Was there ever a time when UC Berkeley was academically better than Stanford?

[caltanner]

<p>I gave departmental/academic rankings, you gave rankings related to the “overall” quality of a school (which includes many non-academic factors). Undergrad rankings always include mostly non-academic factors. Once you start to include “undergraduate things”, yes, Stanford starts to beat Berkeley. But that’s not what this thread is about. Graduate departmental, academic rankings are what matter to this thread, which asks specifically about the “academics” of a school. Graduate and undergraduate rankings per department are the same.</p>

<p>Pure, hard-core academics? On this level, yes, you are delirious if you consider Stanford more prestigious than Berkeley.</p>

[ezbreezy]

<p>

@caltanner

Pure, hard-core academics? On this level, yes, you are delirious if you consider Stanford more prestigious than Berkeley.

</p>

<p>Academics and prestige are two different things. They are correlated, but not the same.</p>

[caltanner]

<p>Well, anyway, I thought the ARWU correctly measured a school’s academic prowess. Their methodology includes extremely relevant factors. I still believe I have given more relevant points, regarding the foolishness of putting the pure academics of Stanford on a higher pedestal than that of Berkeley.</p>

<p>Stanford is the superior undergraduate institution (btw, you still haven’t argued beyond this front), because it is smaller, and wealthier, and consequently, it is able to “filter” its students more tightly. Berkeley has the same “Stanford caliber” students walking around (and of the same amount), however, there are simply thousands more who are not of such caliber.</p>

<p>I haven’t met anyone who thinks Stanford is the superior graduate institution. Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, are all considered among the top 5 places to do your PhD.</p>

<p>And again, if you’re a serious undergrad (who desires to further his/her education), the “soft” undergraduate factors shouldn’t matter as much (though they do matter) as the quality of the department. On that front, S/B are equal.</p>

<p>I would chose Stanford over Berkeley. However, at Berkeley you would only lose some marginally extra “cushion”. You do not lose on the academic front. This “academic front” coincides with the quality of the graduate institution, and everything else is the undergraduate experience.</p>

<p>On another note, even the “soft” undergraduate factors really aren’t very different. I have friends who go to Stanford and I’ve spent time there. The major differences are the surrounding towns (palo alto vs berkeley) and, at Stanford, less sub-par students (and it would be rather cruel to see this as a negative factor… these people aren’t lepers… really!). The “quality students” are the same, though.</p>

[caltanner]

<p>Oh, and it’s hilarious that you cited Forbes, Revealed Preference, and WSJ feeder rankings…</p>

<p>NRC and ARWU actually measure academics.</p>

<p>"Cal whomped archrival Stanford University in NRC’s study of the nation’s best graduate programs.</p>

<p>Where U.C. Berkeley had 40 of its programs ranked in the top 5, just 30 of Stanford’s were.</p>

<p>And 14 of Cal’s graduate programs were ranked in first place, whereas just 11 were at the rival across the bay."</p>

<p>In other words: “Was there ever a time when UC Berkeley was academically better than Stanford?”</p>

<p>LOL</p>

[zapfino]

<p>There most definitely was a time when Berkeley was considered academically better than Stanford (and, arguably it still is.)</p>

<p>In another thread (<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/931610-how-did-stanford-duke-mit-get-so-prestigious-3.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/931610-how-did-stanford-duke-mit-get-so-prestigious-3.html&lt;/a&gt;), see this:</p>

<p>Of course, there are other perceptions of Stanford:
In his book “100 Semesters”, William Chace (Emory President Emeritus) describes that he first saw Stanford in 1961 and said it was what his Berkeley professors said it was: “something of an undergraduate country club, populated largely by California students from wealthy families…”</p>

[ezbreezy]

<p>

@caltanner

Oh, and it’s hilarious that you cited Forbes, Revealed Preference, and WSJ feeder rankings…

</p>

<p>Yeah, I’m funny that way. To me, “academics” is as much, if not more about the students (and their choices and outcomes) than it is about the professors (and their research output).</p>

<p>

@caltanner

NRC and ARWU actually measure academics.

</p>

<p>Actually, these rankings measure departmental strength which is based on research productivity. IIRC, Berkeley has approximately 4 to 5 times as many faculty members as Stanford. So proportionally speaking, Stanford faculty are accomplishing more and (on average) are of a higher quality.</p>

<p>

@caltanner

I haven’t met anyone who thinks Stanford is the superior graduate institution. Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, are all considered among the top 5 places to do your PhD.

</p>

<p>It depends on what you mean by “superior.” Stanford is definitely the more selective graduate institution because it accepts far fewer PhD students. Insofar as selectivity determines prestige, Stanford is the more prestigious graduate institution.</p>

<p>

@caltanner

And again, if you’re a serious undergrad (who desires to further his/her education), the “soft” undergraduate factors shouldn’t matter as much (though they do matter) as the quality of the department.

</p>

<p>The quality of Berkeley’s departments doesn’t matter much if you have lesser availabilty and access to professors, classes, research opportunities and other resources. The UC budget cuts only further exacerbate this problem.</p>

<p>

@caltanner

I would chose Stanford over Berkeley.

</p>

<p>Is this why you keep hanging out at the Stanford forum? Oh well, at least we agree on something.</p>

[JHS]

<p>ez, you are pretty much talking out of your butt here.</p>

<p>There’s no question that Stanford is a world-class university, one of the best anywhere. It is also the newest member of that club, by a lot. (Well, if you consider Duke on the same level, then Duke would be a more recent addition to the club.) 40-50 years ago – which is not long in institutional time – it was second-rate.</p>

<p>There’s also no question that Berkeley is a world-class university, one of the best anywhere. Berkeley has been at that level for longer, but is facing some challenges now (along with the entire University of California system) that Stanford isn’t.</p>

<p>It is stupid and immature for anyone to talk of either university “whomping” the other, aside from sports contests.</p>

<p>It is also stupid and immature to put too much weight on the preferences of 17 year-olds. Stanford is smaller and gets better yield on the freshmen it accepts, so it accepts far fewer students and “wins” selectivity measures. Berkeley has a different philosophy, admitting far more students, and mostly charging them far less. About twice as many people apply to Berkeley as to Stanford.</p>

<p>The ARWU rankings measure productivity, but I think it is productivity per faculty member, not aggregate productivity. That kind of measure is a relatively small factor in the NRC rankings, some of which are effectively reputational rankings. If you don’t understand how PhD program quality directly affects undergraduate academic quality at a research university, you have some studying to do.</p>

[ezbreezy]

<p>

@JHS

ez, you are pretty much talking out of your butt here.

</p>

<p>You’re such a poet. Did you, by any chance, acquire your literary prowess while you were an undergraduate at Yale?</p>

<p>

@JHS

There’s no question that Stanford is a world-class university, one of the best anywhere. It is also the newest member of that club, by a lot.

</p>

<p>What does age have anything to do with it? Both Stanford and Berkeley are very young compared to the the East Coast establishment; but both outrank your alma mater in the NRC and ARWU. Yale is older than dirt, but in terms of faculty and departmental strength, it is a notch or two below the two West Coast upstarts. Stanford has done more with less (time) than Yale and the other Ivies.</p>

<p>

@JHS

It is stupid and immature for anyone to talk of either university “whomping” the other, aside from sports contests.

</p>

<p>I agree, which is why I challenged that claim.</p>

<p>

@JHS

It is also stupid and immature to put too much weight on the preferences of 17 year-olds.

</p>

<p>I disagree. The “preferences of 17 year-olds” can determine the quality of undergraduate student bodies.</p>

<p>

@JHS

If you don’t understand how PhD program quality directly affects undergraduate academic quality at a research university, you have some studying to do.

</p>

<p>If “PhD program quality directly affects undergraduate academic quality at a research university,” then it follows that undergraduate academic quality at Yale is inferior to that at Stanford because PhD program quality at Yale is inferior to that at Stanford. </p>

<p>Thanks for reaffirming my decision to turn down Yale for Stanford. (Not that I needed any reassurance, but it’s nice to hear this from a Yale grad!) You’ve been so helpful. Bye now.</p>

[JHS]

<p>I’m also a Stanford grad, ez, and I’m not the only one in my family.</p>

<p>The problem with Stanford when I was there was not the quality of the faculty or the graduate students. It was the fact that hardly any undergraduates had much interest in academics, and that mainstream undergraduate culture was pretty anti-intellectual. It was an unbelievable place for any undergraduate who raised his or her hand to get involved in the intellectual life of the university, because there was NO competition from other undergraduates for a place at the table. </p>

<p>The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.</p>

[zenkoan]

<p>Gee, this is a tiresome thread. JHS–weren’t you a grad student at Stanford? That is perhaps not the optimum vantage point for assessing the undergraduate culture, whenever it was that you were there as a grad student.</p>

<p>I’m a current undergraduate, and your assessment is extremely inaccurate with respect to the intellectual proclivities of my classmates. I’m finding intellectually-engaged, brilliant students in all of my classes. Discourse about readings, issues and theories abound in the dorms, libraries and classrooms.There may well be exceptions, as there are sure to be everywhere, but your characterization of me and my classmates couldn’t be more wrong. Many undergrads here seek “a place at the table”, and there’s a welcoming atmosphere for all of us from the faculty.</p>

[ezbreezy]

<p>

@JHS

I’m also a Stanford grad

</p>

<p>Yes, I understand that Stanford Law School was not nearly as selective 30 years ago as it is now. Based on the (lack of) logical content of your posts, I doubt you’d get in nowadays.</p>

<p>

@JHS

The problem with Stanford when I was there was not the quality of the faculty or the graduate students. It was the fact that hardly any undergraduates had much interest in academics, and that mainstream undergraduate culture was pretty anti-intellectual. It was an unbelievable place for any undergraduate who raised his or her hand to get involved in the intellectual life of the university, because there was NO competition from other undergraduates for a place at the table.

</p>

<p>Things have changed since 30 years ago. But don’t let the facts stop you from ■■■■■■■■.</p>

<p>

@JHS

The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.

</p>

<p>Are you referring to the fact that even though you’re now ■■■■■■■■ the Stanford forum instead of the Princeton forum (which you usually ■■■■■) that you’re still ■■■■■■■■?</p>

[keihanna]

<p>Quote:</p>

<p>ugginduff </p>

<p>Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 7 top ten university Phd programs aggregate, 1925-2010 </p>

<hr>

<p>I have university assessment from 1925-1982, The columns are for the rankings in order from 1925(Hughes), 1934(Hughes), 1959(Keniston), 1965(Cartter) ,1970(Roose), 1979(Ladd/Lipset) and the 1982 assessment, 1993 and 2010. I thought that it would be interesting to average out those years. I was surprised to see Michigan, Wisconsin, Harvard, Berkeley, and Yale as the only schools to stay in the top 10 during that period. I used the summary from this blog as the top 10 although I realize that it is by no means the final rankings, but it is probably very close. the last column is the average rank, sorry I wasn’t able to make the grid fit on this page.</p>

<p>Average rank</p>

<p>Harvard…2 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 2<br>
Berkeley… 9 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1<br>
Yale… 4 7 4 6 5 4 3 6 6<br>
Wisconsin… 5 4 8 3 6 7 8 10 6
Stanford …14 13 13 5 3 3 2 2 2
Michigan… 8 8 5 4 4 5 8 10 7
Chicago… 1 5 6 9 7 6 7 8 11
Princeton… 6 11 7 10 8 8 6 4 4
Columbia… 3 3 3 7 12 11 11 10 12
Cornell… 10 6 9 11 11 12 11 6 9</p>

[ezbreezy]

<p>@Keihanna:</p>

<p>Say hi to Swharborfan and Antidramaqueen for me!</p>

[ezbreezy]

<p><a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/10/08/financial-aid-deficit-may-persist-four-to-five-years-hennessy-tells-stanford-faculty/[/url]”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/10/08/financial-aid-deficit-may-persist-four-to-five-years-hennessy-tells-stanford-faculty/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

[Dean of Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid Richard] Shaw turned to other universities, telling faculty 26 percent of students admitted to the Class of 2014 also were admitted to UC-Berkeley; 21 percent to UC-Los Angeles; 18 percent to Princeton; 17 percent to Harvard; 15 percent to Yale; 13 percent to UC-San Diego; 14 percent to Duke; and 13 percent to M.I.T.</p>

<p>Of the ’14 admits who did not enroll at Stanford, 32 percent chose Harvard; 16 percent, Yale; 14 percent, Princeton; and 13 percent, M.I.T.** UC-Berkeley was not among the top 20 schools those students chose.**

</p>

[ezbreezy]

<p>

@xiggi

there is indeed not much of an argument, and mostly because there is no battle. Since it’s a given that most competitive students from California apply to the UC system as a matter of routine, it’s hardly surprising that a large percentage of the Califonia students who are admitted by Stanford also were admitted at Cal. </p>

<p>But, for a “battle” to exist there ought to be a reasonably quantifiable number of students who choose Cal over Stanford. And, as I have claimed before, that is hardly the case. Because of this, and also because of the reasons you stated, the student bodies are not as comparable as some claim. Student bodies reflect enrolled students and not admitted students.

</p>

<p>

@ericatbucknell

we have been given a number: letting alone applicants, 26% of stanfords ADMITS last year were also admitted by berkeley, a very significant percentage. that works out to approximately 608 students admitted by stanford last year who were also admitted by berkeley. since it was also given that berkeley was NOT one of the top twenty schools chosen by stanford admits, we can also derive that AT MOST eight (and almost certainly several fewer) students admitted to stanford last year actually enrolled at berkeley.</p>

<p>assuming that berkeley cross-admits (who are likely disproportionately californian) are NOT more likely to enroll at stanford than admits as a whole (and this is likely false), we can derive a best-case cross admit ratio for berkeley of 1.8% (with 441 of 608 cross-admits choosing stanford and 8 of 608 choosing berkeley). the real percentage is probably closer to half that.</p>

<p>in other words, your second ‘reason’ is the correct one. indeed, very, few stanford admits–in-state or otherwise–choose to enroll at berkeley.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1010843-stanfords-cross-admits-hypm-class-2014-a.html?highlight=stanford[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1010843-stanfords-cross-admits-hypm-class-2014-a.html?highlight=stanford&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;