Berkeley's undergraduate compared to ...

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

<p>
[quote]
Cal is heavily underrated by the USNWR rankings and in other sources too

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I continue to be mystified as to why USNews and other sources would underrate Cal's undergrad program, yet continue to give extremely high marks to Cal's graduate programs. Why? If these publications were really so biased against Cal, wouldn't they be discriminating against ALL of Cal's programs? So why only the undergrad program? To say that these publications are manipulating the rankings to shaft the undergrad program while boosting the graduate program is just unnecessarily conspiratorial. So why is it that the undergrad program is the only one that seems to gets screwed? You never hear of the Cal PhD programs complaining that USNews is screwing them over. </p>

<p>
[quote]
There is also the new stigma of being a public school. Today's culture is much more materialistic than a decade or two ago. That's the main reason the gap between Cal and second-rate private schools like USC or WUSTL has narrowed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And what exactly is this "stigma" of being at a public school of which you speak? I am not aware of any "stigma" being attached to, say, getting a PhD from Cal. Yet last time I checked, all of Cal's PhD programs were part of a public school. In fact, people with Cal PhD's are among the most highly represented group of people in the top faculties in the top universities in the world. The same could be said for many of the public medical schools. I think most premeds understand that UCSF is probably the best med-school in the entire Western United States. I am not aware of any stigma associated with UCSF just because it is public. </p>

<p>Hence, I completely fail to see this supposed stigma of public schools. It seems to me that whatever stigma this might be, it seems to attach itself only to the UNDERGRADUATE programs, yet that gets down to the major differences between graduate and undergraduate programs, namely the selectivity, the impersonality of the education, the access to resources, and so forth. Let's face it. On the aggregate, the Cal graduate programs are just better than the Cal undergraduate programs. I think even the most fiery Cal fanatic would have to concede that this is true.</p>

<p>
[quote]
sakky: why do you constantly dismiss the fact that the great majority of Cal students are satified with their choice of majors according to the student surveys? You keep using this as one of your main knocks on Cal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am pointing out that it is a problem for some students. Furthermore, these are the students who are most likely to either flunk out or transfer out to another school, and hence probably wouldn't be taking this survey. </p>

<p>However, I would ask you ,why do you constantly dismiss the problem that Berkeley has with yield? The majority of students who are admitted to Cal choose not to go. That's an issue that you refuse to meet head-on, except by associating it with conspiracy theories of bias from USNews and other publications (and, again, I find it quite interesting that these publications seem to have no bias against Cal's graduate programs). </p>

<p>
[quote]
That is such a limited slice of the campus experience, it's a bit absurd to resort to this to constantly discredit the school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why is it absurd? To me, the measure of any organization is how it treats those members who are the worst off. It's like the old system of nobles, freemen and peasants/serfs in feudal Europe. It's really good if you're one of the nobles. It's OK if you're one of the freeman. It's certainly good at all if you're one of the serfs. </p>

<p>What Berkeley should be doing is trying to help those students who are doing poorly. But it seems to me that you don't want that; in other words, that you actually LIKE it when students do badly. You WANT them to get hurt. Otherwise, why do you keep objecting to my story? Berkeley should help this student out, and if Berkeley refuses to do that, then that's a problem with Berkeley. What is so objectionable about that? </p>

<p>I tell my story because it's really a story of risk aversion. Some people at Berkeley have to be doing worse than the average. That's the simple nature of the Berkeley grade curve. But when it comes to the science and (especially) engineering majors at Berkeley, to be doing worse than average is to be truly doing badly indeed, and probably on the road to doom. If you're an engineering student at a school like Stanford and you do badly, you can just simply switch majors. It's not that simple at Berkeley. </p>

<p>The problem is that you never really know who is going to be doing badly at Berkeley. It could be you. Who knows? Keep in mind that the FedEx guy came in as a Chancellor's Scholar. So he was clearly one of the best Cal admittees of that year. Yet look at him now. It could happen to you. </p>

<p>Look, I am not saying that Cal is a bad school. What I am saying is that the only way to make an informed decision about Cal is to know its weaknesses. How can you make an informed decision about what school to choose if you don't know what's bad about a school. Sadly, there seem to be people who just don't want you to know about anything bad at Berkeley. Sweep the problems under the rug so that you don't find them until you matriculate.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
Those schools (and throw in Stanford and MIT) have so much prestige that its hard to turn them down. And they are all GREAT schools, so its not stupid to turn Cal down for one of those schools, nor is it stupid to turn down Harvard for Yale or even Cal. Cal's lower yield just shows how strong that applicants are. THe people that apply to Cal are also applying (and getting in) to schools like HYPS. I don't think loosing cross admit battles with HYPS is anything to be ashamed of, as those are arguably the four best schools in the world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The issue is not that some schools will lose some students. Obviously no school has a 100% yield. </p>

<p>The issue is that Berkeley has a significantly lower yield than that of many of the top schools. For example, Harvard has a yield of about 80%, YPSM have a yield around 65-70%. Even Virginia and Michigan can boast of a 45-50% yield. I am convinced that if Berkeley were to fix its problems, then Berkeley would be able to boost its yield to at least the level of Virginia or Michigan.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]

I continue to be mystified as to why USNews and other sources would underrate Cal's undergrad program, yet continue to give extremely high marks to Cal's graduate programs. Why?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If the methodology of the graduate ratings were adopted by the undergradute rankings (and I don't think that they should be), Berkeley would do about as well in each ranking by US News.</p>

24

<p>yeah i totally agree with DRab</p>

25

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>I think the higher yields at Umich or Virginia speak to the fact that many people applying to those schools view them as the best school on thier list, whereas many more people applying to Berkeley are also applying to HYSP and actually getting in. In many ways Cal is a safety for HYSP (for California residents). How many people do you know from California that applied to HYPS didn't also apply to Cal? I can count the ones that I know on one hand. So again it comes back to loosing cross admit battles with HYPS (and a few others).</p>

26

<p>Hmmmm...Berkeley, bottom of the top instead of top of the middle, i.e. U of mich, Virginia, and others. </p>

<p>I suppose that could explain the lower yield. But it shouldn't be a large disparity.</p>

27

<p>"I suppose that could explain the lower yield. But it shouldn't be a large disparity."</p>

<p>I don't think five to ten percent is that large of a disparity, especially since Berkeley has to deal with a number of people opting to go to another fine instate school (UCLA), which neither UMich nor UVA have to compete with. Even with W&M in virginia, I think its too small to really factor in, and its not considered to be at UCLA's level anyway. Just my two cents.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
If the methodology of the graduate ratings were adopted by the undergradute rankings (and I don't think that they should be), Berkeley would do about as well in each ranking by US News.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, that's a laugh. Come on, you know it's not true. Allow me to enumerate the ways:</p>

<p>1) The Berkeley PhD programs are far far more selective than the undergrad program is. And I mean that in a purely relative sense. For example, it is probably equally difficult to get into a Berkeley PhD program as it is to get into any of the other top programs in the same discipline, including those of HYPSM. This is clearly false for the undergrad program where it is indeed significantly easier to get into Berkeley than into HYPSM. </p>

<p>2) The resources-per-capita are far more inline with the top private schools at the graduate school level than at the undergrad level. Simply put, as a Berkeley doctoral student, you get access to all of the things that the undergrads usually miss out on - i.e. small classes, intimate contact with faculty, lots and lots of access to research resources, etc. You never hear of a Berkeley doctoral student complaining that he feels like a number and that he can't find a research project to work on. Basically, as a graduate student, not only do you get strong priority (especially over the undergrads) on almost all academic resources, but there are not that many other graduate students that you have to compete against for access to those resources. </p>

<p>3)Graduation rates are quite similar to that of other doctoral programs. This, again, is not true of the undergraduate program which cannot or will not graduate the same percentage of students as the top private schools will.</p>

<p>There are many other reasons, but those are the big ones. Basically, the graduate students are enjoying all of the advantages that Berkeley has to offer, and few if any of the weaknesses. This is why I have always advocated that Berkeley should make its undergrad program be more like its graduate programs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
How many people do you know from California that applied to HYPS didn't also apply to Cal? I can count the ones that I know on one hand. So again it comes back to loosing cross admit battles with HYPS (and a few others).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know about that. After all, the same argument applies both ways. How many Michigan state residents who applied to HYPSM didn't also apply to UM? How many Virginia state residents who applied to HYPSM didn't also apply to UVa? You'd have to be pretty darn confident about your chances to choose not to apply to your flagship state school. </p>

<p>Secondly, why doesn't this sort of thinking apply to graduate schools? Plenty of people turn down HYPSM for Berkeley for PhD studies, to the point that the cross-admit battle is pretty even (and in many cases, in Berkeley's favor). So why can't the undergraduate program be like that too? </p>

<p>
[quote]
especially since Berkeley has to deal with a number of people opting to go to another fine instate school (UCLA),

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But this is no excuse. What this means is that Berkeley should at least by trying to do more to leave UCLA in the dust. Berkeley should be trying to improve its offerings such that fewer people will turn down Berkeley for UCLA. If Berkeley were to fix its problems, then more people would be drawn away from UCLA and towards Berkeley.</p>

29

<p>Umich uses a rolling admssion process. HYPSM use ed , scea, or early action. The UCs use a different process. Berkeley has a pretty good yield.</p>

<p>Sakky, I'm sorry Berkeley didn't work out for you and your life has been affected negatively.</p>

<p>Using the cross-admit numbers or yield numbers to decide which school is better or thought to be better has flaws and a person who goes to MIT for grad school should know that.</p>

30

<p>"Oh, I don't know about that. After all, the same argument applies both ways. How many Michigan state residents who applied to HYPSM didn't also apply to UM? How many Virginia state residents who applied to HYPSM didn't also apply to UVa?"</p>

<p>Michigan's population is 10 million. Virginia's population is 7 million. The population of the greater bay area is 7 million. The population of LA is 10 million. The population of the state of California is 34 million. Please reexamine your argument.</p>

31

<p>No sakky, it's no laugh. US News graduate school methodology is entirely peer assesment. Berkeley does extremely well in this category, and if this was the sole criterion in the undergrad rankings, Berkeley would do about as well in the rankings. </p>

<p>Humanities and social sciences</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/about/07phdhum_meth_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/about/07phdhum_meth_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Sciences</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/about/07phdsci_meth_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/about/07phdsci_meth_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The engineering might change, I don't know. </p>

<p>You do the math, sakky, how high would Berkeley undergraduate be on a purely peer assesment basis according to US News last year?</p>

<p>
[quote]
So why can't the undergraduate program be like that too?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It can be closer, but you know that it will probably never reach the same leve.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But this is no excuse. What this means is that Berkeley should at least by trying to do more to leave UCLA in the dust. Berkeley should be trying to improve its offerings such that fewer people will turn down Berkeley for UCLA. If Berkeley were to fix its problems, then more people would be drawn away from UCLA and towards Berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, it should be, but there are some reasons for this- UCLA is going to focus on some departments and make them amazing. The economic problem emerges on the university scale. But one reason many turn down Berkeley for UCLA has to do with perceived life style. UCLA got 7k more applicants last year than Berkeley, and I think a lot of it has to do with location, perceived lifestyle, and . . . I don't know. Berkeley could run propoganda campaigns, but it isn't going to move anytime soon. And the weather isn't going to change, either.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I'm sorry Berkeley didn't work out for you and your life has been affected negatively.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not that it didn't work out for me. It's that it didn't work out for others. To give you an analogy, Frederick Douglass managed to succeed despite being born as a slave in the antebellum South. But his success didn't vitiate the fact that slavery was bad. Now, I'm not saying that Berkeley is akin to slavery, but the same sort of idea applies - when you see bad things happening to people, you want them to stop, even if those bad things are not personally happening to you. </p>

<p>But it seems to me that others don't feel this way - that certain people here just don't care that some people are getting hurt by Berkeley. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Using the cross-admit numbers or yield numbers to decide which school is better or thought to be better has flaws

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not saying that it is a perfect metric, but it certainly is one of many metrics we should be looking at. But my real thesis is that Berkeley ought to be fixing its problems. I can't believe that people here are resisting this. Look, if you're not interested in having Berkeley fix its problems, just say so. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Michigan's population is 10 million. Virginia's population is 7 million. The population of the greater bay area is 7 million. The population of LA is 10 million. The population of the state of California is 34 million. Please reexamine your argument.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What needs to be examined? You said yourself that you thought it was Berkeley applicants who were being lost to HYPSM whereas this was not the case of Michigan or Virginia. I find this a dubious argument indeed, and certainly doubtful enough to support a difference the yield delta. It seems to me that the top Michigan and Virginia students are also applying to HYPSM in high numbers as well. Perhaps you should reexamine your arguments.</p>

<p>The valid concern you have raised is that maybe Berkeley is losing students to the other UC's, and UCLA in particular. But that just raises a different question entirely, which is why can't Berkeley put more distance between itself and UCLA? If nothing else, Berkeley should be clearly defeating all of the other UC's, including UCLA.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
US News graduate school methodology is entirely peer assesment. Berkeley does extremely well in this category, and if this was the sole criterion in the undergrad rankings, Berkeley would do about as well in the rankings. </p>

<p>Humanities and social sciences</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/gr..._meth_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/gr..._meth_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Sciences</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/gr..._meth_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/gr..._meth_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The engineering might change, I don't know.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nice try in dodging every single USNews graduate ranking that is highly comprehensive. Come on, it's not that hard to just flip the page and look at how USNews calculates graduate engineering rankings, something in which Berkeley does extremely well, and which things like selectivity and faculty resources, etc. are factored in. It's also not hard at all to flip a few more pages and look at how USNews calculates its graduate MBA and law school rankings, other rankings in which Berkeley does well, notably because it is extremely selective and offers plenty of faculty resources per capita. </p>

<p>Come on, Drab. All you have to do is turn the page. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You do the math, sakky, how high would Berkeley undergraduate be on a purely peer assesment basis according to US News last year?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not as high as you think it would. Let's face it. If the Berkeley PhD English program was as easy to get into as the Berkeley undergraduate English program, or had fewer resources-per-capita, the peer assessment would inevitably drop (or, more to the point, would never be that high in the first place). </p>

<p>
[quote]
It can be closer, but you know that it will probably never reach the same leve.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why not? Are we being defeatist here? Giving up before we even try? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sure, it should be, but there are some reasons for this- UCLA is going to focus on some departments and make them amazing. The economic problem emerges on the university scale. But one reason many turn down Berkeley for UCLA has to do with perceived life style. UCLA got 7k more applicants last year than Berkeley, and I think a lot of it has to do with location, perceived lifestyle, and . . . I don't know. Berkeley could run propoganda campaigns, but it isn't going to move anytime soon. And the weather isn't going to change, either.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that's precisely how competition is supposed to work. UCLA will make certain departments amazing. So Berkeley should respond by making itself better. You don't just sit on your laurels and whine that your competitor is getting better. You get better yourself. </p>

<p>In particular, I still have not heard the answer as to why Berkeley continues to allow certain majors to be impacted, while also trapping students in those impacted majors. Why is that a guy with a 2.1 GPA in EECS finds that he can't get out of EECS, whereas a guy with a 3.3 but who is in L&S and is trying to get into EECS can't get in? Wouldn't it make sense for these 2 people to simply swap places? Can anybody defend this? </p>

<p>Removing annoying problems like this would go a long way towards improving the Berkeley undergraduate experience. But from the reactions I am getting here, it seems to me that certain people just don't want the Berkeley undergraduate experience to improve.</p>

34

<p>Lol, sakky, that's a new reach, Berkeley students overcoming their environment as Fred Douglass overcoming slavery. That's a new low in terms of your low blows...</p>

<p>Other than EECS flunkies who were both too dumb/lazy to clear the bar and too thick to not take a different route and ended up not being able to transfer out, there is no basis for your continuous bashing of Berkeley. Not class sizes, not access to faculty, not campus environment. </p>

<p>The issues with Berkeley all have to do with the fact that it's perhaps the only mass elite institution in the US. No other school has the same standards, undergraduate or graduate, with the same size student body (one could make an argument for Michigan.) But you know what? Those standards are higher than those of all but a handful of US colleges, and being large and more inclusive also means that the educational experience is in many ways richer that that of those other schools with same standards, or those of schools with lower academic standards that get ranked above Berkeley in the USNWR.</p>

35

<p>Sakky, it didn't work out for you and I really am sorry.</p>

36

<p>Sakky's points are right, the Berkeley experience is largely similar to one you'd find at most other top public universities, which is to say that its impersonal, has a lot of bureacratic nonsense, and poor resources per student. Sakky's points by and large are very accurate. In fact, I would say Berkeley probably has it worst compared to top state schools in other states because California was hit hardest by the tech bubble collapse.</p>

37

<p>Berkeley's yield is partially due to the culture in CA. Many apply to Berkeley without applying to the elite private schools, even if they have a good chance of getting in... and after getting into Berkeley, choose to go to UCSB, UCD, or UCI.</p>

<p>It is not common in most academic-focused circles (some do well in academics even without holding academics in high regard), as you would find on this web site, but it is common enough in general to pull down Berkeley from the east coast elite publics which do not have a culture that promotes the value of leisure as much.
I, of course, have no solid numbers--merely observation, as no one has done a study on this phenomenon.</p>

<p>However, even if Berkeley does match up with U Mich, and UVA, it shouldn't just match, considering the faculty and resources (not monetary endowment but capital investment)--it should exceed.
I think overall, the primary problems, which include creating a hostile environment and losing alumni as soon as they graduate, are being fixed. Or at least there is an attempt.</p>

<p>Instead of a dramatic speech about Berkeley rigor and people dropping out, etc., the faculty and staff at Cal Day were attempting to drop the "Berkeley family" in every other sentence. Perhaps the term existed before, but some people plainly aren't good actors and it was quite obvious there was some directive to do so. Not only that, but there's generally that there are new policies and people running alumni relations and "marketing" Berkeley. Perhaps a distasteful idea to some, but something all elite schools do, and previous Berkeley did far too little of (losing many students to other elite institutions).</p>

<p>I'd say that's starting to move in the right direction. Not a giant leap, of course, but improvements.</p>

<p>As for rankings by Peer Assessment:
1. Harvard University (MA)
100 4.9 1 97% 97% 98% +1 3 70% 13% 7/1 92% 1 1400-1580 96% 11% 8 4 47%
7. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology
93 4.9 9 98% 96% 92% -4 16 61% 16% 7/1 91% 2 1410-1560 97% 16% 7 12 37%
1. Princeton University (NJ)
100 4.9 1 98% 97% 97% None 2 74% 11% 5/1 91% 4 1370-1560 94%5 13% 12 1 61%
5. Stanford University (CA)
94 4.9 7 98% 95% 93% -2 11 69% 12% 6/1 99% 8 1370-1550 87% 13% 9 9 38%
3. Yale University (CT)
98 4.9 3 98%8 96% 96% None 10 74% 8% 6/1 89% 2 1400-1560 95% 10% 2 5 46%
20. University of California – Berkeley*
79 4.8 27 96% 89% 87% -2 39 58% 15% 16/1 91% 14 1200-1450 99% 25% 39 110 15%
7. California Institute of Technology
93 4.7 25 96% 90% 88% -2 7 63% 9% 3/1 98% 4 1450-1570 93% 21% 1 23 32%
9. Columbia University (NY)
89 4.7 9 98% 94% 93% -1 14 69% 10% 7/1 91% 10 1330-1540 86%5 13% 16 16 34%
13. Cornell University (NY)
86 4.6 15 96% 91% 92% +1 25 44% 22% 10/1 99% 16 1290-1490 85% 29% 18 15 35%
5. Duke University (NC)
94 4.6 7 97% 94% 94% None 4 72% 5% 8/1 97% 10 1330-1530 87%5 24% 10 6 45%
13. Johns Hopkins University (MD)
86 4.6 20 95% 89% 91% +2 34 55% 17% 9/1 100% 19 1300-1490 80%5 30% 3 17 33%
15. University of Chicago
85 4.6 22 95% 90% 87% -3 11 55% 6% 4/1 95% 19 1330-1530 82% 40% 18 26 29%
25. University of Michigan – Ann Arbor*
75 4.5 27 96% 79% 87% +8 60 46% 16% 15/1 92% 24 26-30 90% 62% 29 129 13%
4. University of Pennsylvania
95 4.5 9 98% 92% 94% +2 1 75% 7% 6/1 88% 6 1330-1500 94% 21% 5 7 40%
15. Brown University (RI)
85 4.4 3 97% 95% 96% +1 19 65% 12% 9/1 94% 8 1310-1520 90% 17% 28 11 38%
9. Dartmouth College (NH)
89 4.4 6 97% 96% 95% -1 19 61% 10% 9/1 93% 10 1360-1550 88% 19% 10 2 49%
12. Northwestern University (IL)
87 4.4 9 97% 93% 92% -1 5 73% 8% 7/1 93% 19 1320-1500 82% 30% 13 26 29%
25. Univ. of California – Los Angeles*
75 4.3 22 97% 85% 87% +2 48 50% 22% 18/1 90% 18 1180-1410 97% 23% 24 97 16%
23. University of Virginia*
76 4.3 14 97% 85% 92% +7 36 49% 16% 15/1 96% 25 1230-1430 84%5 39% 55 30 27%
22. Carnegie Mellon University (PA)
77 4.2 32 94% 90% 85% -5 14 68% 9% 10/1 93% 30 1290-1480 69%5 42% 24 31 26%
27. U. of North Carolina – Chapel Hill*
73 4.2 34 95% 77% 81% +4 39 54% 11% 14/1 97% 34 1190-1390 74% 36% 29 40 24%
34. Univ. of Wisconsin – Madison*
66 4.2 44 92% 73% 79% +6 63 42% 19% 13/1 92% 44 26-30 58% 66% 48 119 14%
17. Rice University (TX)
82 4.1 15 96% 97% 91% -6 13 60% 10% 5/1 93% 10 1330-1540 86% 22% 23 13 36% </p>

<p>Leftmost is overall rank. However, these schools are sorted by Peer Assessment. #6 and a nearly full score.</p>

<p>DRab, you are right in saying that other institutions, by this measure, look highly upon Berkeley.</p>

<p>From research, I can also say that the private sector also looks highly on Berkeley.</p>

<p>My concern is high school students. Most have nothing else to go off of besides rankings, no matter how much people on these forums attack their validity--and rankings aren't arranged by peer assessment.</p>

<p>Berkeley needs to keep its alumni better connected with the school, which is the first step, both to raise endowment and raise general reputation.</p>

38

<p>"Cantsilencetruth", </p>

<p>Why didn't you transfer out and vacate your spot to one of housands of Cal applicants who would love to be in your place, if you feel that the educational experience at Cal didn't work out for you?</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
Nice try in dodging every single USNews graduate ranking that is highly comprehensive. Come on, it's not that hard to just flip the page and look at how USNews calculates graduate engineering rankings, something in which Berkeley does extremely well, and which things like selectivity and faculty resources, etc. are factored in. It's also not hard at all to flip a few more pages and look at how USNews calculates its graduate MBA and law school rankings, other rankings in which Berkeley does well, notably because it is extremely selective and offers plenty of faculty resources per capita. </p>

<p>Come on, Drab. All you have to do is turn the page.

[/quote]

I’m sorry sakky, this is the most ridiculous move you’ve pulled in a while. Do you not concede that MOST undergraduate programs would do as well as the graduate programs if the undergraduate methodology was the same as the graduate methodology? Most go off purely peer assessment. You bring up MBA and law- undergraduate schools don’t have law, and you can do the math for Haas and engineering. You didn’t say the few comprehensive graduate programs, you said graduate programs. By and large, most the graduate programs in US News use ONLY peer assessment. I’m sorry. Certainly things would be different if the methodology were changed, but that’s not what you said, and you most certainly didn’t distinguish between graduate and professional programs, and engineering in particular apart from the other disciplines. I don’t think the graduate rankings are very good in US News, and I don’t think that its methodology should be adopted by the undergraduate rankings, but your argument is incorrect. Deal with it.
Look at US News- on a purely peer assessment basis, whether or not they should, the academics and collegiate politicians think highly of Berkeley. Why? Not an issue here. That they do is what matters.</p>

<p>Being defeatist and realistic does not mean the same thing. However, I’ll try to be more open to possibilities. I just think that certain things aren’t going to change- but they can potentially, perhaps.</p>

<p>Are you aware that UCLA caps certain majors far more than Berkeley? Musical theater? Film (like Haas but only 40 taken a year- big upset for many). In fact, UCLA caps some majors more than Berkeley. Psych has a ton of pre reqs, and there they include chem and physics (although the GPA cut off is only a 2.0, I believe). </p>

<p>
[quote]
In particular, I still have not heard the answer as to why Berkeley continues to allow certain majors to be impacted, while also trapping students in those impacted majors. Why is that a guy with a 2.1 GPA in EECS finds that he can't get out of EECS, whereas a guy with a 3.3 but who is in L&S and is trying to get into EECS can't get in? Wouldn't it make sense for these 2 people to simply swap places? Can anybody defend this?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They should be able to switch.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But from the reactions I am getting here, it seems to me that certain people just don't want the Berkeley undergraduate experience to improve.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Stop saying nonsense like this, it’s pretty annoying. Again, just because someone doesn’t want it to change in a particular way you want it to, it DOES NOT mean that they don’t want Berkeley to get better. Which reactions are you referring to? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley needs to keep its alumni better connected with the school, which is the first step, both to raise endowment and raise general reputation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Agreed. Not that I know much about what they do, but they could do more, regardless of what they do.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
I’m sorry sakky, this is the most ridiculous move you’ve pulled in a while. Do you not concede that MOST undergraduate programs would do as well as the graduate programs if the undergraduate methodology was the same as the graduate methodology? Most go off purely peer assessment. You bring up MBA and law- undergraduate schools don’t have law, and you can do the math for Haas and engineering. You didn’t say the few comprehensive graduate programs, you said graduate programs. By and large, most the graduate programs in US News use ONLY peer assessment. I’m sorry. Certainly things would be different if the methodology were changed, but that’s not what you said, and you most certainly didn’t distinguish between graduate and professional programs, and engineering in particular apart from the other disciplines. I don’t think the graduate rankings are very good in US News, and I don’t think that its methodology should be adopted by the undergraduate rankings, but your argument is incorrect. Deal with it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, my argument is most certainly correct. Think about it. You are the one who is making the simple conclusion that just because Berkeley has strong graduate departments with high peer assessment, that the individual undergraduate programs would earn a similar peer assessment. I know of no reason to support this assumption. I am not talking about some nebulous "overall" undergraduate peer ranking, but about peer rankings that have to do with specific undergraduate departments.</p>

<p>Think of it this way. Let's say that USNews really were to try to come up with an undergraduate "peer-assessment" of these particular departments. Well, the first thing that USNews would have to do is figure out what to do with all of the LAC's which have never had their departments measured by USNews because they mostly don't even have graduate departments. The second thing you would then have to do is tell whoever is filling out the surveys that you are measuring ONLY undergraduate program quality for a particular department, not graduate quality. </p>

<p>In other words, just because Berkeley earns a #1 rating in, say, graduate chemistry does not mean that you can conclude that Berkeley would earn a #1 rating in undergrad chemistry. The peer ratings, as they stand now, are only talking about the GRADUATE program in chemistry, and says nothing about what the peers think of the UNDERGRAD program. </p>

<p>Hence, if anything, YOU have used faulty logic by using a fatally weak assumption. You assume that just because graduate peers think highly of various Berkeley graduate departments, that undergrad peers would automatically think highly of Berkeley various undergrad departments. You deal with it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Are you aware that UCLA caps certain majors far more than Berkeley? Musical theater? Film (like Haas but only 40 taken a year- big upset for many). In fact, UCLA caps some majors more than Berkeley. Psych has a ton of pre reqs, and there they include chem and physics (although the GPA cut off is only a 2.0, I believe).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm aware that UCLA has plenty of problems. But so what? So because UCLA has capped majors, Berkeley should also have capped majors? So if my friend jumps off a bridge, I should also jump off a bridge? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Stop saying nonsense like this, it’s pretty annoying. Again, just because someone doesn’t want it to change in a particular way you want it to, it DOES NOT mean that they don’t want Berkeley to get better. Which reactions are you referring to?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, I find it pretty annoying that people try to stop me from talking about Berkeley's problems, in spite of the principle of free speech. People ought to understand what the problems of Berkeley are before they choose it. To try to deny them this information is simply irresponsible.</p>

<p>Look, I am going to say ANYTHING I WANT. That is the core of free speech, pal. Neither you nor anybody else is going to censor me. </p>

<p>If somebody doesn't want to change things the way I propose, that is one thing. I am not saying that I have all of the answers. But that's quite different from not wanting to change anything at all. And it is certainly not comparable in the least to having people who not only do not want to create change, but also want to prevent others from creating change.</p>