Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol Columbia at #16..sounds about right

Sure, Jan. Sorry SGS rejected you.

Anonymous wrote:Lol Columbia at #16..sounds about right

Anonymous wrote:Lol Columbia at #16..sounds about right

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ The only schools that have no weaknesses in the arts and sciences are Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley.”

Correction Stanford and Berkeley. Even Michigan is superior to Harvard in Engineering. Michigan, while not as strong overall as Stanford and Berkeley, also doesn’t have “weaknesses” in the arts and sciences.

Berkeley has weakness in the health fields, pre med, public health, nursing etc. Berkeley and UCLAs med school acceptance rate is no higher than the national avg.

Well since UCSF is the UC school for those disciplines nearby, it really can’t be considered a weakness if it isn’t offered. Still I do sort of agree with your statement. Only Stanford and Michigan have no glaring weaknesses in the arts and sciences.

Anonymous wrote:“ The only schools that have no weaknesses in the arts and sciences are Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley.”

Correction Stanford and Berkeley. Even Michigan is superior to Harvard in Engineering. Michigan, while not as strong overall as Stanford and Berkeley, also doesn’t have “weaknesses” in the arts and sciences.

Anonymous wrote:If you remove the LACs Cal is 29 instead of 36 and Georgetown is 27 instead of 32. However I like how this ranking combines research unis with LAC,s because we're discussing undergrad. And also DCers can stop over-rating Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ The only schools that have no weaknesses in the arts and sciences are Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley.”

Correction Stanford and Berkeley. Even Michigan is superior to Harvard in Engineering. Michigan, while not as strong overall as Stanford and Berkeley, also doesn’t have “weaknesses” in the arts and sciences.

Berkeley has weakness in the health fields, pre med, public health, nursing etc. Berkeley and UCLAs med school acceptance rate is no higher than the national avg.

Troll. Berkeley's medical school is about as good as Princeton's law school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ The only schools that have no weaknesses in the arts and sciences are Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley.”

Correction Stanford and Berkeley. Even Michigan is superior to Harvard in Engineering. Michigan, while not as strong overall as Stanford and Berkeley, also doesn’t have “weaknesses” in the arts and sciences.

Berkeley has weakness in the health fields, pre med, public health, nursing etc. Berkeley and UCLAs med school acceptance rate is no higher than the national avg.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ The only schools that have no weaknesses in the arts and sciences are Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley.”

Correction Stanford and Berkeley. Even Michigan is superior to Harvard in Engineering. Michigan, while not as strong overall as Stanford and Berkeley, also doesn’t have “weaknesses” in the arts and sciences.

Berkeley has weakness in the health fields, pre med, public health, nursing etc. Berkeley and UCLAs med school acceptance rate is no higher than the national avg.

Anonymous wrote:“ The only schools that have no weaknesses in the arts and sciences are Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley.”

Correction Stanford and Berkeley. Even Michigan is superior to Harvard in Engineering. Michigan, while not as strong overall as Stanford and Berkeley, also doesn’t have “weaknesses” in the arts and sciences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.

when they calculate 'added value' for the UC schools, are they using in-state or out of state tuition? It's a $30K difference at Berkeley. If you're low income out of state, how do you attend a UC school?

They use instate tuition, it's not even a fair comparison to make when concerning private schools. Forbes is a joke.

WSJ is a joke too. How is that not fair? California has tons of low-income, and talented college-bound people that will be benefited nonetheless.

No it's not, there's something to be said when the two major rankings have completely different methodology but return very similar results. The only real discrepancy between Us news and WSJ is Columbia, USC, and the unsurprisingly the UC's. Otherwise plus or minus 2 spots the top 25 is solvent. It's schools like UCLA, UCB, UVA etc whose ranking isn't consistent from rank to rank.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.

when they calculate 'added value' for the UC schools, are they using in-state or out of state tuition? It's a $30K difference at Berkeley. If you're low income out of state, how do you attend a UC school?

They use instate tuition, it's not even a fair comparison to make when concerning private schools. Forbes is a joke.

WSJ is a joke too. How is that not fair? California has tons of low-income, and talented college-bound people that will be benefited nonetheless.