<p>That’s a defeatist attitude that I categorically refuse to accept. </p>
<p>As a case in point, among the US universities with the largest endowments, the one that has grown its endowment at a whopping 15% per annum, the fastest rate by far during the 2 decades 1986 to 2007, is not an Ivy or any other private university. It’s the University of Michigan, which last time I checked, was a state-run public university. The University of Michigan system, which comprises only 3 campuses, now has a larger endowment than does the entire University of California system, spread over 10 campuses. UM-Ann Arbor now boasts of a per-capita endowment that is significantly higher than Berkeley’s. </p>
<p>So that begs the question - if UM can grow its endowment at a lightning pace to the point that it now exceeds that of some Ivies on an absolute basis, why can’t Berkeley? Berkeley can’t hide behind the excuse that it’s a state-run public university that enrolls plenty of students who aren’t rich, for UM is also a state-run public university that enrolls plenty of students who aren’t rich. Does UM know something that Berkeley doesn’t know? </p>
<p>Berkeley is infamous for implementing a no-excuses policy regarding its students and weeder courses: you either perform well on the material, or you’re weeded out. No excuses. Such a policy supposedly develops toughness and self-reliance amongst its students. I think the same no-excuses policy should be directed toward the administrators. We should pose to them the question: why has Michigan been able to so vastly outclass Berkeley in terms of endowment growth? Berkeley is supposed to be the best public university in the country - and I’m not yet willing to concede that title to Michigan. If Michigan truly does know something about endowment growth that Berkeley does not know, then maybe Berkeley should hire away some of Michigan’s fund raisers and endowment managers. But I don’t want to hear any excuses.</p>
<p>In addition to UM as described above, both UT-Austin and Virginia have larger endowments than Berkeley does both on an absolute and per capita basis. Heck, UM and UT-Austin have a per-capita endowments that are double that of Berkeley, and Virginia’s is more than triple. All are state-run public schools. </p>
<p>Berkeley should not be willing to concede the title of the best public university to UM, Virginia, or (especially) UT-Austin without a fight. If those schools know something about endowment management that Berkeley does not, then Berkeley ought to start learning from them. If you want to stay on top, you must study the successful strategies of your rivals.</p>
<p>polarscribe, I fail to understand why you can’t thoroughly read my posts. I CLEARLY stated that I don’t support cutting down the undergrad population, but I do agree that cutting down the undergrad population = more money in the future.</p>
<p>I have to agree with JBeak12345. Rankings matter, however much we might wish that they didn’t. People are in fact making decisions based on rankings. </p>
<p>The fact is, one of the most important features of any university is its ability to foster network effects. Schools are where you are going to meet people who are going to comprise your professional network, and where you are going to meet recruiters. If one school such as Harvard is designated the #1 school in the country, then the best students - those who would be the best people to add to your network - along with the best recruiters will go there. Hence, you should then want to go there yourself in order to have access to the best people.</p>
<p>Notice how it doesn’t even matter whether the school “deserves” that #1 ranking. All that matters is that people think that it does. So even if I don’t believe that Harvard is the #1 school, that doesn’t matter, because I know that other people do believe it, and if I want to meet those people, I have go to where they are. If I want a job with one of those recruiters, I have to go to where they are.</p>
<p>Today enough people misuse the phrase to make the misuse arguably correct. But in the eyes of pedants and grammar nazis, misusing “beg the question” can injure your credibility.</p>
<p>In this case, lower population, higher tuition may just be the solution toward a better education for undergrads. Is it really that hard to believe that schools with more money and more attentive staff members can produce more experienced students? I think all UC Berkeley undergrads should just take classes online. Might as well study in the comfort of your bed than going to a lecture hall with 400 people. And if you are lucky enough to get a helpful GSI who can teach as well as your high school teachers, then attending your discussion may actually be worth it. Unfortunately that’s far from the truth isn’t it? I applaud Berkeley students for being so attentive even though the provided education is anything but. As for privatization? Why not?.. Maybe there’ll be 300 people in my chem class instead of 400. Yeepee!</p>
<p>Is it the ranking, or the reputation, that really matters? And which came first?</p>
<p>If USNWR suddenly decided to call Pitt the #1 university in America, would the whole world rush to enroll at Pitt and declare that HYPSM need to “catch up” to Pitt?</p>
<p>Or would HYPSM still be just as prestigious and renowned around the world, while everyone forgets that USNWR rankings ever existed?</p>
<p>The reputation of UC Berkeley as the nation’s top public university is not under threat, no matter where a defunct newsmagazine decides to list them.</p>
<p>Trust me, I am well aware of what the technical definition of ‘begging the question’ is. </p>
<p>But the fact is, it is “misused” often enough to have taken an entirely new meaning - similarly to what happened to the technical definition of “irony”. I have gained no mileage from trying to correct people regarding the use of the word ‘irony’. If you can’t beat em, join em.</p>
<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. When USNews ranked Caltech #1, there was indeed a rush of new applicants to Caltech. Moreover, there has been a documented and statistically significant increase of applicants associated with each additional USNews ranking point. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I’m afraid that it is, and, frankly, those who choose to ignore the issue are only exacerbating the problem. As has been stated throughout the thread, Berkeley is undergoing significant budgetary problems that are hurting the undergraduate program, yet Berkeley seems uninterested in enacting sensible reforms to cut costs. {Again, I am not convinced that Berkeley really needs 7 distinct undergrad bio majors.} </p>
<p>More importantly, I don’t think that Berkeley does the best job in alumni fund raising. Why exactly has Michigan been able to raise so much more money over the last 20 years than Berkeley has? Isn’t Berkeley supposed to be better than Michigan? Doesn’t Berkeley have a litany of rich alumni who can be tapped for funds? Isn’t Berkeley supposed to be well connected to the wealth-generating dynamo of the Silicon Valley tech industry (as opposed to UM’s connections to the economically depressed city of Detroit and the auto industry)?</p>
<p>Regarding USNWR ranking and Berkeley’s “slip”, earlier rankings were entirely peer assessment based. USNWR has changed methodology for ranking over the years. In the latest version, Berkeley is still #6 if it used its old ranking methodology.</p>
<p>Yes, Berkeley has to replace funding from decreased state support. In fairness to the university, it is taking steps to address this issue. They’ve implemented an extensive efficiency campaign; increased tuition while increasing financial aid for needy students; and are enrolling more full paying out of state students.</p>
<p>As a Berkeley alum, I contribute to the university when I can and don’t want to see my alma mater decline. I believe Chancellor Birgeneau when he says they won’t let Berkeley decline.</p>
<p>Sakky, regarding Michigan, I do think they’ve set some examples that Berkeley can look to emulate. However, I think Michigan has had a head start in the newer era of public college funding and have worked to address those issues that Berkeley is just now starting to undertake. I also think Michigan has a more loyal alumni base due to its long standing excellence in revenue generating sports. However, Michigan has had enormous freshman classes recently and some Wolverines are concerned about maintaining undergrad quality…but its admin underestimated their yield and more kids wanted to attend Michigan than the admin thought…kind of a flattering position to be in really.</p>
<p>Surely Berkeley has the reputation and resources to maintain its status as the premier public university.</p>
<p>Berkeley needs to both increase it’s endowment and OOS population (full pay). That’s the model Michigan has used to maintain it’s excellence as the state has faltered.</p>
<p>“More importantly, I don’t think that Berkeley does the best job in alumni fund raising. Why exactly has Michigan been able to raise so much more money over the last 20 years than Berkeley has? Isn’t Berkeley supposed to be better than Michigan? Doesn’t Berkeley have a litany of rich alumni who can be tapped for funds? Isn’t Berkeley supposed to be well connected to the wealth-generating dynamo of the Silicon Valley tech industry (as opposed to UM’s connections to the economically depressed city of Detroit and the auto industry)?”</p>
<p>Michigan has had HUGE out of state attendance for generations. A large majority of U-M grads either came from other states and/or left Michigan after graduation. I believe instaters take publics for granted much moreso that out of state students, afterall that’s where they came from in the first place. Like I said, Berkeley needs to up their OOS attendance numbers. I believe that is what is happening now.</p>
<p>“What public institution runs better than a similar private?”</p>
<p>Oxford and Cambridge are publics universities. I’m not sure how one can evaluate if they run better or worse than a similar private, but they are both indeed world class.</p>
<p>Apparently in Europe (at least the UK and France), going to a private university sometimes comes across as “buying your degree” a la Devry. Public universities reign supreme in many parts of Europe.</p>
<p>rjkofnovi: because UCB pays absolutely no attention to their alums when it comes to admissions. They would much rather admit a full pay out of state student than an equally qualified in-state child of an alum. They are astonishingly short sighted when it comes to alumni and equally foolish to focus on OOS as a short term bandaid.</p>
<p>^^Are you sure that most of the OOS students are less or equally qualified than the instate ones? It seems at Michigan that the OOS students are more qualified in most cases. Also, from my understanding, UCB only started to really increase their OOS student population just this past year or two. It is hard to believe that there would be that much resentment built up after so short a time. Michigan, as a state, has been struggling for decades now. The university was wise to see the writing on the wall a long time ago. I just assume that California felt like with it’s ever rising population and business expansion the day of reckoning would never come. Well the time has come. It will be interesting to see what happens.</p>
<p>“… Dartmouth and Brown seem to be running excellent undergraduate programs along with relatively weak grad programs. Princeton, while having quite strong graduate programs, prioritizes its undergrad program above all others. {I know that’s hard for Berkeley students to fathom: a Bizarro World where the graduate students are actually subordinated to the undergraduates.} I’m surely not aware of any serious incentive for undergrads to attend those schools because of the strength of their graduate students.”</p>
<p>“If those schools can do that, why can’t Berkeley?” </p>
<p>My understanding of Berkeley’s problems wrt undergraduate education has always been that it’s a matter of its size, even going back to the 1950s. In many ways, Berkeley has become the poster child for the supposedly poor undergraduate experience that awaits those who enroll at large public universities. In addition, one frequently hears comments about what a harsh, “sink or swim” place it is to be an undergraduate. Yet, Berkeley currently is smaller than several other large public flagship universities, and, surely, large class sizes, closed-out courses, bureaucratic red-tape, etc. affect other large public universities. So, here’s my question for those with firsthand experience of Berkeley: What is it about Berkeley’s culture that has made these problems seem so entrenched and intractable for the last 50-60 years (even during times when its finances were in much better shape)?</p>
<p>“What is it about Berkeley’s culture that has made these problems seem so entrenched and intractable for the last 50-60 years (even during times when its finances were in much better shape)?”</p>
<p>Some guesses:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Berkeley’s culture involves protesting = complaining, so you hear about the negatives of Berkeley (which are basically the negatives of any big state school) more than you hear about such negatives at other state schools.</p></li>
<li><p>Berkeley is closer than every other state school to the Ivy League (and other comparable schools like Georgetown and Northwestern, etc) so the expectations are higher. This clashes with its immutable status as a public state school.</p></li>
</ol>