the problem with your reasoning is that - you depend too much on the quality of the students in ranking institutions. By doing that, you failed to realize that you have in effect insulted the caliber of the professors/lecturers/academic staff/etc... because it's their duty to educate students. If they couldn't do that, then they're not good faculty. And they are essentially part of the university that we are assessing. Apart from that, you failed to factor in facilities. By facilities, I mean high-tech labs, state-of-the-art equipment, extensive volumes of books, easy access to the internet, PCs available to students and the like. Then of course, you failed to factor in the opportunities that the schools provide to their graduates, such as salary scale and positions held by alumni.
<p>Insulting the caliber of the education provided to UGs? A bit of hyperbole here? Or do you mean I also insulted the army of GSAs that is so important in the delivery of education at Berkeley and allows the tenured faculty to remain dedicated to researching and ... bringing the bacon home? </p>
<p>I believe it is you who fail to realize that access to faculty and access to facilities has to be measured on a per-capita basis, and then correctly ascertained for undergraduates. </p>
<p>Lastly, why do believe that the opportunities that Berkeley provides to its UG graduates, such as salary scale and positions held by alumni, is superior than at the schools you would like to supplant in the rankings.</p>