2024 US News rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

I would take Vandy and WashU over UCLA and Berkeley any day. I’m not instate California and would also not want to sit in a class with 1000 other students

Well that’s great but it doesn’t make either better schools.

Sounds like I hit a sore spot. I’d rather not sit in a huge room where the TA teaches

Not all of us need our hands held so tightly

What’s the matter? Spouse left you for a younger, richer, better looking model?

Ok, troll. It’s Friday. Go to Happy Hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

I would take Vandy and WashU over UCLA and Berkeley any day. I’m not instate California and would also not want to sit in a class with 1000 other students

The big classes are generally the gen ed classes I think. Once you get into your major, then classes are smaller. Not as small as Vandy and WashU but it is worth THAT much more over 4 years? Perhaps not, especially if you are paying out of state tuition..

In state maybe not. But OoS, wouldn’t pay for Berkeley or UCLA. Not worth it when taught by TA who does even know your name

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

I would take Vandy and WashU over UCLA and Berkeley any day. I’m not instate California and would also not want to sit in a class with 1000 other students

Well that’s great but it doesn’t make either better schools.

Sounds like I hit a sore spot. I’d rather not sit in a huge room where the TA teaches

Not all of us need our hands held so tightly

What’s the matter? Spouse left you for a younger, richer, better looking model?

Ok, troll. It’s Friday. Go to Happy Hour.

Hmm you’re sounding desperate and wounded. At least admit it when you’re wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

You must have gone to school in the west coast cause you sound quite provincial

Not really. From a research funding and breadth of excellence in graduate programs and faculty standpoint there is no way Wash U or Vandy can compare to Cal and UCLA. So having this opinion is not "provincial".

Actually WashU had much more NIH funding than Berkeley or UCLA.

Well Cal doesn't have a medical school so that may be issue with just limiting to NIH funding. Here is a list of top R&D dollars at universities and half are public. Vandy and WashU are 24 and 25, kind of where they should be, no?

https://universitybusiness.com/r-d-research-and-development-billion-dollar-top-30-college-university-higher-ed-spenders/

Are you that dense? You just proved my point. Top 30 R&D, quite prestigious ahead of MIT and Northwestern. Btw, don’t see your dream school Berkeley on it

No need to get yourself into a tizzy. Just showing you that NIH funding is not the only research benchmark, lol.

You can feel free to think these (middling, IMO) fancy privates schools are so much better than publics (like UCLA and Michigan which are waaay above them on research funding) all you want. No one cares. Someone has to be willing to pay for your precious Maddie or Cooper to go there.

No one would say WashU is a better school than Cal. Its just a preference of what kind of experience you want to have.

Godspeed to St. Louis!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

You must have gone to school in the west coast cause you sound quite provincial

Not really. From a research funding and breadth of excellence in graduate programs and faculty standpoint there is no way Wash U or Vandy can compare to Cal and UCLA. So having this opinion is not "provincial".

Actually WashU had much more NIH funding than Berkeley or UCLA.

Well Cal doesn't have a medical school so that may be issue with just limiting to NIH funding. Here is a list of top R&D dollars at universities and half are public. Vandy and WashU are 24 and 25, kind of where they should be, no?

https://universitybusiness.com/r-d-research-and-development-billion-dollar-top-30-college-university-higher-ed-spenders/

Are you that dense? You just proved my point. Top 30 R&D, quite prestigious ahead of MIT and Northwestern. Btw, don’t see your dream school Berkeley on it

No need to get yourself into a tizzy. Just showing you that NIH funding is not the only research benchmark, lol.

You can feel free to think these (middling, IMO) fancy privates schools are so much better than publics (like UCLA and Michigan which are waaay above them on research funding) all you want. No one cares. Someone has to be willing to pay for your precious Maddie or Cooper to go there.

No one would say WashU is a better school than Cal. Its just a preference of what kind of experience you want to have.

Godspeed to St. Louis!

Well that’s your opinion based on your ignorance. You like to put down a school you know nothing about because of your stupidity and unable to look at different points of views

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

You must have gone to school in the west coast cause you sound quite provincial

Not really. From a research funding and breadth of excellence in graduate programs and faculty standpoint there is no way Wash U or Vandy can compare to Cal and UCLA. So having this opinion is not "provincial".

Actually WashU had much more NIH funding than Berkeley or UCLA.

Well Cal doesn't have a medical school so that may be issue with just limiting to NIH funding. Here is a list of top R&D dollars at universities and half are public. Vandy and WashU are 24 and 25, kind of where they should be, no?

https://universitybusiness.com/r-d-research-and-development-billion-dollar-top-30-college-university-higher-ed-spenders/

Are you that dense? You just proved my point. Top 30 R&D, quite prestigious ahead of MIT and Northwestern. Btw, don’t see your dream school Berkeley on it

No need to get yourself into a tizzy. Just showing you that NIH funding is not the only research benchmark, lol.

You can feel free to think these (middling, IMO) fancy privates schools are so much better than publics (like UCLA and Michigan which are waaay above them on research funding) all you want. No one cares. Someone has to be willing to pay for your precious Maddie or Cooper to go there.

No one would say WashU is a better school than Cal. Its just a preference of what kind of experience you want to have.

Godspeed to St. Louis!

Well that’s your opinion based on your ignorance. You like to put down a school you know nothing about because of your stupidity and unable to look at different points of views

dp... you don't see the hypocrisy there, do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

You must have gone to school in the west coast cause you sound quite provincial

Not really. From a research funding and breadth of excellence in graduate programs and faculty standpoint there is no way Wash U or Vandy can compare to Cal and UCLA. So having this opinion is not "provincial".

Actually WashU had much more NIH funding than Berkeley or UCLA.

Well Cal doesn't have a medical school so that may be issue with just limiting to NIH funding. Here is a list of top R&D dollars at universities and half are public. Vandy and WashU are 24 and 25, kind of where they should be, no?

https://universitybusiness.com/r-d-research-and-development-billion-dollar-top-30-college-university-higher-ed-spenders/

Are you that dense? You just proved my point. Top 30 R&D, quite prestigious ahead of MIT and Northwestern. Btw, don’t see your dream school Berkeley on it

No need to get yourself into a tizzy. Just showing you that NIH funding is not the only research benchmark, lol.

You can feel free to think these (middling, IMO) fancy privates schools are so much better than publics (like UCLA and Michigan which are waaay above them on research funding) all you want. No one cares. Someone has to be willing to pay for your precious Maddie or Cooper to go there.

No one would say WashU is a better school than Cal. Its just a preference of what kind of experience you want to have.

Godspeed to St. Louis!

Well that’s your opinion based on your ignorance. You like to put down a school you know nothing about because of your stupidity and unable to look at different points of views

dp... you don't see the hypocrisy there, do you?

Cause there is none. The schools we are talking about are all great schools - for different students. Just because a public one went up on this ranking displacing a private one, doesn't necessarily make it better. And to throw out little insults thinking its smart and cute makes you look like a narrow-minded idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

You must have gone to school in the west coast cause you sound quite provincial

Not really. From a research funding and breadth of excellence in graduate programs and faculty standpoint there is no way Wash U or Vandy can compare to Cal and UCLA. So having this opinion is not "provincial".

Actually WashU had much more NIH funding than Berkeley or UCLA.

Well Cal doesn't have a medical school so that may be issue with just limiting to NIH funding. Here is a list of top R&D dollars at universities and half are public. Vandy and WashU are 24 and 25, kind of where they should be, no?

https://universitybusiness.com/r-d-research-and-development-billion-dollar-top-30-college-university-higher-ed-spenders/

Are you that dense? You just proved my point. Top 30 R&D, quite prestigious ahead of MIT and Northwestern. Btw, don’t see your dream school Berkeley on it

No need to get yourself into a tizzy. Just showing you that NIH funding is not the only research benchmark, lol.

You can feel free to think these (middling, IMO) fancy privates schools are so much better than publics (like UCLA and Michigan which are waaay above them on research funding) all you want. No one cares. Someone has to be willing to pay for your precious Maddie or Cooper to go there.

No one would say WashU is a better school than Cal. Its just a preference of what kind of experience you want to have.

Godspeed to St. Louis!

Well that’s your opinion based on your ignorance. You like to put down a school you know nothing about because of your stupidity and unable to look at different points of views

dp... you don't see the hypocrisy there, do you?

Cause there is none. The schools we are talking about are all great schools - for different students. Just because a public one went up on this ranking displacing a private one, doesn't necessarily make it better. And to throw out little insults thinking its smart and cute makes you look like a narrow-minded idiot.

Me thinks you are the only one throwing out insults and name calling: "provincial" "dense" "ignorance" "stupidity" "narrow-minded idiot". No one else said anything like that in this discussion. Sorry but it's clear you have some deep underlying insecurities and a not-so-slight anger issues. OK,ok Wash U is an amazing school, happy now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

You must have gone to school in the west coast cause you sound quite provincial

Not really. From a research funding and breadth of excellence in graduate programs and faculty standpoint there is no way Wash U or Vandy can compare to Cal and UCLA. So having this opinion is not "provincial".

Actually WashU had much more NIH funding than Berkeley or UCLA.

Well Cal doesn't have a medical school so that may be issue with just limiting to NIH funding. Here is a list of top R&D dollars at universities and half are public. Vandy and WashU are 24 and 25, kind of where they should be, no?

https://universitybusiness.com/r-d-research-and-development-billion-dollar-top-30-college-university-higher-ed-spenders/

Are you that dense? You just proved my point. Top 30 R&D, quite prestigious ahead of MIT and Northwestern. Btw, don’t see your dream school Berkeley on it

No need to get yourself into a tizzy. Just showing you that NIH funding is not the only research benchmark, lol.

You can feel free to think these (middling, IMO) fancy privates schools are so much better than publics (like UCLA and Michigan which are waaay above them on research funding) all you want. No one cares. Someone has to be willing to pay for your precious Maddie or Cooper to go there.

No one would say WashU is a better school than Cal. Its just a preference of what kind of experience you want to have.

Godspeed to St. Louis!

Well that’s your opinion based on your ignorance. You like to put down a school you know nothing about because of your stupidity and unable to look at different points of views

dp... you don't see the hypocrisy there, do you?

Cause there is none. The schools we are talking about are all great schools - for different students. Just because a public one went up on this ranking displacing a private one, doesn't necessarily make it better. And to throw out little insults thinking its smart and cute makes you look like a narrow-minded idiot.

Me thinks you are the only one throwing out insults and name calling: "provincial" "dense" "ignorance" "stupidity" "narrow-minded idiot". No one else said anything like that in this discussion. Sorry but it's clear you have some deep underlying insecurities and a not-so-slight anger issues. OK,ok Wash U is an amazing school, happy now?

I think you are confused, again. You are the one throwing out the insults. And I don't need you to tell me what schools are good and frankly I don't care what you think. I can do my own research. Now, I'm happy!

[Anonymous]

If your school isn’t in this video it is of no consequence.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1JCkoA6qvNU

(Rose bowl area will have Washington, Oregon, UCLA and Usc)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

You must have gone to school in the west coast cause you sound quite provincial

Not really. From a research funding and breadth of excellence in graduate programs and faculty standpoint there is no way Wash U or Vandy can compare to Cal and UCLA. So having this opinion is not "provincial".

Actually WashU had much more NIH funding than Berkeley or UCLA.

Please stop using NIH funding. It's a terrible point of comparison, especially when comparing schools for undergrad purposes.
Also, the California system is set up so that a lot of the health sciences money (big $$, especially medical) goes to particular institutions. UCSF is the biggest of those. You are comparing apples to oranges with NIH funding.

[Anonymous]

Berkeley is the best school of the Cal, UCLA, Vandy, WashU group.
The others I think are personal preference. I'd probably put Vandy 2nd, then UCLA, then WashU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Berkeley is the best school of the Cal, UCLA, Vandy, WashU group.
The others I think are personal preference. I'd probably put Vandy 2nd, then UCLA, then WashU.

I would much rather go private than public unless perhaps in state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berkeley is the best school of the Cal, UCLA, Vandy, WashU group.
The others I think are personal preference. I'd probably put Vandy 2nd, then UCLA, then WashU.

I would much rather go private than public unless perhaps in state.

Why? It isn't like Vandy and WashU are undergrad-first liberal arts colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berkeley is the best school of the Cal, UCLA, Vandy, WashU group.
The others I think are personal preference. I'd probably put Vandy 2nd, then UCLA, then WashU.

I would much rather go private than public unless perhaps in state.

Why? It isn't like Vandy and WashU are undergrad-first liberal arts colleges.

Berkeley is known for large classes, not just in intro classes but also in popular majors. It is also very competitive with grade deflation. Would pick any of the privates that you mentioned over Berkeley esp as oos resident.