<p>Well, actually I think in Asia Berkeley might be seen as better than Harvard in specific programs like engineering, where Berkeley's engineering program is actually better than Harvard's engineering program. Even in the US most people acknowledge that. But overall, even in Asia, from what I've seen at least, I think Harvard is seen as more prestigious overall. It's tough to defeat the Harvard brand name.</p>
<p>I've lived in Asia (Japan), and Harvard is generally considered "top dog."</p>
<p>I don't see how Cal's reputation in Asia matters very much unless one wants to work there.</p>
<p>This</a> link is obviously self-serving on the part of Michigan, but it demonstrates just how neck-and-neck Michigan is with Berkeley as a top public.</p>
<p>I think the only way to beat the harvard brand name would be for berkeley graduates to matriculate into high levels of the govt. Have Berk alums in congress, presidency, judiciary system. Currently I believe that the proportion of Berks high-name grads seems a little low for how good the University is. What I'm saying is that, having never attended any ivy, i can name a famous grad from every one of them. Berkeley however, the only one I can think of is the unabomber (haha). I was reading a study a few years ago, and I can't find it or cite it so I realize that this is unfounded, but it was saying that the majority of Berkeley graduates pursue a student career, or teaching, or peace corps type work...as opposed to going forward and becoming famous/great. I think that if these types of students were eliminated it would go a great distance to creating Berk grads who go onto fame/fortune, which in turn would promote the Berk name...just a thought</p>
<p>I agree that Michigan/Berkeley are pretty much the same. It depends in which part of the country you are in. West Coast is Berk, and as someone who has lived in midwest/east my whole life I can tell you that the Michigan name will get you alot farther out here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the only way to beat the harvard brand name would be for berkeley graduates to matriculate into high levels of the govt. Have Berk alums in congress, presidency, judiciary system. Currently I believe that the proportion of Berks high-name grads seems a little low for how good the University is. What I'm saying is that, having never attended any ivy, i can name a famous grad from every one of them. Berkeley however, the only one I can think of is the unabomber (haha). I was reading a study a few years ago, and I can't find it or cite it so I realize that this is unfounded, but it was saying that the majority of Berkeley graduates pursue a student career, or teaching, or peace corps type work...as opposed to going forward and becoming famous/great. I think that if these types of students were eliminated it would go a great distance to creating Berk grads who go onto fame/fortune, which in turn would promote the Berk name...just a thought
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, I agree with that. True, Harvard produces more "leaders" and more influential people than Berkeley does. How many US Presidents has Harvard produced now...6? Berkeley has yet to produce any. And this year I believe 7 Rhode Scholars were from Harvard while Berkeley's last Rhode Scholar was in 2003. But like I said, for Berkeley to become competitive with Harvard it needs to attract better students and also strength its undergrad program. By doing so it can also produce US presidents, senators, Nobel Prize winners, Rhode Scholars, etc. So in this way, Berkeley can become just as prestigious in the future if it takes the necessary steps to become better and produce better graduates. But as many posters and I have said before, we don't see this happening anytime soon.</p>
<p>I think it really depends on what you think a university should accomplish. For a public institution, Berkeley is clearly producing top-notch research that benefits the US and more importantly California. It pumps out some of the best and brightest PhDs in the nation, who go on to top universities everywhere.</p>
<p>However, very few "leaders" will get a PhD. Most will get a JD...if that. And to that end, if you want to practice law in the top East Coast firms, you still end up going to an East Coast school. Which of course leads us to all sorts of endogenaity issues...</p>
<p>But why, with one of the nations best law schools, has Berkeley still failed to produce "leaders"?</p>
<p>I'm going to argue West Coast bias here.</p>
<p>If you look at the top firms in LA (Latham & Watkins, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher), they seek many of their associates from Boalt (Berkeley), Stanford, and UCLA. This also means that a lot of the top grads from top California law schools are going to stay in California. After all, why move to NY when you can get payed the same in California?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Excellent point. Because I think the reason why NATIONAL universities in other countries feed grads to top post in politics and economics. If you have strong alumni network in politics like Harvard (and Yale) then it would been different.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're ignoring a key variable here (that's likely to be affecting your model significantly, I might add.) In countries like China, Japan, and even the UK, universities are highly regulated by the central government. Todai is a top university in Japan in part because the government makes sure it stays that way.</p>
<p>But what's interesting in Japan is that many top politicians did not come out of Todai, but instead Waseda and Keio...both private universities!</p>
<p>I'm not arguing that WC law firms dont recruit berk grads, but if "leaders" are JD's...and great JD's come from Berk...why isn't there more "leaders" from berk?</p>
<p>My guess is that there are only a handful of "leaders" that we are really aware of. Out of those, it's likely that they come from Harvard Law or Yale Law. Chief Justice John Roberts comes from Harvard Law. President Bush comes from Yale Law I believe. So does John Kerry. What does Berkeley's Boalt rank...11th? While that's very good compared to most schools, when we are talking about the top positions in government, Harvard/Yale Law probably still wins out. I bet there are some Boalt graduates in government positions that aren't ranked as high that we're just not aware of.</p>
<p>Ah, well I've always felt it has to do with distance from the federal government. Let's say I'm at Georgetown law or Harvard law or Yale law...I'm a tad bit more likely to be hobnobbing with federal government elites than out in good ol' San Fran. </p>
<p>And I was about to say that Michigan hasn't produced a president, but that would be a lie...I'm tired.</p>
<p>I wonder then, since Stanford law is ranked #2, why we dont see numerous stanford "leaders"?</p>
<p>Ha..looks like you answered that one Ari, I was thinking along the same lines... Along with the fact that HYP have been <em>the</em> schools for so long, while stanford is a relative newcomer to the league</p>
<p>I'm sticking to distance from federal seats of power, myself.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that Stanford has only really become a top university in the last few decades or so...that could explain it.</p>
<p>Yeah, we'd definitely need some sort of multivariate model to explain the correlation...too much noise otherwise.</p>
<p>I'd say that distance from DC, alumni network, time as a top university are probably the 3 most important independent variables...but what would the coefficients look like? This is beyond my econometrics training to come up with a good predictive model.</p>
<p>No need to go so far as to describe a mathematical model. I think we get the picture.</p>
<p>By the way I love how this thread grew to 8 pages in fewer than 12 hours.</p>