<p>she. shes a she.</p>
<p>Anonymous--Not to sound biased here--ok, I am--but UCLA can't compare to Berkeley. There's more funding for Berkeley; it's better; and there are far too many "jocks" at UCLA. This is why I chose Berkeley over UCLA....Not to mention by attending uni at UCLA for 4 years, you'd be smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day. </p>
<p>And secondly, as a student at Berkeley, I have to admit I'm unsure if it's better than some of the colleges it ranked over in the THES ranking. However, the graduate programs definitely ARE in the top--such as English, History, Chemistry, Engineering (2nd I believe, after MIT), just to name a few.(Also, c'mon people--the students at MIT have no lives--of course they have to excel in science because that's practically the only focus (or rather IS the only focus) at their university.)
Anyway, because Berkeley stresses the importance of graduate programs, I believe that that has both benefits and detrimental consequences for the undergrads. We get the Nobel- winning professors, but also the 800 person class. It depends on whether or not you like 1-on-1 time or prefer the chance to sneak into class, or just walk nonchalantly in this case, 30 minutes late. </p>
<p>Also, I have been to Cambridge Uni to visit--someone referred to it in a previous post--and most of the best universities in the United Kingdom are "posh" meaning that the pupils are EXTREMELY affluent and attended prestigious preparatory schools. Such examples are St. Andrews--where Prince William went--, Cambridge, and Oxford. By "posh" we don't mean the American whose salary is over 150,000, we mean royal blood--yep ROYAL....(In the United Kingdom they are highly segregated between their upper and working classes. )</p>
<p>Supposedly the British programs aren't as organized as the ones in American institutions, and thus I'd have to say that NO Oxford is not the most "prestigious" nor best in the world, but that rather Harvard is.</p>
<p>Oh, and as a sidenote, Stanford isn't all it's cut out to be (not that I'm prejudiced or anything). THe only difference between them and other students is that they wasted their time in studying for the SAT.</p>
<p>How is studying for the SAT a true measure of a student's innate ability in those subjects?</p>
<p>UCLA is the largest campus in the UC system.</p>
<p>For goodness sake, why is everybody so caught up with rankings?!</p>
<p>"The distinctiveness of each individual college and the diversity among them tend to be lost in a scale of "best-good-worse." Research university or small liberal arts college? Religious affiliation or pre-professional training? Core curriculum or a multitude of majors? America's colleges offer all of these. A college that is exactly right for a particular student-- in its mission, mode of teaching, location, moral or religious character-- might receive a lower rank in the survey than a college which would not suit the needs of that student. </p>
<p>The kinds of data used to rank schools in the U.S. News and World Report survey are not indications of educational excellence. Some results highlight competitiveness, particularly in admissions. Examples are the acceptance to rejection ratio among applicants, average SAT scores, and class rank. Endowment per undergraduate, faculty salaries, alumni giving are indications of fiscal status, not necessarily of quality of education. So-called reputation rankings-- in which college presidents, deans, and admissions officers rate other schools-- are also misleading; they may overlook a fine but little-known college, and even if they do point out a good one, they do not tell you for whom that school is a good choice and why."</p>
<p>That's from St. John's College.</p>
<p>WHAT ARE U TALKING ABOUT sotonssaints?!?!?!</p>
<p>"there are far too many "jocks" at UCLA."</p>
<p>i take pride in the fact that UCLA has the MOST COMPLETE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT IN THE NATION (Sports Illustrated College edition) and the fact that UCLA is #1 in most national championships won by team sports in the nation. but you're clearly mistaken if you think every student who attends ucla is a jock. that's just a messed up stereotype. the student body is so diverse at UCLA that you can't really say there is a typical UCLA student. so what if students like to work out at (the newly expanded) wooden center? college students should keep fit and burn off those late night pizzas. </p>
<p>"Not to mention by attending uni at UCLA for 4 years, you'd be smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day. " </p>
<p>simply ridiculous. in fact, i've never even heard of this stereotype ever. </p>
<p>"thus I'd have to say that NO Oxford is not the most "prestigious" nor best in the world, but that rather Harvard is."</p>
<p>that is an american-centric view. but that's okay, because that is what you think, and that's what many others (including myself) think. but not everyone in the world will agree with you.</p>
<p>ok firstly..what I meant by "smoking 2 packs a day" is the LA air--it's actually scientifically proven that people who live in LA inhale pollutants, carcinogens, etc. existent in cigarettes--to the equivalent of 2 packs a day</p>
<p>Wow, you must be proud of being a "sporty" school...even though the purpose of attending a university is NOT to brag about how "good" your football team is...unless that's the reason you were accepted.</p>
<p>but hey while you're on that bit..UCB's football team this year was ranked 4th...even if I don't care much for sports.</p>
<p>"ok firstly..what I meant by "smoking 2 packs a day" is the LA air--it's actually scientifically proven that people who live in LA inhale pollutants, carcinogens, etc. existent in cigarettes--to the equivalent of 2 packs a day"</p>
<p>Got a source on this one?</p>
<p>hey, no one can deny the fact that los angeles is one of the smoggiest metropolitan areas in the US. however, i do have to note that certain areas in LA are not as smoggy as others, and west LA (where UCLA is located) is part of that.</p>
<p>UCLA is located near Santa Monica and if you have any sense of geography in California, you would know that being near the beach, the air is cleaned out by the sea breeze; it is not in the heart of Los Angeles (like 'SC), but out in the Westwood area in the hills of Santa Monica where the air is cleaner.</p>
<p>"Wow, you must be proud of being a 'sporty' school...even though the purpose of attending a university is NOT to brag about how "good" your football team is...unless that's the reason you were accepted."</p>
<p>UCLA is a big sports school; but that doesn't automatically mean that it's academics and its student body is full of idiots roaming about; the California State Legislature, if I remember correctly, required that students meet minimum eligibility, regardlesss of ECs or talent in sports.</p>
<p>Berkeley is not high in the only ranking that counts: US News and World Report. Almost all Americans go by US News rankings, and this is what affects Berkeley's admit pool/ yield rate the most. Nobody gives a hoot about British tabloid rankings or any other garbage that ranks UMass above Duke and Berkeley above Yale and Stanford. US News is the only responsible ranking out there, and it's the one people trust the most.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the best ranking available is the one that uses cross-admit statistics to judge a school. But, since that ranking is too scientific and does not vary much year to year, it doesn't have any good entertainment value that journal go for. After all, If HYPMCP top the list every year, what's the point of buying the rankings if nothing changes?</p>
<p>Being in the top 25 is mighty high out of 3000 or so schools. Actually most students have never seen the US News rankings--just a relative few of the ranking obsessed.</p>
<p>Too much credit is given to US News.</p>
<p>I keep posting it over and over again:</p>
<p>"The kinds of data used to rank schools in the U.S. News and World Report survey are not indications of educational excellence. Some results highlight competitiveness, particularly in admissions. Examples are the acceptance to rejection ratio among applicants, average SAT scores, and class rank. Endowment per undergraduate, faculty salaries, alumni giving are indications of fiscal status, not necessarily of quality of education. So-called reputation rankings-- in which college presidents, deans, and admissions officers rate other schools-- are also misleading; they may overlook a fine but little-known college, and even if they do point out a good one, they do not tell you for whom that school is a good choice and why."</p>
<p>let the thread die</p>
<p>Ok Gut--but supposedly ten years ago Berkeley ranked much higher than Stanford (read previous posts).</p>
<p>And now you're insinuating that oh "Yale and Stanford" are "innately" better--because why? The past 10 years or so they have ranked higher in a magazine's hierarchical evaluation of universities nationwide??</p>
<p>And admit it--many Berkeley programs are top of the nation--admittingly so, even according to your beloved US News.</p>
<p>like in the top undergrad for business, 2nd engineering (under MIT), #1 english department, history ranked #2, chemistry #1..etc....</p>
<p>Eiffel--I'm not saying UCLA is full of idiots--just it has many of them because of the athletes. Also, the "minimum requirements" aren't exactly difficult to fulfill.</p>
<p>Remember that a low SAT score has to be suplemented by a high GPA in order to meet minimum eligibility; so one way or another, these athletes are finding a way to have a high GPA to meet minimum eligibility. Furthermore, athletes can meet minimum eligibility by qualifying for ELC so that's another way.</p>
<p>And being an athlete does automatically mean you're not great in academics; though not a representation of all athletes, many of my "jock" friends did reasonablly well on the SATs 1100 or higher and maintain a 3.5 GPA with AP and Honor classes. Again, that doesn't represent the athletic pool, but to flippantly generalize that athletes bring down the academic quality because they're not as good in academics is presumptious.</p>
<p>"2nd engineering (under MIT)" made my lie detector go off</p>
<p>UG/Grad both in same order not that theres a significant difference but I still think one should tell the truth
1. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 4.9
2. Stanford University (CA) 4.8
3. University of CaliforniaBerkeley *</p>
<p>UCB is called a "flagship" university for a reason.</p>
<p>Eiffel-- an 1100 on the SAT is average. For UCLA (whose SAT average is in the mid- 1300s, I believe), an 1100 does bring down the average. And a 3.5 GPA isn't that hard to get in high school anyway-- even with AP and honors courses. </p>
<p>Ok, I may be "presumptuous"--but it's true-- athletes --who are admitted only for sports--are generally dumber than the rest of the student body. </p>
<p>And I have visited UCLA (for those who reckoned I didn't know where it was--in the "posh" side of LA with the supposedly "clean air"). And no, the air isn't much better on the west side--I seriously have heard that living in LA is the equivalent of smoking 2 packs a day.</p>
<p>And for the person who wanted evidence of the "quality" of LA air, here is a pdf document detailing (good luck reading this) its air and the many toxins, cancer rates, blah blah:
<a href="http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/%5B/url%5D">www.democrats.reform.house.gov/</a> Documents/20040827114010-17283.pdf</p>
<p>Ok so the previous link, they only "hyperlinked" up to the .gov. The rest of it is also part of the site.</p>
<p>One of the statistics on that document says that Los Angeles's air has 426 times the toxins than the goal of the Clean Air Act. Meaning 426:1--there's proof. Try and refute that.</p>