USNWR Top 10 Leaked

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the UCal-Berkeley supporter: If "exciting environment" were a rating factor, then UCB would almost certainly be among the top few schools each year. Unfortunately, the resources at UCB are far superior for graduate students than for undergraduate students, and the undergraduate resources pale in comparison to the top 15 private universities.

What resources do you mean for undergrads? They are not spending at the same per student rates as smaller privates but scale also has advantages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Googler as well but that doesn't give me any deep insights into which top colleges are most impressive. I can say we have interns and new grads from a large number of schools and have been casting a wider rather than narrower net over the last 5+ years in where people come from (yes, still a lot from Stanford and Cal though).

Focusing so much on a departmental major ranking for undergrad is a mistake to me. It isn't the same as choosing a grad program where you really are sure what you'll study and want to research.

^ this board is obsessed with engineering. They literally can’t fathom people study other things or the value of not taking 99% of courses narrowly focused on one thing.

No.

It's a simple recognition that it's not 1995 anymore. And the really smart kids do tend to go towards engineering, math, computer science, neuroscience, philosophy, biology, neuroscience, and so on these days.

Perhaps in your era, they went towards "business administration."

It's a different era today.

And that's ok. It's super cool that there are still communications and psyche majors out there.

Go for it. Super awesome!

But some people are going to value the hard stuff - from engineering to philosophy.

Of course, if that's not your space that's cool. Not everyone is going to self-actualize with the difficult things

Untrue. Plenty of very smart people in other fields. The kids that do it all. Not one-dimensional. They are as good at math and science, but can still write well. They have interests in literature and history too.

I’m a STEM major before there was the term STEM so I’m not all that impressed by kids that can’t make eye contact.

The smartest kid in our school, valedictorian, is not studying STEM, but he was too of his class in math/science too.

They go on to make a lot more $ than engineers as well. Literally, nobody in my million+++++ neighborhood is an engineer. Lawyers, finance/business, think tank heads, ceos, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Times higher education calls us one of the super six universities, along with mit, Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, and Cambridge.

THE is primarily measuring research focus and quality. It’s not an undergrad ranking. In fact it penalizes via multiple measures for larger undergrad populations.

Regardless of rankings, do we really think the level of undergrad education is significantly different at most of these schools? A well-known professor begrudgingly teaching undergrads at a top research school when their grants can't buy them out, isn't exactly imparting amazing wisdom. We should be intellectually honest and recognize that prestige and $$ outcomes are what the vast majority of people here usually care about. When it comes to most rankings, especially USNWR and how they historically have ranked criteria wise, that prestige group is especially interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Googler as well but that doesn't give me any deep insights into which top colleges are most impressive. I can say we have interns and new grads from a large number of schools and have been casting a wider rather than narrower net over the last 5+ years in where people come from (yes, still a lot from Stanford and Cal though).

Focusing so much on a departmental major ranking for undergrad is a mistake to me. It isn't the same as choosing a grad program where you really are sure what you'll study and want to research.

^ this board is obsessed with engineering. They literally can’t fathom people study other things or the value of not taking 99% of courses narrowly focused on one thing.

No.

It's a simple recognition that it's not 1995 anymore. And the really smart kids do tend to go towards engineering, math, computer science, neuroscience, philosophy, biology, neuroscience, and so on these days.

Perhaps in your era, they went towards "business administration."

It's a different era today.

And that's ok. It's super cool that there are still communications and psyche majors out there.

Go for it. Super awesome!

But some people are going to value the hard stuff - from engineering to philosophy.

Of course, if that's not your space that's cool. Not everyone is going to self-actualize with the difficult things

Untrue. Plenty of very smart people in other fields. The kids that do it all. Not one-dimensional. They are as good at math and science, but can still write well. They have interests in literature and history too.

I’m a STEM major before there was the term STEM so I’m not all that impressed by kids that can’t make eye contact.

The smartest kid in our school, valedictorian, is not studying STEM, but he was too of his class in math/science too.

They go on to make a lot more $ than engineers as well. Literally, nobody in my million+++++ neighborhood is an engineer. Lawyers, finance/business, think tank heads, ceos, etc.

The legitimate wealthiest people in the world are all STEM majors (Bezos, Zuckerberg et al).

You can’t win the anecdote game going by major.

Also, they obviously don’t live in the DMV for the most part, so of course they aren’t in your neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Googler as well but that doesn't give me any deep insights into which top colleges are most impressive. I can say we have interns and new grads from a large number of schools and have been casting a wider rather than narrower net over the last 5+ years in where people come from (yes, still a lot from Stanford and Cal though).

Focusing so much on a departmental major ranking for undergrad is a mistake to me. It isn't the same as choosing a grad program where you really are sure what you'll study and want to research.

I've done talks at Google

It's weird is what it is. If you are used to chats, and q and a's, and being the evening entertainment, and get excited by the back and forth, the Google thing is weird as hell. It's very passive young people on their laptops during the middle of the day. I think I'm pretty good, but Google is spectrum central. I don't mean that unkindly. But it is so different than a typical evening fun event.

At Google in the daytime, you are never anything else but some background noise. And you don't know that coming in. So it's weird and unsettling, even though you may have had a very nice lunch. It's like let's get the dry cleaning done. Or have some lunch. Or listen to some person talk about whatever.

It's an odd space.

I think the Google people are smart people for sure. But geez. I felt like the entertainer that was there to entertain them from 1-2.

And that's not a great space.

Whores

That's my general opinion of Google employees

Nice cafeteria though

This sounds like someone who picked (or didn't pick) a college based on a tour of part of a campus!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Times higher education calls us one of the super six universities, along with mit, Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, and Cambridge.

THE is primarily measuring research focus and quality. It’s not an undergrad ranking. In fact it penalizes via multiple measures for larger undergrad populations.

Regardless of rankings, do we really think the level of undergrad education is significantly different at most of these schools? A well-known professor begrudgingly teaching undergrads at a top research school when their grants can't buy them out, isn't exactly imparting amazing wisdom. We should be intellectually honest and recognize that prestige and $$ outcomes are what the vast majority of people here usually care about. When it comes to most rankings, especially USNWR and how they historically have ranked criteria wise, that prestige group is especially interested.

This is not an accurate statement; certainly inaccurate for elite private National Universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the UCal-Berkeley supporter: If "exciting environment" were a rating factor, then UCB would almost certainly be among the top few schools each year. Unfortunately, the resources at UCB are far superior for graduate students than for undergraduate students, and the undergraduate resources pale in comparison to the top 15 private universities.

What resources do you mean for undergrads? They are not spending at the same per student rates as smaller privates but scale also has advantages.

Class size, student/teacher ratio, access to labs, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Googler as well but that doesn't give me any deep insights into which top colleges are most impressive. I can say we have interns and new grads from a large number of schools and have been casting a wider rather than narrower net over the last 5+ years in where people come from (yes, still a lot from Stanford and Cal though).

Focusing so much on a departmental major ranking for undergrad is a mistake to me. It isn't the same as choosing a grad program where you really are sure what you'll study and want to research.

^ this board is obsessed with engineering. They literally can’t fathom people study other things or the value of not taking 99% of courses narrowly focused on one thing.

No.

It's a simple recognition that it's not 1995 anymore. And the really smart kids do tend to go towards engineering, math, computer science, neuroscience, philosophy, biology, neuroscience, and so on these days.

Perhaps in your era, they went towards "business administration."

It's a different era today.

And that's ok. It's super cool that there are still communications and psyche majors out there.

Go for it. Super awesome!

But some people are going to value the hard stuff - from engineering to philosophy.

Of course, if that's not your space that's cool. Not everyone is going to self-actualize with the difficult things

I just hope most choose "difficult things" based on legitimate interest and also try to take classes and get experience outside of 1-2 areas.

Most non-founder leaders, even in tech, have business backgrounds. Some may have started with a little hands on coding or eng, but that is hardly the most important part of their jobs now. Leaders specifically talk about how important their non-STEM experience has been.

[Anonymous]

Chicago has to be a little nervous that this leaked ranking is true. I remember a few here thinking they'd be right back in the top 10. Maybe T14 will become a thing for undergrad too.

[Anonymous]

I doubt this leaked list is accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Googler as well but that doesn't give me any deep insights into which top colleges are most impressive. I can say we have interns and new grads from a large number of schools and have been casting a wider rather than narrower net over the last 5+ years in where people come from (yes, still a lot from Stanford and Cal though).

Focusing so much on a departmental major ranking for undergrad is a mistake to me. It isn't the same as choosing a grad program where you really are sure what you'll study and want to research.

^ this board is obsessed with engineering. They literally can’t fathom people study other things or the value of not taking 99% of courses narrowly focused on one thing.

No.

It's a simple recognition that it's not 1995 anymore. And the really smart kids do tend to go towards engineering, math, computer science, neuroscience, philosophy, biology, neuroscience, and so on these days.

Perhaps in your era, they went towards "business administration."

It's a different era today.

And that's ok. It's super cool that there are still communications and psyche majors out there.

Go for it. Super awesome!

But some people are going to value the hard stuff - from engineering to philosophy.

Of course, if that's not your space that's cool. Not everyone is going to self-actualize with the difficult things

I just hope most choose "difficult things" based on legitimate interest and also try to take classes and get experience outside of 1-2 areas.

Most non-founder leaders, even in tech, have business backgrounds. Some may have started with a little hands on coding or eng, but that is hardly the most important part of their jobs now. Leaders specifically talk about how important their non-STEM experience has been.

The current top tech firms all have engineers as their non founder CEOs (Google, Microsoft, Apple and Nvdia (although CEO is still founder)).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, Caltech's entire student undergraduate student body is less than the freshman class at any of the other schools discussed.

It's also a relative unknown on the east coast to many.

https://tech.caltech.edu/2024/04/26/letter-sat-reinstatement/

Good read into the state of Caltech plaguing other schools I'm sure as well.

It's very well known. Most people I've spoken to about schools consider it the west coast equivalent to MIT, just smaller

I think that the west cost people feel like Stanford is Harvard and MIT combined.

Cal Tech is where they film the big bang theory after the asians have left for the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, Caltech's entire student undergraduate student body is less than the freshman class at any of the other schools discussed.

It's also a relative unknown on the east coast to many.

https://tech.caltech.edu/2024/04/26/letter-sat-reinstatement/

Good read into the state of Caltech plaguing other schools I'm sure as well.

It's very well known. Most people I've spoken to about schools consider it the west coast equivalent to MIT, just smaller

I think that the west cost people feel like Stanford is Harvard and MIT combined.

Cal Tech is where they film the big bang theory after the asians have left for the day.

DP. I agree that people in general don't know about Caltech. Scientists know about Caltech, though. And for people who love rankings, it seems Caltech is #2 in the world and #1 in the US for producing Nobel Laureate alumni.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanwai/2020/10/08/the-undergraduate-institutions-with-the-most-nobel-prize-winners/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chicago has to be a little nervous that this leaked ranking is true. I remember a few here thinking they'd be right back in the top 10. Maybe T14 will become a thing for undergrad too.

Chicago is going to be fine. Some schools float in and out of the top 10, and it really doesn't matter. Kids should really not be deciding where to go to college based in a ranking system that changes yearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


But, but, but those are grad school rankings. That’s how I know you’ve never attended a research university, otherwise you’d know the grad and undergraduate levels are intertwined; grad schools are ranked according to strength of faculty and students, and faculty also teaches the undergrads and grad students serve as TAs.

I think you mean they are ranked on the strength of faculty research, and most of those faculty want to spend as little time as possible with undergrads, and on the strength of the grad students, most of whom have never taught before.

These are issues with private universities as well, but at least they have far better ratios.

This lack of attention is one reason why UCB undergrads go on to earn PhDs at such a low rate (68th) compared to its private peers despite all the amazing research taking place on its campus.

Let’s not forget UCB guarantees only one year of on campus housing. Making friends and useful contacts is one of the primary benefits of attending college, and a 3/4 reduction in residential experience relative to many privates is not to be swept under the rug.

I like UCB and I think it’s a tremendous value. You’re just overstating its case pretty dramatically.

First of all, don’t call it UCB.

Second, Berkeley also has the most top undergrad programs. In fact, Berkeley practically sweeps the few undergrad programs that U.S. News does rank. Off the top of my head, Berkeley is ranked #1 for CS, #1 civil engineering, #1 psychology, #1 environmental engineering, #2 business administration, etc.

Faculty is ranked according to reputation, papers they’ve written, citations, awards, and yes, research. You’re just nitpicking at this point. Berkeley professors are top notch, and they do teach undergrads. And yes, they care about their undergrad students. I think you’ve been led astray by anti-Berkeley infidels propagating false cliches about cal professors to cope with the reality that the best professors would prefer to teach at public’s.

My biggest regret at Berkeley is ignoring the hundreds of emails I received from professors practically begging for us to come to office hours. They absolutely care about teaching undergrads. This is common sense. In fact, when former Secretary of treasury for Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, conducted his final lecture at Berkeley for his famous Poverty and Wealth course, he sat outside of Wheeler Hall (where Oppenheimer was filmed) and greeted practically half of the school.

I think you’re far too obsessed with ratios, and a university’s ability to coddle their students. I get it, the lesser the competition, the better access you have to the folks who will give you the answers.

But at Berkeley, professors and TAs won’t hold your hands even if you’re in a classroom of 12 students. Their goal is for you to learn how to learn. I hated it myself at first, but now I can’t imagine a better form of education. I wouldn’t trade it for the world. That’s why Berkeley students lead the way with the most venture capitalist-backed startups. It’s simply a different of teaching philosophy and not lack of resources. Would you rather have a bunch of navy Seals put through hell to protect you, or regular recruits who got unlimited resources?

Berkeley also sends the most kids to grad schools. Again, using ratio here is flawed because universities are made up of different colleges and programs, and students have different goals. Private schools specialize in the humanities so naturally they’re gonna wanna go to grad schools en masses because you’re not gonna get very many job offers with that degree (and I was a philosophy major). They also tend to come from money so they can pay for it. Most CS, engineering, data science, etc majors at cal already have jobs in Silicon Valley lined up for them, so why go to grad school?

I will concede to lack of student housing, that’s cal’s biggest problem. But I’m primarily focused on academics, that’s the only thing I’m concerned about.

It’s not that I’m overstating its case, this forum is downplaying it dramatically to cater to their elitism and their warped sense of “good education” that’s centered on exclusivity and wealth.