Worldwide University Rankings

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
21

<p>YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME! UC BERKELY IS 2nD??!!!!! WTH!!! dat is not possible</p>

22

<br>


<br>

<p>why is it surprising if I may ask?</p>

23

<p>These rankings are subjective and therefore, bogus. Move along.
:rolleyes:</p>

24

<br>


<br>

<p>This is your entire argument? Can I ask which university you went to?</p>

<p>Recognition of significant scientific achievement is not as subjective as say picking your favorite color. Wouldn't you say?</p>

25

<p>I am not going to pick a fight. My point was simply that rankings of the top several colleges in the nation are usually dubious, at best. You can get a great education at any one of them, and spamming the MIT forum with a ranking suggesting Berkeley is rated higher is not going to help. :)</p>

26

<br>


<br>

<p>I've been spamming all schools. haha. Not just MIT. How a great science school escaped the matrix of California still baffles me.</p>

27

<p>i don't think berkeley's 2nd in terms of undegrad--they simply have too many kids. princeton should be higher, they have so much special attention, and I don't think MIT deserves to be 3rd. just a few things that's wrong.</p>

28

<br>


<br>

<p>This is a worldwide ranking of the overall university, regardless of undergraduate or graduate. It was based on pure academic reputation, student/faculty ratio, international factors, peer evaluations, and research productivity per faculty. There are no factors that favor private schools over public schools in this ranking methodology, so that is why it may be alarming for some. In other countries, usually the public universities is considered "superior" than private ones. So this removes all bias and focuses on comparable factors. I disagree with the use of international faculty and international students, because of the recent situation in the US that does not permit as many international students to be accepted (for now), but since it is such a minor factor, its not that huge of a factor in the overall rankings.</p>

29

<p>We're talking about undergraduate education here (for the most part in these forums). That makes a big difference.</p>

30

<br>


<br>

<p>Yes, and we are also talking about University prestige in the United States and the entire world as well on these forums.</p>

31

<p>And yet california1600, you still won't answer the question of why is it that if Berkeley really is #2, that you still would have gone to the #7 school (Stanford) if you had the chance. You said it yourself, "we are... talking about University prestige in the United States and the entire world", so why would you choose to go to a supposedly less-prestigious school?</p>

32

<br>


<br>

<p>I already wrote how I felt about how Berkeley was better for my own personal development than Stanfurd, now that I actually got to fully understand what the "Berkeley Experience" is all about.</p>

33

<p>wheres northwestern?
lol well internationally
is it really that unknown?</p>

34

<p>one question: in terms of the student body, which is more academically talented between MIT and Berkeley (i'm talking about undergrads)?
I agree that Berkeley students are mostly pretty smart, but not quite as the students at MIT, where the average SAT score is something like 1470.
As far as I know, Berkeley's average is like 1300.
Doesn't the student body make up, at least in part, a school's overall quality?</p>

<p>And what's the point of posting this ranking in all the forums when no one gives a ****? They'll still maintain their schools are better.</p>

<p>It appears to me, that you have an inferiority complex.</p>

35

<p>If that question isn't a rhetorical one...</p>

<p>The strength of MIT's undergrad student body, naturally, is greater than that of Berkeley. Berkeley is a wonderful institution, however, it really just is NOT difficult getting into the school at all from in-state.</p>

36

<br>


<br>

<p>UC's take the best one sitting SAT score. Private universities generally take the best Verbal + Best Math. The difference is usually 30-50 points in favor of the latter methodology. </p>

<p>Berkeley has a policy of accepting diverse students. Students who are disadvantaged, first time college students in family, poor, etc...etc... Berkeley in fact rejects about 600 students with a 1540+ SAT score, and about 3500 with a 1440+ SAT score. The policy is to have as diverse a student body as possible. </p>

<p>Its just the policy of Berkeley to give special consideration to the underpriveledged. Berkeley can take only top top students if it wanted to, but the greater priority is to find those who can truly take advantage of the "Berkeley Experience".</p>

<p>Anyways, since our professors are the highest rated faculty in the world, they add a lot of value to the student's education, viewpoints in life, perspective growth, intellectual stimulation, etc... no matter who the student is. </p>

<p>But I will admit, that from my investment banking days, and in general, Harvard and Stanfurd people have never impressed me. They just seemed like a dressed up Volkswagon made to imitate a Rolls Royce. The only people to ever truly impress me were two MIT people. One from undergrad and one from the PhD programs</p>

37

<p>I think it's safe to say that MIT also has a policy of accepting diverse students. The ironic thing is that MIT may be more diverse than Berkeley is in terms of socioeconomic background simply because MIT tends to give out far more extensive financial aid packages than Berkeley does. I know several people who had quite modest family backgrounds who, although they were California state residents, found it to be overall cheaper to attend MIT than to go to Berkeley, once financial aid was factored in. </p>

<p>Hence, this whole idea that Berkeley has a corner on helping the underprivileged on on diversity in general is wildly slanted. MIT also rejects plenty of people with extremely high SAT scores. I don't think that MIT suffers from a serious 'diversity deficit' relative to Berkeley. </p>

<p>The other skewing factor that california1600 doesn't mention is that Berkeley takes in lots of transfer students relative to the private schools. The SAT scores of these transfer students are not calculated into the 'average SAT score' of Berkeley, although if they were, the average at Berkeley would probably fall. So if we want to correct for the fact that Berkeley takes in SAT scores from just one sitting, then we should also correct for the true SAT scores of all the many transfer students. You can't just make a correction that favors what you want to prove, you have to include ALL the correcting factors.</p>