<p>I agree UCLAri</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>This isn’t me trying to be a shill for UCLA…though I can do that quite well if the opportunity arises.</p>
<p>This is me saying that a 17/1 ratio versus a 12/1 ratio isn’t going to mean that your experience is devastatingly bad. Of course the sort of 7/1 or even 3/1 ratio that privates can provide is extremely nice. But sitting in professors’ office hours for literally hours on end and being the only visitor showed me that even at schools with higher than 10/1 ratios, it’s more than possible to get one-on-one interaction if you desire it.</p>
<p>Most people just want it tossed in their lap. I don’t blame them, either.</p>
<p>The point about it being easier to transfer into Cal or UCLA (or any UC for that matter) from a CC is moot – transfer students make up a minute portion of the student body in relation to those who come directly from high school.</p>
<p>This thread wasnt about UCLA or Berkeley. Notice how they werent among the publics I included when I posted it. UCLA and Berkeley are great schools, as are the top few publics. My point is that the peer assessment can in no way show the quality of undergrad education, which is what the US News Ranking claims to do. When the deans hear “Penn State,” they most likely think of the research that comes out of the University, not of the undergrad education, hence its 3.8 rating compared to Lehigh, which gets a 3.2 despite being much harder to get into and i am sure most people would agree providing the better education to undergrads.</p>
<p>
You’re concluding with this statement that selectivity plays a factor in judging the quality of EDUCATION at a university, which it doesn’t at all.</p>
<p>ckmets is right.</p>
<p>If selectivity didnt determine education, then why does anyone go to Lehigh, or why does anyone go to BC, when all those kids could get into PSU easily (i did)</p>
<p>I can’t believe so many man hours were wasted comparing Cal/UCLA to NYU…</p>
<p>The Olsen Twins got into your school. Grow up.</p>
<p>And hundreds of 3.5 community college kids get into UCla/berkeley. point?</p>
<p>“The Olsen Twins got into your school. Grow up”</p>
<p>But they didnt get into STERN haha :)</p>
<p>
Because of Lehigh’s location and top academics. Because of BC’s location and top academics. Maybe people don’t want a public school environment. They don’t want a school where social life is dominated by how the football team did on Saturday. Where the jocks are viewed as heroes. </p>
<p>No one should choose a school because of a small difference in a number in a US News ranking, or how selective they are.</p>
<p>There is very little difference between 3.2 and 3.8. You aren’t going to get different oppurtunities. It’s tenths of a difference we’re talking about on a rating that many employers simply don’t pay attention to.</p>
<p>“There is very little difference between 3.2 and 3.8”</p>
<p>Not when the full score is a 5.0 and the whole point is that there is a TREND that all publics are getting a boost in this.</p>
<p>I definitely have to agree with sternman on that one. 3.2 to 3.8 is quite a large difference on a 5.0 scale. And just so you know, I turned down JHU (4.6) to attend BC (3.5) because I felt BC was the better fit, so I dont make my decisions on ranking.</p>
<p>My point stands. Sternman, you keep making the same point, with no statistical evidence or analysis … Publics aren’t boosted in peer assessment. Look into how peer assessment is calculated. Look at who does it.</p>
<p>sternman87 just got pwned</p>
<p>come on wolves, lets not bring his parents into this</p>
<p>this is ridiculous- Indiana is ranked on the US News top 100, which makes it not a TTT. I do think BC is better, despite what the peer assessment says, but that doesnt give you permission to call his respectable school a TTT. Ive never really thought much of NYU, and youre definitely not helping my perception.</p>
<p>I agree that one should not base their entire decision on where to attend based on selectivity but like it or not, an institution’s selectivity is an indicator of the quality of students that it graduates. It may not be the sole data point but still a consideration employers take into account</p>
<p>And by the way, “top academics” for most good schools seems relative. Lehigh is virtually unknown on the west coast. BC is only recognized because they occasionally have good basketball or football teams. What is it about those two schools (or others such as Tufts) that make them top schools academically? They don’t have the superstar faculty other universities have because they’re not research powerhouses. Their graduate programs aren’t especially strong and are regional at best (w/ a possible nod to BC’s law school). No flames please – it’s a serious question. Compared to other (relatively unknown) institutions that are widely considered far better such as University of Chicago, Swarthmore, Cal-Tech, and Penn (yes, there are many Pennsylvanians who don’t distinguish between PSU and UPENN), Lehigh and BC fall short.</p>
<p>I never claimed BC was better than UPenn, Swarthmore, UChicago, or Caltech. Only that its better than Minnesota, OSU, Penn State, Purdue, Maryland, Arizona, and Iowa.</p>
<p>Sorry - that post was directed towards A2Wolves.</p>