Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

With the same logic, perhaps only Berkeley, Michigan, and Texas are strong enough across STEM/Business/Social Sciences/Humanities to be Tier 1. But wait, students only attend one part of a university at a time and perhaps Virginia, UNC, Georgia Tech, Purdue, etc. is better in that part than Berkeley/Michigan/Texas and has more of what they value. What does this tiering even mean to those students? Pretty much nothing.

You’re hilarious. The UCLA hate is pathological up in here, that’s for sure.

UCLA is literally ranked higher in the U.S. and globally than Texas in almost every single area you mentioned, and yet you found a way to suggest otherwise.

STEM, whether bio / chem, engineering, applied math, engineering

Business (for UCLA, it’s just Business Economics - but also internship opportunities for the students who want to get after it at UCLA’s Top 15 business and law schools)

Social Sciences

Humanities

Tell us where you have found evidence that Texas is better than UCLA, such that you “accidentally” forgot to include what has been the Top Public for 80% of the past decade. Looking forward to it!

First, I was making a different point if you read what I wrote. Second, UCLA fell from my example Tiering (which I went on to disparage) simply because it doesn't have undergraduate business school.

I read what you wrote. Nevertheless, any listing of the most complete universities in the public sphere that doesn’t include the one university that has topped the ranking of public universities for most of the past decade, and been ranked in the Top 25 overall for at least the past 40 years, seems at least a little intentional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

With the same logic, perhaps only Berkeley, Michigan, and Texas are strong enough across STEM/Business/Social Sciences/Humanities to be Tier 1. But wait, students only attend one part of a university at a time and perhaps Virginia, UNC, Georgia Tech, Purdue, etc. is better in that part than Berkeley/Michigan/Texas and has more of what they value. What does this tiering even mean to those students? Pretty much nothing.

You’re hilarious. The UCLA hate is pathological up in here, that’s for sure.

UCLA is literally ranked higher in the U.S. and globally than Texas in almost every single area you mentioned, and yet you found a way to suggest otherwise.

STEM, whether bio / chem, engineering, applied math, engineering

Business (for UCLA, it’s just Business Economics - but also internship opportunities for the students who want to get after it at UCLA’s Top 15 business and law schools)

Social Sciences

Humanities

Tell us where you have found evidence that Texas is better than UCLA, such that you “accidentally” forgot to include what has been the Top Public for 80% of the past decade. Looking forward to it!

First, I was making a different point if you read what I wrote. Second, UCLA fell from my example Tiering (which I went on to disparage) simply because it doesn't have undergraduate business school.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

With the same logic, perhaps only Berkeley, Michigan, and Texas are strong enough across STEM/Business/Social Sciences/Humanities to be Tier 1. But wait, students only attend one part of a university at a time and perhaps Virginia, UNC, Georgia Tech, Purdue, etc. is better in that part than Berkeley/Michigan/Texas and has more of what they value. What does this tiering even mean to those students? Pretty much nothing.

You’re hilarious. The UCLA hate is pathological up in here, that’s for sure.

UCLA is literally ranked higher in the U.S. and globally than Texas in almost every single area you mentioned, and yet you found a way to suggest otherwise.

STEM, whether bio / chem, engineering, applied math, engineering

Business (for UCLA, it’s just Business Economics - but also internship opportunities for the students who want to get after it at UCLA’s Top 15 business and law schools)

Social Sciences

Humanities

Tell us where you have found evidence that Texas is better than UCLA, such that you “accidentally” forgot to include what has been the Top Public for 80% of the past decade. Looking forward to it!

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.

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.

With the same logic, perhaps only Berkeley, Michigan, and Texas are strong enough across STEM/Business/Social Sciences/Humanities to be Tier 1. But wait, students only attend one part of a university at a time and perhaps Virginia, UNC, Georgia Tech, Purdue, etc. is better in that part than Berkeley/Michigan/Texas and has more of what they value. What does this tiering even mean to those students? Pretty much nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

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+).

Niche’s methodology is much better than USNews.
However, I think W&M should be higher on the above list.

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+).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This obsession with UC’s test blind policy is one of the weirdest things I’ve seen on this site. Like, you people derailed this thread from the start and are doubling down on it now.

It isn’t just the UC system. A lot of publics are still test optional. The sooner they get back to requiring scores the better.

And we are seeing inconsistent quality from these schools as well.

Schools like Georgia Tech and Purdue are seeing better results than schools like Virginia Tech and UVA.

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.

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 wrote:DCUM is funny because it’s a place where lots of people gather who are all mad that they can’t math test their way to success.

Anonymous wrote:The admissions practices are not spelling doom for the universities. It’s not harming the reputation for any of the schools. UCs have weeder classes that are truly rigorous and practice curves, usually deflationary. Reputation is based on the faculty and the top six UCs are powerhouses there with a long history of top caliber academic work. UCSB isn’t even one of the five in the top ten and they have Nobel winners.

It sucks that Bay Area kids who are far more academically capable get rejected while OOS or lower performing in state region students who can’t pass basic classes get in. It harms the regional Cal states by dropping enrollment at school better suited for average to lower performers.

However, it’s not entirely correct that the unprepared student took a spot from a more deserving kid. If all the tippy top kids from the Bay Area filled every seat, you would have highly capable kids not moving forward in their desired major. STEM subjects in particular do not infinitely scale to support unlimited students. Someone has to get cut. The unqualified kids are easy to cut and shuffle over to communications, sociology or area studies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This obsession with UC’s test blind policy is one of the weirdest things I’ve seen on this site. Like, you people derailed this thread from the start and are doubling down on it now.

It isn’t just the UC system. A lot of publics are still test optional. The sooner they get back to requiring scores the better.

Anonymous wrote:This obsession with UC’s test blind policy is one of the weirdest things I’ve seen on this site. Like, you people derailed this thread from the start and are doubling down on it now.