Top 10 public "ranking"?

[Anonymous]

UCSD's ranking shows the absurdity of subjective rankings.

15% of UCSD's students can't do middle school math. Not high school math-middle school.

In what world does a college with these types of students make a claim to be a top 10 or top 15 college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now back to the OP question
Why are 5 UCs in the public top 10 rankings?
What about the other 5 in the top 10; how did they get there and why?

The argument for Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD is pretty strong. I’d expand to Top 15 and have the following as my personal rankings:

Tier 1: Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan
Tier 2: UVA, UNC, Texas
Tier 3: Georgia Tech, Florida, Washington
Tier 4: UCSD, UIUC
Tier 5: Georgia, Purdue, Wisconsin, Florida St.

Let me fix this for you

Tier 1: Berkely, Georgia Tech, Michigan, Virginia, UNC
Tier 2 : UCLA Florida UIUC Texas
Tier 3: Purdue Wisconsin Washington UCSD

I think this is a really good ranking. My only revision would be to move Georgia Tech to Tier 2. The educational quality is definitely Tier 1, but it is mostly known for STEM/business. It lacks the well-rounded appeal of Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, and UNC. These schools have outstanding humanities majors that appeal to kids that want to go to law school, public policy, etc. GT does not appeal to most of these humanities focused kids.

With this same logic then - Virginia and UNC definitely should not be Tier 1 then because for their lack of outstanding or quality Engineering/Tech/Stem which one could argue is far more sought after by students in today's world than humanities. Let's just say these are all good schools in their own right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now back to the OP question
Why are 5 UCs in the public top 10 rankings?
What about the other 5 in the top 10; how did they get there and why?

The argument for Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD is pretty strong. I’d expand to Top 15 and have the following as my personal rankings:

Tier 1: Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan
Tier 2: UVA, UNC, Texas
Tier 3: Georgia Tech, Florida, Washington
Tier 4: UCSD, UIUC
Tier 5: Georgia, Purdue, Wisconsin, Florida St.

Let me fix this for you

Tier 1: Berkely, Georgia Tech, Michigan, Virginia, UNC
Tier 2 : UCLA Florida UIUC Texas
Tier 3: Purdue Wisconsin Washington UCSD

I think this is a really good ranking. My only revision would be to move Georgia Tech to Tier 2. The educational quality is definitely Tier 1, but it is mostly known for STEM/business. It lacks the well-rounded appeal of Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, and UNC. These schools have outstanding humanities majors that appeal to kids that want to go to law school, public policy, etc. GT does not appeal to most of these humanities focused kids.

If just looking at the competitiveness of admissions I would say GT definitely say Tier 1. These are some gaudy numbers for a Public.

Georgia Tech
2026 Cycle Admissions stats

OOS Acceptance rate rate 8.9%.
Overall Acceptance rate (both In and OOS) 12.0%

Engineering OOS Acceptance rate 7%
Engineering Overall Acceptance rate (both In and OOS) 10%

Except you shouldn’t look just at the competitiveness of admissions. Why would you do that? There is so much more to a school than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now back to the OP question
Why are 5 UCs in the public top 10 rankings?
What about the other 5 in the top 10; how did they get there and why?

The argument for Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD is pretty strong. I’d expand to Top 15 and have the following as my personal rankings:

Tier 1: Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan
Tier 2: UVA, UNC, Texas
Tier 3: Georgia Tech, Florida, Washington
Tier 4: UCSD, UIUC
Tier 5: Georgia, Purdue, Wisconsin, Florida St.

Let me fix this for you

Tier 1: Berkely, Georgia Tech, Michigan, Virginia, UNC
Tier 2 : UCLA Florida UIUC Texas
Tier 3: Purdue Wisconsin Washington UCSD

I think this is a really good ranking. My only revision would be to move Georgia Tech to Tier 2. The educational quality is definitely Tier 1, but it is mostly known for STEM/business. It lacks the well-rounded appeal of Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, and UNC. These schools have outstanding humanities majors that appeal to kids that want to go to law school, public policy, etc. GT does not appeal to most of these humanities focused kids.

If just looking at the competitiveness of admissions I would say GT definitely say Tier 1. These are some gaudy numbers for a Public.

Georgia Tech
2026 Cycle Admissions stats

OOS Acceptance rate rate 8.9%.
Overall Acceptance rate (both In and OOS) 12.0%

Engineering OOS Acceptance rate 7%
Engineering Overall Acceptance rate (both In and OOS) 10%

Except you shouldn’t look just at the competitiveness of admissions. Why would you do that? There is so much more to a school than that.

I agree.

Georgia Institute of Technology 2026 USWR

#3 in Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs (tie)
#1 in Biomedical Engineering (tie)
#1 in Industrial / Manufacturing
#1 in Environmental / Environmental Health
#2 in Aerospace /Aeronautical / Astronautical
#2 in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
#2 in Civil Engineering
#3 in Electrical Engineering
#3 in Materials Engineering
#4 in Mechanical Engineering (tie)
#6 in Computer Engineering

#19 in Undergraduate Business Programs (tie)
#2 in Management Information Systems (tie)
#3 in Business Analytics
#5 in Quantitative Analysis
#6 in Production / Operation Management
#6 in Supply Chain Management / Logistics
[b]
#5 in Computer Science (tie)[/b
#1 in Mobile/Web Applications
#2 in Cybersecurity
#3 in Software Engineering (tie)
#5 in Artificial Intelligence
#5 in Data Analytics/Science
tie)

#3 in Co-ops/Internships
#3 in Most Innovative Schools
#21 Best Undergraduate Teaching

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Blind admissions and high percentage test optional admissions does go to the overall quality of the school.

Please describe, in detail and with concrete examples, the exact differences in quality among top publics that are seen based on these admissions practices. Not in the abstract, but the actual quality differences experienced by students across different institutions, and again backed up by concrete examples or data. Particularly since most publics are still test optional.

Please also elaborate on why these differences are more impactful, in your view, than the quality of individual departments and professors, availability and breadth of courses, teaching quality, career and graduate school outcomes, program-specific opportunities, outside-of-class opportunities, and graduation rates, among other metrics of quality. We’ll all wait.

Another Top Public already did the research for you and switched course on test optional. Enjoy the read.

https://news.utexas.edu/2024/03/11/ut-austin-reinstates-standardized-test-scores-in-admissions/

None of this says anything about quality between different public schools. None of it says anything about other students’ experience. It just says that kids that submit do better at school than kids that don’t. You have failed the assignment.

DP

Of course it does. Peer group is one of the most important characterisitics of a college. The test blind/test optional schools have less consistent quality in peer group.

And what are all of these other public universities that are test required? This is what is being discussed. The articles have nothing to do with that question.

And failing once again to confront any other assessment of a university’s quality beyond the test scores of its students.

Other than Florida and Texas, what are these other top public universities REQUIRING a standardized test score?

That’s exactly the question. That’s why this whole debate over test optional in what is supposed to be a discussion about top publics is stupid. They are almost all test optional, so evaluate them on other criteria (which you should do even if you had the test scores, because there is a lot else to evaluate). But the kids and strivers commenting here can’t, because they don’t know anything about college other than obsessing over tests they want to pass.

Obviously. Well, there’s a disgruntled TA, sent packing by UCLA years ago, who haunts this forum and devotes his energies to denigrating UCLA, the UC system and presumably anything that has ever crossed his path. He promotes misinformation, like “lectures with 1,500 students”, “the only instructor your kid will ever see is a TA”, and “it will take 27 years for your kid to graduate”.

It’s exhausting. I don’t even have a personal association with the UC system, aside from an extended family member who is a current student and I’ve hired several Cal and UCLA graduates in the past - in all of those few connections, I’ve personally been aware that the individuals (including my extended family member) were absolute superstars when it came to standardized testing.

Anyway …

There was a former TA that posted once or twice in a pre-med thread questioning UCLA for pre-med. You don't know anything about that person yet you are dismissing them with ad hominin attacks.

[Anonymous]

This is one instance where I think the Niche list makes a lot more sense than the US News list.

1. Michigan
2. UCLA
3. UVA
4. Georgia Tech
5. Florida
6. UNC-CH
7. UT Austin
8. UIUC
9. UC Berkeley
10. Georgia
11. FSU
12. Wisconsin-Madison
13. UCSD
14. Virginia Tech
15. Texas A&M
16. Ohio State
17. UW Seattle
18. UC Irvine
19. Purdue
20. UC Davis
21. FIU
22. Maryland College Park
23. William & Mary
24. USF
25. Penn State

That’s their whole “A+” tier. UC Merced comes in at #184 (B+).

[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:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Blind admissions and high percentage test optional admissions does go to the overall quality of the school.

Please describe, in detail and with concrete examples, the exact differences in quality among top publics that are seen based on these admissions practices. Not in the abstract, but the actual quality differences experienced by students across different institutions, and again backed up by concrete examples or data. Particularly since most publics are still test optional.

Please also elaborate on why these differences are more impactful, in your view, than the quality of individual departments and professors, availability and breadth of courses, teaching quality, career and graduate school outcomes, program-specific opportunities, outside-of-class opportunities, and graduation rates, among other metrics of quality. We’ll all wait.

Another Top Public already did the research for you and switched course on test optional. Enjoy the read.

https://news.utexas.edu/2024/03/11/ut-austin-reinstates-standardized-test-scores-in-admissions/

None of this says anything about quality between different public schools. None of it says anything about other students’ experience. It just says that kids that submit do better at school than kids that don’t. You have failed the assignment.

DP

Of course it does. Peer group is one of the most important characterisitics of a college. The test blind/test optional schools have less consistent quality in peer group.

And what are all of these other public universities that are test required? This is what is being discussed. The articles have nothing to do with that question.

And failing once again to confront any other assessment of a university’s quality beyond the test scores of its students.

Other than Florida and Texas, what are these other top public universities REQUIRING a standardized test score?

That’s exactly the question. That’s why this whole debate over test optional in what is supposed to be a discussion about top publics is stupid. They are almost all test optional, so evaluate them on other criteria (which you should do even if you had the test scores, because there is a lot else to evaluate). But the kids and strivers commenting here can’t, because they don’t know anything about college other than obsessing over tests they want to pass.

Obviously. Well, there’s a disgruntled TA, sent packing by UCLA years ago, who haunts this forum and devotes his energies to denigrating UCLA, the UC system and presumably anything that has ever crossed his path. He promotes misinformation, like “lectures with 1,500 students”, “the only instructor your kid will ever see is a TA”, and “it will take 27 years for your kid to graduate”.

It’s exhausting. I don’t even have a personal association with the UC system, aside from an extended family member who is a current student and I’ve hired several Cal and UCLA graduates in the past - in all of those few connections, I’ve personally been aware that the individuals (including my extended family member) were absolute superstars when it came to standardized testing.

Anyway …

How can you be this dumb to imagine a TA fantasy and keep posting about it?

Not PP but the person PP was responding to. The disgruntled UCLA TA is a notorious poster here. Nothing imagined about it.

PP here - yeah, that genie isn’t going back in the bottle. It’s not imagined, and it’s almost certain that you’re at it again, back for an encore performance of “I hate UCLA and lemme tell you why!” ...

The “former TA at UCLA” schtick is well past old at this point. You seize upon every thread where UCLA is mentioned to paint a portrait that takes some of the negative aspects of the UC system (that affect all large public university systems) and amplify them to comical proportions. Class sizes are in the thousands. Only TAs instruct. Nobody graduates on time. The rankings and reputation are undeserved, and everything has gone downhill. It’s the same nonsense.

The UCLA TA has a tantrum and restates the same nonsense whenever UCLA or the UC system is brought up in a thread.

I’ve already disclosed my reference points. A family member and multiple hires in my lab, all superstars on the standardized testing front.

I forgot to add that not only did my extended family member blow the doors off their standardized testing a few years ago, I was reminded this afternoon that they also had an absolute wall of 5s on around 15 AP exams at the time of application. All 5s. Four Top 10 acceptances, including 2 HYPSM acceptances, and they CHOSE the UC system over those higher-ranked options. That doesn’t sound like a low performer to me, but ymmv.

Additionally, the RAs and postdocs I’ve hired from the UC system have all been excellent - exceptional (Top 10%), as well. Not a single outlier. All either on their way or already across the finish line of doctoral work in a rigorous STEM field.

And finally, the most important point. Every one of these individuals, PARTICULARLY the ones from UCLA, have absolutely gushed when talking about their UC experiences. By far, the self-reported level of satisfaction of the UCLA graduates (undergraduate, grad school) has been the highest of anyone I’ve had in my lab over the past 20 years.

Not a massive sample size, but what it yields is wholly compatible with many other data points (including the college search experiences of my own children, their friends, the children of my friends and colleagues, etc.).

The UC system isn’t right for everyone. It has shortcomings, like all schools. But for the vast majority of individuals without an ax to grind, the rankings and reputation are well-deserved.

Last point: I personally dislike the UC’s test blind system. It nullifies the strongest aspect in the profile of many applicants who don’t have perfect grades because they just have’t worked out the executive functioning thing quite yet. That was me as a HS junior!

I loathe what Janet Napolitano did. And I loathe that the Regents defied the vote of faculty. But it is what it is for now.

Former UCLA TA, I hope you let this vebdetta go at some point. Best of luck.

UC is not test blind for graduate admissions

[Anonymous]

Lesson: there is no top 10. Make your own and apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is one instance where I think the Niche list makes a lot more sense than the US News list.

1. Michigan
2. UCLA
3. UVA
4. Georgia Tech
5. Florida
6. UNC-CH
7. UT Austin
8. UIUC
9. UC Berkeley
10. Georgia
11. FSU
12. Wisconsin-Madison
13. UCSD
14. Virginia Tech
15. Texas A&M
16. Ohio State
17. UW Seattle
18. UC Irvine
19. Purdue
20. UC Davis
21. FIU
22. Maryland College Park
23. William & Mary
24. USF
25. Penn State

That’s their whole “A+” tier. UC Merced comes in at #184 (B+).

I don't think much of this list either. It also seems disconnected from Niche's own survey results from students on getting classes, value for money, teaching quality, etc.

[Anonymous]

Any top 10 list that contains a UC school is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

There is one anti UC poster who is constantly posting. She/he is either a. an anti-CA MAGA b. a DMV moved to CA parent shocked that their kid with a high SAT got rejected from the top 5 UC schools in the top 10 or the disgruntled TA.

The top 10 public schools are research institutions. They often have unmatchable opportunities in STEM and Social Sciences but are far weaker in humanities and arts. If you are considering OOS then you really should look for what matches your child. If you want small classes, easier networking and want to major in English, history or classics than go to a SLAC not a top 10 public. If you are interested in premed, go to a top public that has a hospital and medical associated with it or on/near campus. If you are a poli sci major and want to get into politics, go to a top public in a state where you might want to run. If you are an engineering major, go to a public where the type of engineering jobs you would want are located.

Rankings are important but having a strategic eye toward your next step is even more important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

There is one anti UC poster who is constantly posting. She/he is either a. an anti-CA MAGA b. a DMV moved to CA parent shocked that their kid with a high SAT got rejected from the top 5 UC schools in the top 10 or the disgruntled TA.

The top 10 public schools are research institutions. They often have unmatchable opportunities in STEM and Social Sciences but are far weaker in humanities and arts. If you are considering OOS then you really should look for what matches your child. If you want small classes, easier networking and want to major in English, history or classics than go to a SLAC not a top 10 public. If you are interested in premed, go to a top public that has a hospital and medical associated with it or on/near campus. If you are a poli sci major and want to get into politics, go to a top public in a state where you might want to run. If you are an engineering major, go to a public where the type of engineering jobs you would want are located.

Rankings are important but having a strategic eye toward your next step is even more important.

There is not just one anti-UC poster. I barely post anything and have been directly called the former UCLA TA, whoever that is, in this thread.

The UC schools are fine but the recent changes to their admissions practices spells doom for their university system. It isn’t just being test blind but having quotas for students from each high school which overlooks top students and allows in underperforming students who went to underperforming high schools to get in where they have no business being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Blind admissions and high percentage test optional admissions does go to the overall quality of the school.

Please describe, in detail and with concrete examples, the exact differences in quality among top publics that are seen based on these admissions practices. Not in the abstract, but the actual quality differences experienced by students across different institutions, and again backed up by concrete examples or data. Particularly since most publics are still test optional.

Please also elaborate on why these differences are more impactful, in your view, than the quality of individual departments and professors, availability and breadth of courses, teaching quality, career and graduate school outcomes, program-specific opportunities, outside-of-class opportunities, and graduation rates, among other metrics of quality. We’ll all wait.

Another Top Public already did the research for you and switched course on test optional. Enjoy the read.

https://news.utexas.edu/2024/03/11/ut-austin-reinstates-standardized-test-scores-in-admissions/

None of this says anything about quality between different public schools. None of it says anything about other students’ experience. It just says that kids that submit do better at school than kids that don’t. You have failed the assignment.

DP

Of course it does. Peer group is one of the most important characterisitics of a college. The test blind/test optional schools have less consistent quality in peer group.

And what are all of these other public universities that are test required? This is what is being discussed. The articles have nothing to do with that question.

And failing once again to confront any other assessment of a university’s quality beyond the test scores of its students.

Other than Florida and Texas, what are these other top public universities REQUIRING a standardized test score?

That’s exactly the question. That’s why this whole debate over test optional in what is supposed to be a discussion about top publics is stupid. They are almost all test optional, so evaluate them on other criteria (which you should do even if you had the test scores, because there is a lot else to evaluate). But the kids and strivers commenting here can’t, because they don’t know anything about college other than obsessing over tests they want to pass.

Obviously. Well, there’s a disgruntled TA, sent packing by UCLA years ago, who haunts this forum and devotes his energies to denigrating UCLA, the UC system and presumably anything that has ever crossed his path. He promotes misinformation, like “lectures with 1,500 students”, “the only instructor your kid will ever see is a TA”, and “it will take 27 years for your kid to graduate”.

It’s exhausting. I don’t even have a personal association with the UC system, aside from an extended family member who is a current student and I’ve hired several Cal and UCLA graduates in the past - in all of those few connections, I’ve personally been aware that the individuals (including my extended family member) were absolute superstars when it came to standardized testing.

Anyway …

There was a former TA that posted once or twice in a pre-med thread questioning UCLA for pre-med. You don't know anything about that person yet you are dismissing them with ad hominin attacks.

DP. But nope, wrong. The UCLA TA has posted on a ton of threads on this forum.

[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:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Blind admissions and high percentage test optional admissions does go to the overall quality of the school.

Please describe, in detail and with concrete examples, the exact differences in quality among top publics that are seen based on these admissions practices. Not in the abstract, but the actual quality differences experienced by students across different institutions, and again backed up by concrete examples or data. Particularly since most publics are still test optional.

Please also elaborate on why these differences are more impactful, in your view, than the quality of individual departments and professors, availability and breadth of courses, teaching quality, career and graduate school outcomes, program-specific opportunities, outside-of-class opportunities, and graduation rates, among other metrics of quality. We’ll all wait.

Another Top Public already did the research for you and switched course on test optional. Enjoy the read.

https://news.utexas.edu/2024/03/11/ut-austin-reinstates-standardized-test-scores-in-admissions/

None of this says anything about quality between different public schools. None of it says anything about other students’ experience. It just says that kids that submit do better at school than kids that don’t. You have failed the assignment.

DP

Of course it does. Peer group is one of the most important characterisitics of a college. The test blind/test optional schools have less consistent quality in peer group.

And what are all of these other public universities that are test required? This is what is being discussed. The articles have nothing to do with that question.

And failing once again to confront any other assessment of a university’s quality beyond the test scores of its students.

Other than Florida and Texas, what are these other top public universities REQUIRING a standardized test score?

That’s exactly the question. That’s why this whole debate over test optional in what is supposed to be a discussion about top publics is stupid. They are almost all test optional, so evaluate them on other criteria (which you should do even if you had the test scores, because there is a lot else to evaluate). But the kids and strivers commenting here can’t, because they don’t know anything about college other than obsessing over tests they want to pass.

Obviously. Well, there’s a disgruntled TA, sent packing by UCLA years ago, who haunts this forum and devotes his energies to denigrating UCLA, the UC system and presumably anything that has ever crossed his path. He promotes misinformation, like “lectures with 1,500 students”, “the only instructor your kid will ever see is a TA”, and “it will take 27 years for your kid to graduate”.

It’s exhausting. I don’t even have a personal association with the UC system, aside from an extended family member who is a current student and I’ve hired several Cal and UCLA graduates in the past - in all of those few connections, I’ve personally been aware that the individuals (including my extended family member) were absolute superstars when it came to standardized testing.

Anyway …

There was a former TA that posted once or twice in a pre-med thread questioning UCLA for pre-med. You don't know anything about that person yet you are dismissing them with ad hominin attacks.

DP. But nope, wrong. The UCLA TA has posted on a ton of threads on this forum.

How exactly do you know this? It is an anonymous forum and that is pure speculation.

[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:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Blind admissions and high percentage test optional admissions does go to the overall quality of the school.

Please describe, in detail and with concrete examples, the exact differences in quality among top publics that are seen based on these admissions practices. Not in the abstract, but the actual quality differences experienced by students across different institutions, and again backed up by concrete examples or data. Particularly since most publics are still test optional.

Please also elaborate on why these differences are more impactful, in your view, than the quality of individual departments and professors, availability and breadth of courses, teaching quality, career and graduate school outcomes, program-specific opportunities, outside-of-class opportunities, and graduation rates, among other metrics of quality. We’ll all wait.

Another Top Public already did the research for you and switched course on test optional. Enjoy the read.

https://news.utexas.edu/2024/03/11/ut-austin-reinstates-standardized-test-scores-in-admissions/

None of this says anything about quality between different public schools. None of it says anything about other students’ experience. It just says that kids that submit do better at school than kids that don’t. You have failed the assignment.

DP

Of course it does. Peer group is one of the most important characterisitics of a college. The test blind/test optional schools have less consistent quality in peer group.

And what are all of these other public universities that are test required? This is what is being discussed. The articles have nothing to do with that question.

And failing once again to confront any other assessment of a university’s quality beyond the test scores of its students.

Other than Florida and Texas, what are these other top public universities REQUIRING a standardized test score?

That’s exactly the question. That’s why this whole debate over test optional in what is supposed to be a discussion about top publics is stupid. They are almost all test optional, so evaluate them on other criteria (which you should do even if you had the test scores, because there is a lot else to evaluate). But the kids and strivers commenting here can’t, because they don’t know anything about college other than obsessing over tests they want to pass.

Obviously. Well, there’s a disgruntled TA, sent packing by UCLA years ago, who haunts this forum and devotes his energies to denigrating UCLA, the UC system and presumably anything that has ever crossed his path. He promotes misinformation, like “lectures with 1,500 students”, “the only instructor your kid will ever see is a TA”, and “it will take 27 years for your kid to graduate”.

It’s exhausting. I don’t even have a personal association with the UC system, aside from an extended family member who is a current student and I’ve hired several Cal and UCLA graduates in the past - in all of those few connections, I’ve personally been aware that the individuals (including my extended family member) were absolute superstars when it came to standardized testing.

Anyway …

There was a former TA that posted once or twice in a pre-med thread questioning UCLA for pre-med. You don't know anything about that person yet you are dismissing them with ad hominin attacks.

DP. But nope, wrong. The UCLA TA has posted on a ton of threads on this forum.

How exactly do you know this? It is an anonymous forum and that is pure speculation.

Because the UCLA TA regularly identified herself as such. That’s actually why I don’t think she is one of the ones here posting. Though it’s also entirely possible she’s stopped pointing herself out and is continuing to comment.

Weird how dug in some people are being about this person not existing. She commented on tons of threads, even ones that didn’t have anything to do with UCLA.