<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 also point out that california1600 has himself conceded (on another thread) that for undergrad, he would have chosen to go to Stanford rather than Berkeley. Yet I wonder why that would be, considering that this ranking has Stanford as only being #7, whereas Berkeley is #2.</p>
<p>sakky - Please don't get so caught up in California1600's antics! It's only a message board, and I'm sure everyone on this Stanford board has gotten the basic idea that California1600 likes Berkeley and that you don't (or at least the undergraduate portion of it). Can we please end this? I don't think any more debates will solve anything aside from clutter our Stanford forum.</p>
<p>First of all, and I'm sure someone has articulated this far better than I can, but rankings are kind of stupid. You really honestly think it makes a difference to anyone's life whether their school is #2, #5, #7, or even #25? Come on. You've got to have better reasons for appreciating a school than some idiosyncratic ranking system. And I'm not trying to depricate anyone, I actually think of all the rankings out there, this one does the best job because it puts everything in an international context. But still.</p>
<p>Also, I believe these rankings take the entire school into account, including graduate schools and research institutions. If that's the case then prospective undergraduates should keep that in mind.</p>
<p>The rankings themselves didn't surprise me as much as the scores...I find it hard to believe Harvard is perfect and that everyone else is so far below....but what do I know.</p>
<p>What happened is that Harvard was found to have the top raw score, and then the ranking then rescaled everybody to be 'relative to Harvard'. So obviously Harvard relative to Harvard was going to get a perfect score. </p>
<p>Now, to collegebound123, I never said that I didn't like Berkeley or the undergraduate part of Berkeley. I have always said that the Berkeley undergraduate program is pretty good and that the graduate programs were great. On the other hand, there is a large gap in quality between the Berkeley undergraduate program and the Berkeley graduate programs, and we need to keep that in mind. Berkeley is a great place to go for graduate school, and is still a pretty good place to go for undergrad, but there are many other places that are probably better for undergrad. Hence, one optimal strategy seems to be to go elsewhere for undergrad, go to Berkeley for grad-school.</p>
<p>I do not support california1600's antics. Did I ever say that? No. I'm saying don't waste your time trying to refute his statements because they're getting nowhere. It's just you two back and forth, and I think rather than helping change anybody's perception of these schools, it's actually annoying. Perhaps it's just because I read one full thread of this (Cal > Stanford?) or maybe I was just tired that day. We know he likes Berkeley -- that's his opinion and while I realize you're trying to let others gain insight on your opinions, I don't think it's advantageous to continue this on. I think it was just me trying to help you to focus your energy elsewhere and help you realize that Cali1600 likes to start up these little debates and such. Hopefully you'll see that my comments was not an attack on you. Anyway... of course you may do as you please and that was just my opinion.</p>
<p>I never trust "rankings" like this. How can CalTech be a better overall school than Stanford, or Yale, or even Oxford? Doesn't seem plausible to me. Also, this study is untrustworthy because its partly based on "international reputation!" How can that be a judgmental factor for a school! I'm sure there are many great options (Deep Springs, for one) that hardly anyone has heard of yet are fabulous schools. And surely the US can't account for 7 of the world's top 10 universities, I find that hard to believe.</p>
<p>For all you stats people, that's voluntary response bias. These results are untrustworthy.</p>
<p>Plus, the people surveyed are all Britts. These rankings only reflect the British's point of view. You would need to interview people from all over the world in order to get an accurate "international ranking."</p>
<p>"Plus, the people surveyed are all Britts. These rankings only reflect the British's point of view. You would need to interview people from all over the world in order to get an accurate "international ranking.""</p>
<p>I you survey people from Asia, the liberal arts unis like Yale would be at disadvantage.</p>
<p>For all you stats people, then how do you address auto correlation in many of US New's ranking of private education bias criteria? Does discovery of truth prefer egalitarian playing fields in your opinion?</p>
<p>Yea, but I think international students and faculty should be dropped from those criteria, if we want pure results that will truly help the United States. At least, I guess thats what someone from the University of missouri would say. I think... who knows. But US schools must retain affirmative action, and seek test questions that help develop undiscovered cultural different norms of intelligence in minorities. For instance one Harvard Educational Review report says that among match ability black and white students, black students performed better on harder questions. </p>
<p>Also, government must fund programs that develope artists that match the quality of Russia's.</p>
<p>whatever california1600, this is getting so boring. how many times are you going to post the same thread. you need some inner peace man, because right now you're too eager to prove that berkley (and in turn, you) is better than everything else. just chill out. jeez, relax. be happy that you're at the #2 (supposedly) school in the world and laugh at us for wanting to go to schools lower. get a life!</p>
<p>California1600, I've asked it before, I'll ask it again, why did you admit previously that you would have gone to Stanford instead of Berkeley, if Berkeley really is the better school? Why?</p>
<p>For Asian Americans, Berkeley has had a much better track in developing influencial leaders than Stanfurd. </p>
<p>Masayoshi Son > Jerry Yang
Norman Mineta, Gene Kan, John Cho, Will Yun Lee, etc... they all went to Berkeley for undergraduate. </p>
<p>For me personally, when I look back, I realize that the "Berkeley Experience" of having no mental restrictions on my development as an Asian American, fostering my intellectual, spiritual, personal growth in the Berkeley environment did much more for me than me spending my most impressionable years at Stanfurd would have done for me. </p>
<p>Stanfurd does not have a track record of successful Asian Americans who are visible leaders in society. Berkeley does. And I personally experienced first hand the "Berkeley Experience" that helped me tremendously. This is something I realized several years after I started at Cal.</p>
<p>Jerry Yang, the founder of Yahoo, is probably the most successful Asian-American out there. Yahoo is bigger than McDonalds and Nike combined. Nobody, on the other hand, ever heard of whatever company that obscure Berkeley guy started.</p>