World University Rankings 2025

[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:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

Mine did.

[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:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

Kids at top privates are guaranteed a minimum of three publications as first or corresponding author per year of undergraduate study, haven’t you heard?! And they slide right into a 1.00 FTE position as freshmen, happily paid by the institution!

Not like at those dirty publics, what with their lectures containing 9,000 - 10,000 students and taking 32-35 years to graduate due to class unavailability!

Totally. Who needs publish or perish when you can be a sophomore at Yale cranking out refereed journal articles left and right that blow away people with decades of years in the field. After all, these kids have taken (checks notes)…intro classes! Original research is a dime a dozen anyway these days.

Makes sense, I guess. I assume these are the same kids who we hear are doing substantial research with world renowned professors while in high school!

[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:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

Kids at top privates are guaranteed a minimum of three publications as first or corresponding author per year of undergraduate study, haven’t you heard?! And they slide right into a 1.00 FTE position as freshmen, happily paid by the institution!

Not like at those dirty publics, what with their lectures containing 9,000 - 10,000 students and taking 32-35 years to graduate due to class unavailability!

Totally. Who needs publish or perish when you can be a sophomore at Yale cranking out refereed journal articles left and right that blow away people with decades of years in the field. After all, these kids have taken (checks notes)…intro classes! Original research is a dime a dozen anyway these days.

Makes sense, I guess. I assume these are the same kids who we hear are doing substantial research with world renowned professors while in high school!

Some of them are getting published in high school after taking advanced college classes in high school. it's not that far fetched in today's heightened competition environment.

[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:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

Kids at top privates are guaranteed a minimum of three publications as first or corresponding author per year of undergraduate study, haven’t you heard?! And they slide right into a 1.00 FTE position as freshmen, happily paid by the institution!

Not like at those dirty publics, what with their lectures containing 9,000 - 10,000 students and taking 32-35 years to graduate due to class unavailability!

Totally. Who needs publish or perish when you can be a sophomore at Yale cranking out refereed journal articles left and right that blow away people with decades of years in the field. After all, these kids have taken (checks notes)…intro classes! Original research is a dime a dozen anyway these days.

Makes sense, I guess. I assume these are the same kids who we hear are doing substantial research with world renowned professors while in high school!

Basically, journals that have been min. IF=8 for the past decade or bust. That’s just one of the powers of the top privates!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

Kids at top privates are guaranteed a minimum of three publications as first or corresponding author per year of undergraduate study, haven’t you heard?! And they slide right into a 1.00 FTE position as freshmen, happily paid by the institution!

Not like at those dirty publics, what with their lectures containing 9,000 - 10,000 students and taking 32-35 years to graduate due to class unavailability!

Totally. Who needs publish or perish when you can be a sophomore at Yale cranking out refereed journal articles left and right that blow away people with decades of years in the field. After all, these kids have taken (checks notes)…intro classes! Original research is a dime a dozen anyway these days.

Makes sense, I guess. I assume these are the same kids who we hear are doing substantial research with world renowned professors while in high school!

Some of them are getting published in high school after taking advanced college classes in high school. it's not that far fetched in today's heightened competition environment.

Yes, it is. They aren’t getting published in peer reviewed journals in these fields. Sorry. It just doesn’t happen. I’m sure they write something that gets published in some fairly meaningless publication designed specifically for young kids to submit their work, and the parents are proud and the kids are happy, but it’s not actual academic research. Nope.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

Kids at top privates are guaranteed a minimum of three publications as first or corresponding author per year of undergraduate study, haven’t you heard?! And they slide right into a 1.00 FTE position as freshmen, happily paid by the institution!

Not like at those dirty publics, what with their lectures containing 9,000 - 10,000 students and taking 32-35 years to graduate due to class unavailability!

Totally. Who needs publish or perish when you can be a sophomore at Yale cranking out refereed journal articles left and right that blow away people with decades of years in the field. After all, these kids have taken (checks notes)…intro classes! Original research is a dime a dozen anyway these days.

Makes sense, I guess. I assume these are the same kids who we hear are doing substantial research with world renowned professors while in high school!

Basically, journals that have been min. IF=8 for the past decade or bust. That’s just one of the powers of the top privates!

Heard the top private kids are actually the referees now. And the comments they send back are brutal.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

Kids at top privates are guaranteed a minimum of three publications as first or corresponding author per year of undergraduate study, haven’t you heard?! And they slide right into a 1.00 FTE position as freshmen, happily paid by the institution!

Not like at those dirty publics, what with their lectures containing 9,000 - 10,000 students and taking 32-35 years to graduate due to class unavailability!

Totally. Who needs publish or perish when you can be a sophomore at Yale cranking out refereed journal articles left and right that blow away people with decades of years in the field. After all, these kids have taken (checks notes)…intro classes! Original research is a dime a dozen anyway these days.

Makes sense, I guess. I assume these are the same kids who we hear are doing substantial research with world renowned professors while in high school!

Basically, journals that have been min. IF=8 for the past decade or bust. That’s just one of the powers of the top privates!

Heard the top private kids are actually the referees now. And the comments they send back are brutal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind these are not necessarily undergraduate rankings. They weigh graduate programs and research very highly. Hence schools like Berkeley and U Washington compete very well compared to their comparative undergraduate prestige in the US.

Berkeley is top 10 in Forbes, WSJ, QS and Top 20 in USNews. It consistently has programs in top 5 in almost every subject. It is a large state school and still manages to do remarkably well in almost all rankings.

+1. Will never understand the Berkeley hate on this forum. It is a strong school across the board.

DP

Dollars to donuts, most of the critics had their feelings hurt by rejections from UCLA and/or Berkeley. The rest are “private school or bust!” oddballs who are repulsed at the very idea of a public school, or parents of children who cannot thrive in anything others than a small, staid (boring?) SLAC setting.

Bunch of hypocrites who pretend to care about public education and social mobility only when other people are around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the hell happened to UVA?

These rankings are rigged.

UVA is ranked around no. 250.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of these are giant schools and the focus is on the graduate program. Pick one for your PHD, but for undergrad go with the smaller undergrad teaching schools.

Thank you for YOUR OPINION. For the zillionth time, not everyone wants to go to tiny undergrad teaching schools. I went to a tiny SLAC and thrived. My kid is at Michigan and thriving - he's brilliant and an extrovert and wanted big. He's learning in lectures from world renowned profs and from discussion sections from PhD students and from peers, and having a blast at a big school. I'm not knocking small schools (other kid is at one too) but it is actually possible to get an amazing education and it is not actually a mistake that Michigan and the UC schools consistently show up on these rankings (every single one of them).

They want their precious kids to attend top 25 (including Berkeley, UCLA & Michigan) but no way those kids will so they resort to attacking the publics as too large, can't get classes etc. etc. They then get their kids into an unknown slac with high acceptance rate and starts bragging about the usual (class is small, slacs produce the most ph.ds, the kid is "thriving") etc. These parents would rather send their kids to a no-name slac than a well-known school that is outside of top 50 since they will not be able to BS about a known decent public/private school outside of top 50.

Think more about your kid's future and not about whether you would be ashamed at gatherings.

This.

[Anonymous]

The best ranking system I have seen so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the hell happened to UVA?

These rankings are rigged.

UVA has been in decline for years. These days, weak STEM departments mean lower prestige/rankings. Just look at what happened to Yale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell happened to UVA?

These rankings are rigged.

UVA has been in decline for years. These days, weak STEM departments mean lower prestige/rankings. Just look at what happened to Yale.

You're right, UVA has been in 204 years of steady decline. It's weak STEM is accelerating the downslide even faster, I give it to 2035 and it will be completely defunct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell happened to UVA?

These rankings are rigged.

UVA has been in decline for years. These days, weak STEM departments mean lower prestige/rankings. Just look at what happened to Yale.

You're right, UVA has been in 204 years of steady decline. It's weak STEM is accelerating the downslide even faster, I give it to 2035 and it will be completely defunct.

It will last until 2070.