or doing top research as a tenured professor. So for most of them it probably doesn't make a big difference which school they go to. Heck, if you are in engineering/CS, it's probably a big advantage to go to Berkeley over Harvard.

So now that I've argued that for most students at Berkeley, the small gap in educational quality probably won't matter much, what else matters? Personal fit matters. (east coast is freezing, for example) Tuition cost matters. I wish more students would consider these factors instead of focusing so much on brand name.

<ol>
<li>You don't see the gap in quality between Berkeley's undergrad and Berkeley's grad programs. There is a noticible gap, and wouldn't it be misleading for grad students to see Berkeley at #21 when its grad programs are in the top 5, or for undergrads to see Berkeley in the top 5 when its undergrad programs are not close to that?</li>
</ol>

Also, you can't possibly be suggesting that all the undergrads to hang out with grad students right? That's like saying, it's okay that Berkeley High isn't a great high school, because you can just go down the street and hang out with UC Berkeley undergrads! Okay, not exactly the same thing, but you know what I'm saying.

<ol>
<li>I agree that faculty pay isn't the best way to measure a school's quality, but it does show how much resources a school has. The schools with the most resources, that treat their faculty the best, get the best researchers and the best research. Berkeley has lost many good researchers to private schools because of lack of funding and proper lab equipment. I've come across articles about this from time to time, look them up.</li>
<li>But what if the faculty ratio in your department sucks? Tough luck then. Want to do bio? Bio 1A and 1B are huge (and always at 8am, ouch). Want to do Chem? Chem 1A traditionally has what, 500-600 students in the fall or something? Same goes for math, computer science, physics, poli sci, econ, etc. etc. the intro classes are huge.</li>
</ol>

biomech · January 30, 2009, 6:10am

Actually I'm from Boston so there isn't a tuition advantage. I personally thought the research people at Berkeley were doing was really interesting. Admittedly I do like the west coast more so that might have something to do with it. I don't really have a problem with harvard being ranked higher than berkeley as it is more selective. I do wonder why places like WUSTL, Vandy, Emory, Rice, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Penn, Cornell and even Yale are ranked above Cal when by almost any objective measure the quality of most departments at those places is significantly lower. Most of those places amount to large liberal arts colleges with little to no groundbreaking research going on at all (save a few fields). For instance, if you're a physics major you'd be out of your mind to go to any of the above places over berkeley if you intend to get into a tier 1 grad school in physics (Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, Princeton or Caltech). Ditto for math and biology. If you want to go to law or med school I'll take that back. Again, just go somewhere with good grade inflation.

I totally agree that fit matters more than almost anything. If you're happy at a school that's where you'll do the best.

Your president argument is interesting yet could just as easily be applied to Stanford (I wouldn't say hoover was the most effective president in American history) or MIT. In fact, I'd have to say that the real bottleneck for how people make it big is grad school (or law school) not their undergrad degree. That's where people make most connections and such.

You're right, I don't see the gap between the grad and undergrad programs. That's because I don't really think it exists as much as some people seem to think. You have the same professors, the same campus, the same supposedly bad student to faculty ratio (not to mention that if you're a grad student you have to share the profs with more undergrads than at smaller privates). Especially if you intend to go to grad school in the department you're majoring in as an undergrad I think it's fair to use grad and undergrad rankings fairly interchangeably. If you're applying to grad schools in a given field the professors that determine your acceptance know the strength of the program at a given university. Similarly if you're at a school with a good grad program it's easier to get undergrad research which is actually the largest component of getting into grad school anyway (I know many people who got into harvard grad school with 3.2-3.3ish undergrad gpas from Berkeley due to research with excellent professors). Also, I don't think it's that strange to hang out with grad students. I've gone surfing with grad students and the postdoc who's overseeing me in the lab. There's no reason why anyone else wouldn't be able to do this as the entire outdoor club seems to be mostly run by grad students (especially from physics) anyway.

If you think faculty are leaving berkeley at a high rate why isn't this reflected in the grad school rankings?

As for the large class sizes, do you know how many people there are in ec 10 at harvard? I think something like a third of the freshman class takes it each year... Sadly large lecture classes aren't unique to berkeley, they exist at most research universities. I truly don't see the difference in a large impersonal lecture with 60-100 people and a large impersonal lecture with 300-500 people when professors hold regular office hours you can always attend (or set an appointment with them if you can't make it).

RML · January 31, 2009, 1:34am

"Actually I'm from Boston so there isn't a tuition advantage. I personally thought the research people at Berkeley were doing was really interesting. Admittedly I do like the west coast more so that might have something to do with it. I don't really have a problem with harvard being ranked higher than berkeley as it is more selective. I do wonder why places like WUSTL, Vandy, Emory, Rice, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Penn, Cornell and even Yale are ranked above Cal when by almost any objective measure the quality of most departments at those places is significantly lower. Most of those places amount to large liberal arts colleges with little to no groundbreaking research going on at all (save a few fields). For instance, if you're a physics major you'd be out of your mind to go to any of the above places over berkeley if you intend to get into a tier 1 grad school in physics (Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, Princeton or Caltech). Ditto for math and biology. If you want to go to law or med school I'll take that back. Again, just go somewhere with good grade inflation."

I absolutely agree with this one hundred and one percent. But I would rank Yale slightly above Cal for the humanities, philosophy, social sciences, prelaw and premed. As for all the rest, Berkeley is superior to Yale. But Cal is definitely superior the rest of the schools you've mentioned.

vicissitudes · February 1, 2009, 1:51am

Berkeley has great research, no doubt about it. It's one of Berkeley's greatest strengths. The question is, how accessible is that research to undergrads? Sadly, it's much harder for a Berkeley undergrad to get involved in research (especially meaningful research) than it is for say, a Harvard undergrad. Your experience may differ, but this is true for many Berkeley students.

There is definitely a gap between the undergraduate program and the graduate program. Much smaller classes (no huge lectures), more attention from professors (no TAs), much stronger peers (grad programs are much more selective), much easier to do research, more funding, more resources, more access to certain buildings, etc. etc. And it's fine if you like to hang out with grad students, but realize that this is not the case for most Berkeley undergrads. Most of them prefer to hang out with people their own age.

Sadly, I do think "faculty leaving Berkeley" is reflected in the rankings. Look at the London Times Ranking, which takes grad programs and research into account. When it came out a few years ago, Berkeley was #2. Then it was #6. Then it was #8. I don't even know where it has dropped to now. And guess what? Whenever Berkeley mentions that ranking? It still talks about its #2 ranking from a few years ago. Sad, isn't it? Look, I'm not sure that a large number of faculty leaving is what's happening. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not. But researchers who are doing cutting-edge stuff are more and more choosing private schools over Berkeley. This is just what I've read, and it makes sense. Berkeley's state funding gets cut every year, and there's no way it can keep up with the privates. Sad, but true.

slipper1234 · February 1, 2009, 12:23pm

Cal hasn't been ranked above 17 since 1988. It hasn't dropped. Cal is great at specific departments but this means much less at the undergrad level. The rich privates do better with far more resources and spending per student.

bluebayou · February 1, 2009, 4:17pm

[quote]
Harvard beats Berkeley in almost every measure of academic quality.

[/quote]

Au contraire. On almost every measure of academic quality (which is the NRC), Cal beats or ties Harvard. Indeed, Cal has more top-ranked departments than Harvard. Of course, the true academic rankings are for grad programs, and the data is old, old, old. It'll be interesting to see how the 2006 rankings come out (typo intended since NRC is obviously withholding the data, which must mean that the NE bluebloods ain't looking too good.)

vicissitudes · February 1, 2009, 5:24pm

By that I mean, the quality of the undergraduate program. Departmental rankings have little to do with it. What's the use of good professors if you can't take classes with them? What's the use of good research if you don't have access to them?

I'm talking about indicators such as class size, graduation rate, retention rate, quality of faculty, strength of the student body, med/law/business school admit rates, graduate school admit rates, availability of academic support, counseling, and research. Availability of majors. Student perks and campus/library access. So on and so forth. Look, I feel like I've been ragging on Berkeley in this thread. But it's no shame to lose to the best. Berkeley is still better than the vast majority of other colleges out there. But I think it's pretty reasonable to say it's not amongst the top 10 places to go, at least for most majors. (you can make a case for engineering/CS)

FellowCCViewer · February 1, 2009, 10:26pm

low alumni giving rate, low faculty/student ratio, SATs aren't superscored so they're lower, etc.

But check out that peer assessment score - 4.8/5.0 booyuh

bluebayou · February 1, 2009, 10:49pm

[quote]
What's the use of good professors if you can't take classes with them? What's the use of good research if you don't have access to them?

[/quote]

Both assumptions are fallacies.

mathboy98 · February 2, 2009, 2:11am

Well, vicissitudes makes a good distinction between "overall undergrad program" and grad schools. I would, however, highly question the wording about academic programs -- it is my experience that in most academic programs, the grad and undergrad distinction kind of merges. The biggest math whizzes I met generally have found the school amazingly good to work with, and with more resources than they could possibly take advantage of. Same with CS majors. Some of the guys who INVENTED aspects of CS theory reside here...and are there to talk with the students. There is something inspiring about that.

My view is that those who are very sure about being academic + wanting grad school frequently can do well here if they're TOP students.

For an overall decent student, it might be better to try to go to an Ivy League school, because the name is overall beneficial.

Actually, my view is that Berkeley becomes worse and worse to go to the worse of a student you are. It really is awesome for top ones though.

mathboy98 · February 2, 2009, 2:12am

"Departmental rankings have little to do with it. What's the use of good professors if you can't take classes with them? What's the use of good research if you don't have access to them?"

And yes, the two statements were fallacies. Departmental rankings make a difference for students who're overly focused on their majors + want grad school. Not so much if they're just in for an overall good undergrad experience...in which case, admittedly, the private schools are on average much better.

vicissitudes · February 2, 2009, 4:49am

[quote]
Actually, my view is that Berkeley becomes worse and worse to go to the worse of a student you are. It really is awesome for top ones though.

[/quote]

Hmm, yes that's pretty accurate. If you're very smart and motivated, you can do just as well at Berkeley as you can at another top private. But if you are not (and most are not), then things will be a bit rougher for you.

[quote]
And yes, the two statements were fallacies.

[/quote]

Yet you don't explain how they are fallacious. Sure, there are nobel laureates here, but what good is that if undergrads can't take classes with them (which is often the case)? Or in the case of someone like Smoot, who wasn't very good at teaching anyway and was generally disliked by his students?

Sure the research at Berkeley is awesome, but you have to admit it's much tougher to get research as an undergrad at Berkeley than at a top private, especially if it's not just meaningless lab chores. SURF is pretty meh, and outside of that it's even tougher. It's also harder to get to know the faculty because of large class sizes.

If you're a student who wants to go to grad school, would a graduate program look at how your university's department is ranked, or would it look at things like your GPA, your recommendations, your research, etc.? The latter three would suffer at a place like Berkeley (again, only relative to the top privates). If you're still not convinced, just compare grad program admit rates between Berkeley and HYPSM. Compare med/law/bus school admit rates.

bluebayou · February 2, 2009, 1:03pm

[quote]
Sure, there are nobel laureates here, but what good is that if undergrads can't take classes with them (which is often the case)?

[/quote]

Actually, sir, THAT is fallacy. Where is the evidence that Nobel Laureates do NOT teach undergrads?

Sure, plenty of lousy teachers abound in academia (including LACs), but, of course, Harvard has a bunch of those reseach-first guys, too. :)

caligali · February 2, 2009, 1:45pm

One thing ratings never take into account is the number of Pell Grants or other financial aid that create opportunity for the academically gifted but financially deprived. Cal and UCLA have the greatest number of Pell grants in the top 25 colleges in USNWR. If education is the springboard for hardworking, bright people then maybe that is ratings-worthy. At least as important as alumni giving in my mind.

Thread		Replies	Views
Why is UC Berkeley ranked so low?? University of California - Berkeley	36	1647	April 17, 2021
UCSD US News Ranking University of California - San Diego	18	117	April 17, 2021
More USNews Rankings! University of California - Berkeley	14	54	April 16, 2021
USNews rankings University of California - Berkeley	154	263	April 16, 2021
Is Berkeley's quality slipping? University of California - Berkeley	24	66	April 17, 2021

What happened to Cal rankings?

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

What happened to Cal rankings?

Related topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US