UCLA was ranked the 24th-best national university in the 2017 edition of the U.S. News & World Report college rankings of national universities, released Monday evening, slipping slightly from last year.
UCLA tied with Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Virginia, and tied for second-best public university with University of Virginia behind University of California, Berkeley at No. 20. Crosstown rival University of Southern California ranked one spot higher at No. 23.
U.S. News & World Report ranked 310 national universities based on seven general indicators, including undergraduate retention rates, undergraduate academic reputation and faculty resources.
Last year, UCLA tied with USC and Carnegie Mellon University at No. 23.
Other highly ranked University of California campuses include UC Santa Barbara at No. 37, UC Irvine at No. 39 and UC San Diego and UC Davis tied at No. 44.
The top ranked universities, in order, were Princeton at No.1, Harvard at No. 2 and University of Chicago and Yale tied at No. 3.
I am completely baffled by what grading criteria was used, when in every other ranking, USC is like 40+ below UCLA… They must be alum or something.
Honestly, ranking private schools with public schools is just not a great way to judge schools. Especially when it comes to judging schools based on acceptance rates, since the purpose of a state school is more geared towards serving the public, rather than the motives of a private school.
Before you make an ambiguous accusation, I would recommend a simple Google search to identify different criteria for the rankings. World rankings are based mostly on the grad division, which has a better emphasis on academic research OTHER than teaching. A school’s rigor in terms of academic research is almost, if not completely, independent of its undergrad student body. Therefore a ranking of the undergrad body between USC and UCLA makes USC a bit advantageous. Undoubtedly tho, UCLA is a research powerhouse. There you go the differences. Hope you find it clear and straightforward.
Nobody was talking about student body, I jokingly said that the people who design the rankings were SC alum. Obviously, as I stated, I do not know what criteria was scored but I have searched in the past and it isn’t any straightforward simple google search as you put it. My observation was that every other ranking I have seen has USC not even in proximity to UCLA but way below, such as Times Higher Education which is a global index, QS World University rankings, CWUR, the list goes on…. but I’m sure they have skewed the criteria to include SC
I am talking about your subjectivity. Because US News is famous for its undergrad ranking which is what this article is talking about. You say the UNDERGRAD ranking is skewed because of all other GRAD rankings, namely, global rankings. I am therefore hereby pointing out that global ranking has nothing to do with undergrad.
Yeah I had a moment of realization after I sent that message, that this article is strictly about undergrad. So I rest my case bc I was mistaken. The overwhelming disparity between UCLA and USC graduate divs makes sense though, which translates to every other ranking measure. It’s a shame usnews has monopolized the undergrad rankings
Furthermore, ARWU is the ONLY ranking that ranks schools without having other schools’ opinions. It prevents schools’ ranking nepotism. It ranks schools solely relying on publications, Nobel prize winners, and etc. On that list USC is 49 and UCLA is 12. Other rankings all involve prestige ranking, which relies on other schools’ professors to rank the unquantifiable fame. QS has 40% of this category and ranks UCLA 8th. Understandable.
Honestly US news national rankings are bogus. Class size is weighted high in the methodology which negatively biases pubic schools. In the academic rankings UCLA is mostly in the top 10 nationally or event the world. As for SC, most people outside of CA haven’t even heard of it…
I’m a grad from both USC and UCLA, so I know the difference. You are right for the noticeable prestige difference but you are exaggerating it to the point where your statement becomes too subjective. When I was in New York and Pennsylvania, many people had heard of USC-UCLA Rivalry. If you plan to refer to rural areas, I have seen USC tags from time to time while I was in Bethlehem and Allentown, PA. I just find UCLA and Berkeley supporters funny that they call US News BS and quote world rankings which are completely irrelevant to the undergrad division. It is unfair to rank private colleges’ undergrad with that of the public schools. But a better undergrad experience is also noticeable. Thanks.
You are the only mentioning undergrad specifically, while the other readers are discussing the comparison of the institutions in their entirety
I’m sorry but any ranking that puts Princeton ahead of Harvard or Stanford can’t be taken too seriously. I mean, Berkeley is 20th…something is clearly flawed in the methodology:
I wouldn’t say Berkeley’s undergrad experience is comparable to that of elite private colleges. We all know that. Yes, Berkeley has a very good reputation on research, probably top 3 in the world or in the US. But does it relate to the teaching and overall undergrad experience? constant 300 student huge lectures and professors don’t even remember your names throughout the entire undergrad years can undermine a Berkeley’s student’s undergrad experience. In-state students are a lot easier to get into Berkeley than out-state students, which results in some discrepancy among students’ qualities. So, don’t bind research with undergrad division. They are completely irrelevant. The fact that Berkeley is ranked at 20ish actually somewhat relies on its grad reputation. Some high school counselors would be overwhelmed by its research reputation and give it a high score on the survey. Other than that, I can’t think of why Berkeley would be ranked 20 in the nation for its over crowded classrooms, shortage of funding and negligible faculty-student relations.