<p>Methodology used peer review based on strength/effectiveness of teaching, research, and international reputation.</p>
<p>Worldwide Ranking:</p>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>University of California at Berkeley</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology</li>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>ETH Zurich</li>
</ol>
<p>US Ranking:</p>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>University of California at Berkeley</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>University of Chicago</li>
<li>UT Austin</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>University of California at San Francisco</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>University of California at San Diego</li>
<li>John Hopkins</li>
<li>University of California at Los Angeles</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania</li>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
<li>University of Illinois</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li>University of Massachusetts</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Purdue University</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Georgia Institute of Technology</li>
<li>University of Wisconsin</li>
</ol>
<p>I would point out that california1600, who was formerly known as rayray222 on the old CC site, has said that he would have chosen Stanford over Berkeley if he had gotten into Stanford. Funny - why would somebody choose the #7 school over the #2 school?</p>
<p>sakky. I did not perform this methodology. </p>
<p>Here is an excerpt from the ranking methodology group.</p>
<p>This listing of the most-esteemed
universities in the world, compiled on
the basis of a peer review of 1,300
academics and weighted by area and
subject, shows that old is beautiful.
The top two are Berkeley and Harvard in
the US the second a 17th-century
foundation and the first set up as the
Harvard of the West 200 years later and
they are followed by the medieval
foundations of Oxford and Cambridge.
More encouragingly, this analysis shows
that academics find excellence across the
world, with Japan and China joining the
UK and the US in the top ten. Singapores
National University comes in at 11 and the
next nine places go to universities from the
UK, the US, India, Australia and Japan.
The discipline balance achieved in this
analysis removes some of the bias in favour
of science and technology that is apparent in
our citations-based data, as well as eroding
the advantage the US enjoys in the citations
count. The California Institute of Technology,
substantial staff numbers, it performs less
well on citations per staff member than its
reputation might suggest. By contrast, the
California Institute of Technology, fourth in
the world overall, drops down to 11th on this
analysis despite its low student numbers.
This analysis shows that the most
student-oriented institutions vary widely
in attractiveness to overseas staff and
students. The Ecole Polytechnique
Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, is top
at attracting foreign students, but it comes
in at joint 117th on the faculty-to-student
count. The top institution for overseas
students, the London School of Economics,
is 29th on this measure.
But despite the wide variety in
institutional behaviour this measure reveals,
it is notable that the worlds top university,
Harvard, is also prominent in this ranking,
where it appears in eighth place.
fourth in our overall rankings, plummets to
15th on this count, while ETH Zurich, tenth
in the world overall, falls to number 25. ETH
is a specialist science and technology
university and does not have a medical
school. An exception to this rule is the Indian
Institute of Technology, which is 18th in our
peer review but 41st in the world overall.
Peer review favours large universities with
a wide range of subject coverage. The
Massachusetts Institute of Technology is the
only specialist institution in the top ten, and
its agenda now runs far beyond technology.
Beijing, at number ten in this ranking,
has seen its reputation outside China rise
rapidly in recent years across a wide range
of subjects, including science and
technology. It is already widely regarded as
a substantial institution, and this reputation
may grow and be followed by success in
citations and by our other criteria in future
years. By the same token, Tokyo University,
like many other pillars of Japanese society,
is involved in a slow process of
modernisation in response to social and
economic change in Japan. Its prestige may
rise or fall in line with trends over which it
has little control.
Future analysis will show whether this
peer-review exercise predicts future success
or reflects past glory. Institutions such as
Harvard and Cambridge have enormous
financial advantages over their newer and
less prestigious rivals but can stay ahead of
the game only by reinventing themselves
continuously.</p>
<p>California1600, I never said that you performed the methodology. I was just making a comment as to why you would admit to preferring to have attended the #7 school over the #2 school. If Berkeley is really so good, then why would you want to go to Stanford?</p>
<p>Sakky, like I said before, a lot of super smart students drop out of Berkeley for various reasons. But going about this route is rather unproductive don't you think? If I could get you back in, I would.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I would hardly rank a public university that much higher than... say... yale and princeton in terms of research opportunities...</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>And that's because you're misinformed. Particularly in the case of Princeton, there is no comparison with Berkeley in terms of research opportunities. Only Harvard can touch Berkeley in terms of sheer research productivity and knowledge added.</p>
<p>That's because you're looking at the graduate level, 05<em>01</em>04. Berkeley graduate school is truly one of the strongest in the nation in terms of research in the sciences. However, as one of the 24,000 undergrads at Berkeley college, you would rarely be able to attain the grants, the resources, the guidance available in a private institution of 4000. Public schools simply DO NOT HAVE unlimited funds to provide their students regardless of reputation. Add in the budget cuts recently experienced by the UC schools and you have tens of THOUSANDS of students competing for very few grants and opportunities. It's a great school for in-state students who pay a few thousand a year to attend, it's a terrible deal for out of state students who pay the full tuition comparable to a private institution simply to compete with 24,000 other students (who pay a fraction of your tuition) for resources.</p>
<p>I would have to second pebbles and also point out MIT's UROP opportunities. Basically, it is far far easier to get access to research projects as an MIT undergrad than as a Berkeley undergrad. </p>
<p>To california1600, why do you keep insinuating that I dropped out of Berkeley? You don't know anything about me at all. Why don't you email me privately and I will tell you everything you need to know about me, and if it turns out that I am everything I say that I am, you can come back on the board and apologize? If I'm lying, then you have nothing to worry about, right?</p>
<p>I have seen sub 3.0 students at Berkeley get research opportunities, get their name on a patent, and then get into UCSF PhD programs. Not bad for a sub 3.0 student, don't you think? Also, greater resources are already reflected in many categories already in US News, no need to emphasize it to the point where it clouds academic excellence. By emphasizing the need of private over public so much, to the degree of ignoring academic excellence would be to basically discriminate against the poor. As if our society needs another measure of bias.</p>
<p>to be honest, should ranking matter this much? Of all the colleges in the world, sure these are arguably the best, but ranking is not going to tell you if it's a good school for your major, or if it will get you into a better graduate program, or how the people will act there, how hard it is, or how happy you're going to be there. So what if you go to the university down the river if you hate it there?</p>
<p>Oh boy, I swear this will be the last time I post on this thread... it's getting silly...</p>
<hr>
<p>"I have seen sub 3.0 students at Berkeley get research opportunities, get their name on a patent, and then get into UCSF PhD programs. "</p>
<p>yes, and Bill Gates dropped out of college. GPA does not measure intelligence, potential, or luck, in some instances.</p>
<p>And in reponse to the rest of your post, I did not put down people who attend such schools or state that people who live in California should not apply to Berkeley, or that Berkeley is not an amazing school in its own right. I merely pointed out some conspicuous downsides to public unversities. These are well-known flaws, so there's really no point in accusing me of discrimination against poor people if I happen to point them out to out-of-state applicants. (By the way, most everything I'm stating about Berkeley here, I learned from Berkeley undergrads themselves - not harvard, not mit, berkeley).</p>
<p>Oh, and I don't know about you, but in my mind, academic excellence consists of factors such as individual attention and guidance offered to students, and RESOURCES and opportunities to expand your knowledge (in whatever way you'd like - be it study abroad, research, whatever)... among other things of course (and no, these factors don't have to do with how many times your graduate school has been mentioned in breakthrough scientific research).</p>
<p>There is a lot more out there than arbitrary ranking systems of colleges. If you happen to go to a great school like Berkeley, there should be very little need for such an ego boost on your part. I just saw absolutely NOTHING productive in you pasting these rankings - that happened to place Berkeley above every other "big name" school - into the forums of every other college filled with students who don't really care about Berkeley (as wonderful as it is).</p>
<p>I would also point out why is it automatically assumed that Berkeley is supposedly the champion for the poor? Harvard has just announced that starting next year they will guarantee full aid for any admitted student who comes from a family that makes less than 60k and full aid in the form of 100% grants for any student who comes from a family that makes less than 40k. I expect that many of the private schools will do something similar (maybe not quite as generous, but it will be the same idea). Will Berkeley match this? Doubtful. </p>
<p>Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that private schools tend to be far far more generous with their financial aid than are public schools. I knew one person who was a California resident and got into both Stanford, MIT, and Berkeley, and basically found Stanford and MIT to be far cheaper than Berkeley would have been, despite the fact that she would have paid in-state tuition to go to Berkeley, simply because Stanford's and MIT's financial aid packages were far far larger Basically, she would have had to pay something (not much, but still something) to go to Berkeley, but she would have paid nothing to go to Stanford or MIT. This happened because this person really did come from an extremely modest background and Stanford and MIT had more money to devote to her need. What the new Harvard program has done is codified and standardized the practice of offering comprehensive packages of foreign aid to those candidates who really are poor. I fully predict that we are going to have quite a few people of modest backgrounds claim (obviously sarcastically) that they want to go to Berkeley but can't afford it, so now they have no choice but to go to Stanford, Harvard or MIT.</p>
<p>The point is, when you really look at the situation, you will find that the REAL champions of the poor are in fact those elite private schools who can and do give out extremely generous aid packages to candidates who are truly poor. Berkeley is not really the champion of the poor, it's actually the champion of the middle-class who aren't rich enough to afford college and aren't poor enough to get lots of aid. I don't know about you, but the charge of discrimination against the middle-class just doesn't strike the same populist chord to me as discrmination against the truly poor.</p>
<p>They're all so good, academics and opportunites-wise, that the real question is whether its a good match with a student. You don't really go to MIT to study to be a professional musician. Likewise, you don't go to a conservatory school to become an electrical engineer or a chemist. It's a matter of interest and opinion. I personally would go to a number 14, even a number 87 school if I thought a specific program was better. Also, summer research and stuff is not limited to your regular institution, so you're not tied down there.</p>
<p>Yeah. It's like ACT/SAT scores... once you get in the 34+/1550+ range, there's no REAL difference between you and a kid with different scores. And you could probably actually extend that to 32+/1480+, or something. Or even lower.</p>