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

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
161

<p>You and I are in agreement, vicissitudes.</p>

<p>Something that I wrote in the business forum:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I would point out, however, that Berkeley has a very strong international reputation (much stronger than in US) and 10% of the applicants are out-of-state/international. This 10% of Berkeley's gargantuan undergraduate population of 23,000 (which has problems in and of itself, admittedly) is over half of the size of MIT's entire undergraduate population.</p>

<p>The students that get into Berkeley from this 10% are students that are pretty well able to get into Ivys and other elite institutions.</p>

<p>I'd say that out of the remaining 20,700 students in the in-state pool that we can probably cobble together around 1,700 students of MIT quality, at least. After all, 8% is not a very difficult number to obtain, even all that 8% was students who turned down other schools for financial reasons. (It is worth noting that a massive chunk of MIT admittees are from California... perhaps due only to sheer population, but that also tells something about Berkeley which only takes the top of that California pool)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My argument for why Berkeley has at least as many students of the same caliber in raw numbers as MIT. </p>

<p>Public perception of Berkeley versus public reality of Berkeley greatly maligns Cal unfairly.</p>

<p>You're right. It doesn't matter what statistics any of us pull out, since perception will still be that Berkeley is a huge public school with impersonal professors and every class has 800 students.
I'm glad to hear that the opinion in your schools isn't like that which I often hear, "Berkeley is where rejected Ivy students go."</p>

<p>But you know what? For all the stereotypes of huge classes and whatnot... I bet for most of its critics, all would be forgiven if Berkeley ended up higher up in the rankings--even if absolutely nothing else (not even selectivity, which would still make an effect) changed about the school.</p>

162

<p>Wow, that's beautiful. Essentially you mentioned changing every element about Berkeley that makes it so great, all elements particular to public schools.</p>

<p>If those changes were implemented, Berkeley would be ****--maybe like Stanford!</p>

<p>Berkeley is owned by the citizens of California. That is actually what makes it better than ANY private school.</p>

163

<p>
[quote]
Wow, that's beautiful. Essentially you mentioned changing every element about Berkeley that makes it so great, all elements particular to public schools.</p>

<p>If those changes were implemented, Berkeley would be ****--maybe like Stanford!</p>

<p>Berkeley is owned by the citizens of California. That is actually what makes it better than ANY private school.

[/quote]

Alas, for some reason most citizens of California believe that many private schools are better than Berkeley--Stanford included.</p>

<p>An interesting little tidbit on Wikipedia that I read:</p>

<p>"Traditionally, Ivy League universities boast lower acceptance rates than top public universities, and incoming students have higher GPA and standardized test scores. However, as recently as 1992, both the number of applications were higher and the acceptance rates were lower at 4 out of 8 institutions of Moll's "Public Ivies" than at least one member of the Ivy League."</p>

<p>Probably talking about Cornell as that one member, but food for thought in perception versus reality.</p>

164

<p>Not sure if you are into feng-shui or not,</p>

<p>but feng-shui experts say the position and location of UC Berkeley destines it to be a world-renowned university. The way one face of the campanile faces the sf bay and area that the bay opens up to the ocean (+ Golden Gate Bridge) in an unobstructed view (in fact, there is a law that states that no buildings that obstruct that view), etc.</p>

165

<p>
[quote]
You and I are in agreement, vicissitudes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Haha, we have stated that fact about 10 times in this thread.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Wow, that's beautiful. Essentially you mentioned changing every element about Berkeley that makes it so great, all elements particular to public schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nice to see some positives of Berkeley are being brought into the light. Like I said, Berkeley could do what I proposed to increase student quality, or even increase selectivity, but it would never do it, because it's top priority is still providing a good education for all Californians.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The way one face of the campanile faces the sf bay and area that the bay opens up to the ocean (+ Golden Gate Bridge) in an unobstructed view (in fact, there is a law that states that no buildings that obstruct that view), etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, while going up there I could see the Campanile from more than 10-15 blocks away...very "ancient college-esque." It was great. :)</p>

166

<p>Although I'm not going to Berkeley (I'm going to Caltech mainly because of the size/focus/research opportunities), I think it should be in the top 10, or at least higher than 20. I don't know if Berkeley is at the level of CHYMPS for undergrad, but it's pretty close if one is proactive with one's education.</p>

167

<p>Chimps. Sweet!</p>

168

<p>
[quote]
Why is it that so many top Californian students treat Berkeley as a back-up? Attending only if they don't get into any of the Ivies, Stanford, and CalTech?? Why do public schools get such a bad rep?</p>

<p>It's selectivity.</p>

<p>Berkeley is so large such as that it must admit many students. Since it's less selective and easier to get into, many students just treat it as a backup to those more selective schools. By the same logic, Cornell is often treated as the "safety Ivy." Is it any wonder that when compared to the Ivies, only students choosing between Cornell and Berkeley have trouble deciding most of the time?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I partially agree, but I also disagree on certain points. Where I disagree is that large size is always correlated with lower selectivity. This is often times true, but not always.</p>

<p>As a case in point, what's the largest law school in the country? Some huge public school? No -it's Harvard Law School. What's the largest full-time MBA program in the country? It's Harvard Business School. I doubt that anybody is treating HLS or HBS as their "safety schools" that they know they can get into but apply to just in case they can't get into anywhere else. Heck, in most cases, it is actually HLS or HBS that is the 'reach' school. </p>

<p>By the same token, many of the graduate engineering programs at MIT are among the largest in the country in terms of students. However, I doubt that a lot of engineers would consider MIT to be their 'safety school'. </p>

<p>The point is, you can be both big and also highly selective. It means that you just have to attract more applicants. But that also means that you have to improve your offerings and then market those improvements to the world. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But wait, don't the students care about the quality of their education? They are some of the smartest kids in the nation...they must have figured that out right? The answer seems to be no. An overwhelming majority would pick Harvard over Princeton or Dartmouth in a heartbeat, even though those two are better for undergrad. </p>

<p>So why does selectivity matter so much? Because if you go to a selective school, that means you are better. That's how we think. If I was admitted to a school that was harder to get into, that must mean the school is better, and I am better than the students at a less selective university.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, no, it's more than just a simple ego boost. It's because the outside world ALSO thinks you're better, principally because of what economists call 'sorting costs'. </p>

<p>It is true that any large university, there will be some students who are just as talented and hard-working as the students at Harvard or MIT. The problem is, as an employer or a grad-school adcom, how do you identify these students? In other words, how do you SORT through the pile of students to identify the ones that are top-notch? For many employers, it's easier for them to simply recruit at the top schools because the average quality level of students is high and so they can spend less effort in sorting. Hence, they can economize on sorting costs. </p>

<p>To give you an example, Toyota has developed a world-wide reputation for building cars of extremely high quality and reliability, winning the quality rankings of the top auto publications year after year. Now, I can go and buy, say, a Ford, and maybe I will be lucky enough to buy one that is just as reliable as any Toyota. But there is also the significant chance that I will buy a Ford that is a lemon. Hence, if I am risk-averse (and everybody is risk-averse to some degree), then it is a safer choice just to stick with the Toyota. What Ford should do in response is to improve its quality and reliability to equal Toyota. </p>

<p>As an interesting sidenote, the Berkeley graduate programs are extremely selective, particularly the doctoral programs. I know people who got into MIT and Harvard for their doctorate, but didn't get into Berkeley. Hence, that proves that public schools can run programs that are extremely selective, if they want to.</p>

169

<p>
[quote]
At least she said Berkeley is a "good job." When I told people I was going to Berkeley, quite a few people offered condolences and tried to assure me I would succeed regardless.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I get the same reactions, though sometimes worse. Maybe because I live in a conservative bastion of SoCal, where Berkeley = communist, or because I live in CA: everyone and their mother applies to Berkeley, regardless of stats. A lot of people I talk to think that the UCs are a crapshoot: people just get in, and others don't. There was this guy I was talking to, and he truly believed that he would get into Cal. He's taking Algebra 1 as a senior. I have many more examples like that.</p>

<p>I don't really know anyone that sees Berkeley as prestigious, other than from what I've read on this board.</p>

<p>EDIT: Oh, forgot. It's notoriously easy to get into Cal through a CC transfer. Perhaps that's a reason why Berkeley doesn't look so good through one's eyes.</p>

170

<p>Yay sakky's back! :)</p>

<p>
[quote]
As a case in point, what's the largest law school in the country? Some huge public school? No -it's Harvard Law School.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The problem is, Berkeley is not Harvard law. It's not the best undergrad in the country like Harvard law is arguably the best law school in the country. Berkeley is not the oldest school in the country either. It's not the most prestigious name in the world. Maybe if it were, it could be more selective. But it's not. Since it's not, the large numbers it admits only hurts it, in terms of perception amongst students.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As an interesting sidenote, the Berkeley graduate programs are extremely selective, particularly the doctoral programs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, but there are several reasons for that:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The graduate school is smaller, and each program is more specialized and thus even smaller.</p></li>
<li><p>The graduate school already has a reputation for being one of the top graduate schools, while the unergrad does not.</p></li>
<li><p>Berkeley puts more resources into its graduate programs, which could attribute to #2.</p></li>
<li><p>The Berkeley undergrad (and actually the UC system) focuses on providing a quality education for all Californians, so they tend to be less selective in order to admit mroe Californians, while for its graduate programs this isn't the case.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>The way I see it, Berkeley can only change #3, and maybe indirectly, #2. But, the fact that it tries to cater to all Californians, makes it less selective, and hurts its perception (which in turn lowers cross admit, student quality, etc)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Where I disagree is that large size is always correlated with lower selectivity. This is often times true, but not always.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, okay you're right. But what I'm saying is ceteris paribus, smaller size will give you lower selectivity. You are right in saying that a school can be large and selective. I just suspect that if Berkeley were smaller, and nothing else changes, it would be more selective. Therefore, the schools that are smaller has an inherent advantage. Berkeley could be just as selective with a larger size of undergrads, but it just has to be better than those schools with a smaller size. To put it another way, if Berkeley and Stanford were of the exact same quality, and Stanford admits half the students Berkeley does, then Berkeley is less selective, and its perception drops, despite the fact that the two schools are identical.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is true that any large university, there will be some students who are just as talented and hard-working as the students at Harvard or MIT. The problem is, as an employer or a grad-school adcom, how do you identify these students? In other words, how do you SORT through the pile of students to identify the ones that are top-notch? For many employers, it's easier for them to simply recruit at the top schools because the average quality level of students is high and so they can spend less effort in sorting.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yea, you're right about this point. It's like a cycle: perception of a school rises, it attracts more students, quality of students go up, more employers hire there, which makes perception of a school rise more. I suppose it works; I just don't like the part the perception plays in this.</p>

171

<p>"I partially agree, but I also disagree on certain points. Where I disagree is that large size is always correlated with lower selectivity. This is often times true, but not always."</p>

<p>"The point is, you can be both big and also highly selective. It means that you just have to attract more applicants. But that also means that you have to improve your offerings and then market those improvements to the world. "</p>

<p>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.</p>

172

<p>
[quote]
It's not the most prestigious name in the world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's pretty close.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The point is, you can be both big and also highly selective. It means that you just have to attract more applicants. But that also means that you have to improve your offerings and then market those improvements to the world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree, although you should state that actual selective only increases if potential admits- those with an actual chance of getting in- are applying, not just people with essentially nothing to offer and no chance of getting in. While the percentage of acceptances might go up if they start applying in bulk, then perhaps it might appear more selective, but it really isn't. I imagine many think that the UC system, specifically Berkeley and UCLA, appear far more selective than they are because of the nature of the system and application process. I think that they are partially correct, but that both schools are still very selective.</p>

<p>I think a large part of the situation is marketing, even things that already exist can be better marketed. Sure, offerings could be improved, but it's a lot about marketing.</p>

173

<p>
[quote]
Selectivity matters in that the school doesn't allow sub-par students to attend.

[/quote]

[quote]
I get the same reactions, though sometimes worse. Maybe because I live in a conservative bastion of SoCal, where Berkeley = communist, or because I live in CA: everyone and their mother applies to Berkeley, regardless of stats. A lot of people I talk to think that the UCs are a crapshoot: people just get in, and others don't. There was this guy I was talking to, and he truly believed that he would get into Cal. He's taking Algebra 1 as a senior. I have many more examples like that.

[/quote]

Which is generally an unfortunate perception--though the reason I put vicissitudes' quote up there as well is because due to the number of students Berkeley must take, it doesn't always screen out subpar students.</p>

<p>I've seen people who believe they can get into Berkeley extremely easily... in fact many people who believe that. Many of those who thought that and were unqualified were rejected--but not all of those were rejected.</p>

<p>I'm not exactly glad to hear that my experiences aren't alone, but at least I know it isn't merely my area and CC.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't really know anyone that sees Berkeley as prestigious, other than from what I've read on this board.

[/quote]

Now, I wouldn't quite go as far to say that. Internationally, Berkeley is well-percieved. Also, Berkeley is well-regarded among those who are not college-bound students.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, even though even college-bounds students think Berkeley is prestigious, it is often in the sense that the best students who failed to get into top private schools go there. Thus, the worst of the best. Still, seen as below the Ivy Leagues and similar schools.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think a large part of the situation is marketing, even things that already exist can be better marketed. Sure, offerings could be improved, but it's a lot about marketing.

[/quote]

Certainly. And part of that is the belief that Berkeley is merely the safety school of the best students.</p>

<p>Though that's a great deal politics, since some would argue that the bastion of the best students should be private schools, and public schools should be meant to serve as many state students as they can. Thus, by quantity over quality, UCs should churn out as many bachaelor's degrees as possible and dropping selectivity.
A point I strenuously disagree with, but still a sentiment that is out there.</p>

174

<p>I don't understand why the UC continues to increase the class size of UCB and UCLA when the 'lower tier" UCs are much less crowded and could take so many more students. It would increase the caliber of the student body at UCB and UCLA, and bring it up for the "lower" UCs as well.</p>

175

<p>I think that makes sense, if the other schools would go for it. Also, it's possible that the "lower" UCs would get increased stats, but students might choose to go to non-UC schools if they don't get Berkeley or UCLA, maybe even UCSD.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Which is generally an unfortunate perception--though the reason I put vicissitudes' quote up there as well is because due to the number of students Berkeley must take, it doesn't always screen out subpar students.</p>

<p>I've seen people who believe they can get into Berkeley extremely easily... in fact many people who believe that. Many of those who thought that and were unqualified were rejected--but not all of those were rejected.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I know people who seemed qualified and were rejected, and would have gone had they gotten in (instead of to UCLA, where most of them are). Of the people that I know, only one surprise person got in, and there were surprise rejections. <em>shrug</em></p>

<p>
[quote]
the number of students Berkeley must take

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Must is only partially accurate. To a large extent, I think it's a choice. Berkeley could choose to take fewer students.</p>

176

<p>
[quote]
I know people who seemed qualified and were rejected, and would have gone had they gotten in (instead of to UCLA, where most of them are).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I know someone like that too. Perplexing...yes.</p>

<p>
[quote]

[quote]

It's not the most prestigious name in the world.

[/quote]

It's pretty close.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm talking about undergrad. Most students see Berkeley as a less prestigious school to attend than an Ivy, Stanford, Cal Tech, or MIT. That's already 11 schools. So let's say Berkeley places 12th. Far from top. Maybe I should have clarified that I was talking about prestige in the eyes of the prospective students, which is really what matters.</p>

<p>My point was, Berkeley doesn't have the power to draw 23,000 top students. It's seen as "tier two" below the top private schools, and that reputation along with its large admits hurts its perception, which is why I agree with:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't understand why the UC continues to increase the class size of UCB and UCLA when the 'lower tier" UCs are much less crowded and could take so many more students. It would increase the caliber of the student body at UCB and UCLA, and bring it up for the "lower" UCs as well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>UC Merced was a good start. Hopefully it will expand rapidly to the size of the other UCs (it has the space!) in the next few years and the student body at UCB can get smaller...although I doubt that will happen.</p>

177

<p>
[quote]
I know people who seemed qualified and were rejected, and would have gone had they gotten in (instead of to UCLA, where most of them are). Of the people that I know, only one surprise person got in, and there were surprise rejections. <em>shrug</em>

[/quote]

It varies from school to school, no doubt.
I'm not saying it's a majority of the time, but when you have to dip as deep as you do to get a total undergrad population of 23,000, it tends to happen.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Must is only partially accurate. To a large extent, I think it's a choice. Berkeley could choose to take fewer students.

[/quote]

Not without getting politically lambasted, however.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't understand why the UC continues to increase the class size of UCB and UCLA when the 'lower tier" UCs are much less crowded and could take so many more students. It would increase the caliber of the student body at UCB and UCLA, and bring it up for the "lower" UCs as well.

[/quote]

There's political pressure to increase the number of high tier UC students to give the area more prestigious bachaelor's degrees, supposedly increasing employment prospects.</p>

<p>At least, get as much mileage out of the huge number of Berkeley and UCLA graduates before the sheer numbers crash the prestige into the ground.</p>

<p>Politicians generally have short term in mind. The more college graduates, and even better, the more UC Berkeley and UCLA graduates they create, the more they endear to voters both by creating (at least temporarily) higher employment rates and better chances for Jimmy and Jane to get into the schools they want to.
Consequences only matter when they occur within your reelection cycle.</p>

<p>
[quote]
UC Merced was a good start. Hopefully it will expand rapidly to the size of the other UCs (it has the space!) in the next few years and the student body at UCB can get smaller...although I doubt that will happen.

[/quote]

Amen. However, as you said, it's unlikely, not for the least of the reason that most people aren't as enamored with UC Merced and having an untested name will not quite boost degree prestige as much.</p>

<p>The best thing that will happen? Merced will be completed to its full capacity and even more UC campuses will be opened, along with some more CSUs.
Of course, it probably won't happen, since that entails more spending.</p>

<p>It utterly baffles me why in politics smaller class sizes in K-12 is holy but smaller class sizes in state colleges is evil in "reducing opportunities for higher education."
<em>mutter</em> We love quantity over quality...</p>

178

<p>
[quote]
I'm talking about undergrad. Most students see Berkeley as a less prestigious school to attend than an Ivy, Stanford, Cal Tech, or MIT. That's already 11 schools. So let's say Berkeley places 12th. Far from top. Maybe I should have clarified that I was talking about prestige in the eyes of the prospective students, which is really what matters.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I had a post but it was deleted. It basically said that Berkeley's name abroad, to everyone from the layman to the academic, is near the top, for graduate and undergraduate, as many don't distinguish as much as people on cc. </p>

<p>The second point was 12 is pretty close to the top, considering that over 3000 collegse and universities exist in America. But alas, Berkeley is probably 10-30 of the 150 schools "worth talking about."</p>

<p>The final point was about who "most students" are, and that it's really not most, but mostly high achieving, middle class to wealthy, populous-area people, and that "prospective students" is far more accurate than "most people."</p>

179

<p>
[quote]
Not without getting politically lambasted, however.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>By keeping the class about the same size or even decreasing by 10% and allocating to other UCs? Probably not...</p>

<p>Although your speech about politics makes a lot of sense.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It utterly baffles me why in politics smaller class sizes in K-12 is holy but smaller class sizes in state colleges is evil in "reducing opportunities for higher education."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It baffles me as well. All I can say is that the K-12 education in California as a whole is, at best, mediocre. When we talk about education no doubt we think of children in elementary and middle school. After all, kids are the future, right? When we get to college level, politicians still have the mindset that it's better to get more and more people to go to college, because now more and more people need a degree to secure jobs. They don't care much about the quality of the colleges.</p>

<p>Honestly, I doubt any politicians in California cares whether Berkeley can match the Ivy League in terms of quality. I suppose it's up to the people to do something about it.</p>

<p>In retrospect, I probably should have requested Allorion as my roommate.</p>

180

<p>
[quote]

In retrospect, I probably should have requested Allorion as my roommate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>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.</p>