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

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
181

<p>DRab:
1. You're right about abroad, but international students make up a very small part of the Berkeley population.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>It is a very good school, but it still doesn't have the draw power of HYPSM, so it is hurt more by being not as selective as one of those schools will. Think about it this way: hypothetically, let's say that there are 10,000 4.0 students. HYP can draw all of them, and admit about 5,000. If they double their class size, they can still fill their classes with 4.0 students. Let's say Berkeley can only draw about 50% of those 4.0 students, and admit 5,000. If Berkeley double its class size, it will have to draw from the 3.9s and 3.8s, and quality of students go down. Thus, Berkeley, being "second tier," loses more from being less selective.</p></li>
<li><p>I'll make sure to use "prospective students" in the future, as I agree that it's a better term.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
Perhaps. We could always just have weekly or bimonthly meetings on campus policy or how to improve through some existing or new club, or something like that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I thought you mentioned student government some time ago? Does that apply?</p>

182

<p>Heh, I'm flattered. Though I've heard roommates often end up hating one another, so I'm not sure that would be productive towards our Berkeley improvement campaigning.</p>

<p>Student government deals with student affairs and student funds. That's still a rather big responsibility and can make a difference in campus spirit and feel, of course. However, while it can talk to and petition the management, it can't really effect (yes, effect, not affect, since it can influence, but not actually create; just for the grammer-conscious people) any university policy.</p>

<p>There is a far more efficient way to go about it.</p>

<p>Create a specific club or organization or whatever that's basically "University Improvement Council" or something catchy like that. Have the constant goal pretty much solely revolve around petitioning university officials improve the university's competitiveness.
Also, have that club/organization register as a PAC (political action committee) and raise money. As a PAC, the organization would be able to donate $5000 per political candidate. While that may not seem like a lot, fundraising limits make it quite a bit--and it's hefty for state legislature candidates, which would be the primary target for lobbying.</p>

<p>If it gained enough notability, it might actually be able to convince university students to vote for certain candidates, giving it even more weight for the politicians.</p>

<p>I would have expected something of the sort already exists, as politically active as the campus is... but perhaps it isn't active in the specific goal of political clout to improve the university.</p>

183

<p>Sure. They meet weekly. I think there are information meetings in about a week or two after school starts, and you apply to intern. The things is, the ASUC seems to have people who care more about party than service- it drives me insane. I think there might be other ways to influence things, but the ASUC might have to be one, and is probably one of the few most influential, although it is partially idiotic/wasteful.</p>

<p>EDIT: Allorion - the above is something like what I have in mind. We can find out if one exists, but if it doesn't, create it. We would of course have to define the goals of the organization.</p>

184

<p>
[quote]
Though I've heard roommates often end up hating one another

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're thinking of friends who room together and often end up hating each other. I didn't say we were friends. ;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
I would have expected something of the sort already exists, as politically active as the campus is... but perhaps it isn't active in the specific goal of political clout to improve the university.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You would think so, but I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't active or doesn't really exist. Berkeley seems to be less politically active than a few decades ago...it's a shame.</p>

185

<p>
[quote]
Sure. They meet weekly. I think there are information meetings in about a week or two after school starts, and you apply to intern. The things is, the ASUC seems to have people who care more about party than service- it drives me insane. I think there might be other ways to influence things, but the ASUC might have to be one, and is probably one of the few most influential, although it is partially idiotic/wasteful.

[/quote]

It tends to be the trend for all student governments, however, since their delegation is student life (and elections are often popularity contests).</p>

<p>It can probably be a source of influence, but there needs to be a dedicated group for it. There's a reason why single-issue interest groups are so influencial in politics.</p>

186

<p>The total monetary influence is about 1.5 million dollars in the ASUC Budget. However, students from the ASUC sit on committees with faculty sometimes, and do other things- I don't know too much about it, but hope to find out more. I think that at least some of the faculty recognizes the ASUC as something. Dean Holub recommended to me that it's the best way to get involved with school policy.</p>

187

<p>
[quote]
Yes, but Harvard Law school's ability to be selective comes from its ability to draw the top law candidates from around the world. It's law school is definitely top, and even the name "Harvard" just automatically gives it an edge compared to other law schools. So if Harvard undergrad increased its size to Berkeley's undergrad's size, well it would probably be more selective than Berkeley now, and less selective than the Harvard now.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your first sentence hit the nail right on the head. The key is that HLS can draw upon the very best law candidates in the world. But the question is, how did that happen, and is there something that can be learned there? </p>

<p>I agree that the name-brand of 'Harvard' helps, but I don't think it helps as much as you think. For example, Harvard grad-school engineering is still not highly prestigious, and in some circles is actually considered 'anti-prestigious', as something of a dumping ground for those people who are simply prestige-whores, and/or for those people were not good enough to get into MIT. Hence, the Harvard brand-name only goes so far. </p>

<p>I believe the key is that Harvard Law is simply a very very good law school. It's obviously a very well marketed law school (again, the Harvard brand name), but it is also a very good law school. Ultimately, it is the quality of the law school that attracts so many high-quality candidates. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If Berkeley decreased its number of admitted studrnts by 1/2, the quality of the students would go WAY up, no doubt. It only makes logical sense. True, there are some exceptions with schools like Harvard and MIT, but they are only that: exceptions. For example, instead of admitting 9,000 undergrads, lets say Berkeley only admitted 300. While this is hypothetical, and the numbers are ridiculous, the 300 students that actually get in will be of very high quality. They will be the top applicants that apply to the top Ivy's and get accepted. Sakky, there is nothing to debate here...this is a FACT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I strongly disagree that there is nothing to debate. I agree that if Berkeley simply became smaller, it would become more selective. That's not in dispute.</p>

<p>The dispute is that I am saying that there is another option. Specifically, another way for a school to get more selective is to simply improve itself and then market its improvements such that you get more interested applicants. Selectivity has two factors in it - both how many students you admit, and how many students want to go to your school. If you can't reduce the number of students you admit (for political reasons), then the other option is to increase the number of interested applicants. The way to do that is to simply make your programs better, and then communicate those improvements to the world. </p>

<p>As exhibit #1 of possible improvements, I would point out something that I have discussed repeatedly, which is for Berkeley to remove some of those ridiculously stupid rules that prevent people from changing majors with no way of getting out. There really is no practical reason at all for these problems to exist. The problem is simply bureaucratic. If Berkeley solved these problems, then Berkeley would be a better overall experience, and that would attract more students. It's a very easy thing for Berkeley to fix, so why doesn't Berkeley fix it? I suspect it's because Berkeley doesn't WANT to fix it, but that discourages prospective students from wanting to come to Berkeley. </p>

<p>Many of you have read my posts will know about the story I have of my friend who got expelled from Berkeley. Do you think he has anything positive to say about his experience? Putting aside his immaturity (which he freely admits to), at the end of the day, he is a living disincentive to go to Berkeley. I already know that 2 of his colleagues have now thought twice about going to Berkeley because they have heard what he went through. His younger brother is probably not going to go to Berkeley, again, because he has heard of all the problems his older brother went through. </p>

<p>My take on the situation is this. Yes, the guy was immature. But on the other hand, Berkeley was also cold and unsympathetic to his problems, and therefore Berkeley has created an enemy for life. Basically, Berkeley screwed him over. If Berkeley hadn't behaved this way, then this guy wouldn't be actively dissuading people from attending Berkeley. And I'm sure that he is not the only guy who has been screwed over like this. Hence, the fact that Berkeley can't draw lots of high-quality students is in some ways a matter of chickens coming home to roost. If Berkeley had actually offered help, then Berkeley wouldn't have all of these resentful former students. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It is extremely frustrating that there is the perception among college-bound students. People who go to Berkeley are either failed Ivys or people who got into Ivys but for financial reasons went to Berkeley instead.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perceptions can be changed with good marketing, but the key is that you have to have something good to market. I am convinced that the Berkeley undergraduate experience can be made far better than it is, and then that improved experience can be marketed to the rest of the world to draw more and better applicants.</p>

188

<p>
[quote]
I believe the key is that Harvard Law is simply a very very good law school. It's obviously a very well marketed law school (again, the Harvard brand name), but it is also a very good law school. Ultimately, it is the quality of the law school that attracts so many high-quality candidates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This reminds me of how people interested in IR are oftentimes more likely to choose SAIS or GTown SIS over KSG, despite the Harvard name. Sure, you get a few people who choose KSG over SAIS for the name, but in DC those people are oftentimes seen as silly for not choosing what, in that particular field, is the best program.</p>

<p>Who would choose Harvard film over NYU or USC?</p>

<p>HLS is just a damned fine school.</p>

189

<p>Well, the key here is that how wedded are you to a particular field. The truth is, a lot of people at KSG are really not that interested in IR at all. Rather, they want to get typical B-school jobs (i.e. McKinsey or Goldman Sachs), and let's face it, the Harvard brand name really matters a lot in those fields. Or they are foreign nationals who want to go back to their country to become prominent political leaders. For example, the current leaders of Hong Kong, Liberia and Singapore are KSG grads. Let's face it. If you want to lead a country, having the Harvard brand name will help a lot. If you're going to be trolling for votes among the citizenry, it helps to have brand-name prestige, and, after all, the citizens of a foreign country are more likely to have heard of Harvard than SAIS or Georgetown. </p>

<p>So it really comes down to a question of what your goals are. For some people, prestige really matters because they intend to enter highly prestige-conscious fields. </p>

<p>Besides, I would point out that it works both ways. Let's face it. A lot of students at Berkeley are there just for the prestige. I know quite a few people who applied to all of the UC's with the intention of going to the most prestigious one that admitted them. If they can't get into Berkeley, they'll go to UCLA. If they can't get into UCLA, they'll go to UCSD, etc. etc. </p>

<p>Hence, I don't see how people choosing Harvard just for the name-brand is any worse than people choosing Berkeley just for the name-brand. It's the same thing.</p>

190

<p>just because UCLA has a slightly higher number of applicants than berkeley
doesnt mean that it's quality of applicants is any better
less qualified students might try to go for UCLA because they know Berkeley is out of their reach</p>

<p>mean</p>

191

<p>At any rate, the difference in admitted students between Berkeley and UCLA is huge... a whopping 4 point difference in SAT scores and .05 difference in GPA. Clearly with this huge of a difference in admitted students, the applicants must be incredibly less-qualified.</p>

192

<p>
[quote]
Hence, I don't see how people choosing Harvard just for the name-brand is any worse than people choosing Berkeley just for the name-brand. It's the same thing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course, of course. But if you ARE in fact wedded to IR, then Harvard is maybe second or ::GASP!:: third on the list. </p>

<p>Priorities, they're the spice of life.</p>

<p>Or something...</p>

<p>
[quote]
A lot of students at Berkeley are there just for the prestige. I know quite a few people who applied to all of the UC's with the intention of going to the most prestigious one that admitted them. If they can't get into Berkeley, they'll go to UCLA. If they can't get into UCLA, they'll go to UCSD, etc. etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If recent numbers are any indication, I dunno that it's as cut-and-dry as it might've been even 5 years ago, but yeah, you're mostly right.</p>

193

<p>mrniphty, I would classify 7,000 as more than "slightly more." But hey, if it's the truth, is it still "mean?"</p>

<p>Some schools do publish stats of applicants and admitted (in addition to matriculated students).</p>