Over/Underrated Colleges - Page 5

shyboy13 · 11-08-2004, 06:35 PM

Hopemanjkjk, what criteria are you using for saying that the UC’s are overrated? Are you basing it on your friend's opinion? Can you mention things that are quantifiable and justifiable for your conclusion?

Marines920 · 11-08-2004, 08:04 PM

Overrated: Boston University. Penn State. Fordham.
Underrated: University of Chicago. Case Western.

luckyjax04 · 11-09-2004, 06:21 PM

Marines-
just wondering what your reason is for saying Penn State is overrated.

pmsoccerpink · 05-03-2006, 09:24 PM

yeah, what are your reasons for fordham being overrated?

Allorion · 05-03-2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

UCs are really overrated... I dn, but when I lived in Korea all those Berkeley graduates made UCB sound like a best university in the world... I have a friend over there studying premed. He says its prolly worse than many state universities' honor programs cuz only teachers he see are TAs.

This post is somewhat eyebrow raising.

It is true that Berkeley has an international reputation that far exceeds its reputation in America. However, that is due to the graduate school. I don't suppose you would care to suggest that Berkeley's graduate programs are overrated?

Perhaps the matter that made me take least kindly to this post is a simple matter: Berkeley doesn't have an honor program. Therefore, by logic, your friend cannot be in the honor program.

In any case, premed is difficult and competitive in any school.

Finally, if he sees only TAs, he did something wrong and signed up for only discussion sections.

I'd say the UCs are very much underrated, considering the quality of their programs. Outside of the west coast, they are held in very low esteem. Also, my guess is Sophia more likely than not is on the west coast/Asia, if she hears so much about the UCs. I'd also agree that Rice is underrated as well.

As for overrated, I can cite few schools besides Washington U in St. Louis, after some research I did after getting in the school.

Strykur · 05-03-2006, 10:36 PM

Berkeley's graduate programs are legendary - ONLY UNIVERSITY in the US where all its Ph.D programs are in the Top 5 national rankings in their respective areas of study. No other university has that feat. And the TAs in the undergraduate programs range from okay to excellent. It varies, but I have heard mostly very good responses from current students about the TAs.

On the West Coast, UCLA is way overrated, but nationally Berkeley is sorely underrated.

collegeprep11 · 05-05-2006, 02:19 AM

underrated: reed, whitman, barnard, oberlin, harvey mudd
overrated: carleton, cmc

Sam Lee · 05-05-2006, 09:44 AM

Strykur,

Not all PhD programs are in top-5 at Berkeley. Thanks for overrating it.

vossron · 05-05-2006, 12:28 PM

Watch out for apples and oranges, Research I Universities and LACs. Cal's graduate programs are indeed legendary, but Cal is not in the top ten of *any* field re undergraduates given in Weighted Baccalaureate Origins Study, Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium, considering the top 10 institutions ranked by percentage of graduates who go on to earn a Ph.D. In general, LACs do a better job producing future PhDs. The Ivy LACs actually make a few appearances in the top 10, but the list is dominated by non-Ivies.

http://server1.fandm.edu/departments...s/BacOrg98.pdf. Note that the data is ten years old. And yes, future PhD production is just one way to rate schools.

barrons · 05-05-2006, 01:31 PM

Getting a PhD measures nothing much except a love for school and not much knowledge of or emphasis on earning a living. There are few jobs and many smart people prefer to go onto professional schools or the workplace.

rocketDA · 05-05-2006, 03:23 PM

barrons, getting a phd in the sciences is not exactly the easiest thing to do.

barrons · 05-05-2006, 03:29 PM

No, not talking about how hard it is--just how SMART it is to invest that much time on something that may not yield a decent job and requires 5-7 years of poverty after undergrad. Many many smart students do not go on to a PhD program. They become doctors and lawyers and investment bankers and all sorts of other better paying jobs. Thus measuring the PhD productivity is like measuring the number of students who go on to become Peace Corps volunteers or politicians--it proves very little. Interesting but so what??

vossron · 05-05-2006, 05:06 PM

Wow, I didn't expect to hear someone claim that a school's ability to produce the top people in various fields is *not* one of the many valid ways to rate a school.

eng_dude · 05-05-2006, 05:23 PM

I think what Barrons is saying is that tons of very smart people (who choose NOT to pursue a PhD) go to a professional school or enter the workforce. Pretty straightforward. Its not that they don't have the ability to so, they choose not to for many reasons. And to infer that those who have PhDs are "at the top of their field" is faulty reasoning as well.

vossron · 05-05-2006, 07:52 PM

Sorry, I should have said "produce top" instead of "produce the top." While not proving anything, it is an *indicator* that a school is providing a top education, even if *I* don't pursure a PhD. The same reasoning holds for pre-meds, who major in a variety of subjects before applying to med school. If 78% of a particular LAC's MCAT takers pass, I can conclude that the school is outstanding, even if *I* don't want to pursue an MD degree. Many LACs don't have undergraduate business depts, but their graduates are accepted at higher rates into MBA programs; same conclusion, even if *I* don't want an MBA. These are *all* valid indicators of how a school can rated by someone looking for a top undergraduate education, and should not be dismissed with a "so what" just because such statistics don't precisely apply.