<p>I don't know how to quote, so if someone could tell me how to I'd appreciate it. Being that I'm from east coast I would argue that Mich is more noteworthy of national university, being that it combines great academics + athletics</p>
<p>Vangi, would you be willing to invest in University of Virginia if it was made national university?</p>
<p>It's not according to YOU! Many people would differ, and saying that it's the highest ranked is BS bcuz rankings are subject to influence/pressure just like anything else</p>
<p>"Imagine if you're super bright, so you automatically have a school that will pay your education 100% plus stipend and living/dorm fees in the top 1 school in America, not top 21 or 26 or 27"</p>
<p>.....Harvard?</p>
<p>As someone who attended West Point I can assure you that it is not anything close to a national university.</p>
<p>Vangie I'm not trying to attack you or degrade your ideas, I'm just saying I think education is an issue for the states...and that elite privates are teh closest we will (and should) get to a national university...</p>
<p>
[quote]
OK, if you insist that we should quote Michigan, then let's quote Michigan though I persoanlly feel a little awkward here because I know it's not Michigan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do you "know" this? Michigan's grad programs compare quite favorably to Cal's, and its name in the academic community is pretty much equal. Heck, I'd argue that a few of its programs are better. It's law school is arguably better, and its B-school is about equal. Its PhD programs are also all pretty much top 10, and it even has better sports programs. </p>
<p>Oh, and don't ignore the much larger individual campus endowment!</p>
<p>"If I can't quote on cc..."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now my question is: What if America will invest more money to Berkeley to rival Harvard. Just imagine how things might be more interesting top privtae vs top public.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, that would be interesting. Look at how much the United States has already spent on the Iraq War. If it uses just a fraction of that money to fund Berkeley, it would very likely become a top 5 university at least. But the point is, there is no incentive to do so. The federal government draws up a budget every year and decides how to spend the taxpayer's dollars. Now it could use money for national defense, better health care, things that affect millions of American citizens, or it could use the money to fund UC Berkeley, which would affect maybe 30,000 students. Even if you add in faculty and others who are affilated with the university it wouldn't reach 100,000 probably. It would be interesting for US to see what happens if the US government decides to pour billions into Berkeley, but it certainly won't be interesting to the vast majority of American citizens, who don't really care whether Berkeley's undergrad program is ranked #2 or #20. It's more interesting to a much larger population for the US government to spend that money on more wide-scale projects like say, universal healthcare, so the US government pours more money into that than UC Berkeley.</p>
<p>Even if the US government wants to spend more money on improving higher education, it would do that on a larger scale. For example, Congress was recently reviewing a bill to raise the maximum Pell Grant amount, which would award more financial aid to students at MANY universities. It doesn't make sense for the US government to focus on one university specifically.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I dont think berk can ever be a top 5 university because it doesn't have the prestige. If you don't mind me asking, where are you from? The perception of Berk from where I've lived is much diff from the one everyone in California has.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have heard of that before. Actually, I've heard of people from the East Coast who say "Berkeley is just as prestigious here" and people from the East who say "Berkeley isn't nearly as prestigious as other universities like the Ivies, Duke, etc." Most belong in the latter. But perception can change. I believe the reason the Berkeley undergrad program isn't as prestigious presently is because 1) it's not as selective and 2) it's not run as well as it could be. If Berkeley starts attracting top students and runs its undergrad program better than I believe that its prestige will go up as well. Take Olin for example. The school isn't even 10 years old yet and already it has established a reputation as a top engineering school, drawing students away from such schools as MIT and Harvard. Part of why it's getting so much attention is because it is attracting top students to its college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Can you imagine the uproar that would happen not just within the ivy league but also with other state schools of the US govt decided to "invest more money in berk to rival Harvard"? It wouldn't be allowed...at all..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, there's not much Harvard can do to stop it. But the US government won't do such a thing anyway, so it's a moot point.</p>
<p>I thought you were comparing west point to a national university. In which I was arguing that a NU doesn't require 10 years of service to attend for free.</p>
<p>"Well, there's not much Harvard can do to stop it."</p>
<p>Wouldn't underestimate the power of Kerry + Kennedy. Harvard is a part of Mass. and I'm sure they would be quite defensive about it</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wouldn't underestimate the power of Kerry + Kennedy. Harvard is a part of Mass. and I'm sure they would be quite defensive about it
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like UCLAri has already said, Berkeley is a pretty tough competitor for Harvard in terms of grad programs. Berkeley has many more top-10 ranked departments than Harvard, and Harvard hasn't done anything to stop that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't worry, I think you have class and you don't get too personal unlike some others here. This is just for the sake of discussion. For example, I usually with vicissitudes most of the time. but there are really a few instances that I think my opinion differs from him but he maintain his class and he explains very well so it's easy to have a conversation with him.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey I enjoy a good discussion every now and then as well. The Berkeley forum has been dead for a while so it's good to see some interesting threads pop up. Feel free to bring up your disagreements and I'll be happy to discuss them with you.</p>
<p>Harvard doesn't stop it because they don't need to. They are still <em>the</em> University. If Berk's grad programs are so much better why aren't they <em>the</em> University? The fact is Harvard would never allow Berkeley to be a top University because that would threaten their standing. Harvard has the prestige which Berkeley lacks...Prestige and education are two seperate entities, just because one has a great educational program doesn't mean it has great prestige. Prestige is in the mind of the masses...</p>
<p>"Like UCLAri has already said, Berkeley is a pretty tough competitor for Harvard in terms of grad programs. Berkeley has many more top-10 ranked departments than Harvard, and Harvard hasn't done anything to stop that."</p>
<p>So If I get my PhD in history from Berkeley (#1) and another student gets it from Harvard...And we have the same stats + interviews + personality... I will be able to get a better non-teaching job cuz I graduated Berkeley? </p>
<p>The point I'm making is that education and prestige are seperate. You don't need to have the best eduaction to have the best prestige. Prestige is a perceived (spelling?) image...as long as you can make people think you have the best programs you have the best prestige. That's why a history grad from harvard has much better opportunities than that from berkeley despite berk being better history department. The name harvard opens up more doors then that of berk.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard doesn't stop it because they don't need to. They are still <em>the</em> University. If Berk's grad programs are so much better why aren't they <em>the</em> University? The fact is Harvard would never allow Berkeley to be a top University because that would threaten their standing. Harvard has the prestige which Berkeley lacks...Prestige and education are two seperate entities, just because one has a great educational program doesn't mean it has great prestige. Prestige is in the mind of the masses...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because as a whole Berkeley is still not as strong as Harvard. I think Berkeley's PhD programs are probably on the same level as Harvard's, but not other areas. Berkeley's business school isn't as good, law school isn't as good, and its undergrad program certainly isn't as good. And I agree that Berkeley's prestige isn't the same as Harvard's...as of now. But like I said I think prestige and perception can change over time if appropriate changes are made. For example, a decade or two ago Berkeley was seen as the top UC school and since then UCLA has been making some great improvements and now the two are seen as "roughly equal" by many.</p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. Let's say that the US government does decide to pour billions of dollars into improving Berkeley. What can Harvard do about it? It can't try to cut off the funding, can it? It can't really have its students fly to Berkeley, and start rioting, or tearing apart the campus, or commit some terrorist attacks on the school. If Berkeley really starts taking measure to improve its undergrad program, Harvard is not going to stop it. Heck, if Harvard is really worried about having a school rival it, it would probably be Yale or Stanford. Yet Harvard hasn't taken any measures to sabatoge Stanford or Yale.</p>
<p>"Let me put it to you this way. Let's say that the US government does decide to pour billions of dollars into improving Berkeley. What can Harvard do about it? It can't try to cut off the funding, can it? It can't really have its students fly to Berkeley, and start rioting, or tearing apart the campus, or commit some terrorist attacks on the school. If Berkeley really starts taking measure to improve its undergrad program, Harvard is not going to stop it. Heck, if Harvard is really worried about having a school rival it, it would probably be Yale or Stanford. Yet Harvard hasn't taken any measures to sabatoge Stanford or Yale."</p>
<p>Once it has started Harvard can do nothing, but they can prevent it from even happening which is what they would do. Harvard alum in congress, with connections, with $, would ENSURE that this would never happen</p>
<p>
[quote]
So If I get my PhD in history from Berkeley (#1) and another student gets it from Harvard...And we have the same stats + interviews + personality... I will be able to get a better non-teaching job cuz I graduated Berkeley? </p>
<p>The point I'm making is that education and prestige are seperate. You don't need to have the best eduaction to have the best prestige. Prestige is a perceived (spelling?) image...as long as you can make people think you have the best programs you have the best prestige. That's why a history grad from harvard has much better opportunities than that from berkeley despite berk being better history department. The name harvard opens up more doors then that of berk.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Back up. I said nothing about getting a better job if you come from a better university. It's more likely, but there are certainly people who come from lesser universities who get great jobs. And I agree that the name Harvard opens up more doors than Berkeley. I also agree that education and prestige don't always go hand-in-hand. For example, I'd guess Williams probably offers a better education than Harvard, but Harvard by far has more prestige. All of this wasn't really what I was talking about though. I was simply saying that Berkeley could become a top 5 university. It's not a top 5 university now (in my opinion), and it doesn't have the prestige to become a top 5 university now, but it could in the future if certain changes were to take place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
vicissitudes,</p>
<p>I get it. So the only way -- of the best way -- for Berkeley to rival the top private schools then is to increase it's endowment fund.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it's not quite as simple as that. Money is certainly a part of it. But like I said, what's also preventing Berkeley from being better than it is currently is that the administration isn't really interested in improving the undergrad program. Most of the things I mentioned in this thread were considered by the administration, but they're simply not interested in implementing them. So even if Berkeley gets a huge endowment, there might still be some problems with the undergrad program. Some departments might still make its major impacted, just because they feel like it. I'll give you a simple example: Harvard currently has a ~$28 billion endowment now, but there are still problems with its undergrad program. There are still large lectures of several hundred people. Some buildings are still old and run-down. There are still students paying full tuition even though Harvard could probably easily give full-rides to every single one of its students. So the problem is really twofold: Berkeley lacks money, and Berkeley doesn't spend money efficiently to improve its program in the best way possible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here he goes again -- the usual nonsense post to divert the conversation away from the topic. Don't get me wrong here UCLAri, I am not trying to insult you -- I just wanted to point out that your points as nonsense.</p>
<p>I refer my quoting Berkeley to USNews, THES, Shanghai and all other major surveys. Please stop it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look at rankings of Michigan's programs on USNews for goodness' sake! They're all well within range of Berkeley, and many are better! </p>
<p>How is this "nonsense?"</p>
<p>In my opinion, and that's exactly what it is an opinion, the prestige of Berk in asian countries has to do with the large asian population at berk compared to harvard...and when these people work there way back to their countires and become econ/political/social <em>icons</em> berk gets the credit. I'm sure if the asian pop at harvard were as high the results would be much diff...</p>