Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Source?

Her “How to cope with a Berkekey rejection in your portal” handbook.

How to cope at Berkely knowing many of your classmates have low standardized test scores yet these are your peers at your school.

If you are at one of the top schools in the country and you still genuinely care about your peer's SAT scores you peaked in high school.

Our kids shouldn’t have to slum it with the sub-1400 goofballs. This isn’t clown college after all.

The test optional nonsense is making the UC Berkeley student body look like that of ASU.

Don’t insult ASU by comparing it to the UC colleges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Davis. Pleasantly surprised that that the faculty in Econ/poly sci have been fantastic. He’s liked the TAs. He’s had no problems registering or finding housing for sophomore year. He’s active in several orgs and made it onto a competitive academic team as a freshman. There is a wide gap academically between the Bay Area kids and other in state kids/OOS kids. International kids are more varied. Bay Area kids have to be tippy top to get in and therefore have an advantage in being able to navigate the research orientation of the UCs. He has a wide group of friends including a few OOS kids with low SATs. Once you are in college, you don’t need to only associate with people who scored over 1500 on the SAT. There will be plenty high scorers in upper division economics , animal science, engineering, bio, poly sci , chem etc etc.

Davis has been a top national level public school and globally recognized long before any methodology changes in the rankings. If it makes the anti UC poster feel better, his SAT was 1560, one sitting no super score.

CA public higher education is different from other states. UC is dedicated to research, graduate level studies and preparing undergraduates for graduate or professional level schools, scholarship and research. CA states are dedicated are dedicated to four year degrees with the exception being education. It is more vocational, applied and career focused. If you want to be an accountant, nurse, business administrator, teacher etc you would go to Cal State. This split has allowed the UCs to heavily invest in research heavy departments and influences the lack of hand holding or spoon feeding approach. It’s also allowed Cal States to focus more on teaching and doing.

Love it! UC Berkeley has also been viewed as a top university for many decades now - here in the U.S. and globally, too. Distractions like social mobility scores, FGLI, Pell Grant status, and whatever else critics have to offer cannot erase decades of rankings that didn’t rely on those factors.

We’re very fortunate to have one Stanford graduate, with another currently at Stanford and our youngest currently at UC Berkeley. Our UC “outlier” is a one-and-done 1600 kid who (I suspect) will end up vectoring well beyond the achievement arc of his older siblings.

Most of his friends, frat brothers, and club sport teammates are exceptional. In many respects, far more impressive than the friends and teammates we’ve met over the years through our other children at Stanford.

The anti-UC poster is apparently a disgruntled former TA from a UC campus. Whatever their experience may have been, their perseveration with amplifying their hostility toward the UC system is an unhealthy obsession, to be honest.

Times change...it's Test Blind now. Not great. Not sure how you don't see that. But keep living in the past.

Do you seriously think that Test Optional schools are not taking on fewer lower performers than coveted publics like those in the UC system?

At least with the test blind format, the UC system was forced (by its Regents) to develop an effective holistic review system that seeks to construct high quality classes of high achievers.

The rest of the country just buried their head in the sand with the test optional format, relying only on grade inflated applicants and knowing that low performers were getting in - and in abundant numbers.

I’ll put the Cal or UCLA cohorts up against any cohort from Cornell, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, any other public, and any SLAC … and they will blow every one of those schools away on any standardized test.

The fact that it’s not required doesn’t lead to the conclusion you think it does - in fact, PLENTY of 1600 and 36 scorers call the UC system home and I’d happily wager that the test optional format has littered the aforementioned schools with far more low performers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Cal and Wisconsin should be on that list.

This is exactly how you can tell this is an International or striver immigrant teen from A2C. They all call Cal “UCB” and no one says this outside of teens on A2C.

Meh.

Most people that are not from California call it all sorts of things. I have heard it referred to as Cal, UCB, Berkeley.

Its like San Francisco. Some people call it frisco or san fran.

As someone in the Bay Area, I have no problem with "UCB" (especially as the other poster noted, when in a list of abbreviations). But please don't say "Frisco" or "San Fran."

(I should clarify … "UCB" is fine on the internet; not if you're talking in person, where you would say "Berkeley", "UC Berkeley", or … maybe … "Cal". But "Frisco" and "San Fran" are never okay.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'd put Wis. over W&M

Objectively W&M admitted student stats are in a different league (on par with UVA’s) while the in-state acceptance rate is also lower than UW.

However, the story is definitely nuanced when looking by major.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Cal and Wisconsin should be on that list.

This is exactly how you can tell this is an International or striver immigrant teen from A2C. They all call Cal “UCB” and no one says this outside of teens on A2C.

UCB fits the rest of the style of college list the PP wrote. If I'm writing GT, UVA, UNC, UCLA, I'd also write UCB.

- 40 year CA resident with a sibling who went to UCB

Also, what's wrong with being a striver? Should they never strive to achieve beyond being a child of immigrants who work in restaurants or own dry cleaning businesses?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Cal and Wisconsin should be on that list.

This is exactly how you can tell this is an International or striver immigrant teen from A2C. They all call Cal “UCB” and no one says this outside of teens on A2C.

Meh.

Most people that are not from California call it all sorts of things. I have heard it referred to as Cal, UCB, Berkeley.

Its like San Francisco. Some people call it frisco or san fran.

\

False, I'm a Californian. Never UCB

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Source?

Her “How to cope with a Berkekey rejection in your portal” handbook.

How to cope at Berkely knowing many of your classmates have low standardized test scores yet these are your peers at your school.

If you are at one of the top schools in the country and you still genuinely care about your peer's SAT scores you peaked in high school.

Our kids shouldn’t have to slum it with the sub-1400 goofballs. This isn’t clown college after all.

The test optional nonsense is making the UC Berkeley student body look like that of ASU.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Source?

Her “How to cope with a Berkekey rejection in your portal” handbook.

How to cope at Berkely knowing many of your classmates have low standardized test scores yet these are your peers at your school.

If you are at one of the top schools in the country and you still genuinely care about your peer's SAT scores you peaked in high school.

Our kids shouldn’t have to slum it with the sub-1400 goofballs. This isn’t clown college after all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Source?

Her “How to cope with a Berkekey rejection in your portal” handbook.

How to cope at Berkely knowing many of your classmates have low standardized test scores yet these are your peers at your school.

If you are at one of the top schools in the country and you still genuinely care about your peer's SAT scores you peaked in high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Source?

Her “How to cope with a Berkekey rejection in your portal” handbook.

How to cope at Berkely knowing many of your classmates have low standardized test scores yet these are your peers at your school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really a rank? Aren't they all flagships which exist to educate predominantly the students of that state? When someone refers to a T10 public "ranking", is it for grad programs or for undergrad?

There are rankings. Five are in CA ….UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCD and UCI. Are in the 1-9 spots.

Give me a huge break. UC schools are a total mess right now for undergraduate education. You can thank the Board of Regents for that. No school that is 100% test blind should be top anything. I know you are referring to the USNWR rankings, but do you realize they rely heavily on the social mobility score? This is why the UCs are in the top 10. They have more poor people and FGLI (Pell grant recipients) than most schools. Is that commendable? Yes, but it doesn’t make it a top public university. I say this as a proud graduate of the UC system. No way UCD or UCI belong in the top 10. Maybe UCSD?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Davis. Pleasantly surprised that that the faculty in Econ/poly sci have been fantastic. He’s liked the TAs. He’s had no problems registering or finding housing for sophomore year. He’s active in several orgs and made it onto a competitive academic team as a freshman. There is a wide gap academically between the Bay Area kids and other in state kids/OOS kids. International kids are more varied. Bay Area kids have to be tippy top to get in and therefore have an advantage in being able to navigate the research orientation of the UCs. He has a wide group of friends including a few OOS kids with low SATs. Once you are in college, you don’t need to only associate with people who scored over 1500 on the SAT. There will be plenty high scorers in upper division economics , animal science, engineering, bio, poly sci , chem etc etc.

Davis has been a top national level public school and globally recognized long before any methodology changes in the rankings. If it makes the anti UC poster feel better, his SAT was 1560, one sitting no super score.

CA public higher education is different from other states. UC is dedicated to research, graduate level studies and preparing undergraduates for graduate or professional level schools, scholarship and research. CA states are dedicated are dedicated to four year degrees with the exception being education. It is more vocational, applied and career focused. If you want to be an accountant, nurse, business administrator, teacher etc you would go to Cal State. This split has allowed the UCs to heavily invest in research heavy departments and influences the lack of hand holding or spoon feeding approach. It’s also allowed Cal States to focus more on teaching and doing.

Love it! UC Berkeley has also been viewed as a top university for many decades now - here in the U.S. and globally, too. Distractions like social mobility scores, FGLI, Pell Grant status, and whatever else critics have to offer cannot erase decades of rankings that didn’t rely on those factors.

We’re very fortunate to have one Stanford graduate, with another currently at Stanford and our youngest currently at UC Berkeley. Our UC “outlier” is a one-and-done 1600 kid who (I suspect) will end up vectoring well beyond the achievement arc of his older siblings.

Most of his friends, frat brothers, and club sport teammates are exceptional. In many respects, far more impressive than the friends and teammates we’ve met over the years through our other children at Stanford.

The anti-UC poster is apparently a disgruntled former TA from a UC campus. Whatever their experience may have been, their perseveration with amplifying their hostility toward the UC system is an unhealthy obsession, to be honest.

Times change...it's Test Blind now. Not great. Not sure how you don't see that. But keep living in the past.

Do you seriously think that Test Optional schools are not taking on fewer lower performers than coveted publics like those in the UC system?

At least with the test blind format, the UC system was forced (by its Regents) to develop an effective holistic review system that seeks to construct high quality classes of high achievers.

The rest of the country just buried their head in the sand with the test optional format, relying only on grade inflated applicants and knowing that low performers were getting in - and in abundant numbers.

I’ll put the Cal or UCLA cohorts up against any cohort from Cornell, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, any other public, and any SLAC … and they will blow every one of those schools away on any standardized test.

The fact that it’s not required doesn’t lead to the conclusion you think it does - in fact, PLENTY of 1600 and 36 scorers call the UC system home and I’d happily wager that the test optional format has littered the aforementioned schools with far more low performers.

Pure unadulterated speculation. The fact is you have zero data. Your screed is nothing but a fantasy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Davis. Pleasantly surprised that that the faculty in Econ/poly sci have been fantastic. He’s liked the TAs. He’s had no problems registering or finding housing for sophomore year. He’s active in several orgs and made it onto a competitive academic team as a freshman. There is a wide gap academically between the Bay Area kids and other in state kids/OOS kids. International kids are more varied. Bay Area kids have to be tippy top to get in and therefore have an advantage in being able to navigate the research orientation of the UCs. He has a wide group of friends including a few OOS kids with low SATs. Once you are in college, you don’t need to only associate with people who scored over 1500 on the SAT. There will be plenty high scorers in upper division economics , animal science, engineering, bio, poly sci , chem etc etc.

Davis has been a top national level public school and globally recognized long before any methodology changes in the rankings. If it makes the anti UC poster feel better, his SAT was 1560, one sitting no super score.

CA public higher education is different from other states. UC is dedicated to research, graduate level studies and preparing undergraduates for graduate or professional level schools, scholarship and research. CA states are dedicated are dedicated to four year degrees with the exception being education. It is more vocational, applied and career focused. If you want to be an accountant, nurse, business administrator, teacher etc you would go to Cal State. This split has allowed the UCs to heavily invest in research heavy departments and influences the lack of hand holding or spoon feeding approach. It’s also allowed Cal States to focus more on teaching and doing.

Love it! UC Berkeley has also been viewed as a top university for many decades now - here in the U.S. and globally, too. Distractions like social mobility scores, FGLI, Pell Grant status, and whatever else critics have to offer cannot erase decades of rankings that didn’t rely on those factors.

We’re very fortunate to have one Stanford graduate, with another currently at Stanford and our youngest currently at UC Berkeley. Our UC “outlier” is a one-and-done 1600 kid who (I suspect) will end up vectoring well beyond the achievement arc of his older siblings.

Most of his friends, frat brothers, and club sport teammates are exceptional. In many respects, far more impressive than the friends and teammates we’ve met over the years through our other children at Stanford.

The anti-UC poster is apparently a disgruntled former TA from a UC campus. Whatever their experience may have been, their perseveration with amplifying their hostility toward the UC system is an unhealthy obsession, to be honest.

Times change...it's Test Blind now. Not great. Not sure how you don't see that. But keep living in the past.

Do you seriously think that Test Optional schools are not taking on fewer lower performers than coveted publics like those in the UC system?

At least with the test blind format, the UC system was forced (by its Regents) to develop an effective holistic review system that seeks to construct high quality classes of high achievers.

The rest of the country just buried their head in the sand with the test optional format, relying only on grade inflated applicants and knowing that low performers were getting in - and in abundant numbers.

I’ll put the Cal or UCLA cohorts up against any cohort from Cornell, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, any other public, and any SLAC … and they will blow every one of those schools away on any standardized test.

The fact that it’s not required doesn’t lead to the conclusion you think it does - in fact, PLENTY of 1600 and 36 scorers call the UC system home and I’d happily wager that the test optional format has littered the aforementioned schools with far more low performers.

Pure unadulterated speculation. The fact is you have zero data. Your screed is nothing but a fantasy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Better” is quite subjective (I’m not going to waste my time dispatching your “much better” talk into the dumpster), but sure - I’ll play along.

Lifestyle / Quality of Life?

Desire to find professional prospects in the largest state economy in the country, larger than all but three COUNTRIES?

You think HS students around the country are dreaming of settling in Virginia? North Carolina? Texas?

Michigan is a brand pull, and the third best public, so no objection there.

But do you seriously think the kid growing up in Ohio is dreaming of someday finding a way to live in Richmond? Charlotte? Dallas? Get serious. Your jealousy of California is blinding you. But that changes nothing.

California population is not really growing, unlike states like Texas and Florida. Cost of living and home ownership are driving that. If I had to guess whether Berkeley, UCLA, UT Austin, or University of Florida graduates have the highest home ownership rates, I'd probably pick UT Austin and UF.

That will turn around and everyone will come flocking back to California soon because of the high speed rail they are building between Frisco and LA

At the rate they are going, it should be complete around the year 2270. China and California both started high speed rail in 2008. China now has over 70% of the world's high speed rail while California has none operational.

\


uh, that was meant to be sarcastic.