Berkeley Prestige=Perception of Selectivity?

[jonnosferatu]

<p>

{As a passing note, somebody really ought to investigate exactly how certain journals became more prestigious than others.}

</p>

<p>On paper it’s because of the high impact factor of the articles they publish. That said, presumably researchers send their articles to multiple journals and pick which one they want it in after the accept/reject letters come back. They want their in the most impressive-sounding journals, and that turns it into a competitive market for high-level articles in which some businesses have a leg up due to their history (or possibly their name - if it comes down to it, I’d rather be able to say I’m published in “The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science” than “The Systems Biology Journal”).</p>

[Thomas_1]

<p>I don’t know. No matter where I go, Europe, or Asia, no one outside of academic circles has usually heard of Berkeley :)</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>

I am not from California, but I imagine that some kids go to Berkeley over Stanford for cost reasons.

</p>

<p>There are about a 10 students each year that attend Cal over Stanford. I would guess, that most/all are Regent’s Scholars, and perhaps engineering/chem majors.</p>

[ArrogantBastard]

<p>As an undergrad, I can attest to the fact that most of us are pretty stupid (and by stupid, I mean we’re just regular kids with above average intelligence and work ethic… although there are always dingbats at every school). </p>

<p>Cal prestige isn’t in it’s undergraduate selectivity, it’s in the faculty and the research that they do which is among the best in the world. This is why people in Asia/Europe/Academic circles here equate it to Harvard, Stanford, MIT.</p>

[hmmmmmmm]

<p>Personally, I have met a lot of dumb undergrads. By the same token, I have also met a number of brilliant undergrads (mostly in technical majors). People need to really put the engineering and natural science departments here into proper perspective. </p>

<p>In the end, though, it doesn’t matter. No matter how many inferiority complexes our own students may have or how many superiority complexes students from top privates may have, Berkeley still produces some of the highest earning and most sought after graduates, especially being located right next to The Silicon Valley and the biotech centers in the Bay Area. And whether or not we think Berkeley should or shouldn’t be considered prestigious doesn’t change the fact that it is.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

Personally, I believe that getting into Cal is nowhere as impressive as getting into HYPSM and it seems like Cal acceptances are becoming commonplace at schools such at Mission San Jose where about 100 students out of a class of 500 are ACCEPTED by Cal.

</p>

<p>Personally, I believe admission to HYPSM and any good school involves a high degree of randomness (this is not the same as saying the admissions officers just draw straws, as I have deep respect for what a lot of those people do to ensure a good process, but they themselves are human and have to make some sort of call, which is clear in some cases and simply won’t be in all), enough that someone who got into Harvard over say, Cornell, doesn’t necessarily impress me more at all, and not even most of the time from what I can tell. And Cornell seems to be significantly easier to get accepted to. </p>

<p>Now, whether someone should still try to get accepted to the highest nationally ranked schools is a different story. I think sakky has been proactive enough to inform many of us that it may indeed be advantageous towards the goal of getting a top notch job to hail from those schools, particularly if one is not independently likely enough to shine in the massive pool of a school such as Berkeley. The exception to all this seems to be research-y positions; if you attend a school which is prestigious for research, your case to research-y careers becomes much better, for roughly the same reason. I’m pretty sure coming from Berkeley can give someone who is otherwise not much more talented than someone from a lesser-rated research institution quite an advantage, simply because they’ll end up doing more of the right things and know the right people. In any hyper-competitive process with lots of randomness, these things help. </p>

<p>A bit of my own perspective: just as rankings for undergrad aren’t directly correlated with any given individual’s needs, neither are rankings for grad. If there are a few superstars whose work is superhot in a department, it’ll shoot the rankings of that department way up. This may have little to do with the adviser a student eventually wants to have and the quality of the students. </p>

<p>I think something high schoolers should also be aware of is that if you graduate from a very highly rated department as a strong student, it’s hard to have faked that, and the prestige carries with you automatically, assuming you stay within that realm of work. However, whether or not a given student will do well in a given discipline is not always clear.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

I don’t know. No matter where I go, Europe, or Asia, no one outside of academic circles has usually heard of Berkeley

</p>

<p>And engineers.</p>

[AnxiousMuch]

<p>As the OP of this thread, I would like to clarify that I did not make this thread as a perspective Berkeley student bent on getting easy prestige equal to Harvard. Rather, I just thought that the huge international prestige of Berkeley (as seen on CC posts) seemed to unfairly discredit students from more selective schools like Princeton, lower ivies, etc who are seen as less than or just comparable to Berkeley undergrads. I’ve seen cases where grandparents from Asia had no idea what Princeton was and those who absolutely were ecstatic that their kid got into BERKELEY (one parent was disappointed his/her kid picked Brown over Berkeley). I was wondering if these cases was only due to the fact that people out of the US view Berkeley as a equally powerful school in general or because they genuinely thought Berkeley selectivity was viewed as high as Harvard, Yale and thus getting in was as much of an accomplishment. Thus, my question international prestige/recognition=international perception of selectivity?</p>

[BerkeleyHopeful]

<p>I think that in Taiwan, Berkeley is far more well known than Harvard, or at least considered just as prestigious. I imagine that this is because California is so much closer than Harvard to Taiwan and thus more preferable geographically. More importantly, Berkeley is a far bigger school and does not practice AA so more Taiwanese can attend Berkeley. Obviously, the parents of those kids are going to outnumber the parents of kids in Harvard…and you know how Asian parents love to brag about their child’s school.</p>

<p>Source: My parents who have both lived in Taiwan and my Taiwanese friends haha</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

Thus, my question international prestige/recognition=international perception of selectivity?

</p>

<p>It’s definitely also culture. Some places have a culture where extremely strong technology/science/math departments, particularly the first, are valued highest. </p>

<p>To them, if you go to Berkeley and study something like CS, you’re set and doing the best thing for yourself. Of course, they also know the rankings in CS and might value that higher than anything else. </p>

<p>Otherwise, a naive international resident would probably check the US News rankings for US undergrad schools and discount Berkeley altogether. It’s usually because Berkeley appears alongside Stanford and MIT in many rankings that the internationals see that they have a high opinion of it. </p>

<p>I don’t really think they’re even thinking of selectivity in the sense the Americans might, because a lot of the selectivity in American schools is pretty far removed from academic superiority by any measure. </p>

<p>However, I do think they might distort how good Berkeley undergrads are based on the rankings of the school. That said, I don’t think perceived selectivity in the broad sense that it is understood today is what is on their minds. Depends who we’re talking about exactly of course. It’s more like “this school has some of the best departments and its students are going to be among the best at that stuff”. Their error if anything is equating departmental strength to student strength, and perhaps not so much about “selectivity”, although see below.</p>

<p>The thing is international residents may come from areas where academic excellence in a more traditional sense might be the main thing that affects selectivity in their own schools, so when they look up rankings, they’re more likely to see things corresponding to Berkeley’s academic departments which, to be fair, are simply amazing.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

Berkeley selectivity was viewed as high as Harvard, Yale and thus getting in was as much of an accomplishment.

</p>

<p>I think their views are distorted to think “the best students get into the schools with the best academic departments.” In reality, admission to neither Berkeley nor Harvard is strictly based on academic excellence, although it plays a big part, but let’s face it, not THAT big, or big enough to be considered the true deciding factor. This is in fact one of the biggest mysteries to me, which is why schools with the best academic departments do admissions in a way that doesn’t really seem to reflect that. </p>

<p>I can see fully why the internationals make that mistake.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

On paper it’s because of the high impact factor of the articles they publish.

</p>

<p>Naturally that’s true, but that doesn’t really answer the question. That now raises the issue: exactly how did those journals with higher impact factors receive them in the first place? Obviously every journal would like to have the highest impact factor, but by definition, not all can. {Similar to how only one team can win the championship or only one film can win Best Picture.} </p>

<p>Specifically, if you were editor of a low-ranked or brand-new journal, what specifically would you have to do to improve the impact factor of that journal? Perhaps most importantly, what specifically can you do as an editor that other journals can’t/won’t do? Like I said, every journal would like to improve their impact factor. It’s clearly not a matter of simply soliciting the ‘best’ possible papers, because every journal is trying to solicit the best possible papers. </p>

<p>

hat said, presumably researchers send their articles to multiple journals and pick which one they want it in after the accept/reject letters come back.

</p>

<p>Nah, that’s not quite accurate, as least in most academic disciplines. You’re not allowed to simply send your paper to multiple journals and then pick the acceptance you want. Generally speaking, you can only send a given paper for review to one journal at a time, and if you are accepted at that journal, then that’s the end of the game: you’re published in that journal and you’re not allowed to republish that study in a different journal. If you’re rejected from that journal, then you can send that paper to another one journal, wait for an accept/reject, etc. Naturally what this means is that most academics first send their paper to the #1 ranked journal in their field - often times expecting a rejection - and then use the revisions that that journal may recommend to then send the paper to journal #2, etc. and so on down the line. Eventually - in some cases, up to a decade later, either some relatively decent journal does finally accept them, or the authors conclude that the paper is simply won’t be accepted into a journal of sufficient prestige, as many departments simply won’t provide credit for any articles published in journals below a certain prestige level for purposes of promotion (i.e. you need X number of papers in “A”-level journals for tenure). Hence the paper is deemed to need substantial revision such that it basically becomes an entirely different paper (after which they can restart the gauntlet at journal #1, etc.). </p>

<p>But again, those details don’t address the crucial question: exactly how did journal #1 attain that status? Obviously every journal wants to be journal #1. What did journal #1 do that the others did not? </p>

<p>

or possibly their name - if it comes down to it, I’d rather be able to say I’m published in “The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science” than “The Systems Biology Journal”

</p>

<p>Granted, that may be factor, but clearly such generic naming considerations are easily trumped by stronger prestige factors. For example, in business academia, you would think that a paper in the Journal of Business or the Journal of Management, or the even more impressive-sounding Global Strategy Journal or Journal of Global Business Issues would connote the greatest prestige (for after all, what’s conveys more stentorian gravitas than ‘global business issues’?) Yet the fact is, those journals are all considered to be low-level journals, overshadows by such journals with seemingly contrived titles as Administrative Science Quarterly or Organization Science. You get 10 papers in ASQ or Org Sci, and that alone will you merit promotion to tenure at the overwhelming majority (probably over 90%) of business schools in the world. In contrast, 10 papers in GSJ provides little value, at least, right now (granted, GSJ may one day become a top journal, but they’re certainly not right now).</p>

[sakky]

<p>

…and you know how Asian parents love to brag about their child’s school.</p>

<p>Source: My parents who have both lived in Taiwan and my Taiwanese friends haha

</p>

<p>Then I would say that Asian parents, or at least Taiwanese parents, should take jobs in university administration, where boosting rankings and prestige is sometimes all that anybody ever cares about.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

This is why people in Asia/Europe…circles here equate it to Harvard, Stanford, MIT.

</p>

<p>

I think that in Taiwan, Berkeley is far more well known than Harvard, or at least considered just as prestigious.

</p>

<p>

The thing is international residents may come from areas where academic excellence in a more traditional sense might be the main thing that affects selectivity in their own schools, so when they look up rankings, they’re more likely to see things corresponding to Berkeley’s academic departments which, to be fair, are simply amazing

</p>

<p>And if is indeed the case that the international reputation of Berkeley is stronger than its domestic reputation (and I suspect that it is the case), then I’ve always wondered why Berkeley doesn’t exploit that advantage to the hilt. Berkeley should then be extensively recruiting the very best high school seniors and transfer candidates from Asia and Europe. After all, let’s face it, the very best American students, whether Californians or OOS, (sadly) usually do not really want to go to Berkeley, instead preferring the top private schools. Hence Berkeley largely ends up with those students who simply couldn’t get into those other schools. But if the best international students really want to go to Berkeley, let’s grab them. After all, if Berkeley is going to admit a higher percentage of non-Californians anyway - and apparently in the incoming classes, an unprecedented 20% of new students will be non-Californians - I’d rather have Berkeley take the elite students from overseas rather than the good, but not elite students from, say, Arizona. </p>

<p>Perhaps even more importantly, I’ve always wondered why Berkeley doesn’t fully leverage its international prestige for career recruiting purposes. I strongly suspect that plenty of Berkeley graduates could obtain quite decent jobs overseas by virtue of the power of the Berkeley brand. If nothing else, many of them could likely find jobs providing ‘admissions advising’ for rich foreign students and their parents about how to get into Berkeley. That’s surely got to be better than many of the nondescript jobs that many Berkeley graduates obtain right now. No Berkeley should ever feel that the best they can do is be a Starbucks barista or as a cashier at Barnes & Nobles . {Now, granted, if you actually want those jobs, that’s fine, but no Berkeley graduate should ever have to feel that that’s the only jobs they can get.}</p>

[Foraminifera]

<p>

But if the best international students really want to go to Berkeley, let’s grab them.

</p>

<p>Well, at least in China, this isn’t true in the eyes of many of the top students. My cousin, who made the IPhO camp for China, only really has five colleges in mind: Tsinghua (MIT of China), Beijing (Harvard of China), MIT, Harvard, and Stanford. I told him I went to Berkeley and he was like “what is that?” All of his IMO/IPhO camp friends all had that same mindset, though a couple considered Yale, such as in the case of Xiaosheng Mu (Putnam fellow).</p>

<p>The middle-upper-tier students of China, however, treat Cal with great respect. Those are the international students we see on campus. In a sense, Cal is their ‘safety’ in that most come over to the Cal because they are rejected by Tsinghua and Beijing University or if their families have a lot of money.</p>

<p>^just my personal experience…</p>

[Diivio]

<p>^yeah some of my foreign friends from India say the same thing. IIT is their MIT and if they don’t get in there or into into MIT or Stanford, then Berkeley was their safety if their parents had a lot of money to pay for it and they were middle-upper-tier.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>@Foraminifera: it is true for graduate school, and Berkeley’s departments easily are up to snuff. I think most foreigners who want to go to MIT or Stanford seem to use Berkeley the same sentence.</p>

<p>Not so if their eyes are on Harvard, perhaps.</p>

<p>Also, I find your friend’s experience strange. Someone who was at an IMO/IPhO camp would surely be looking at Harvard if looking at MIT. </p>

<p>Berkeley is admittedly chained from accepting as many undergrads on academic talent alone, because of its allegiance to CA students, although it does not practice this much if at all for grad school.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>Oh never mind, Harvard on the list. Then that makes sense. Although UChicago might also have been…it does a lot to attract talented math students.</p>

[Foraminifera]

<p>

it is true for graduate school

</p>

<p>I don’t doubt that Cal is an attractive graduate school, seeing as at least half the graduate students I’ve seen are international. My research professor is on the graduate admissions committee for one of the departments here and he says that they only take the best students from around the world, with a couple of exceptions here and there.</p>

<p>On the graduate level, I’m sure Cal is up there with Stanford/MIT/Harvard, etc…
However, on the undergraduate level, it’s a different story.</p>

<p>

Although UChicago might also have been…it does a lot to attract talented math students.

</p>

<p>Just saying…Chicago has not had a Putnam Fellow since 1985 while Caltech/Harvard/MIT/Stanford had at least one this last year and will continue to take the math spotlight for quite a while (yay Evan O’ Dorney)…</p>

[Thomas_1]

<p>

. I strongly suspect that plenty of Berkeley graduates could obtain quite decent jobs overseas by virtue of the power of the Berkeley brand.

I doubt this is true with the exception of possibly Taiwan or China, which I honestly don’t know much about. Of course the following is just my personal experience so it doesn’t proof anything. Still I want to share it.</p>

<p>I grew up in Europe, none of my friends has ever heard of Berkeley. No employers (outside of academia) have heard of Berkeley. They would take someone from a “popular” local university (that’s not even ranked on a worldwide scale) over “some US-University” in the blink of an eye. US-Universities in general have a pretty bad reputation for being “easy” in many European countries. That reputation is actually justified in my opinion. Even though I studied EECS which is supposed to be one of the tougher subjects I know that German universities would be much more difficult academically. I wouldn’t have done remotely as well there as I did at Berkeley.</p>

<p>As an international student many of my friends are naturally international students (many from Asian countries but not China) as well. The majority of them went back to their country after graduating and had problems finding decent jobs for the same reason I mentioned above. Now, most of them did find jobs, but not jobs that were “more decent” than someone from an some unranked but good local university would have gotten.</p>

<p>As I mentioned above, all this doesn’t apply if one is aiming for academia of course. Berkeley’s grad programs and research power and absolutely top, if not the best worldwide. And people in academia know that. However, I also think the the problems above won’t happen to people who have graduated from a school like Stanford.</p>