In Reply to: UCLA is consistently ranked with the best universities in the world... posted by Born2BBruin on August 28, 2024 at 19:57:19
Build a football powerhouse and then we'll start talking "elite".
Ucla derives much joy from the annual number of applications received figure yet this gross number tells us nothing about the quality of the school itself. It tells us that the funnel Ucla has constructed for gathering applications is bigger and wider than other funnels constructed by other schools.
One example would be the UC application itself. A single student gets to apply to three campuses with a single application in the country's most populous state. Let's assume Ucla is third on every student's application. Even though they are third choice, they will be the "most applied to". Pure Bs.
Another large slug of applications comes from abroad, with China leading the way. This is another false "elite" signal. It just means Ucla is willing to accommodate large numbers of Chinese students---who all pay full price.
To measure whether a school is elite, we should measure outputs, not inputs.
If we turn our attention to outputs, we see little to differentiate Ucla from other large state-run colleges including community colleges. Graduate average starting salary for Ucla grads is not elite. Also, since there will be 10,000 fresh Ucla grads dumped onto the market each year we might suspect the large supply works against "eliteness".
The magazine rankings are meaningless. They are essentially fixed across time and are bought and paid for, not objective, scientific studies.
One output that clearly proves Ucla is not elite is its football program. Let's fix that.