WSJ 2022 College Ranking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.

when they calculate 'added value' for the UC schools, are they using in-state or out of state tuition? It's a $30K difference at Berkeley. If you're low income out of state, how do you attend a UC school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.

Did you read my previous post? Value add is not fair when the best students in the country go to the private schools. HYP students were going to be successful regardless, you can't say the same about UCB and the other public school students. And no UCBs best ranking is US news at 22. WSJ puts them at 36 and it's a ranking that solely focuses on outputs, and doesn't give any advantages to schools with low income students and instate tuition for woke points like Forbes. I personally think 22 is an elite ranking but UCB is only top 25 on us news not both us news and wsj.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.

when they calculate 'added value' for the UC schools, are they using in-state or out of state tuition? It's a $30K difference at Berkeley. If you're low income out of state, how do you attend a UC school?

They use instate tuition, it's not even a fair comparison to make when concerning private schools. Forbes is a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

What are Berkeley's top graduate programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.

when they calculate 'added value' for the UC schools, are they using in-state or out of state tuition? It's a $30K difference at Berkeley. If you're low income out of state, how do you attend a UC school?

They use instate tuition, it's not even a fair comparison to make when concerning private schools. Forbes is a joke.

WSJ is a joke too. How is that not fair? California has tons of low-income, and talented college-bound people that will be benefited nonetheless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.

when they calculate 'added value' for the UC schools, are they using in-state or out of state tuition? It's a $30K difference at Berkeley. If you're low income out of state, how do you attend a UC school?

They use instate tuition, it's not even a fair comparison to make when concerning private schools. Forbes is a joke.

WSJ is a joke too. How is that not fair? California has tons of low-income, and talented college-bound people that will be benefited nonetheless.

When they measure value added for private schools are they only using the tuition rate that people on full aid pay? If not the value add of Berkeley isn’t available to every low income student. In contrast financial aid at Stanford is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.

Did you read my previous post? Value add is not fair when the best students in the country go to the private schools. HYP students were going to be successful regardless, you can't say the same about UCB and the other public school students. And no UCBs best ranking is US news at 22. WSJ puts them at 36 and it's a ranking that solely focuses on outputs, and doesn't give any advantages to schools with low income students and instate tuition for woke points like Forbes. I personally think 22 is an elite ranking but UCB is only top 25 on us news not both us news and wsj.

Going to a HYP really doesn't make that big of a difference nowadays as it was in the past. It's no longer the golden key to success unlike some of you still claim. Again, we are not claiming, nor ever claimed that UCB is on the same level of HYP. But just focusing on one metric. Not all of the best students in the country can afford to go to private schools. A lot of high-achieving students were discouraged in the first place to even apply to HYP. You completely overlooked large swarths of the population who don't even have the resources to access elite colleges.

[Anonymous]

This is why we should stop letting HYP grads run this country because they're so out of touch with reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why we should stop letting HYP grads run this country because they're so out of touch with reality.

I thought they weren’t and that’s why HYP is so overrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we should stop letting HYP grads run this country because they're so out of touch with reality.

I thought they weren’t and that’s why HYP is so overrated.

+1. It's just sad and ironic that some of the most insular, close-minded, anachronistic, and atavistic world-views came out of HYP grads or HYP boosters on DCUM, if you look through the threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.

Did you read my previous post? Value add is not fair when the best students in the country go to the private schools. HYP students were going to be successful regardless, you can't say the same about UCB and the other public school students. And no UCBs best ranking is US news at 22. WSJ puts them at 36 and it's a ranking that solely focuses on outputs, and doesn't give any advantages to schools with low income students and instate tuition for woke points like Forbes. I personally think 22 is an elite ranking but UCB is only top 25 on us news not both us news and wsj.

Going to a HYP really doesn't make that big of a difference nowadays as it was in the past. It's no longer the golden key to success unlike some of you still claim. Again, we are not claiming, nor ever claimed that UCB is on the same level of HYP. But just focusing on one metric. Not all of the best students in the country can afford to go to private schools. A lot of high-achieving students were discouraged in the first place to even apply to HYP. You completely overlooked large swarths of the population who don't even have the resources to access elite colleges.

If you make $150k you would probably pay more to attend Berkeley out of state than Harvard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.

Did you read my previous post? Value add is not fair when the best students in the country go to the private schools. HYP students were going to be successful regardless, you can't say the same about UCB and the other public school students. And no UCBs best ranking is US news at 22. WSJ puts them at 36 and it's a ranking that solely focuses on outputs, and doesn't give any advantages to schools with low income students and instate tuition for woke points like Forbes. I personally think 22 is an elite ranking but UCB is only top 25 on us news not both us news and wsj.

You do realize that the vast majority of Americans can't afford a 50-60k per year tuition right? Forbes just provides a different perspective to how colleges should be ranked. If you don't like the wokeness of it, don't subscribe to it then. It's not for your kind of jet-setting audience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.

Did you read my previous post? Value add is not fair when the best students in the country go to the private schools. HYP students were going to be successful regardless, you can't say the same about UCB and the other public school students. And no UCBs best ranking is US news at 22. WSJ puts them at 36 and it's a ranking that solely focuses on outputs, and doesn't give any advantages to schools with low income students and instate tuition for woke points like Forbes. I personally think 22 is an elite ranking but UCB is only top 25 on us news not both us news and wsj.

Sure, but not necessarily because the students are smart or the schools are any better. Jared Kushner was going to be OK no matter his intelligence or Harvard's ability to impart knowledge and wisdom.

The publics like UCB, UCLA or UM do a much better job taking normal kids and turning them into world class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.

Did you read my previous post? Value add is not fair when the best students in the country go to the private schools. HYP students were going to be successful regardless, you can't say the same about UCB and the other public school students. And no UCBs best ranking is US news at 22. WSJ puts them at 36 and it's a ranking that solely focuses on outputs, and doesn't give any advantages to schools with low income students and instate tuition for woke points like Forbes. I personally think 22 is an elite ranking but UCB is only top 25 on us news not both us news and wsj.

Sure, but not necessarily because the students are smart or the schools are any better. Jared Kushner was going to be OK no matter his intelligence or Harvard's ability to impart knowledge and wisdom.

The publics like UCB, UCLA or UM do a much better job taking normal kids and turning them into world class.

If you don’t live in California or Michigan they don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

What are Berkeley's top graduate programs?

Every single subject in the humanities, social sciences, and STEM, plus pretty good business and law schools. Princeton matches their arts and sciences but its lack of professional schools means that overall Berkeley is better. Yale is not elite for STEM, especially their atrocious CS and engineering programs. The only schools that have no weaknesses in the arts and sciences are Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley.

But again, people who rave about HYP are usually those who glorify the WASP country club life and thinks of STEM and professional schools as unsophisticated and “too practical” subjects. So I guess my point is meaningless for these people.