<p>Test scores only count for 7.5% of the USNWR ranking factors. US News only counts SAT CR and M scores. Other factors (including the Peer Assessment scores and graduation rates) are weighted more heavily. UCLA has higher graduation rates than UIUC (89% to 83% according to Washington Monthly). UCLA also has much higher research expenditures ($871M to $501M according to WM), which may partially account for UCLA’s higher Peer Assessment scores.</p>
<p>There may be some inaccuracies or “gaming” of such data. To me, the accuracy is a less important issue than its relevance. To most HS students, how much do the US News factors (or other ranking factors) really matter compared to, say, the cost differences between an in-state and oos public university?</p>
<p>Agreed with Alexandre, though I might throw in JHU for its similar focus on health sciences.</p>
<p>UCLA reminds me quite a lot of NYU: some very strong programs, some decent ones, some mediocre ones, in a large city, a popular ‘dream college,’ tons of applicants, etc.</p>
<p>Why don’t you do me a huge favor phantasmagoric and do these two things:</p>
<p>a.) define mediocre
b.) give me some examples with some form of concrete evidence of UCLA departments that are said word</p>
<p>I have yet to see any actually ‘mediocre’ programs in my time here. I think it’s safe to say UCLA is something like a ‘mini Berkeley,’ and Cal is known for being literally national caliber if not world class in pretty much any major you can find in their catalog. UCLA seems similar but to a much lesser extent, not anywhere near the realm of anything mediocre. Perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps I missed some majors/departments, that’s why I am asking you to well define your word and give me some examples. </p>
<p>Hey UCB, I thought you would agree with g0ld3n this once. He called Cal “world class in pretty much any major”, and called UCLA a “mini Berkeley” … that’s what us midwestern folks called “little brother”.</p>
<p>That’s pretty messed up UCB. Who cares about the fight song. What are you going to make fun of next? Our similar mascots even though the Berkeley student body recommended the Bruin to us.</p>
<p>All kidding aside, UCLA has no “mediocre” department or program. All of UCLA’s departments and programs are ranked among the top 20 nationally. </p>
<p>There is very little in common between UCLA and NYU other than their size, academic excellence and the fact that both are located in large cities. Even the latter is not exactly the same since NYU is significantly more urban than UCLA. </p>
<p>But in most ways, the two are not similar. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>UCLA has a well defined campus, whereas NYU is mixed in with the city</p></li>
<li><p>UCLA has a rich athletic tradition and ample school spirit. NYU is not known for either</p></li>
<li><p>NYU’s student body tends to be wealthy, as the school is very expensive and offers little aid, and geographically diverse. UCLA, on the other hand, has a very diverse student body socioeconomically (30% Pell Grant recipients), but 90% of undergrads are residents of CA.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>^ yes, Alexandre, I’m aware that there significant differences between the two, but the OP didn’t specify criteria in what “comparable” means. For all the schools suggested on this thread, one could come up with lots of major reasons why UCLA isn’t comparable to them. In fact, I think UCLA and NYU are more similar than UCLA and Northwestern or UCLA and Cornell.</p>
<p>UCLA’s departments are not all ranked in the top 20, though of course it depends on the source. A quick glance at the NRC rankings would show that UCLA has many programs that rank in the top 20 only if you willfully misinterpret the NRC’s methodology and look just at the upper-range. Or if you only look at the R-ranking. Or if you only look at the upper-range of the R-ranking. :p</p>
<p>But this mythical “top 20” or “top 15” or “top 30” fixation is an illusion. In some cases, there really are a limited # of universities that have an actual program in a given subject, and in such cases, being ranked in the top 30 really isn’t that impressive at all. Most importantly, even in cases where being ranked, say, 20 still puts you above 100+ other schools, it’s illogical to conclude that it therefore cannot be mediocre: ranks flatten actual differences in departments, and there can be a steep drop-off in quality after a certain rank, depending on the field. Thus in some cases #18 can actually be functionally equivalent to #38. And in some fields, beyond a certain group of departments, the rest really are about the same in quality - very run-of-the-mill.</p>
<p>“Mediocre” has two meanings: inferior or ordinary. It’s the latter that I was indicating, and it certainly wasn’t meant to be a slight on UCLA, which I respect quite a lot.</p>
<p>g0ld3n, I don’t feel that comments with a needlessly sarcastic tone, such as yours, deserve a response; I replied to Alexandre because he was polite. If you had simply asked, “which departments do you think are mediocre?” without the snide attitude, I’d have been happy to oblige.</p>
<p>Sorry, I was under the impression you wanted me to ask in a snide, sarcastic tone because my polite request for examples went completely ignored. If you want polite, see my post #23. If you want sarcastic, see my last post to you.</p>
<p>That’s kind of important to consider, especially since UIUC and UCLA have about the same number of students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe you’re being genuine. But look at the way you wrote your OP:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That implies, at least to me, that strong > decent; decent > mediocre. And this implies the former meaning rather than the latter. Just giving an argument for what seems to be the popular interpretation of your post ;)</p>
<p>Phantasmagoric, I do not care much for the NRC rankings. I find them needlessly complicated, often yielding “fantstic” results. I was referring to the USNWR graduate school rankings. According to the latest rankings, UCLA is ranked as follows:</p>
<p>TRADITIONAL DISCIPLINES:
Biology #24
Chemistry #16
Computer Science #14
Earth Science #17
Economics #14
English #10
History #9
Mathematics #8
Physics #19
Political Science #11
Psychology #3
Sociology #9</p>
<p>UCLA is one of just 10 universities in the nation (the others being Cal, Cornell, Harvard, Michigan, Princeton, Stanford, Wisconsin-Madison and Yale) that is ranked among the top 25 in all 12 “traditional” disciplines.</p>
<p>PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMS
Business #15
Education #6
Engineering #16
Law #15</p>
<p>Regardless of how you define “mediocre”, I do not think the word applies to any of UCLA’s departments. Any department that is even “debatably” ranked among the top 25 is at least “good”, if not better!
Medicine #13</p>
<p>" That’s kind of important to consider, especially since UIUC and UCLA have about the same number of students."</p>
<p>I have no idea what endowments actually measure. Had UIUC been fortunate enough to convince Larry Ellison of Oracle to stick around and graduate, the school’s endowment might be a lot bigger. </p>
<p>Texas’ endowment is around $17 billion, but I don’t think I’ve ever run into anyone that actually believes that it’s a better school than Michigan or Notre Dame.</p>
<p>Bill73, Texas’ endowment is for the entire system. The Austin campus has an estimated endowment of ~$7.5 billion. And although I would not claim that Texas is better than Michigan or Notre Dame, it is certainly on par in many regards.</p>