BedHead

ah, so you agree that this ranking is complete bull**** based on relative rankings of universities with which you are familiar.

So I guess if one is American or US-bound and agrees with you that the rankings are bulls*** one must be wrong because one is American or has a pro-American bias. On the other hand, Europeans that agree with bull**** rankings must be right because they are Europeans.

Based on the nonsense that is your post, I'd say that there is good reason to seriously disregard what you seriously think. Berkeley outperforms just about every university in American across a wider breadth of disciplines in terms of academic output with the possible exception of Stanford, particularly if one considers UCSF, Berkeley's de facto med school. Its not as strong as some of the top schools in terms of undergrad selectivity, but it's still damn strong. And the OP coming from out of state will do just fine dealing with Berkeley's first-rate faculty.

The reason why several Americans think the ranking is out-and-out bs is because of the relative rankings of several colleges within the US, putting aside their comparison to universities outside the States.

For me, it's this fact as well as awareness of certain institutions internationally. And I am sorry, in terms of academic output you just can't tell me that relatively underfunded universities like McGill compete favorably against universities that spend hundreds of millions on research.

But if one argues that it's not academic output that is the measure being applied here, one must argue academic selectivity of undergrads is a focus. And again, by that measure, the rankings are out of kilter.

So what the hell is behind the ranking? The only apparent rhyme or reason to it is geographical bias: it upgrades non-US universities and especially British ones, downgrades US ones particularly those on the West Coast. No wonder non-US-bound Europeans don't dispute it, since they are excused from standards of what is bs and what isn't.

If you want to point to rankings by non-US or European sources, look at the Shanghai rankings:

http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100.htm

1 Harvard
2 Stanford
3 Berkeley
4 Cambridge
5 MIT
6 CalTech
7 Columbia
8 Princeton
9 Chicago
10 Oxford

etc.

Sci-Fry

Woo! Cambridge is above Oxford in that ranking!!

IMO it's plain stupid to have a general ranking of universities. They're all bull****. They just end up becoming a popularity contest over which university has most prestige. They're also far too generalized.

It's far more productive to look at universities' reputations in very specific fields.

lOngbOWmeN

your contradicting yourself Bedhead, first you brush off one ranking(THES) due to huge diff in rankings between colleges that are similar in prestige/quality in the US, and then you put forth another ranking(ARWU) and lend credence to it even though its equally bs (just look at the diff between HYP and Y dropping out of top 10)...besides if this was directed to me, i've already stated clearly that to me the rankings are bs, though its a fact that many "uninitiated" ppl look to them like some "definitive evidence of academic repute and quality"

and you're justified to have your opinion on Berkeley, that its a great school because of the sheer amt of academic output....but to me, my main concern is the college, and in the respect i think most of the prestigious LACs and privates win hands-down

i tot it was always the case

BedHead

I quoted you; of course my comments were directed at you. I didn't contradict myself in the least. I merely said I couldn't see that the THES rankings had any rhyme or reason. I brought up another set of rankings -- the Shanghai Jiaotong University rankings because at the very least its criteria for ranking are crystal clear and according to its standards the rankings very clearly show that Berkeley and Stanford are tip-top -- and somehow the THES rankings put them very far down the list. It isn't the only ranking to have done so; the NRC rankings of overall breadth and depth of graduate programs had them in the top spots as well, even above Harvard.

What is the usefulness of rankings? Well, that's an entirely different question. The key, I think, as I implied by my post is to look behind the rankings to see what they rate. The Shanghai rankings are at least consistent but probably mostly useless for someone simply choosing college. I think there is a strong argument that LACs provide the best purely educational experience and in that I'd agree. Down the list, I'd put research universities public or private. This is based on anecdotal observations -- for instance a friend who had gone to top research universities (Stanford, MIT) and was getting his PhD at Berkeley and noted the best prepared students were from places like Swarthmore not HYPSBM. I think the distinction between private and public per se may not be the most useful.

I think 100 percent of UK citizens who had no attachment to Oxford would say Cambridge is more highly thought of.

lOngbOWmeN

^ lol y are u aggressively hammering a guy whos making a case for Berkeley over UCL and whos stating that rankings are bs instead of directing your comments at the dude who said:

and regarding Berkeley's reputation in asia, I have my doubts as to that as an asian living IN asia....i tink all this hooha comes from asians living in cal because thats the school most of them go to

BedHead

I was aggressively hammering the THES rankings through you because to me they are so patently absurd.

The point of posting the Shanghai rankings had little to do with reputations in Asia. I was expressingly foremostly that, ranked according to its objective standards, Stanford AND Berkeley are rated much higher in that ranking. And the rhyme or reason is there irrespective of whether one agrees or not with their conclusions.

As someone who has lived in Asia for a long time, my perception is different.

lOngbOWmeN

dude i'm against the THES, so by hammering me not only do you NOT hammer thru to the THES, but you're inevitably boosting its credibility

and you continue to allude to the ARWU rankings as if they were some definitive indicator or bastion of objectivity and proof....just because they use some hard stats (no. of papers published? this is the biggest joke of all, quantity of research papers published varies VERY greatly across disciplines, majority of them are concentrated in med and biosci, not to mention quality, geographical slant and biasedness towards the english langauge) doesnt make them ANY less bull than the THES, both can be disregarded totally....the latter engages in self-laudation, the former uses factors that has little relevance to repute and quality, and Berkeley ranked 4th? no offence its a great school, but with a overcrowded campus, lack of funds, low selectivity, and an undergrad system thats plagued with huge class sizes and TAs, it arnt gonna convince anyone

i lived in asia ALL MY LIFE....and i'll be more specific, according to friends in Aus,Taiwan,PRC,Malaysia,Spore (and i'm fully aware that they are not representative of any majority consensus), Berkeley is a good school, but its no where near the elites, and i'm sorry to have to break the brutal truth to you

tanveer149

I think the THES ranking is BS and the ARWU is even bigger crap. They have Chicago above Yale and Oxford. UCSF and UCSD over UMich...they must be kidding. I also live in Asia and Berkeley is a hell lot more well known than UCL.

@lOngbOWmeN Berkeley might not be on par with the elites for undergrad, but for grad school I think its definitely in the top 3 or 4.

BedHead

Oh Longbowmen, give it up. I was actually just being nice in my last post. What you wrote was pretty stupid and contradictory. And I'll just end this posting with this one.

My point was that rankings at the very least should have a transparent methodology that leads to predictable outcomes. You agreed with this, but also didn't agree with it -- and entirely contradicted yourself. That's what I pointed out.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Berkeley's got all these huge problems. It's all really obvious -- until you actually compare it to several other top research universities and realize it's really not that different in terms of a lot of the things you mentioned. Yes, overall student selectivity is lower compared to the top echelon, but it's still got a big swath of Ivy League caliber students, yes it's big, etc.

The Shanghai rankings are really, really narrow and focused on things that are to a large degree not that important for college selection. That is the second time I have said that. Re-read it. I would agree that they focus on things probably overall very marginally relevant. But at least the ranking says what it ranks with a predictable outcome. And by its standards -- which focus on a narrow measure of overall (read graduate) academic output, the rankings fall as they stand.

I am done here. Fire away.

We've gone far afield from the OP's concerns.

lOngbOWmeN

^ lol or perhaps being the imbecile u are, you were just construing my statements in a stupid manner =)

and which part of my comments even lent any credence to your nonsense of "rankings at the very least should have a transparent methodology that leads to predictable outcomes"? i said, rankings are bull, BUT its a fact that laymen refer to it (which is true since majority of the human pop arnt privileged enough to make it into the top 20 and hence dont bother to do some decent research on the quality, experience repute of the colleges therein)

and to the OP, i still say choose Berkeley over UCL, the fact that insistent hawks like Bedhead might be heading there doesnt diminish the quality of its programs and its repute

marsupial

not that i really knew what it's like studying at either of these 2 colleges, but my first thought about this was:
how can you compare these two options just by their academic reputation? you'll have to LIVE where you go for an important period of your life. someone already mentioned, that there is a big difference eg berkeley has big campus, london does not. now forget about your career for a moment and ask yourself what you imagine your student life to look like

aktiv8d

the THES rankings are complete bull IMHO. the ARWU rankings are more relevant for someone considering graduate school due to the methodology used to generate them....just my 2 cents.

to the OP - go to Berkeley

Sci-Fry

Well said. I think that you can become equally successful (career wise) by going to either of the universities (although some selection will need to be made based on whether you'd like to work in the UK or US), but what really distinguishes these colleges from each other is their student life.

Perhaps talk to some students who are already studying at Berkeley/UCL and ask them about the general scene, student life etc. and see which one you prefer. Even make a trip to one of the universities if you have the time.

vindaloo

I'd say Berkeley will give you a better education than UCL in most areas by some margin, although tbh practically everyone here myself included has their own perceptions formed by hearsay and er, rankings...

Anyway, spend per student at Berkeley must be several times that of UCL, so unless they're all complete retards they should be able to provide a much better education than UCL.

vindaloo

I think 100 percent of UK citizens who had no attachment to Oxford would say Cambridge is more highly thought of.

Don't know how to quote that with the box^

Definitely not the case. Maybe a majority, but certainly not 100%. Oxford is generally better at social sciences/humanities/arts, and Cambridge generally at natural/mathematical sciences/engineering etc. Cambridge probably does have a slight edge over Oxford academically, but Oxford on the whole produces more well rounded graduates in terms of extra-curricular etc.