Is UC Berkeley underrated?

xiggi · September 3, 2009, 4:02pm

[quote]
the problem with your reasoning is that - you depend too much on the quality of the students in ranking institutions. By doing that, you failed to realize that you have in effect insulted the caliber of the professors/lecturers/academic staff/etc... because it's their duty to educate students. If they couldn't do that, then they're not good faculty. And they are essentially part of the university that we are assessing. Apart from that, you failed to factor in facilities. By facilities, I mean high-tech labs, state-of-the-art equipment, extensive volumes of books, easy access to the internet, PCs available to students and the like. Then of course, you failed to factor in the opportunities that the schools provide to their graduates, such as salary scale and positions held by alumni.

[/quote]

Insulting the caliber of the education provided to UGs? A bit of hyperbole here? Or do you mean I also insulted the army of GSAs that is so important in the delivery of education at Berkeley and allows the tenured faculty to remain dedicated to researching and ... bringing the bacon home?

I believe it is you who fail to realize that access to faculty and access to facilities has to be measured on a per-capita basis, and then correctly ascertained for undergraduates.

Lastly, why do believe that the opportunities that Berkeley provides to its UG graduates, such as salary scale and positions held by alumni, is superior than at the schools you would like to supplant in the rankings.

xiggi · September 3, 2009, 4:11pm

[quote]
Says how much you know... I don't want to be the one talking more about this... just check on the data of USNews about teaching standard. There they rank the schools that offer the best teaching experience or something like that, and much to hawkette's surprise (and all those Berkeley bashers on CC), Berkeley did extremely well - within the top 10 in the nation.

[/quote]

Says how much you know... Humm, I think that you are placing your feet on a slippery slope here. What do YOU know about Berkeley and many of the schools you often discuss with authority. Now you mention that you spouse attended Berkeley. Does this mean that all this pompom waving is out of spousal love? In the meantime, have you attended or even visited Berkeley or any of the schools you deem of lower "value?" What do YOU know about Emory and Vanderbilt, and for that matter, what do you know about Stanford?

Perhaps, time has come to drop all the charades you created under this identity, and your previous ones!

RML · September 3, 2009, 4:16pm

[quote]
I've always found Payscale figures to be extremely suspect because they include only those students who earn bachelor's degrees, which introduces a strong selection bias,

[/quote]

But it's the only data that we've got now. We would be speculating when we talk about something that we don't have data of. Payscale isn't conclusive. But the result was telling.

[quote]
for many of the top private schools send a large proportion of their students to lucrative graduate/professional schools.

[/quote]

I think Berkeley does that as well. A lot of Berkeley grads pursue further studies, not only in California but in some of the best schools in the whole nation.

If you'd check out HBS, HLS and Yale Law's data, you'd see Berkeley grads represent very well compared to its peers. The last time I check, Berkeley would make in the top 10. Now, if Berkeley's peer schools are really better (such as the performance of HYPS), they would have outperformed Berkeley on that regard, but they haven't.

[quote]
However, we're not comparing Cal to the vast majority of other schools. To compare Cal against Southwest Missouri State is not a serious comparison at all. We're comparing Cal to the very best schools.

[/quote]

Berkeley is the number 1 State University in California and arguably the 2nd best school in the whole California. It's mandated by law to accommodate students who are in the top 10% of their high school class. It has one of the lowest admissions rate. It has an average SAT score of 2000. I'd say, with the exception of HYPSM (as they really are exceptional for undergrad), very few research-led university can match that.

But what's the point of all this? I guess no one here has claimed that Berkeley has the best student body. But I think it's not fair to say that Berkeley has average student body. But the quality of the student body makes up only a portion of the whole idea of ranking academic institutions. If we have to base solely our ranking on the quality of the student body, then the best academic institution in America wouldn't be Harvard, but Caltech or Harvey Mudd, both of which have higher stats than Harvard has, based on student quality, and which I don't agree with.

[quote]
If Cal is indeed amongst the very best schools in the world, then it should have an undergraduate student body to match.

[/quote]

I do accept that one of Berkeley's softest spots on this assessment is Berkeley's undergrad student body due to its nature which is a state uni. But I don't always agree with the notion that the best schools have the best students. For accepting that will force me to accept the idea that the best students are in the best schools. For example, Mudd has the best students. Is Mudd the best school? I don't think so. Olin has the best students. Is Olin the college? I don't think so either.

The truth is, there are factors that affect the student make up of the institution. For example, schools that are generous with aid attracts students. HYPSM and other top privates are generous with aid and scholarship to all deserving students regardless of location or origin. So, naturally, they attract a good proportion of smart students from across the nation. But Berkeley couldn't do that as it does not offer the same grant to OOS students. Aside from that, it's mandated by law to accept the best students in its state. If only Berkeley have been granting aid to OOS as well, Berkeley would surely have given the top privates a stiff competition in the enrollment yield wars. Berkeley would have an identical student make up as those of other top privates. That's the reason why there's a discrepancy of the student make up between Berkeley (a State U) and its peer private schools, and the notion that because Berkeley's student stats are a little lower than those of some privates' therefore Berkeley isn't a top school is entirely wrong.

as for the other points, I'll post them next time.

willmingtonwave · September 3, 2009, 4:37pm

[quote]
For example, Mudd has the best students. Is Mudd the best school? I don't think so. Olin has the best students. Is Olin the college? I don't think so either.

[/quote]

Those are poor examples, because they are engineering schools. For prospective bosses and adcoms in engineerings, then yes Mudd and Olin would do very well.

In regards to the undergraduate teaching, I for one, will ignore that for a few years until the data normalizes. I am not going to trust their first attempt at engaging this issue.

[quote]
No, actually, as wilmington wave said, the true duty of the tenure-track faculty of any major research university of which Berkeley is clearly one is to conduct research. If your research output is not strong, you're not going to be promoted to tenure and you're not going to win recognition amongst your academic peers. On the other hand, excellent teachers can and have been denied tenure.

[/quote]

Exactly, I would like RML to address this point. We are talking in circles. No one is denying the strength of Berkley's overall reputation. We are saying that there are better options in terms of an undergraduate experience. But please answer me this question, how can the learning environment at Berkley be top 10, when it is a research school and their faculty do research and publish? Particularly when there are other "hybrid" schools and liberal arts schools?

Thank you.

hawkette · September 3, 2009, 5:00pm

RML,
Re faculty caliber, learning effectiveness, facilities and employment prospects, I agree that these are very important factors. I place ALL of these well above prestige within the academic world. However, there are likely differences in how we consider these factors.

I also think that you underrate what other schools can do and what they deliver to their undergraduate students. And this underrating frequently occurs in these CC "debates." UC Berkeley or some other PA favorite may be worshipped by some, but in the eyes of many not in the Ivory Tower, reality crashes in and the metrics change. And if you stay fixated on the "prestige within academia" factor, then you risk overlooking the true quality of so many places around the country.

If you like, I could go thru each of the factors you list, but I will focus on what might be the most important to the typical undergraduate student-employment prospects. While I think highly of UCB graduates generally and there are definitely pockets of great student strength that feed into some pretty competitive fields and companies, I know also that many top privates regularly do the same. You may be a little hyperfocused on areas like engineering where UCB's name will carry far and wide, but you have to also realize that this is only 13% of UCB's undergrad population. What about the other 87%?

Furthermore, the Berkeley name is less valued in other parts of the country than many UCB supporters realize. In many cases, the local state flagships will carry more weight, including in the job search. For example, think about an English major from UCB and an English major from UGA and they're both going for a job with a top employer in Atlanta (eg, Delta, Suntrust, Cox, Coke, Wellstar, etc). Do you really think that, in a place like Atlanta, UCB is at an advantage vs UGA? It's not.

Finally, please understand that sticking up for other colleges is not a slam to UC Berkeley. It is sticking up for other colleges. I think we are blessed to have many great colleges across the USA and the myopic fascination of some on CC with a few darlings of the academic elite lamentably distorts this fact.

RML · September 3, 2009, 5:04pm

[quote]
Insulting the caliber of the education provided to UGs? A bit of hyperbole here? Or do you mean I also insulted the army of GSAs that is so important in the delivery of education at Berkeley and allows the tenured faculty to remain dedicated to researching and ... bringing the bacon home?

[/quote]

There are GSAs, TSs, RAs or whatever in every research-led institutions anywhere in the US including HYPSM, not just at Berkeley. To underestimate Berkeley becasue of their presence would mean to underestimate each and every research-led institution in America. And, please don't tell me there aren't quality faculty at Berkeley. Please. You won't be providing facts anymore if you'd do that.

Berkeley isn't perfect. And, becasue it's prestigious, popular yet public, it's flaws have been opened for everyone who's interested in it. But to single out Berkeley of all those flaws is unfair, and therefore, wouldn't help us assess the school vis-a-vis its competitors. Do you honestly think that there aren't issues at Stanford? Come on.

[quote]

I believe it is you who fail to realize that access to faculty and access to facilities has to be measured on a per-capita basis, and then correctly ascertained for undergraduates.

[/quote]

Almost every Berkeley student and graduate I've talked about this particular topic has told me - firsthand - that s/he has no difficulty in seeing a faculty for consultation. My wife has never encountered such problem as well when she was a student there. What their problem was was how to make time for it.

Now, going back to your assertion that facilities must be measured on a per capita basis.

Measuring facilities on a per capita basis is impractical in many cases, for not every single Berkeley student would need or use the same facility.

Let's use examples.

Berkeley has 25k undergrad students and 2,500 classrooms. USC has 10k undergrad students and 2,000 classrooms. Let's say you'll adjust to their sizes. By ratio and proportion, USC would have lower ratio than Berkeley. BUT how can you make an assessment of the QUALITY of the university based on that? All you'll know is that USC has a lower ratio of students-to-classrooms, but how's that any indication of their academic standard???

In reality, the use of facilities is usually arranged. For why would a school build so many classrooms just so it can satisfy the lower classrooms-to-students ratio when all the university would need to do is to arrange the schedule of classes in such a way that everyone is accommodated.

The best indication is rather the QUALITY of the facilities and equipment (for tech/IT/science and engineering students.) For example, for a radiologist to be able to perform a good assessment of his patient's case, s/he needs to study the internal structure of the skeletal, muscular and nervous system of his/her patient's body. As a radiologist, you'd need equipment to perform your task. Some schools use x-ray machines to study the patient. Some schools CT-scanners. But the best school with the best facility use MRI machines. Even when Berkeley has one MRI machine for all its 40 students taking radiology course, the essential point is, their students still make the best assessment to their patients, or much, much better than those who have hundreds of x-ray machines for a class of 30 students. That is precisely the reason why, the quality of research at Berkeley is far better than those conducted at private schools. That's precisely the reason why Berkeley is constantly in the very forefront of research, because it has the resources (people, talent, atmosphere and facilities) to do cutting-edge research.

Now, if we would follow your logic, it would appear that Berkeley is the inferior school. Yet in reality, Berkeley grads producing the best output instead.

[quote]

Lastly, why do believe that the opportunities that Berkeley provides to its UG graduates, such as salary scale and positions held by alumni, is superior than at the schools you would like to supplant in the rankings.

[/quote]

I'm not sure what is there to explain more about his as this stuff is self-explanatory. Anyway, I'll indulge.

top quality schools produce great graduates - tested, trusted, capable and highly commendable. Through the years, top employers were able to identify which schools produce such graduates, and they get talents from there. And, naturally, pay them well.

RML · September 3, 2009, 5:12pm

[quote]

Says how much you know... Humm, I think that you are placing your feet on a slippery slope here. What do YOU know about Berkeley and many of the schools you often discuss with authority. Now you mention that you spouse attended Berkeley. Does this mean that all this pompom waving is out of spousal love? In the meantime, have you attended or even visited Berkeley or any of the schools you deem of lower "value?" What do YOU know about Emory and Vanderbilt, and for that matter, what do you know about Stanford?

Perhaps, time has come to drop all the charades you created under this identity, and your previous ones!

[/quote]

your post is full of arrogance but absolutely NO substance. that's apart from it's off topic and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. If I were childish...perhaps I will stoop down to this level and fight back. But it's not worth it.

as for my education, you don't know anything about it. you don't know if i've a postgrad or not. you don't know where else i've studied...and i'm not willing to share it with a guy like you.

xiggi, this will be my last post for you. good bye and enjoy life!

RML · September 3, 2009, 5:35pm

[quote]
Those are poor examples, because they are engineering schools. For prospective bosses and adcoms in engineerings, then yes Mudd and Olin would do very well.

[/quote]

But they are all schools - academic institutions. Isn't that what we are assessing on here - schools?

Sakky claimed that the best undergrad schools must have the best undergrad students. I said, such is not always the case. For if we would make that an as absolute rule, then Harvard wouldn't be number 1 in many people's book, but Olin or Mudd or maybe even Juliard. I don't care what type of a school they are, all I know is that they attract the best students. So, to agree that sakky's statement was conclusive and final is to agree that Harvard isn't number but either Olin or Mudd.

[quote]
No one is denying the strength of Berkley's overall reputation. We are saying that there are better options in terms of an undergraduate experience.

[/quote]

Well, when did I ever disagree with that statement??? As far as I am concern, that's what my belief is as well. I think Berkeley undergrad isn't number 1, or not on HYPSM level and certainly not heading towards that direction as it's not making an effort to become the absolute best in the whole country, which saddened me as it's a school with big potential to rival HYPSM given its resources are used wisely. Just that some (not all) people on here are paranoid that when I said Berkeley is superior to Emory, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame and the like, they presumed I was claiming Berkeley undergrad is as excellent as HYPSM.

[quote]
But please answer me this question, how can the learning environment at Berkley be top 10, when it is a research school and their faculty do research and publish? Particularly when there are other "hybrid" schools and liberal arts schools?

[/quote]

Now, let me throw you the same question: how can the learning environment at HYPSM be top 5 when they are all research-led schools and their facculty do cutting-edge research works and publish books, journals, articles, etc as well?

to quote what sakky has said: "Where I would agree with you is that this is an endemic problem amongst all research universities and is not a problem specific to Berkeley."

Chicago, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Columbia, UPenn and even Emory, Vanderbilt, Duke, Notre Dame, to name a ,are all but research-led institutions. They're not really different from Berkeley other than Berkeley is public and has done and is doing research quality that is as high as those of HYPSM and Caltech.

RML · September 3, 2009, 5:40pm

[quote]

I also think that you underrate what other schools can do and what they deliver to their undergraduate students. And this underrating frequently occurs in these CC "debates."

[/quote]

Hawkette, I don't think I underrate what other schools can do to their undergrad students.

What those schools can do to their undergrad students Berkeley can do them as well. But what Berkeley can do to their students only maybe HYPSM+Caltech can do.

Hawkette, the only argument of some anti-Berkeley forumers is that, the extra students admitted to Berkeley every year has damaged its quality / academic standard and its' ability to educate and compete with schools like Emory, Vanderbilt and the like. I'd say, they're correct. But as to what extent the damaged was, it shouldn't be that bad that it's going to be overtaken/outanked by Emory, Notre Dame and Vanderbilt.

IBclass06 · September 3, 2009, 5:48pm

Per capita, easily. As I mentioned in another thread, tiny Bryn Mawr annually admits and funds more Classics and Art History graduate students each year than Berkeley has been capable of doing in the last few years. In fact, this year Berkeley isn't sure if it can admit or fund any students in those disciplines at all!

For a school that's supposedly in the top 5 of each discipline, that's pretty pathetic.

What's the use of having world-class faculty if you can't afford to admit graduate students to work with them? :rolleyes:

hawkette · September 3, 2009, 5:59pm

RML,
As I have previously posted, I judge the academic and learning/student development environment of undergraduate colleges on a variety of datapoints with four major themes: student quality, size of classroom, teaching effectiveness of faculty, institutional resources and willingness to use them. There is a ton of objective data that supports the belief that UC Berkeley's academic setting differs substantively from the privates that you mention (Chicago, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Columbia, UPenn, Emory, Vanderbilt, Duke, Notre Dame) and don't mention (Dartmouth, Wash U, Georgetown, etc.). I'd be happy to oblige and post the comparisons if you really want to go there.

Now, having said that, please don’t interpret this as claiming that these colleges are all better for all students. They're not and that's not my contention. But taken as a whole, each of these privates will compare favorably vs UCB on most metrics.

Out of curiosity, do you feel as strongly about UC Berkeley's standing vs these privates for subject areas outside of engineering/sciences?

RML · September 3, 2009, 6:00pm

hawkette,

if this isn't too much to ask and you happen to have time to actually do it, can you rank the schools using the ff criteria:

prestige - use PA of US news
faculty caliber - look for a source
learning effectiveness - use USNews data
facilities - look for a source
employment prospects - use payscale
funding - factor in research funding from Washington Monthly, endowment, governemnt funding for state universities, donations from friends and alumni and other earnings from school properties, patents, researches, etc...

hawkette · September 3, 2009, 6:02pm

It's a ton to ask and it's your argument, so no I'm not going to do your work for you. But, if you believe that these are the proper metrics, then do the research and I will gladly read, critique the result and welcome you to my world. :)

RML · September 3, 2009, 6:14pm

[quote]
As I have previously posted, I judge the academic and learning/student development environment of undergraduate colleges on a variety of datapoints with four major themes:
student quality,
size of classroom,
teaching effectiveness of faculty,
institutional resources and
willingness to use them.

There is a ton of objective data that supports the belief that UC Berkeley's academic setting differs substantively from the privates that you mention (Chicago, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Columbia, UPenn, Emory, Vanderbilt, Duke, Notre Dame) and don't mention (Dartmouth, Wash U, Georgetown, etc.). I'd be happy to oblige and post the comparisons if you really want to go there.

Now, having said that, please don’t interpret this as claiming that these colleges are all better for all students. They're not and that's not my contention. But taken as a whole, each of these privates will compare favorably vs UCB on most metrics.

[/quote]

hawkette,

on page 1, post #11, there I said this lines:

**"In my opinion, Berkeley isn't underrated, but it is underranked by a few league tables especially, USNews." **

Now, in order to prove that claim of mine, I only need to prove it that there is actually one of two universities that were ranked above Berkeley in USNews. I don't have to prove it that Berkeley is a top 10 or top 15 school in order to prove my claim that Berkeley was underranked. So, if you happen to have kept the stats and data for Berkeley (#21), Notre Dame (#20), Emory (#17) and Vanderbilt (#17) please bring them out and post them on here. I am confident Berkeley would emerge better than at least one of those four schools I've mentioned, even using the criteria you specified above.

[quote]
Out of curiosity, do you feel as strongly about UC Berkeley's standing vs these privates for subject areas outside of engineering/sciences?

[/quote]

Absolutely yes. Berkeley is superior to some of the schools ranked higher then Berkeley in USNews for business, economics, chemistry, physics, mathematics, computer science, politics, psychology, English, history, etc...

[
[quote]

It's a ton to ask and it's your argument, so no I'm not going to do your work for you. But, if you believe that these are the proper metrics, then do the research and I will gladly read, critique the result and welcome you to my world

[/quote]

Okay i'll try doing that during my free time.

UCBChemEGrad · September 3, 2009, 6:23pm

Well, first off you can start with the misleading USNWR "financial resources rank".
This ranking clearly favors colleges with medical schools and in-house research labs. Case in point: Johns Hopkins at #3 (or something) and UCLA...look at UCLA's financial resources compared to Berkeley's. The differences between UCLA and Berkeley are UCLA's larger undergrad population and medical school. Now tell me how medical school and laboratory research spending benefits undergrads - CC's poor souls??

hawkette · September 3, 2009, 6:37pm

RML,

Maybe some of this will help.

<pre><code> Freshman Retention , School

    94.2%   ,   Emory
    96.0%   ,   Vanderbilt
    97.5%   ,   Notre Dame

    96.5%   ,   UC BERKELEY


    4-Year Grad Rate    ,   School

    82% ,   Emory
    84% ,   Vanderbilt
    91% ,   Notre Dame

    64% ,   UC BERKELEY


        6-Year Grad Rate,   School

    88% ,   Emory
    89% ,   Vanderbilt
    96% ,   Notre Dame

    90% ,   UC BERKELEY

% of classes with fewer than 20 students , % of classes with more than 50 students , School

68.2% , 7.0% , Emory
67.7% , 6.6% , Vanderbilt
55.0% , 9.4% , Notre Dame

60.3% , 15.1% , UC BERKELEY

    Student/faculty Ratio   ,   School

    7/1 ,   Emory
    8/1 ,   Vanderbilt
    12/1    ,   Notre Dame

    15/1    ,   UC BERKELEY

SAT 25 - SAT 75 , School

1310 - 1500 , Emory
1330 - 1500 , Vanderbilt
1320 - 1500 , Notre Dame

1210 - 1470 , UC BERKELEY

% 700+ on SAT CR , % 700+ on SAT Math , School

45% , 61% , Emory
47% , 66% , Vanderbilt
50% , 64% , Notre Dame

29% , 51% , UC BERKELEY

Top 10% students , Top 25% students , School

88% , 90% , Emory
84% , 97% , Vanderbilt
87% , 96% , Notre Dame

98% , 100% , UC BERKELEY

    Acceptance Rate ,   School

    26.6%   ,   Emory
    25.3%   ,   Vanderbilt
    26.7%   ,   Notre Dame

    21.6%   ,   UC BERKELEY


    # of transfers for whom data is not published   ,   School

    113 ,   Emory
    171 ,   Vanderbilt
    145 ,   Notre Dame

    2012    ,   UC BERKELEY


    % of need met   ,   School

    100%    ,   Emory
    100%    ,   Vanderbilt
    100%    ,   Notre Dame

    88% ,   UC BERKELEY

Endowment Size as of 6/30/08 , Per Capita , School

$5,515,479,000 , $432,417 , Emory
$3,495,000,000 , $289,010 , Vanderbilt
$6,351,855,000 , $541,459 , Notre Dame

$3,070,746,000 , $86,722 , UC BERKELEY

    USNWR Financial Resources Rank  ,   School

    18  ,   Emory
    15  ,   Vanderbilt
    42  ,   Notre Dame

    43  ,   UC BERKELEY

</code></pre>

UCB,
People like to criticize Wash U, but I think if I had to pick one Top 20 school that does the most dancing with the numbers, I would select Johns Hopkins. No doubt a fine school, but their ranking heavily benefits from their large hospital spending which has little to nothing to do with undergrads and their distantly located research facilities which are almost totally dominated by grad students. Furthermore, they cherrypick when to count their Conservatory students (eg, yes for class size measurements, no for student quality measurements).

xiggi · September 3, 2009, 7:22pm

[quote]
as for my education, you don't know anything about it. you don't know if i've a postgrad or not. you don't know where else i've studied...and i'm not willing to share it with a guy like you.

[/quote]

There is no need to share where you studied. I am not interested in your charades and twisted tales.

It is blatantly obvious from your earlier posts using your most recent incarnation that you never studied in the United States. As far as your credibility on this issue, it is not much different from when you posted as Aspirant in the past, not to mention the easily identifiable accounts known for the same pro-Berkeley rhetoric.

middsmith · September 3, 2009, 7:51pm

xiggi, how do you 'splain the # of students Berkeley sends to top law, top biz, top engineering, top med schools?

A few threads back, IBclass posted average 40ish students get into HLS annually. That means there are 40ish freakishly smart kids at Berkeley vs. 5 at Vandy/Emory.
For every major at Berkeley, there are ten fold of students with equal or higher caliber than those at Vandy/Emory. Not enough to put it over those schools?

sakky · September 3, 2009, 8:47pm

[quote]
But it's the only data that we've got now. We would be speculating when we talk about something that we don't have data of. Payscale isn't conclusive. But the result was telling.

[/quote]

About the best that Payscale can say is that perhaps it can measure the impact of a bachelor's degree from a particular school as long as you never intend to go to graduate school. But I'm not sure how meaningful such a measurement is, because the best and most ambitious students usually do intend for graduate school.

[quote]
I think Berkeley does that as well. A lot of Berkeley grads pursue further studies, not only in California but in some of the best schools in the whole nation.

If you'd check out HBS, HLS and Yale Law's data, you'd see Berkeley grads represent very well compared to its peers. The last time I check, Berkeley would make in the top 10. Now, if Berkeley's peer schools are really better (such as the performance of HYPS), they would have outperformed Berkeley on that regard, but they haven't

[/quote]

Actually, I would argue that that's precisely where Berkeley fails to measure up to the top private schools. Only a relatively small percentage of Berkeley undergrads do enter the top graduate programs. Most Berkeley undergrads who do choose graduate school will wind up in relatively average grad programs.

As a case in point, consider the prestige of the law schools that Berkeley students get admitted to. (Let's not consider med-schools, for a reasonable argument could be made that med-school prestige matters little, however there is little dispute that law school prestige matters greatly). The average Berkeley student who was admitted to law school in 2008 had a GPA of 3.56 and an LSAT of 162. Such statistics were good enough to admit such a student to...Loyala Law School of Los Angeles (162 LSAT/3.53 GPA for admitted Berkeley prelaws), which I think we can all agree is not exactly a top law school.

Keep in mind, this is talking only about those Berkeley prelaws who actually were admitted to law school. Some prelaws were rejected from every law school they applied to, and many others didn't even bother to apply because they knew they wouldn't get in to anywhere they would want to go. Hence, I think it's safe to say that the average Berkeley prelaw, when you factor in these 'missing' prelaws, ends up going to a relatively mediocre law school.

<a href="https://career.berkeley.edu/Law/LawStats.stm%5B/url%5D">https://career.berkeley.edu/Law/LawStats.stm</a>

[quote]
Aside from that, it's mandated by law to accept the best students in its state.

[/quote]

It may be mandated by law to accept the best students in the state. The problem is that the best students in the state, unfortunately, usually don't want to go to Cal, but would rather go to the top private schools. Hence, those schools effectively skim the cream off of the California high school system, leaving those students who, frankly, weren't good enough to get into those other schools to go to Berkeley.

Look, don't get me wrong. I like Berkeley for many things. I think the graduate programs are fantastic. I think the city is one of the most culturally exciting and diverse in the country. And I agree with you that Berkeley can make a legitimate claim to being the best public school in the country, even for undergrads.

However, the fact remains that Berkeley's undergraduates do not receive particularly strong support, relative to what is available at the top private schools.

[quote]
Sakky claimed that the best undergrad schools must have the best undergrad students. I said, such is not always the case. For if we would make that an as absolute rule, then Harvard wouldn't be number 1 in many people's book, but Olin or Mudd or maybe even Juliard. I don't care what type of a school they are, all I know is that they attract the best students. So, to agree that sakky's statement was conclusive and final is to agree that Harvard isn't number but either Olin or Mudd.

[/quote]

Undergraduate student quality is not measured by mere numerical criteria alone. Just having the best standardized test scores and high school grades alone does not make your student body the best.

Put another way, I suspect there are more students at Olin or Mudd who would rather be going to Harvard but didn't get in, than there are students at Harvard who would rather be going to Olin or Mudd but didn't get in. I don't think there are too many students who are feeling: "I'd really rather be at Harvey Mudd, but I got rejected, so I have no choice now but to go to Harvard."

kwu · September 3, 2009, 10:52pm

I made an identical argument against the University of Virginia in a similar thread and got yelled at.

Is UC Berkeley underrated?

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

Is UC Berkeley underrated?

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US