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!

DP. Many people give the most weight to Engineering, Computer Science, and Business. A quick check of USNWR undergraduate rankings shows UT is ranked higher than UCLA in Engineering (6th vs 14th), Computer Science (9th vs 14th), and Business (6th vs NR / No business school).

Oh, OK - so based on the 2026 USNWR undergraduate rankings for those three areas, MIT is the unanimous best undergraduate university in the country and Tier 1 of public universities, in order, is Berkely, UIUC, Michigan.

I guess I can live with that.

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!

DP. Many people give the most weight to Engineering, Computer Science, and Business. A quick check of USNWR undergraduate rankings shows UT is ranked higher than UCLA in Engineering (6th vs 14th), Computer Science (9th vs 14th), and Business (6th vs NR / No business school).

Anonymous wrote:

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!

DP. Many people give the most weight to Engineering, Computer Science, and Business. A quick check of USNWR undergraduate rankings shows UT is ranked higher than UCLA in Engineering (6th vs 14th), Computer Science (9th vs 14th), and Business (6th vs NR / No business school).

Pre-professional is pretty important too.

Not even close to Engineering Computer Science or Business. It's "Pre" for a reason.

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!

DP. Many people give the most weight to Engineering, Computer Science, and Business. A quick check of USNWR undergraduate rankings shows UT is ranked higher than UCLA in Engineering (6th vs 14th), Computer Science (9th vs 14th), and Business (6th vs NR / No business school).

Pre-professional is pretty important too.

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!

DP. Many people give the most weight to Engineering, Computer Science, and Business. A quick check of USNWR undergraduate rankings shows UT is ranked higher than UCLA in Engineering (6th vs 14th), Computer Science (9th vs 14th), and Business (6th vs NR / No 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:All of the UC schools have become a joke because of their admissions practices. Not just test blind but how they admit under performing students and limit the number of students from high performing high schools. The UC schools are a joke.

Guess what, all t10 or whatever ranking they are take in kids of all performance levels. They are PUBLIC higher education institutions. If you can't handle that, stick with private colleges, it's better for the rest of applicants if even one kid isn't considering a public

Nuh-uh! UVA’s test optional approach is TOTALLY different!

/

This goes beyond test blind/optional admissions.

The top x% of every HS is offered a spot in a UC, but not necessarily Cal or UCLA. Only the very top of the pool get admitted to the top UCs. This is why Cal is like 40% Asian American, and UCLA 35%.

UC Merced, UC Riverside, SC all have a 70%> acceptance rate, the bottom rung UCs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the UC schools have become a joke because of their admissions practices. Not just test blind but how they admit under performing students and limit the number of students from high performing high schools. The UC schools are a joke.

Guess what, all t10 or whatever ranking they are take in kids of all performance levels. They are PUBLIC higher education institutions. If you can't handle that, stick with private colleges, it's better for the rest of applicants if even one kid isn't considering a public

Nuh-uh! UVA’s test optional approach is TOTALLY different!

/

This goes beyond test blind/optional admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the UC schools have become a joke because of their admissions practices. Not just test blind but how they admit under performing students and limit the number of students from high performing high schools. The UC schools are a joke.

Guess what, all t10 or whatever ranking they are take in kids of all performance levels. They are PUBLIC higher education institutions. If you can't handle that, stick with private colleges, it's better for the rest of applicants if even one kid isn't considering a public

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the UC schools have become a joke because of their admissions practices. Not just test blind but how they admit under performing students and limit the number of students from high performing high schools. The UC schools are a joke.

Guess what, all t10 or whatever ranking they are take in kids of all performance levels. They are PUBLIC higher education institutions. If you can't handle that, stick with private colleges, it's better for the rest of applicants if even one kid isn't considering a public

Nuh-uh! UVA’s test optional approach is TOTALLY different!

/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the UC schools have become a joke because of their admissions practices. Not just test blind but how they admit under performing students and limit the number of students from high performing high schools. The UC schools are a joke.

Guess what, all t10 or whatever ranking they are take in kids of all performance levels. They are PUBLIC higher education institutions. If you can't handle that, stick with private colleges, it's better for the rest of applicants if even one kid isn't considering a public

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the UC schools have become a joke because of their admissions practices. Not just test blind but how they admit under performing students and limit the number of students from high performing high schools. The UC schools are a joke.

Guess what, all t10 or whatever ranking they are take in kids of all performance levels. They are PUBLIC higher education institutions. If you can't handle that, stick with private colleges, it's better for the rest of applicants if even one kid isn't considering a public

Anonymous wrote:All of the UC schools have become a joke because of their admissions practices. Not just test blind but how they admit under performing students and limit the number of students from high performing high schools. The UC schools are a joke.

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.