<p>^^^^So true IMO!</p>
<p>
Not really, because that’s not how graduate admissions works.</p>
<p>Say, for example, you want to study art history. Well, looking at the list, you’d see that Columbia, Harvard, Berkeley, etc. are all pretty good. Unfortunately, you’re going to need to be more specific than that. You want to study Aegean art. Well, unfortunately for you, the ranking isn’t that helpful. Of the top 10 schools, only 2 have faculty in that area (UCB and NYU). On the other hand, Cincinnati (unlisted) has a great program in that area. </p>
<p>Using philosophy as an example, one might sneer at CUNY (#18) or Maryland (#34) - except oops, they’re by far the best for what you want to study, the philosophy of art. </p>
<p>Or biology. Say you’re mostly interested in zoology, specifically limnology and aquatic biology. Well, you’d expect Princeton, Stanford, Chicago, etc. to be strong in this area - but no, actually you’d look at Cornell, UNH, Wisconsin, Colorado, and the like for the best programs. </p>
<p>Of course, even this is being broad. Graduate admissions expects you to want to work with two or three very specific professors in a fairly narrow field. You’re much better off reading journals in your field, going to conferences (or keeping track of them), talking to your professors, etc. and picking mentors/programs that way…rankings, not so much. </p>
<p>There is absolutely no program in any discipline that is the best in every field or even that offers every field, and the programs strong in each subdiscipline can vary wildly. Unless someone has an extremely common and generic research interest, they’re going to need a LOT more info than rankings can provide…and really, it’s not that difficult to do the grunt work. Once you start looking, it’s pretty obvious which schools are good in your area and which aren’t.</p>
<p>To get back to undergrads, which is the real issue for this forum…yes, rankings can be a factor, but ONLY after they’ve already done a great deal of work. A student needs to select whether (s)he wants a big or small school, urban or rural school, single-sex or coed school, northeastern or southwestern school, etc. Once a student has a list of colleges that meet the criteria, then (and only then) should the list be narrowed down still farther based on academic criteria. (Or you could do as I did, which was to read college guides cover to cover and jot down interesting schools…time consuming but effective.) To start with rankings is to go about the process completely backwards and is, I think, shockingly lazy. At the undergraduate level, Columbia and Williams both have absolutely wonderful art history programs, but they could not be any more different, and it’s quite likely that a student thriving at one would despise the other.</p>
<p>It also begs the question of how much an undergrad actually needs a strong program. Berkeley is super strong in most areas, sure, but realistically most undergraduates won’t touch but a fraction of its resources, and the amount of academic overkill is a bit like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. If (s)he is aiming for graduate school, then yes, faculty quality can be especially important. For the vast majority of students, though, most of the top 50 schools are perfectly decent in most areas, especially the popular majors like English, history, psychology, and the like. I’ve taken a course in Egyptian history, for example, at no fewer than three universities (2 in the US, 1 in the UK). Despite being taught by professors of varying expertise and specialist backgrounds (e.g. one was actually a classicist) and in departments of varying quality, they’ve all been taught effectively. Differences in student body composition, location, size, and other factors can often easily dwarf academic differences, and I think rankings tend to mask that - or at least, the way high schoolers tend to interpret them is problematic that way.</p>
<p>The University of California</p>
<p>BUSINESS (MBA):
#7 UCB</p>
<h1>15 UCLA</h1>
<h1>36 UCI</h1>
<h1>42 UCD</h1>
<p>LAW:</p>
<h1>7 UCB</h1>
<h1>15 UCLA</h1>
<h1>28 UCD</h1>
<h1>42 UC Hastings</h1>
<h1>56 UCSD</h1>
<p>MEDICINE (Research):</p>
<h1>4 UCSF</h1>
<h1>11 UCLA</h1>
<h1>16 UCSD</h1>
<h1>47 UCD</h1>
<h1>47 UCI</h1>
<p>MEDICINE (Primary Care):</p>
<h1>5 UCSF</h1>
<h1>14 UCLA</h1>
<h1>20 UCD</h1>
<h1>28 UCSD</h1>
<p>The University of California - continued</p>
<p>ENGINEERING:</p>
<h1>3 UCB</h1>
<h1>13 UCSD</h1>
<h1>15 UCLA</h1>
<h1>19 UCSB</h1>
<h1>32 UCD</h1>
<p>MATHEMATICS:</p>
<h1>2 UCB</h1>
<h1>8 UCLA</h1>
<h1>20 UCSD</h1>
<h1>36 UCD</h1>
<h1>43 UCI</h1>
<h1>46 UCSB</h1>
<p>PHYSICS:</p>
<h1>5 UCB</h1>
<h1>10 UCSB</h1>
<h1>14 UCSD</h1>
<h1>19 UCLA</h1>
<h1>26 UCD</h1>
<h1>30 UCI</h1>
<h1>40 UCSC</h1>
<p>4 campuses in the top 20 programs and 7 in the top 50!</p>
<p>BIOLOGY</p>
<h1>2 UCB</h1>
<h1>7 UCSF</h1>
<h1>15 UCSD</h1>
<h1>20 UCD</h1>
<h1>24 UCLA</h1>
<h1>34 UCI</h1>
<h1>46 UCSB</h1>
<h1>28 UCSD</h1>
<p>4 campuses in the top 20 programs and 7 in the top 50!</p>
<p>COMPUTER SCIENCE</p>
<h1>1 UCB</h1>
<h1>14 UCLA</h1>
<h1>14 UCSD</h1>
<h1>28 UCI</h1>
<h1>35 UCSB</h1>
<h1>39 UCD</h1>
<p>CHEMISTRY:</p>
<h1>1 UCB</h1>
<h1>16 UCLA</h1>
<h1>21 UCSD</h1>
<h1>26 UCI</h1>
<h1>32 UCSF</h1>
<h1>33 UCSB</h1>
<h1>38 UCD</h1>
<p>7 campuses in the top 50!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Completely agreed.</p>
<p>Actually I think many students would be just fine at Columbia or Williams. People are very adaptable.</p>