<p>I dunno. I think that it's a somewhat reasonable endeavor to want to see your university remain at the top. Why do you think I bother donating to UCLA?</p>
<p>Good point UCLAri.</p>
<p>We've been ganging up on vicissitudes (what a pain to spell!:)), but I think this topic merits some continuation/closure.</p>
<p>GentlemanandScholar summed it up all with "perception." Evolution is a great example of this. We view ourselves as such an extraordinary species that we forget the brevity of our existence. If mother nature were a real female, we'd be a blink of her eye. </p>
<p>Our tendency to convert timeframes into one that complements our own lifespan can be equally applied to this discussion. Vicissitudes argues that UCLA can surpass Cal in quality of education.</p>
<p>First, assume that Cal is clearly superior to UCLA. Then, let's create a scenario by moving all the students and faculty down south into UCLA. Cal will then recieve the UCLA population.</p>
<p>Five years later, some professional statisticians catch on and publish it in some bland journal. USNews may release a listing with UCLA above Cal, but the college counselors told the kids USNews is full of it and the kids aren't convinced either. Stats are stats - there's no emotional appeal and the rotten kids and their parents are not convinced. Since the information isn't relevant or remotely interesting to most US citizens, it takes a few decades for the nation finally even register that UCLA "might" be better than Cal. It takes a few *more[i/] decades for a general consensus to be reached that UCLA may be a "little better" than Cal. It then takes a long as hell time for the rest of the world to realize. </p>
<p>The example may be oversimplified and a bit ridiculous, but hopefully the point is made. People are very resistant to making changes mentally, and with things such as college rankings, actual quality has a worth of zero. How many people who tell you "Harvard is number one" have actually attended or even been there? Such information is by word of mouth, almost rumor, and almost ingrained into our very culture. Again, when we rank we value the name, not the student body or faculty. You buy Coca Cola over Safeway Coke because you have grown to trust the name. Our parents and grandparents trust the name. If Safeway Coke were better, how long would it take everyone to recognize? It would be hell simply getting over the denial. </p>
<p>Anyways, the school is not the individual. I'll confess that I was indignant when I knew it came time to submit my SIR because I felt I "deserved" better than Cal, as if I was entitled ivy prestige from birth. The name matters only to the extent that we pursue it. Some people emblazon their school name onto themselves for all of life and some shame it. I'm confident that we can carve out names for ourselves and not have to remain labeled simply by our education (CEO for example, sounds nice ;)). I hope that no one ever has to feel shameful or trivialized because their school wasn't as prestigious as another. Power to the individual.</p>
<p>Personally, I'm less worried about how Berkeley is comparing to other UC schools as I am about Berkeley comparing to the entire nation, private schools included.</p>
<p>UCLA is rising, very true, though at this point the choice of UCLA over Berkeley is more due to heftier financial aid and more personal liking for the environment than anything else (pre-med majors don't see a great deal of difference between the two, so often prefer what they see as the more glamorous environment in UCLA).</p>
<p>As a strong school in general, I don't think UCLA becoming stronger is a bad thing. However, it has been stretched and isn't improving as fast as it might at a comparable private institution given the same reforms and policy-changes.</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<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>Percentage-wise, if it is staying the same, that means by raw numbers, the numbers are escalating. Opening UC Merced was an attempt to somewhat mitigate the pressure this mandate has put on all the UCs. Not that long ago, every single UC was asked to significantly expand its undergraduate population. I don't know the exact numbers, but the increase is significant (Haas, for example, to cope with the influx has increased its admitted class by 50 slots, a huge number when considering the yearly admit of about 300 before the addition).</p>
<p>This mandate to take the top percentages is also aggravated by another provision in the plan to admit the top community college students in California, of which the population is growing even faster than general applicants due to demographics have more students attend college now.</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>UC Berkeley has fallen in public perception significantly. I'm not so impressed by being ranked #13 with the University of Pennsylvania as I am with at one point in American history UC Berkeley being considered only behind Harvard, and not by that much (around 1950s).</p>
<p>Where attending UC Berkeley was a matter of jaw-dropping prestige in the past, it has become somewhat of an, "That's a very good school," reaction.</p>
<p>Unless significant reforms to make the UC system more similar to private schools in funding and operation, the situation will continue to generally degrade.</p>
<p>Not the rosiest picture, but a realistic one all trends considered.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many here have argued that UCLA has risen and Cal has remained the same. If this argument is correct, then your statement is wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's pretty much what I'm saying...perhaps I should have rephrased my statement better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some people think that Berkeley is still far ahead of UCLA, especially in certain areas, and at least a little better on the whole. Certainly some UCLA programs are far better as well, such as musical theater, and film.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes...this is pretty much what I was saying. In certain areas Cal is far ahead of LA, and in some areas LA is better. But...seems like overall UCLA has improved in many areas while Berkeley has improved less.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Than why do people overwhelmingly choose Harvard over Princeton if admitted into both? I think Harvard gets 8/10 people in that situation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The name, perception...perhaps it's a better fit. I know most prefer the atmostphere at Harvard to Princeton. And of course some will pick another UC over Berkeley because of personal fit, and that's fine. But I'm talking about the school's undergrad academic quality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rather stagnant, perhaps, and I think improvements can be made, but say its at its best- you cant get better than best. You keep implying that Berkeley being stagnant is bad or something, whereas a school that is already amazing remains stagnant, its still amazing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but I don't think it's at its best. Stagnant is bad when the other schools are expanding and improving. It's amazing, of course, but I'm thinking it could get better. I mean, the other UCs are amazing in their own right, but they're still trying to improve their schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley can improve and should improve, has been improving and will improve more, dont get me wrong, but dont forget at this point its still pretty freaking amazing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good. I'd like to see more hints of this. We mentioned housing and food has improved...perhaps it can do something about its reputation as being impersonal? Or impacted majors? This is partly what I wanted to discuss - what it's doing to improve and how it can improve in the future. I remember well that it's still really amazing!</p>
<p>
[quote]
What vicissitudes doesn't seem to get is that this discussion is about perception and prestige, not quality. Like I've said before, I don't think there are things that are set in stone that make one school better than another. People have different values when it comes to what's important to them. So saying Cal is getting worse or UCLA is getting better, what are you talking about?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I mainly wanted to talk about the academic quality of the schools (mostly concerning undergrad) and not perception. Maybe my thread title is a little misleading. I'm not really talking about which UC the layman thinks is best. I meant, it's always been reputed as the top UC, but as other UCs are now improving their quality of education, do you think that will catch up to Berkeley eventually and perhaps surpass it? What is Berkeley doing to improve itself to remain the best UC and an example for the other UCs to follow? Sorry if I was unclear about this.</p>
<p>Of course it's hard to say one school is better than the other...it's subjective. And different schools are different to different people. However, I just wanted some opinions about the general academic quality of the mentioned schools. This could be a number of things, from professors to resources, research opportunities, staff, advising, administration, etc etc. Of course some may value some factors over others, but hey what's why we have a discussion! UCLA has been mentioned to have a more desirable regents program with more money (somewhere on this thread), and some people to whom I've talked feel it's more personal (this may not be true). Maybe these are areas Berkeley can work on; even though it's excelled in so many areas academically, I feel that there are still areas on which it can improve.</p>
<p>
[quote]
is this thread some sort of ego booster for the OP? Is he/she afraid that the other UCs are catching up to berkeley? If so, then I think this is pointless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, stating that Cal is and always will be the best would be an ego booster. Nor was I trying to elicit praise by "attacking" Cal. I just wanted a friendly and honest discussion about the quality of the education at some of the top UCs. Berkeley has been an inspiration for improvement at the other UCs for decades. 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>Interesting...we all posted long-a$$ essays at the same time, lol.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Actually, I mainly wanted to talk about the academic quality of the schools (mostly concerning undergrad) and not perception. Maybe my thread title is a little misleading. I'm not really talking about which UC the layman thinks is best. I meant, it's always been reputed as the top UC, but as other UCs are now improving their quality of education, do you think that will catch up to Berkeley eventually and perhaps surpass it? What is Berkeley doing to improve itself to remain the best UC and an example for the other UCs to follow? Sorry if I was unclear about this.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>That clears things up. Nonetheless, I believe that even an attending student who is receptive to changes in academic quality will fall in line with popular opinion. Imagine how difficult it would be for Cal students to acknowledge that their UCLA peers are superior.</p>
<p>To answer you directly, the quality of education is infinitely difficult to gauge, especially when you have such a broad range and number of students as in the UCs. I know both brilliant and mediocre people going to both Cal and UCLA. </p>
<p>Overall faculty prestige would not be an accurate measure either. You could maybe use the students' starting salaries, but such measurements are notorious faulty. In the end, it does go back to how people generally percieve the school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We've been ganging up on vicissitudes (what a pain to spell!),
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hehe...sorry.</p>
<p>
[quote]
GentlemanandScholar summed it up all with "perception."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wasn't really trying to talk about how Berkeley will be "perceived" by the public in the near future (read above post). Sorry if the title was misleading.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hope that no one ever has to feel shameful or trivialized because their school wasn't as prestigious as another. Power to the individual
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course, I fully agree with this. I would even recommend one to go to a school of perhaps less quality, if the school is a better personal fit and benefits the students more in the end. However I wanted to discuss the quality of the education as a whole, because it's impossible for one school to be better in everything to everyone.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Personally, I'm less worried about how Berkeley is comparing to other UC schools as I am about Berkeley comparing to the entire nation, private schools included.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Same here, and that's what I was getting at. I just thought that if the other UCs are improving themselves and trying to catch up to Berkeley, why can't Berkeley improve itself and try to catch up with the top private schools? I realize that being a public school and lack of endowment will hinder this goal, but I think it's at least a good goal to have, instead of being satisfied with being the best UC / public school, which I'm not saying that's what it's doing, I just hope that's not what it's doing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a strong school in general, I don't think UCLA becoming stronger is a bad thing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No of course not. I applaud UCLA for its accomplishments. I just think Berkeley could do some of the same, such as maybe offering more regent scholarship and make it more enticing/easier for top students to come to Cal?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?).
[/quote]
</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>
[quote]
Overall faculty prestige would not be an accurate measure either. You could maybe use the students' starting salaries, but such measurements are notorious faulty. In the end, it does go back to how people generally percieve the school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, perception plays a certain part, but I'm not talking about perception of the American public, but of educators and the informed, and perhaps to a certain extent, informed entering college students (because part of what makes the school is its students, right?) And the perception among them seems to be that UCLA has been gaining steam (which would explain why more and more students are choosing UCLA over Cal...I mean the environment has always stayed the same right?), so the perception must result from some solid educational improvements on UCLA's part. (sorry for using UCLA so much, it's just a good example :))</p>
<p>
[quote]
UC Berkeley has fallen in public perception significantly. I'm not so impressed by being ranked #13 with the University of Pennsylvania as I am with at one point in American history UC Berkeley being considered only behind Harvard, and not by that much (around 1950s).</p>
<p>Where attending UC Berkeley was a matter of jaw-dropping prestige in the past, it has become somewhat of an, "That's a very good school," reaction.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think that Cal, amongst the average person, ever has been Harvard. Then again, in the 1950s, school name mattered quite a bit less. Exeter grads went to Harvard, and California rabble went to Berkeley.</p>
<p>Today, with USNews and other groups trying to have the "best damn ranking ever," things are different. But, I'll tell you this much: A Cal PhD impresses me just as much as a Harvard PhD.</p>
<p>Ok, I think I get what you're saying now, but could you explain what areas, academically, have dropped or remained stagnent and what ways UCLA has risen in those areas?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know most prefer the atmostphere at Harvard to Princeton.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hm, that's not true at all. The main reason why Harvard wins most the cross admit battles with Princeton is the name.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what ways UCLA has risen in those areas?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>UCLA has the Honors Program. You can take those classes in place of a lot of GE's. Those classes are designed by the best faculty in UCLA. They propose the syllabus to the Honors Program. The classes have a max size of 20 people.</p>
<p>UCLA has fiat lux seminars, small seminars with distinguished faculty to discuss current issues.</p>
<p>Well, I must first admit that I am not very knowledgable on the subject, and some things I've been hearing could be wrong. With that said, one thing I've noticed is that UCLA gives its regent scholars more money on average, and they get perks such as early registration, more access to libraries, etc. and Berkeley students don't get as much perks or money, and because of this some regent scholars at Berkeley (read: top students) are drawn to other top schools instead, such as UCLA or a private school.</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>One of the advantages of going to a smaller, top private school over Cal is that there's more "personal attention" and better advising, on courses to take, majors, and advising for applying to professional schools. (for example, JHU is very good at helping its pre-med students put together profiles, keeping them on track of deadline dates, etc.) Now obviously given its size, Berkeley can't provide that to everyone. But the truth is, many students simply want to coast through college and get a Berkeley diploma. Perhaps a system can be established in which the top students can get more personal attention and advising (say...regents?). This would improve the undergrad education at Berkeley for many, and would probably attract more top students to Berkeley, which in turn would improve the school. These are just some of my thoughts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hm, that's not true at all. The main reason why Harvard wins most the cross admit battles with Princeton is the name.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MAYBE. I also think Harvard has a much better location. Dude, Massachusetts vs. New Jersey.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLA has the Honors Program. You can take those classes in place of a lot of GE's. Those classes are designed by the best faculty in UCLA. They propose the syllabus to the Honors Program. The classes have a max size of 20 people.</p>
<p>UCLA has fiat lux seminars, small seminars with distinguished faculty to discuss current issues.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>These are big, and part of UCLA's campaign over the past decade to bring the quality profs and top university experience to undergrads.</p>
<p>Haha you're right. I would rather be in Boston than New Jersey now that I think about it.</p>
<p>Harvard also benefits from its proximity to MIT. </p>
<p>Damn, that is one awesome concentration of smart.</p>
<p>Yeah, the cross-registration thing really has all the Harvard/MIT students covered. Top students/departments in nearly every field concentrated in one city...<em>drool</em></p>
<p>I think that a very strong reason for UCLA's rise in prestige is the distinction that the UCLA medical school/medical center now carries. I think its absolutely undeniable that medicine at UCLA is among the strongest in the nation. Now whether or not you think that has any effect on undergraduate education or not is really irrelevant because in terms of overall school prestige that undoubtably has an effect. The amount of research and innovative care coming from that institution is immense.</p>
<p>So yeah...GO BRUINS!</p>
<p>That's true. I know some international patients come to U.S. to get treatment (mostly cancerous) from UCLA because it has some of the most cutting-edge medical treatments available right now.</p>
<p>Come to think of it...Berkeley doesn't have a med school. Although there's always UCSF...I don't think it's being hurt too much by the fact that it doesn't have a med school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think that Cal, amongst the average person, ever has been Harvard. Then again, in the 1950s, school name mattered quite a bit less. Exeter grads went to Harvard, and California rabble went to Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then again, along that same token, the people who actually cared about university name did put Berkeley not on the same level as Harvard, but a close second. </p>
<p>While many of the nuclear advances occured at Berkeley, if the perception of Berkeley wasn't as high as some private schools the nuclear development would have been exported to a private institution for something as important as this new super-weapon.</p>
<p>At that particular point, Berkeley was at its height in public perception, even if most of the public wasn't that interested in big name schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Today, with USNews and other groups trying to have the "best damn ranking ever," things are different. But, I'll tell you this much: A Cal PhD impresses me just as much as a Harvard PhD.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course.</p>
<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>I can personally acknowledge this, being ranking obsessed not that long ago before I actually started researching colleges. Quite literally, I basically got college acceptances and ticked off the colleges lower in US News ranking. Berkeley got kicked off my list before they even admitted me (and I got early notification for Regent/Chancellors). Had I not researched, I'd certainly not be going to Berkeley and would be headed off to Rice or Cornell or Washington U in St. Louis (and I shudder at how close I was to going to the last) at the moment.</p>
<p>It may be true that Cal admits the top 10-15% of the state, the yield, around 40%, is more likely than not a majority of the bottom of the top 10-15%.
I've done calculations to show that the raw number of top students (necessitating the use of "Ivy quality" to convey the message usually) is no less than that of an elite private institution, that population is dispursed and a minority in 23,000 undergraduates.</p>
<p>Thus, the majority of Berkeley students are usually less impressive than that of elite private schools--based on individual ability, not necessarily the quality of the institution.
Given that, however, it is a self-perpetuating cycle where the best students make an assessment based on the individual given, which consists of public perception and US News rankings.</p>
<p>Do I believe that Berkeley gives any less of an education than Ivy League institutions? Of course not. Nor do I hold the belief that it is entirely academic institutions that shape success.
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>Public perception of Berkeley being very positive is a good thing, since it helps those alumni of Berkeley in terms of perception of them (which isn't necessarily fair, but in reality happens) and would remind them to donate to the school, if they have such identification with it. However, more importantly, Berkeley needs that perception to attract more top students to maintain a reputation.</p>
<p>We all hate what rankings have done to the college process, but the it's Pandora's Box. It's too late to stuff this genie back into the bottle. </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>People on College Confidential love to attack rankings and preach fit. Honestly though, how many people outside of these forums, given the choice between a far higher ranked private institution and Berkeley would ignore those rankings?</p>
<p>Allorion,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then again, along that same token, the people who actually cared about university name did put Berkeley not on the same level as Harvard, but a close second.</p>
<p>While many of the nuclear advances occured at Berkeley, if the perception of Berkeley wasn't as high as some private schools the nuclear development would have been exported to a private institution for something as important as this new super-weapon.</p>
<p>At that particular point, Berkeley was at its height in public perception, even if most of the public wasn't that interested in big name schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I think this largely has to do with graduate program quality, which remains unchanged. </p>
<p>I'll get back to you on the rest in a bit.</p>
<p>I don't think UC Berkeley undergrad was ever held as high as Harvard. Their graduate school is superb, and is still superb today. The graduate school not the undergraduate school is mainly responsible for the research.</p>