A discussion about the reputation of Berkeley as the top UC school

[UCLAri]

<p>

However, I’d be far more impressed with a Harvard Bachelor’s degree than one from Berkeley–I’d reserve my judgment knowing the wide disparity between the best and the worst at Cal.</p>

<p>It doesn’t mean that all Harvard graduates are brilliant, but that Harvard graduates usually only bottom out so much where the floor for Cal is far lower. This is due in a large part to Cal’s lack of drawing power for most students who care only for rankings.

</p>

<p>This is true of all the top publics. The top student at Cal, UCLA, Michigan, etc. could give the top student at any Ivy a run for her money.</p>

<p>It’s the bottom of the barrel where things hurt. </p>

<p>I don’t think that Berkeley, UCLA, and Michigan have ever been the powerhouse undergrads that the Ivys are. That’s just not the way publics are set up.</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>

I don’t think that Berkeley, UCLA, and Michigan have ever been the powerhouse undergrads that the Ivys are. That’s just not the way publics are set up.

</p>

<p>I think in the early part of the 1900s Berkeley undergrad was close to that of Harvard’s, and definitely surpassed Stanford’s, so I think it’s possible (perhaps not given the current situation).</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

I think in the early part of the 1900s Berkeley undergrad was close to that of Harvard’s, and definitely surpassed Stanford’s, so I think it’s possible (perhaps not given the current situation).

</p>

<p>Well, at the time Stanford was a no-name university without any serious funding.</p>

<p>Plus, the mission of the UC changed around the time it became a system, I think. You can thank or damn Clark Kerr for most of that.</p>

[GentlemanandScholar]

<p>vicissitudes, all that you can come up with are minor regents benefits that you aren’t even sure exist? This is what I’m talking about. Give me the facts that say Cal is going down. Really, even if there are major differences in regents benefits I’d hardly call that a turning point in the UCLA/Cal relationship. As far as impersonal faculty, that hasn’t been my experience. Maybe that’s an old wives tale. Seeing as how UCLA has more students than Berkeley, I really don’t see how they would get more personal attention, but I could be wrong. True if you want personal attention you might be better suited somewhere else, but personally I think its overrated. I’ve never had a problem seeing a professor if I wanted to. In fact they beg to have people come see them and most will meet you at a coffee house if you have class during their office hours. All this business about everyone being mean and cutthroat is blown way out of proportion.</p>

[DRab]

<p>

The problem was mentioned by another poster–population boom. The California Master Plan for Higher Education called for the top students in the state to be guaranteed spots in the UC system. This is today’s ELC system where students are guaranteed spots in UC.

</p>

<p>I do believe that are supposed to “select from’ those, not required to give them spots. I heard this was a common misconception. </p>

<p>

Actually, I mainly wanted to talk about the academic quality of the schools (mostly concerning undergrad) and not perception.

</p>

<p>Based on what criteria?</p>

<p>A lot of things are image, perception, reputation, and not actuality. </p>

<p>

I just want to see it continue, and to have the UC system grow stronger as a whole and provide a better education for California students in the future, instead of just having schools reach Berkeley’s quality and say “well, that’s that. This is the best we can do.” (again, I’m not saying that this will happen…of course the UCs won’t say that…people are getting defensive on this thread)

</p>

<p>There’s an article that was in the Atlantic Monthly called “Who Needs Harvard?” or something like that. It talks about the distance between 2nd/3rd/4th tier schools closing in on first tier schools. All the UCs are considered by many to be in the first tier anyway. By tier I’m counting about a hundred or so schools. </p>

<p>

This is combine with state funding being continually slashed due to public perception of overspending (if you look at the actual statistics, it isn’t all that bad, but politicians must abide by public opinion), which is only compounded by recent inefficiency in spending funds (bridges, anyone?).

</p>

<p>Yes, sadly this is a major problem the UCs have to deal with. But if UCLA is dealing with this and still offering more money and perks for regent scholars, and thus attracting more top students and give a better quality of education to them, I think Berkeley can at least do the same.

</p>

<p>Are they, really? How so? Like many other UCs, they are trying to draw top students with money and other incentives.</p>

<p>

UCLA has fiat lux seminars, small seminars with distinguished faculty to discuss current issues.

</p>

<p>Just like freshmen/sophomore seminars. Berkeley historically hasn’t wanted to create an honors system to create second-class students on the lower tier. Perhaps they should do it, but that’s why they haven’t in the past.</p>

<p>

Something else I’ve noticed is that Berkeley has a reputation for having an impersonal staff and cut-throat competition. I know some people who were admitted to both but preferred UCLA’s more “personal and friendly” environment. How much of this reputation is true, I don’t really know, but for it to be so widespread (I’ve seen it brought up plenty of times on this forum) there must be some truth to it. Maybe there’s something Berkeley can do about this.

</p>

<p>I think this has a lot to do with misrepresenting reality and inaccurate perceptions and reputations.</p>

<p>

This is due in a large part to Cal’s lack of drawing power for most students who care only for rankings.

</p>

<p>The ranking obsessive could do far worse than Berkeley. For the ranking obsessed, Berkeley is one of the best 20 or so places to be, in departmental rankings one of the best places to be in general, and in some rankings one of the three best places to be.</p>

<p>

But it is for that very reason that Berkeley continues to lose out since it keeps losing most of its cross-admits to private institutions, competiting for the same pool but completely overwhelming Berkeley in terms of ranking and public prestige.

</p>

<p>It seems like this is speculation, although I’m not quite sure what you’re saying. How do you know most of the Berkeley people who go elsewhere are choosing some of the elite private schools? I think many go to other UCs, for instance. How do you know that this is the reason why they’re choosing these schools? What you’re right about is that over half the students are choosing other schools, and some of them, many of them, probably, are choosing more prestigious private schools for various reasons.</p>

<p>

Berkeley is getting squeeze financially and by sheer influx in numbers of students. It isn’t helping that at the same time this fact is also murdering Berkeley’s US News rankings (I consider it murder when you look at how many top ranked undergraduate disciplines Berkeley ranks in, compared to say Ivy League schools).

</p>

<p>Number of students doesn’t hurt, bur perhaps factors that come along with it do, if the students aren’t strong statistically, and the student faculty ratio is low.</p>

<p>

I don’t think UC Berkeley undergrad was ever held as high as Harvard.

</p>

<p>Before our time, years ago, it was considered quite close, they say.</p>

[cmaher]

<p>UCLA isn’t even close to Berkeley. UCSD is probably just as good as UCLA now.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>cmaher,</p>

<p>Thanks for that insightful post.</p>

[dyip10]

<p>Is that why UCLA’s profile of admitted students is similar to Cal’s, and significantly better than UCSD’s? Or is it because UCLA has a yield rate of ~40% equal to Cal’s, and UCSD’s has a yield rate of ~22%? Maybe it’s because UCLA has an admit rate of 25% and UCSD has an admit rate of 45%? </p>

[twilightzer0]

<p>UCSD’s engineering pwns UCLA’s though, especially their bioengineering.</p>

<p>It only appears Berkeley’s undergrad program isn’t showing as much improvement because they’re already at the top of the curve. They’re also greatly restricted as a public university (obligated to omit 90% Californians), which inhibits their undergrad program from being as selective as schools like Harvard and Yale (This is very evident in Berkeley’s undergrad class. The top of the curve can definately run with the best from Harvard, MIT, and Stanford, but its from the bottom of the barrow to the below-average range where you find Cal students to be real dumbas*es). However, this also means Berkeley has already gone as far as it is possble for Any UC in terms of selecting the best undergrad class it can, meaning that UCLA, at best, can only match Berkeley’s selectivity.</p>

<p>However, it’s the fact that Berkeley’s prestige from its graduate school, which undoubtly flows down to its undergrad level, is UP there with MIT and Harvard, thus certainly unchallenged by the likes of UCLA, that ensures it’s position at the top. This is where UCLA falters. Berkeley’s history, and present strength as a research giant is just about impossible to be toppled, especially not by UCLA, anytime soon. (UCLA isn’t that much younger than Berkeley, but the difference in their historical significance is clearly evident.) Thus, unless UCLA discovers somekind of PANACEA in the next century, it has little hope of even matching Berkeley’s prestige, and roll as the Flagship of the UCs.</p>

[dyip10]

<p>Are we talking about undergraduate or graduate?</p>

<p>Graduate (Research) - UC Berkeley is up there. </p>

<p>Undergraduate - They are close.</p>

<p>For professional schools - Medical school (UCLA, because Cal doesn’t have one), Business (Draw, it’s more of a region thing), Law (Berkeley)</p>

[twilightzer0]

<p>I think it’s more of a comparison of which one has the overall better reputation.</p>

<p>I think Haas has a considerably better reputation than Anderson.</p>

<p>If you’re looking into premed and ur an undergrad, I would seriously consider Berkeley>UCLA just because of the high admit rates from Berkeley into UCSF.</p>

<p>But then again, for undergrad, I agree that regions play a big issue. As long as you make it into one of the top universities in the nation, and you come out near the top of your class, you have a good shot at being successful in life.</p>

[DRab]

<p>I’d say Berkeley has a medical school like UCLA has a business major.</p>

<p>And business has a bit of a better reputation, although I don’t know too much about this sector, or what their specialties are.</p>

<p>Why must we compare everything?</p>

[dyip10]

<p>

I think Haas has a considerably better reputation than Anderson.

</p>

<p>Are you from northern California?</p>

[Allorion]

<p>I am, and I personally agree with Haas having a better reputation.</p>

<p>People outside of California know of Haas while far fewer people know of UCLA’s Anderson. It may or may not be a reflection on the school, since the reputation is in large part due to rankings and general prestige by that sense.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p><a href=“UCLA%20isn’t%20that%20much%20younger%20than%20Berkeley,%20but%20the%20difference%20in%20their%20historical%20significance%20is%20clearly%20evident.”>quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>BULL. UCLA is MUCH younger. Berkeley has at least a 50 year headstart, and nevermind the fact that UCLA, up until the 30s or so was a normal school.</p>

<p>So Cal has about 70-80 years on UCLA. That’s a decent headstart.</p>

[dyip10]

<p>Maybe you’re right, but the rankings are similar in a lot of rankings. It’s like a Northwestern vs. Chicago MBA.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

People outside of California know of Haas while far fewer people know of UCLA’s Anderson. It may or may not be a reflection on the school, since the reputation is in large part due to rankings and general prestige by that sense.

</p>

<p>This is absurd. Anderson is quite well known outside of California, if the recruiting there is any indication. Care to give your source otherwise?</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

If you’re looking into premed and ur an undergrad, I would seriously consider Berkeley>UCLA just because of the high admit rates from Berkeley into UCSF.

</p>

<p>What if you don’t want to go to UCSF, though? What if you’re interested in primary care? Besides, I’d like to see a source for that assertion.</p>

[dyip10]

<p>

BULL. UCLA is MUCH younger. Berkeley has at least a 50 year headstart, and nevermind the fact that UCLA, up until the 30s or so was a normal school.

</p>

<p>UCLA’s the youngest school in the top 25. Cal’s age is similar to many schools in the top 25.</p>

<p>

It may or may not be a reflection on the school, since the reputation is in large part due to rankings

</p>

<p>Businessweek UCLA #14, Cal #17
US News UCLA #10, Cal #8
UCLA Part Time MBA #4. I think Cal’s Part Time MBA is 5 or 6.
I really think it’s because you’re from northern California… (that’s why I said it’s a regional thing)</p>

[Allorion]

<p>Hmm, it was probably too extreme to use “far fewer”. It was a bit of a rash post since I quickly dashed that one out. Anderson is about at the same place as Berkeley in most rankings for graduate schools, upon checking.</p>

<p>Generally, when the top business schools are discussed, the names that pop up are Wharton, Kenan-Flagler, and the like, Haas is left out but when included Anderson is left out more, which is where my perception came from. </p>

<p>Possibly it’s due to Anderson being a much younger school, and not associated with the traditional business schools. I do admit that I might be wrong, since my source is perception and asking around (other states included) about the general prestige of the schools I was admitted to. So I suppose it is a possibility that since Anderson is a graduate school only it wasn’t mentioned.</p>