Why should I choose Cal?

<p>

</p>

<p>But that only speaks to part of the problem: Berkeley should not have let UCLA successfully compete the way it has. After all, Berkeley had a huge head start, both in terms of funding and in terms of name recognition. Berkeley was winning Nobel Prizes left and right before UCLA had even become a respectable research university. In fact, Berkeley was so strong during a period in the 1950’s and 60’s that some pundits were saying that Berkeley might actually make a serious run at overtaking Harvard in terms of worldwide prestige.</p>

<p>Nobody says that anymore. Like I said, there was a period when Berkeley lost its momentum, and has yet to get it back. It was just a few decades ago when Berkeley was far and away the premier school in the West Coast, and a certain school in Palo Alto was considered to be a regional backwater school of little repute, little money, and little consequence, to the point that that school’s administrators shuddered at the thought of having to compete in the long shadow of Berkeley. What happened? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, I don’t know about that. Berkeley is, if nothing else, highly prestigious, as the brand name is strong, even if somewhat undeserved as far as the undergrad program is concerned. Let’s face it - nobody has heard of the LAC’s. Relatively few people have heard of Northwestern, Caltech, or even Duke (except for basketball). Berkeley is more prestigious than those schools. </p>

<p>It’s an entirely different question as to whether Berkeley offers a better undergraduate experience than those schools. That is indeed debatable. But in terms of simple prestige, Berkeley beats those schools.</p>