Top 10 public "ranking"?

[Anonymous]

"Anyone arguing that UCLA, Berkeley, and Michigan are anything but the clear-cut, undisputed Top 3 public institutions"

I love waking up to comedy in the morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%

UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.

We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

You are basing your ranking on admissions rates? You know how those are calculated, right? Oh my. I suspect this is a teenager from California.

[Anonymous]

You can't rank or compare test required top publics to UC schools anymore when they are test blind. Defies logic and is worthless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%

UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.

We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

I am a huge fan of the UC schools. It is an amazing system with a surplus of excellent offerings top to bottom. I think the only other state that rivals the sheer number of appealing schools is Virginia. Of course other states envy California.

But your way of assessing is just not adequate. Admissions rates of course tell us a lot about the appeal and popularity of a school, and to an extent these often correlate with high stats and highly driven students as well as excellent course offerings as well as excellent advising and so on - but not always.

The numbers can also be very misleading. California is the most populated state in the country--there is a HUGE demand for seats at these affordable schools. California is test-blind, not even test-optional, so ALL students can feel like they have a shot. The number of applicants is enormous and that drives the admissions rate way, way down. California is committed to the upward mobility of its population which, again, decreases the seats for the more typical high-achieving population and thus driving down admission rate numbers.

When you try to make a list of top ten schools, admissions rate is only one indicator, it is not even a factor. We are all going to have different metrics and I, for one, just totally disagree with the ones used by US News. Do you agree with their metrics? Which ones? No one, from CA or the rest of the country, who has any real familiarity with UC Merced would pretend that the student body is statistically in the top 25. So if you are looking for high achieving peers, this is not the place for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%

UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.

We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

You are basing your ranking on admissions rates? You know how those are calculated, right? Oh my. I suspect this is a teenager from California.

Another reason admissions rates are so low at CA schools have one application. Just one. Most selective schools that use that common app have supplemental essays, sometimes multiple, so you do the common app and then address each school separately. But the CA App is one and done. You can get waivers to add more schools and so on. They make it very easy to apply to many schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%

UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.

We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

My kid is graduating from Berkeley in a week, so what I’m about to say isn’t coming from a “hater”, but this is one of the dumbest analyses I’ve seen on DCUM.

The opinions of CC transfers don’t count, so settle down. And it’s an analysis.

Do you know how singular/plural nouns work?

The thesis is “the UC system is the best public education system in America”.

Where’s the additional assessment, genius?

So needlessly aggressive.

When I say “one of the dumbest analyses I’ve seen on DCUM”, I mean “I’ve seen many analyses on DCUM”. Among those, I’ve seen both intelligent, thoughtful takes, and … takes that are … not. Of the many analyses I’ve seen on DCUM, “the UC low admit rates mean they’re the best schools in the country booya mic drop” is one of the dumbest.

Resentment and jealousy of the State of California has become an obsessive pastime for large swaths of America, but that doesn’t excuse your lame responses.

There. Have a great day, though!

I am a Californian. And, again, my kid is graduating from Berkeley (after getting in as a senior in high school, though I think the CC-transfer system is great). There's no "resentment" or "jealousy" here. You just don't have a compelling argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%

UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.

We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

My kid is graduating from Berkeley in a week, so what I’m about to say isn’t coming from a “hater”, but this is one of the dumbest analyses I’ve seen on DCUM.

The opinions of CC transfers don’t count, so settle down. And it’s an analysis.

Do you know how singular/plural nouns work?

The thesis is “the UC system is the best public education system in America”.

Where’s the additional assessment, genius?

So needlessly aggressive.

When I say “one of the dumbest analyses I’ve seen on DCUM”, I mean “I’ve seen many analyses on DCUM”. Among those, I’ve seen both intelligent, thoughtful takes, and … takes that are … not. Of the many analyses I’ve seen on DCUM, “the UC low admit rates mean they’re the best schools in the country booya mic drop” is one of the dumbest.

Resentment and jealousy of the State of California has become an obsessive pastime for large swaths of America, but that doesn’t excuse your lame responses.

There. Have a great day, though!

I am a Californian. And, again, my kid is graduating from Berkeley (after getting in as a senior in high school, though I think the CC-transfer system is great). There's no "resentment" or "jealousy" here. You just don't have a compelling argument.

DP

This isn’t an argument. It actually seems like one side promoting the consensus best publics and the other side downplaying them without any semblance of defense for the alternatives they apparently think are better.

Where’s the case for Virginia over Cal?
Where’s the case for Texas over UCLA?
Where’s the case for UNC over Michigan?

At one point, someone even argued that ANY of the Top 50 LACs would be a better choice for an OOS applicant than Cal or UCLA (or any other UC)!

Macalester or Occidental or Grinnell or Lafayette, all costing $10 - $15K more per year, would be better choices?

This sure seems like individual(s) irrationally attacking the UC system without presenting any objective arguments - just their feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%

UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.

We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

My kid is graduating from Berkeley in a week, so what I’m about to say isn’t coming from a “hater”, but this is one of the dumbest analyses I’ve seen on DCUM.

The opinions of CC transfers don’t count, so settle down. And it’s an analysis.

Do you know how singular/plural nouns work?

The thesis is “the UC system is the best public education system in America”.

Where’s the additional assessment, genius?

So needlessly aggressive.

When I say “one of the dumbest analyses I’ve seen on DCUM”, I mean “I’ve seen many analyses on DCUM”. Among those, I’ve seen both intelligent, thoughtful takes, and … takes that are … not. Of the many analyses I’ve seen on DCUM, “the UC low admit rates mean they’re the best schools in the country booya mic drop” is one of the dumbest.

Resentment and jealousy of the State of California has become an obsessive pastime for large swaths of America, but that doesn’t excuse your lame responses.

There. Have a great day, though!

I am a Californian. And, again, my kid is graduating from Berkeley (after getting in as a senior in high school, though I think the CC-transfer system is great). There's no "resentment" or "jealousy" here. You just don't have a compelling argument.

DP

This isn’t an argument. It actually seems like one side promoting the consensus best publics and the other side downplaying them without any semblance of defense for the alternatives they apparently think are better.

Where’s the case for Virginia over Cal?
Where’s the case for Texas over UCLA?
Where’s the case for UNC over Michigan?

At one point, someone even argued that ANY of the Top 50 LACs would be a better choice for an OOS applicant than Cal or UCLA (or any other UC)!

Macalester or Occidental or Grinnell or Lafayette, all costing $10 - $15K more per year, would be better choices?

This sure seems like individual(s) irrationally attacking the UC system without presenting any objective arguments - just their feelings.

No one is presenting arguments because they are immature kids incapable of doing so. They have been flooding this forum the past few days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ranked based on quality of the peer groups

UCB
UCLA
UMich
UVA
GT
UNC
W&M
UT
UIUC

The academic peer group at the UCs is pretty bad right now. The kids might be interesting but they are not really that smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is enlightening because it is such a stark reminder of how incapable people here are of evaluating universities. OP asks a rather strange question but then the discussion immediately descends into whether standardized tests are required and ED practices. Nothing on professor or department quality, unique programming, career and grad school outcomes, or the like. Nope. Entirely focused on admissions practices.

Because student quality matters the most. A Nobel laureate cannot teach a lottery student who needs remedial math.

Did you even attend college? When I read things like this I wonder if the people here actually attended and took advantage of the things that existed at their schools. The “quality” of the other students wouldn’t have even been in my top 10 of things that mattered. And any school in a discussion of top 10 has more than its share of “quality” students. If you’re brilliant at math you’re in the 300 and 400 level classes with the other brilliant math kids, not sitting through remedial math.

Tell me you didn't attend a selective school without telling me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UCB, UMICH, UVA, UNC, UT, UF, UCLA, W&M, UIUC, GT

Cal and Wisconsin should be on that list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No UMD? Why?

UMD is great in a few specific programs, but not as great across the board as the other schools being listed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s some crazy UCLA hate in this thread, which is funny because the cross-enrollment data consistently blows that hate sky high.

UCLA vs. Berkeley: 61 / 39
UCLA vs. Michigan: 55 / 45
UCLA vs. UVA: 60 / 40
UCLA vs. UNC: 87 / 13
UCLA vs. Texas: 47 / 53
UCLA vs. Georgia Tech: 71 / 29
UCLA vs. Florida: 74 / 26
UCLA vs. UIUC: 73 / 27
UCLA vs. Georgia: 63 / 37
UCLA vs. Wisconsin: 71 / 29

lol First, you know how populated California is correct? You know how many in-staters apply to UCLA correct? You do know those thousands in-staters that get accepted to UCLA that applied to the other Publics listed above receive in-state tuition at UCLA, correct? These same applicants must pay a lot in OOS tuition at the other Publics, correct? You think that impacted some of these decisions in the stats above? C'mon man! Some of these posts.

Are you serious? The exact same argument cuts all ways, genius.

Michigan: $40K vs. $84K
UVA: $42 vs. $85K
UNC: $29K vs. $70K
Texas: $35K vs. $73K

Do the research on the rest yourself.

DP
It's not symmetrical
Michigan in particular has a lot of OOS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notwithstanding the views of the “no one thinks” / “everyone knows” genius, California will continue to dunk all over whatever state or nation the UC haters hail from.

It’s regrettable that the dreams of their children were crushed when UCLA and/or Berkeley rejected them, but the fact remains that the UC system reigns supreme.

Maybe next year, though. 😂

If you live out of state, why would you apply to UC schools? They are not worth out of state tuition. Much better options exist.

Because they are test blind and if I can pay the application fee I have a chance to end up at a school that is waaaaay better than I have any right to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%

UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.

We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

Application rates are much higher at test optional schools. Test blind schools invite even more applications.
Add that UC application process that pretty much invites everyone applying to any UC to throw their hat in the ring for cal and UCLA.