Berkeley is ranked number 2 in the World

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
21

<p>“Who's to say that one sort of philosophy really is better than the other.”</p>

<p>Sakky, I have been saying this for a long time now. I’m glad you said it so that we don’t have to revisit this again. I agreed with you that Cal and UCLA are not for everyone. At the same time, you must admit that LAC’s are not for everyone. I had professors practically begging me to go to the Claremont Colleges but I could never see myself at one of those schools. I am very familiar with those schools. I have studied in the library many times. My sister used to perform at one of the theaters on campus and my mother used to live right across the street. I even applied and was accepted with a fellowship to the graduate school. I just don’t see anything there that is for me. Their resources don’t impress me at all. Does that mean that the Claremont Colleges are bad schools? Not at all. Some students can get a better education there than they can at UCLA. I always say that “fit” is an extremely important factor to consider when choosing a college.</p>

<p>Now, I really don’t subscribe to the idea that you seemingly have that resource per capita is the ultimate indicator of college superiority. I think total resources available is probably more valuable in aggregate than resource per capita. For example, imaging you have a library all to yourself. Now, imagine me and someone else share a library that is 50% larger than your library. You have a little more than 33% more resources per capita than either of us but we each have 50% more total resources available than you. Truthfully, I would rather share the larger library. Now, you may desire the smaller library but that is your personal preference. If you would like to limit yourself to your per capita numbers then that’s fine with me. Am I saying that per capita resources are unimportant? Heck no! I think quite the opposite. If there existed a definitive list of variables that measured the effectiveness of an education I believe per capita resources would be on that list with a positive coefficient. In my opinion though, the coefficient would not be as big as you probably think it would be. </p>

<p>One more thing before I finish. I really don’t think the problems at Berkeley and UCLA are as bad as you make them out to be. I personally have never waited in line to see a counselor, tutor, administrator, or even at the bookstore for more than a half hour. I understand that some schools probably have zero wait times for such things but I think wait time is a small price to pay for such a stellar education.</p>

22

<p>I agree with you that the LAC's are also not for everyone. However, I think you know why I stress the point about the LAC's. Lots of people believe that academic quality stems solely or primarily from reserach proclivity. The LAC's are the most prominent counterexample. The LAC's do very little high-profile research, and their departmental rankings are never very high, if they are existent at all. Consequently, they are always getting excluded from rankings like the one that started this thread. Yet I think we would all have to agree that the elite LAC's are still very good schools anyway. They're not for everybody, like you said, but they are still very good. Anybody who claims, either explicitly or implictly (through a touting of a ranking like the Times Ranking) that the LAC's are bad is simply being biased, you must agree.</p>

<p>I also never said that resources per capita was the sole determinant of a school's quality. However, you must agree that it is a factor. And in particular, to extend your analogy of the library, it really isn't as simple as you put it. I understand that you wanted to use a simple metaphor to illustrate your point, and that's fine. So I will also use a simple metaphor to illustrate my point. To build on your library metaphor, what if the library was indeed expanded to accomodate more people? You might say that that's good because that gives you access to more overall resources, even if you have to share those resouces with more people. Ah, but it's not that simple. What if those new resources consisted of an entire wing that was locked and other people were given a key, but not you? Or how about if the newly expanded library was filled of snarling and unfriendly patrons that made it clear that they didn't really want you touching certain library facilities, because they felt that it was really theirs? </p>

<p>And that's precisely the issue of the Berkeley undergraduate program. Yes, Berkeley has lots of facilities. The problem is that many if not most of those resources are not truly available to undergraduates, or open only to a very select few. There are entire Berkeley research labs and research centers that Berkeley undergrads will rarely if ever see. If you are strong enough to deal with bureaucracy and with at times highly intimidating profs, you might get access to those resources, but the fact is, most undergrads aren't resourceful enough (pun intended) to do that. It's just not easy to stand up to profs and demand access, you gotta admit. </p>

<p>And to your last paragraph, the problem is not with the average wait times per se. I don't know if you have ever studied queueing theory, but the issue with queues is not really the average wait time, but rather the variance. I agree, many times, you will be able to complete your business with the Berkeley administration in less than an hour, if not, then two. However, there are definitely those times when things take a very very long time to resolve, sometimes days or even weeks. Happened to several people that I know - their names somehow got lost in the system, and so they didn't get things they needed on time (like financial aid), so they had to get cash advances from their credit cards to pay the rent. Sure, that didn't happen all the time. But it happened often enough that it made people uncertain, and in particular, made people behave in a risk-adverse manner. Again, according to queueing theory, what do you do when a particular operation has a high degree of variance of completion time? Simple - you start stockpiling inventory to compensate (so that for those times when that step is taking a long time, you have a stockpile to work from) , and so you end up incurring inventory costs. So that's what those guys had to do from then on - they had to always make sure that they had enough cash on hand to pay their living costs for awhile, even if they knew they had a financial aid check coming, because who really knows if that check was going to come on time? </p>

<p>To reiterate, I never said that the UC's were bad. I have always said that that UC's, even the undergrad programs, are good. They should not be underhyped, but neither should they be overhyped. In particular, I am tired of the UC undergrad programs being overhyped by the strength of the UC graduate programs. Instead of the UC's always trying to link their undergraduate programs to the greatness of the UC graduate programs, the UC's should be trying to make the undergraduate programs great in their own right. I have said it before, and I'll say it again, if Berkeley can makes its graduate programs as good as they are, why can't it do the same thing for its undergraduate program?</p>

23

<p>Furthermore, after having reviewed the Times ranking a bit more closely, I have found something remarkable. While the ranking makes Berkeley look good (too good IMO), I don't know that it's really doing the UC system as a whole any favors. According to the Times ranking, the rest of the UC's are ranked as follows:</p>

<p>UCSF - 20
UCSD - 24
UCLA - 26
UCSB - 72
UCSC - 175
UCDavis - 182</p>

<p>UCIrvine and UCRiverside are unranked.</p>

<p>We have been talking about the UC systems as a whole, not just Berkeley specifically, but I don't know that the Times ranking is really a boon to the aggregate UC system. I'd rather doubt that UCIrvine, UCRiverside, or UCDavis is going to tout the Times ranking anytime soon. I find it interesting that Berkeley backers are likely to tout the Times ranking while denigrating USNews, while only an hour's drive away, UCDavis-backers will be touting USNews and denigrating the Times ranking.</p>

24

<br>


<br>

<p>Yes it does get somewhat political. Some may argue that the focus on international faculty and international students used in the ranking methodology will not be favorable for UC schools and other state schools.</p>

25

<p>"but I think that few students who were admitted to both UC and to Caltech would choose to turn down Caltech, except possibly to save on tuition. "</p>

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>Girls normally pick Berkeley instead of Caltech :(</p>

26

<p>I recently ask 5 coworkers, all Bruins, if anyone could turn back time would they have rather went to Caltech and not a single one (myself included) would trade their UCLA educatin for one from Caltech. Now, who knows if they "truly" think like that but none of them were at least vocal about it. Who knows! The point is that while Caltech is awesome not everyone is looking for that sort of thing in a college.</p>

27

<p>Sakky, in response to your report on the UC system rankings from the Times I will say that I indeed noticed what you present. I for one never thought this ranking was the "be all end all" university ranking system. What I think however is that this is another perspective that should not be ignored. I think it has no more or no less credibility than any of the other rankings out there. We just must look at the criteria of each rankings to fully look at what exactly the rankings are saying. I tend to look at each ranking and get a general feel of the range in which schools usually fall. That is why I conclude that Berkeley is undoubtedly a top 5 shcool and probably number 3 in the United States. That is also why I conclude that my school, UCLA , is probably a top 15 school. Ohter schools that are much greater than CC posters believe are Universityof Chicago, Michigan, John Hopkins, and UC San Diego.</p>

28

<p>Shyboy,</p>

<p>Once we were quite jealous with you guys, you guys are thinking what party to throw while we could hardly catch our sleeping time. I remember my friend went to UCLA library on weekend just to have a more relaxing environment :)</p>

29

<p>rtkysg, which library? We have like 16 different libraries on campus. Could it be that we were just so distributed among them that it seemed like we were just out partying? But hey, partying is a lot more fun than studying. Actually, I've studied at the Caltech library before (they kick non-tech students at 5:00 pm) and it was dead! I could hear crickets! Come to think of it, I actually think all 5 Caltech students were there at the time. Ha ha! No but seriously, Caltech is a very hard school with very smart students and brilliant professors. I actually have a lot of respect for Caltech. Then again, the tech programs at UCLA are also very hard. They just dont trust us enough to take our exams home!</p>

30

<p>Shyboy,</p>

<p>umm ... I'm not sure abt the name of the library, but of course he tried to find library with most girls inside :) so most probably he went to the humanities library. The funny thing is that, during that time, his brother who was taking premed at UCLA were supposed to attend a party and we tied him down with us doing the homework hahaha it was really hilarious ... Sometimes, we help UCLA students (my friend's brother and his friends) with their homework for information abt parties and being introduced to some UCLA girls in return.<br>
It's also true that Caltech's security would ask everybody in the library for their cards, and it really annoyed me. Also don't take me wrong, UCLA is well-respected, and I know UCLA has a prominent/leading research in wireless Ad Hoc network and its business dept. is strong. But still, you guys and also USC people always hold enviable parties. :)</p>

31

<p>And hence the birth of the West Ivies in December 2004. </p>

<p>Cal Tech, UCLA, USC, Berkeley, Stanfurd, UCSD, Pomona/HarveyMudd/Claremont. </p>

<p>MUHAHAHAHA! </p>

<p>Yes. Excellent. <em>drums hands like Monty Burns</em></p>

32

<p>California Ivies more so than West ;)</p>

33

<p>Only Stanford, Caltech, and maybe Berkeley(there's gotta be a Cornell counterpart after all) are ivy caliber. The rest are just not good enough. USC? UCLA? Pomona? MUDD? wtf?</p>

34

<br>


<br>

<p>Berkeley beats Cornell hands down. I picked Berkeley over UPenn & Cornell. UPenn has wharton, but its other departments just suck ass. I want interdisciplinary strength. That is the wave of the future world. The out of staters who came to Berkeley also chose Berkeley over most of the Ivies. Berkeley is much more well known internationally than every Ivy except Harvard. Its time to get out of your east coast bubble rooster. </p>

<p>Ask around. Also, UCLA is more well known than Dartmouth or Brown. UCSD, not as well known, but its sciences kick ass. They are up and coming, they have a high amount of 1500 SAT scorers that you just don't realize. Harvey Mudd has an engineering program that is equivalent to Cal Tech, MIT, Berkeley, Stanfurd. USC, Pomona they are schools that are academically similar to Brown on paper, but just don't have that Ivy League name. </p>

<p>Anyways, I take it you are not a Ivy West member. Don't hate. </p>

<p>BTW, we set our own rules, we can mix public and private, after all its California, the land of progressive thinking. =)</p>

35

<p>Surf's up dudes. Who says I ain't from California man. Don't be hating on me cause I'm a playa. I'm so awesome dude! Awesome dude awesome dude awesome.</p>

36

<br>


<br>

<p>Yeah.. it seems that way huh? LOL!</p>

<p>Well, maybe we should add U of Washington or University of Arizona or Hawaii or something. No one from those schools really made any sort of argument though...</p>

<p><em>shrugs</em></p>

37

<p>rooster08, UCLA as a whole is much greater than a some Ivies. Same thing can be said of UCSD. Berkeley is almost as great as Harvard and probably beats every other Ivy League out there. Stanford and is just about equal to Harvard. If you are only talking selectivity, which I assume you are, then Pomona is just about as selective as some Ivy League schools as well. USC is also arguably more respected in Southern California than some Ivy League schools. The reason I mention this last point is because all schools have regional bias and Los Angeles is one humungous metropolitan city that should not be ignored.</p>

38

<p>Shyboy, I live in California and I certainly don't think UCLA or USC are greater than most of the ivies. How can UCSD be considered good if I see mediocre people from my high school go there all the time? The same can be said of USC, UCLA, and Berkeley.</p>

39

<p>Rooster08, it is very rare that a “mediocre” student attends one of those elite universities you mentioned. Although mediocre is by nature a subjective word, you must be carefull because if you go to far away from the "median" it becomes harder to argue that something is mediocre. Anyway, Berkeley, UCLA, and USC are among the most selective schools in the US. UCSD is pretty selective as well. The problem is you failed to read my post and just responded without thinking. You speak as if selectivity and greatness are synonymous when in fact they mean two totally different things. I will give it to you that in the context of universities they are indeed positively correlated but that is not the point. Further, I never said that UCLA or USC are greater than most Ivies. Instead of repeating myself, I’ll let you take another look at my previous post. Let me know if you have any questions.</p>

40

<p>After having lived in California for 18 years, I have never heard of USC until last year. UCLA, Berkeley, and UCSD have always been considered "decent" but certainly not up to par with any of the ivies. Even though I am supposed to have a "regional bias" towards the UCs, I have always regarded all the ivies (and Cornell) with much higher esteem. This is mostly due to the fact that I have seen people with 1100 SAT scores, get into Berkeley, LA, and UCSD. Nobody from my high school has ever gotten accepted at any of the ivies except for one kid with a 1590 who got into Harvard, Yale, Princeton and ultimately chose Dartmouth.</p>