USNWR Top 10 Leaked

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll just leave this here.

Number of venture-backed startup companies

1 Berkeley 1,305
2 Stanford 1,297
3 Harvard 1,086
4 University of Pennsylvania 993
5 MIT 949

Good, but I believe Berkeley's undergraduate enrollment is more than all of those combined to add some perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cal gets overlooked on DCUM a lot. People here seem to equate it to Michigan. On the West Coast reputation wise and in the engineering recruiting world, it is right up there with Stanford.
If you are looking for a private school that has a great tech reputation but isn't quite at the top ranking wise, take a good look a CMU. Big tech loves CMU. I frequently hear it mentioned alongside MIT and Caltech.

cal undergrad is in no way shape or form “right up there with stanford”

it has a horrible rep as berzerkeley. low yield at 44% vs stanford at 82% despite cheaper instate discount. test blind, unsafe campus, overcrowded, and poor quality of education.

no one is making that mistake.

I am glad DC made the mistake and I never read about Berkeley on these boards when he applied. He is a math major who got a return internship offer at a top firm next year making $85k for 12 weeks next summer. Berkeley is a much bigger school and obviously cannot compete with Stanford in terms of resources. However, my DC has had excellent math profs, research opportunities and the peer group is excellent. It is for a stufent that can seek opportunities. If you strip out ED from many ivies (except HYPMS) - the yield will not be better that high.

Exactly. The haters keep yelling resources, resources, resources without explaining how that’s actually applied to their education.

Smaller class sizes? Explain to me how 15 kids from Philips Exeter talking about poverty in America, and who’s only experience of hardship is being dropped two blocks away from school coz daddy’s late for his executive conference, is better education than 25-30 diverse students in a Berkeley class room led by a professor in the cutting edge of his/her field.

That’s why US News did away with this silly class size metric. If they bring it back, they should do it responsibly. Smaller doesn’t necessarily mean better. In fact, it can actually stunt learning.

USNWR made a conscious effort to emphasize "mobility" (e.g. Pell eligible) and metrics like class size were standing in the way of having some large publics with sizeable Pell populations rise. USNWR did away with class size, student faculty ratio, and metrics like alumni giving percentage to benefit the large Pell schools. But you can certainly argue that a Pell-eligible student, just like any other student, could benefit from smaller classes, better ratios, and more engaged alumni, so why drop them. Wouldn't it have been better for USNWR to have two lists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing is for sure, Brown was way overrated at #9 last year. Bad for many stem majors.

Disagree if we're thinking undergraduate. Brown is excellent for STEM. PLME + top notch CS and excellent math and neuroscience. Doesn’t have the grad associated research that some of the other top schools have because it is just more focused on undergraduate, which is great IMO. I have a kid there.

Their other engineering programs are extremely meh. Lots of better options for CS as well.

Sigh… you have no idea what you are talking about. Brown’s CS department is legendary, especially WRT computer graphics. Google Andy Van Dam and the founders of a little company called Pixar.

i work for google and no it’s not as respected as MIT, Princeton, Penn, Cornell, Illinois, Harvard, Michigan, Caltech, Berkeley, UCLA, amongst a slew of other schools.

You actually dont know wtf you are talking about.

That’s not what you said. You said there were “lots of better options”. Not “10”. You slagged the school without knowing it’s strong suit. If you knew what you were talking about you would have mentioned CMU before Princeton. And IMHO Brown CS is more impressive than U of I or UCLA and equal to Michigan’s.

And I have hired programmers for 30 years so your brag is not impressive to me.

i named 10 out of many many more. Brown CS is ranked 23rd for undergrad by US News, and that's generous.

No, Brown CS is not as impressive as Michigan or U of I.

Well that’s great since they are much easier admits. It’s near impossible to get into Brown now.

much easier? hardly

https://siebelschool.illinois.edu/academics/undergraduate/degree-program-options/cs-undergraduate-degree-options-faq#:~:text=CS%20is%20a%20very%20rigorous,an%20admit%20rate%20of%206.7%25.

U of I CS has a 6.7% acceptance rate. Now imagine out of state

Do U of I CS graduates make more than Brown CS graduates? I don't think so.

Stop moving the goal post

I think the goal post of many CS graduates is future earnings.

[Anonymous]

Duke has regularly been in the 6-8 range for the past 30 years and has been as high as 3 (tie with Yale).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke sure made a run at the top

They sure did. And it's a little mystifying,

Within the South, both Vanderbilt and Rice are often regarded as better schools. And then nationally, add Brown, Northwestern, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Penn, Cornell, Dartmouth, and Columbia. And why stop there. Add Williams, Swarthmore, West Point, and Annapolis.

The Duke run is very peculiar.

Basketball I guess. And I suspect Cooper Flagg will be the number one pick this year, so it shall continue.

Good for them. They know the game, and they play it well. Kudos to Duke,

[Anonymous]

Your comment about Nobel Prizes is simply untrue. Harvard and Chicago have the most. Columbia is third. Berkeley is 4th.

Your tendency for hyperbole makes folks want to discount the remainder of your “facts” used to substantiate the your somewhat flimsy word-salad of an argument. You sound like you didn’t get into Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, etc.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like I have to defend my beloved Berkeley from you private school fan boys who probably can’t even find the administrations office without your counselor holding your hand. That’s why Berkeley grads run circles around you at the workplace. We’re actually taught how to survive in the real world.

Berkeley has been under-ranked for the last 30 or so years. You’re talking about US News rigging the methodology to favor publics last year? Well, what the heck did they do around 1990 when perennial top 5 Berkeley was suddenly pushed out of top 20? Even Michigan used to be consistently top 10.

Here are the facts: Berkeley has more top 10 departments than any school not named Harvard (I think we’re tied); including #1 CS, #2 engineering, #1 chemistry, #3 physics, #3 math, #1 english, #1 sociolgy, #1 english, #1 history, #3 political science, #1 psychology, and so on.

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.

Berkeley also tied with Harvard with most Nobel prize (although I think we have more in recent memory. David card and Jennifer doudna each won one the last few years).

Our history is literally unrivaled, at least the last 100 years. From the Manhattan project, the free speech movement, contribution to tech and rise of Silicon Valley, periodic table, immunotherapy, gene editing, perhaps no institution has helped shape the country in the world more.

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

So, eat it. I hope Berkeley moves up even higher this year in this stupid ranking just pissed you guys off even more. Time to accept the fact that public schools are just as good, if not better, than most ivies and “elite” private schools. Your time has passed. It’s the era of the tech-heavy schools.

[Anonymous]

Put Chicago, Duke, or Northwestern in the Bay Area and they’d more than compete with Berkeley on the tech placements. Berkeley’s relationship with the Valley is symbiotic; Berkeley produces a lot of good tech grads because of its proximity, and the Valley in turn benefits from Berkeley’s research.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s mostly because when they ask officials at other schools to rank by dept they go with what they know most, research. But when you drill down into grad school placement for any of their programs they still don’t crack the top 40. That’s cause UCB’s undergrad mission is weighted far more towards preparing masses for lower skilled careers not requiring further training than the many schools (mostly privates) that place at higher rates.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you are a prof you don’t pick UCB for undergrad teaching, you pick it because for grad resources, including the availability of grad students who will meet with and answer undergrad questions so you don’t have to.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have it backwards. When the ratios are higher, the academic standards are higher because the profs have more time for engaging and assessing. There are literally more assignments, and those assignments are more thoughtfully created and evaluated.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If they “lead the way” for a particular startup ranking (they don’t when looking at Crunchbase, they are 4th) it’s mostly because of size. Again, you need to look at rates by adjusting schools by size, which seems to keep escaping you. If you do so I think they fall out of the top 10. They also obviously benefit from being down the road from Silicon Valley investors. Btw, you haven’t taken the time to separate the start-ups founded by grad students, which is the lion’s share!

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You don’t seem to be familiar with the degree to which PhD spots for arts and humanities are dwarved by STEM PhD openings. Engineering PhDs outnumber English 10 to 1 for example. Given that UCB is big enough to offer everything at the undergrad level and that their undergrads have higher STEM majoring rates than most of their private peers, this makes their lower rates of earning PhDs by undergrad alumni even more surprising. And again they don’t crack the top 40 for PhD rate in any academic category (engineering, life sciences, physical sciences, social sciences, humanities, math and CS, etc.).

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But part of the academic experience is making contacts on who can help solve what types of problems (technical, medical, financial, etc) later in life and learning about a different field of study in conversation. Socializing isn’t just about having beers. It’s about learning from other learners. Did you not experience that at UCB? Fellow students passionate about about their field *want* to share some of what they learned that week. If students at a school only learn academic things from the courses they themselves directly take, it’s a very diminished college experience! The residential part of college is a critical opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivies and top east coast private schools continue to see record applications, yield rates, and decreasing acceptance rates. I don't see the trend reversing with people spurning these schools for the UCs.

Yep. Less than 1% of college students are attending an Ivy. They still get 50k-60k applications for class sizes of only 1,500-1,700. Near impossible admits.

[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.

USNWR actually has a diversity rank, which has Caltech tied with Harvard, Yale, MIT, UChicago and a few others at 15th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll just leave this here.

Number of venture-backed startup companies

1 Berkeley 1,305
2 Stanford 1,297
3 Harvard 1,086
4 University of Pennsylvania 993
5 MIT 949

If you adjust for size and look at startups per 1000 students of enrollment...

Per 1000 s
Berkeley 29
Stanford 74
Harvard 50
Upenn 42
MIT 80

Caltech, CMU, Princeton, Brown, Penn, Yale, Cornell, and possibly even Dartmouth would also be ahead of Berkeley if adjusting this list by total students. There are probably others but the list stopped at the top 32 unadjusted.

https://news.crunchbase.com/startups/top-universities-funded-founders-ai-biotech/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Duke has regularly been in the 6-8 range for the past 30 years and has been as high as 3 (tie with Yale).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke sure made a run at the top

They sure did. And it's a little mystifying,

Within the South, both Vanderbilt and Rice are often regarded as better schools. And then nationally, add Brown, Northwestern, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Penn, Cornell, Dartmouth, and Columbia. And why stop there. Add Williams, Swarthmore, West Point, and Annapolis.

The Duke run is very peculiar.

Basketball I guess. And I suspect Cooper Flagg will be the number one pick this year, so it shall continue.

Good for them. They know the game, and they play it well. Kudos to Duke,

Duke was 12th a couple yrs ago too.its top 10 but not 6 because the aberage the last decade is not 6

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll just leave this here.

Number of venture-backed startup companies

1 Berkeley 1,305
2 Stanford 1,297
3 Harvard 1,086
4 University of Pennsylvania 993
5 MIT 949

If you adjust for size and look at startups per 1000 students of enrollment...

Per 1000 s
Berkeley 29
Stanford 74
Harvard 50
Upenn 42
MIT 80

Caltech, CMU, Princeton, Brown, Penn, Yale, Cornell, and possibly even Dartmouth would also be ahead of Berkeley if adjusting this list by total students. There are probably others but the list stopped at the top 32 unadjusted.

https://news.crunchbase.com/startups/top-universities-funded-founders-ai-biotech/

Meaning if normalizing by size to get a per student rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll just leave this here.

Number of venture-backed startup companies

1 Berkeley 1,305
2 Stanford 1,297
3 Harvard 1,086
4 University of Pennsylvania 993
5 MIT 949

If you adjust for size and look at startups per 1000 students of enrollment...

Per 1000 s
Berkeley 29
Stanford 74
Harvard 50
Upenn 42
MIT 80

Caltech, CMU, Princeton, Brown, Penn, Yale, Cornell, and possibly even Dartmouth would also be ahead of Berkeley if adjusting this list by total students. There are probably others but the list stopped at the top 32 unadjusted.

https://news.crunchbase.com/startups/top-universities-funded-founders-ai-biotech/

+++++ thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies and top east coast private schools continue to see record applications, yield rates, and decreasing acceptance rates. I don't see the trend reversing with people spurning these schools for the UCs.

Yep. Less than 1% of college students are attending an Ivy. They still get 50k-60k applications for class sizes of only 1,500-1,700. Near impossible admits.

Very factual. Yet the other threads hve posters arguing no way do the majority of ivy admits fall into the top 1% academically (despite all the data that most do), so top 10% is close enough. Nope. It is not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Embargoed means it still has time to change right? I think a more reasonable list would go:

1. Princeton
2. MIT
3. Harvard
3. Stanford
5. Yale
6. Caltech
6. Duke
8. Johns Hopkins
8. Northwestern
10. Penn

Well sheeit, if we're going to do that then I'd say:

1. MIT
2. Stanford
3. Harvard
3. Cal Tech
5. Princeton
6. Duke
6. Johns Hopkins
8. Yale
8. Penn
10. Brown

We found the Brown alum who was rejected by Northwestern !

Kids at Brown don't care about Northwestern.

Oh but they do. For finance bros and stem kids, Brown is seen as an easier admit and not as good as Northwestern—so many kids who get deferred or rejected from ED at Penn Wharton or engineering or M&T(insanely popular among males from wealthy families) “settle” for Brown or Dartmouth in RD, and often do not get into Northwestern RD but would prefer it over Brown if they did.

I would disagree. Students would choose Brown and Dartmouth over Northwestern.

Of course they would. Then you get to say you're an Ivy Leaguer for the rest of your life. And I am not being sarcastic.

Does anyone really say they are an Ivy Leaguer or went to an Ivy League school though? Harvard and Yale grads don't. The old joke was that Cornell alums did. Now that Cornell looks like it probably won't be the lowest ranked Ivy League school again in the near future, joke is on everyone else! Stanford grads will tell you they are glad they avoided seeing the crappy Ivy League sports (well maybe not over the last few down years)

Employers and cocktail party attendees look at Northwestern as just as good academically. Parent groups will be impressed too!

+1. This is definitely not a thing. I move in silver-spoon circles in NYC and Northwestern (along with Duke, Stanford, Chicago) alums are viewed as the same as the Ivy League schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

USNWR actually has a diversity rank, which has Caltech tied with Harvard, Yale, MIT, UChicago and a few others at 15th.

https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics

44% asian, possibly 56% if you include internationals. 7% black. I'm sure diversity will improve more after testing is reinstituted next year *rolls eyes*