<p>A brilliant professor engaged in cutting edge research is a definite pluS IF you as an undergrad ever encounter him. I had one in a botany lecture and still remember it, but mostly we had new profs and TAs.
Also, what will the impact be on UCLA this year as their undergrad admit rate was lower that Cal's? As admissions tighten does the quality of the student body improve?</p>
<p>Most undergrads don't even get to touch the best profs, though. That's a problem with research universities in general. Look at how quickly Terence Tao at UCLA has managed to wiggle out of undergrad teaching.</p>
<p>Caligali Berkeley's admission rate was the same as UCLA, well actually .1 percent lower but thats negligible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky I think that if the NRC split up economics, mathematics, and computer science into "programs" It would be even more beneficial to Berkeley look at U.S. News, Berkeley is in the top 3 for 5 out of the eight specialty areas in mahtematics, with the other three most likely in the top ten. In Computer Science Berkely is ranked in the top three for 3 out of 4 specialty areas. In Economics, according to U.S. News Berkeley is ranked in the top three for two out of 8 specialty areas and I would bet in the top ten for most the others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that's not the point. The point is * that it's all relative *. Sure, Berkeley would gain more "top ranked programs". But so would other schools. The question is, who would gain more? As a case in point, of the 8 USNews economics "subspecialties", Harvard beats Berkeley in 7 out of 8 categories, and MIT has a higher rating than Berkeley in 5 out of 8 of them. (I didn't check other schools). In the case of physics, MIT beats Berkeley in * all 7 * of the physics subcategories, and Harvard wins in 6 out of 7. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I still find this normalizing thing as manipulating....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then consider what would happen if we were to take the situation to its extreme. What if we were to take the entire University of California as one giant school "system". After all, it's not unprecedented for schools to have entirely different campuses in different geographic areas while still being deemed a unified "school" (i.e. most of Cornell is in Ithaca, but the Cornell University Medical School is in Manhattan - which is a 4 hour drive away.) So we can just call the entire UC system just one "giant school" and we would most likely discover that this UC 'school' dominates the rankings.</p>
<p>But what would that mean from a practical sense? I think it would mean litte except for the fact that the UC system is big. Heck, if I was to take the entire Ivy League and MIT and call that one big school, I would probably be able to dominate the rankings too. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The population mix per capita at Berkeley is very differnt from the population mix at LACs. Most students at LACs expect or need to attend grad school to be marketable. Where as, a large number of Berkeley students in its business, engineering, science, and even the softer sciences programs expect or need to find work right after graduation.</p>
<p>There is an economic need for many Berekeley students to work after receiving their BS. Sould not we factor their family's economic resources into the equations, especailly compared to students attending LACs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think a far better way to look at the situation is to ask yourself what you, as a prospective student, would do, if given the choice between Berkeley and a LAC. I agree that it depends on what you want and what your circumstances are. </p>
<p>However, it has been shown in other threads that LAC's are unusually successful from a per-capita standpoint in getting their students into graduate schools. So if you envision yourself going to graduate school in the future, it may behoove you to prefer a LAC over Berkeley. The converse may also hold - that if you just want to get a job right after undergrad, then Berkeley may be better. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It shows Berkeley is a much more comprehensive university than caltech. I think the more comprehensive a university the better overall the university is because it can cater to so many different students seeking so many different degrees
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, this actually introduces a host of other variables into the fray. You are now hinging your argument upon whether Berkeley really can cater to all these different students. But that's not just a function of how many programs a particular school has, but more importantly * on the programs that are actually available to the student *. </p>
<p>As a case in point, Berkeley students are not completely free to switch around to whatever program they want, particularly in the engineering disciplines. Many programs (especially the engineering disciplines) are impacted, meaning that not everybody who wants to declare that major will be allowed to do so. What does it matter if Berkeley has a stellar electrical engineering program if you as a student are not allowed to major in it? It would be as if that program doesn't even exist, at least, not in the experience of that student. See below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Caltech may be better in the limited areas it offers but Berkeley can cater to those wanting degrees in the sciences and humanties
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I think you misspoke. Are you implying that Caltech does not have strong offerings in the sciences? I would argue that, if anything, the sciences are the * strongest * offerings provided at Caltech - stronger than even engineering (if you want engineering, MIT or Stanford are better than Caltech). </p>
<p>Now, I agree that Caltech's humanities programs are not broad. But like I said before, there is little practical difference between going to a school that doesn't offer what you want, and going to a school that does, but won't allow you to major in it. Either way, you don't get what you want. </p>
<p>Furthermore, changes in major aren't usually so dramatic that somebody who is highly science focused will end up shifting to humanities (or vice versa). I think most people know whether they are more science oriented or more arts oriented when they're in high school. They don't know exactly what they want to major in, but they know the general area. You hardly ever have anybody coming into college thinking he wants to major in Art History, but then changes his mind to do chemical engineering instead, or vice versa. Most switches are small. For example, somebody coming in thinking he wants to do mechanical engineering becomes more interested in electronic applications and so decides he wants to do EE instead. </p>
<p>But like I said above, those switches are not always possible at Berkeley. I know a number of engineering students (but not in EE) at Berkeley who wanted to switch to EE but were denied. I know some chemical engineers who got more interested in biological processes and so tried to switch into BioE, and were denied. At Caltech, in contrast, you are free to switch to whatever major you want. True, there are fewer majors, especially in the huamnities, but whatever they have is free for the taking. If you want to switch to ME, you just do it. If you decide later you'd rather do EE, you are free to do that. Nobody is going to stop you. You can freely switch around. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Personally I would never go to an LAC because they remind me of my Catholic High School. I feel its time to enter the real world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, and are you saying that Berkeley is the "real world"? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's impact on the greater good of society is much greater than any LAC
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that, again, perhaps just a function of the fact that Berkeley is just so much bigger than any LAC? It's like saying that California as a state has the most economic impact on the US, which is true simply because California has the most people. What does that have to do with the welfare of the average Californian? The median household income of Californians is ranked only #13 of the 50 states. </p>
<p>To give you another example, it is projected that in a few decades, China may actually have a larger GDP than the US will. China is already #4 in the world - already has a larger GDP than the UK, France, Italy, or Canada. But let's be perfectly honest. Who enjoys a higher standard of living - the average Chinese person or the average person in the UK, France, Italy, or Canada? Poor Chinese people smuggle themselves into the West to find work, but you never see desperately poor Westerners trying to sneak into China to find work. China's economy is big simply because China has lots of people, not because individual Chinese people are well off. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also if you research Berkeley has the highest percentage of programs covered by the NRC in the top ten, more than Harvard, MIT, Stanford and I doubt there is a conspiracy in which the NRC, one of the most reputable academic orgs, designs its ranking so Berkeley is number one. I really think that if you were to cover every program at Berkeley, compared to similar comprehensive universities, there rankings really wouldn't change much.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, nobody is saying there is a conspiracy. What we are saying is that the statistical difference between the top programs is so small that if the NRC had used a different methodology (i.e. counted different programs) it might well have found that another school (i.e. Stanford) was on top. </p>
<p>But secondly, and more importantly, like UCLAri said, the notion of top-ranked research programs hardly matters to most undergrads at any school, for the simple fact of the matter is, most undergrads will never become researchers. Heck, many undergrads won't even take a career that is highly related to whatever it is they were majoring in anyway, much less an actual research career. </p>
<p>As a case in point, Berkeley has a top-ranked English program. But look at the careers taken by the English grads - notice how many of them have nothing to do with the English major. For example, I see one person became head cashier at Barnes & Nobles, one person became a dancer, one became a lumber puller (!), one became a Starbucks barista, one became a waitress, one became a cook at a Smith & Wollensky steakhouse. See for yourself and notice that many graduates of the "#1 ranked English program" do not take jobs that have to do with the English major. </p>
<p>Hence, to reinforce what UCLAri said, if you're not going to take a job that has to do with your major anyway, then who really cares how highly ranked it is? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it matters a great deal even to an undergraduate, to know that your professor is doing cutting edge research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See above. </p>
<p>But more importantly, the question is, what are you giving up? LAC's tend to emphasize the quality of teaching. The truth of the matter is, many cutting-edge researchers are bad teachers. They don't know how to convey an idea in a manner that is comprehensible to the average undergrad. I distinctly remember sitting in my college math courses and wishing that they were taught by my high school math teacher instead. Sure, he wasn't a 'brilliant researcher'. But at least he knew how to teach math in a way that made it interesting and accessible, as opposed to these 'brilliant' math professors who made the material turgid and incomprehensible. </p>
<p>Look, the truth is, undergrads have great difficulty in extracting value from brilliant researchers. If those profs had actually started talking about their research in class, nobody would be able to understand it and know why it was important. That material is far far beyond the average undergraduate. Instead, the average undergraduate just wants to be taught the basic material. Calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, basic discrete math - these are all well established subjects. It's not like Berkeley is going to teach you "secret" transformations in linear algebra, or "secret" surface integrals that students in other schools won't learn. These classes are going to be the same at any college - many times even using the same textbook. The difference is, what school provides you with the environment in which you will learn it better?</p>
<p>But that's not the point. The point is that it's all relative . Sure, Berkeley would gain more "top ranked programs". But so would other schools. The question is, who would gain more? As a case in point, of the 8 USNews economics "subspecialties", Harvard beats Berkeley in 7 out of 8 categories, and MIT has a higher rating than Berkeley in 5 out of 8 of them. (I didn't check other schools). In the case of physics, MIT beats Berkeley in all 7 of the physics subcategories, and Harvard wins in 6 out of 7. </p>
<p>Sakky first of all even though they may beat Berkeley in economics and physics, the NRC's final counting is based on whether a university is in the top ten so just because MIT and Harvard are higher ranked than Berkeley in many specialities in economics is Berkeley still in the top ten in those specialties?- if so then whether berkeley is 8th and MIT is 2nd in the final tally of the NRC, which again is based on number of programs in the top ten, the differences in ranking within the top ten make no difference.
One thing I noticed is lets say that the NRC specialized chemistry like U.S. News, which I don't have an online membership to, but Berkeley beats Harvard in at least three out of six categories, Harvard only beats Berk in organic, in which Berk is number two. Lets see computer science, Berkeley beats Harvard in all categories, or math where Berkeley also has more in the top three. If you look at the NRC report in mathematics, computer science, and chemistry Berkeley beats Harvard, so it makes sense that it would beat Harvard in the specialty areas of those subjects as well. Lets look at MIT in English. In US News Berkeley is in the top three for six out of seven specialty areas- MIT is in the top three for 0. In History, Berkeley is in the top three for five out of nine specialty areas- MIT once again 0. Sociology Berkeley is in the top three for six out of seven specialty areas- MIT once again 0. Sakky you tend to not see that Berkeley may not be quite as high as MIT in
all the sciences, or Harvard in the humanities but it is pretty darn close. Can't say that MIT is close to Berkeley in the humanites. It's Berkeley's comprehensiveness that makes it. Harvard and MIT combined, yes they would easily beat Berkeley, but they are two different schools that complement dare I say one another's "weaknesses". I will say that Stanford is probably equal to Berkeley, but Berkeley deserves credit where credit is due and it is number one in the NRC report with not just one but three more programs than Stanford in the top ten. It also has the highest percentage in the top ten so you can't say its because Berkeley is a larger school and thus had more programs evaluated which is why it had the most in the top ten. </p>
<p>Also I am sorry Sakky but the inventions and scientific advances that have came out of Berkeley have had more of an impact on the world than any of the LACs which for most of their history have been primarily been benificial to the elite upper classes. Also what has Williams ever done for me..... I know off the top of my head that Berkeley played a major role in ending world war two saving my grandfather from possibly having to go over to Japan- thus allowing me to be born. Also I guess obviously Luxembourg ( PPP per capita income 69,000)>>>>> United States (PPP per capita income 41,000). </p>
<p>Oh and I did not mispeak I know that Cal Tech may have better programs in the sciences, but Berkeley has great programs in BOTH the humanities and sciences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also I am sorry Sakky but the inventions and scientific advances that have came out of Berkeley have had more of an impact on the world than any of the LACs which for most of their history have been primarily been benificial to the elite upper classes. Also what has Williams ever done for me..... I know off the top of my head that Berkeley played a major role in ending world war two saving my grandfather from possibly having to go over to Japan- thus allowing me to be born. Also I guess obviously Luxembourg ( PPP per capita income 69,000)>>>>> United States (PPP per capita income 41,000).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what? What does this have to do with getting an undergraduate education? Going to college is an investment, and you should seek to maximize those four years. After all, that's a 4 year opportunity cost + the NPV of the cost of the education. That's a lot of money! You should be seeking to go to a undergrad that will maximize your return. It's nice that Berkeley has a bunch of Nobelists amongst its ranks, but why should I care if I just want to get a BA in poli sci and go work for the government? I don't need to know the secrets of quantum physics-- I need the basics.</p>
<p>Look at how successful LACs are at getting students into top grad schools. Seriously. It's almost obscene.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky first of all even though they may beat Berkeley in economics and physics, the NRC's final counting is based on whether a university is in the top ten so just because MIT and Harvard are higher ranked than Berkeley in many specialities in economics is Berkeley still in the top ten in those specialties?- if so then whether berkeley is 8th and MIT is 2nd in the final tally of the NRC, which again is based on number of programs in the top ten, the differences in ranking within the top ten make no difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha! Nice try. What you are quoting is not "the NRC's final counting". The NRC ranking of the various disciplines is just the ranking of the various disciplines. * It is Berkeley, and Berkeley only* that has taken the NRC ranking and converted that into a "ranking" based on having the highest programs holding top 10 rankings of the NRC. This is not what the NRC counted - * this is a Berkeley derivative * of the NRC ranking. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. It is Berkeley that has decided to * arbitrarily * decided to use the NRC "top 10" as their cutoff, and then, unsurprisingly, they found that they come out on top. But where is it written that 10 has to be the cutoff? What if I were to just look at who has the most programs in the top 5? Or the top 3? Or the top 20? I think if I were to do that, I might find that a different school comes out on top. </p>
<p>Look, sofia951, the point is this. You have to be more resistant to marketing hype. The "study" that you cite is nothing of the sort - rather it's a synthetic calculation based on arbitrary criteria based on a (real) ranking. The fact that is appears on Berkeley's website as part of its marketing literature should have clued you in that this is just another piece of advertising. We all know how advertising works - designed to put your product in the best possible light and your competitors in the worst possible light. Anheuser Busch would have you believe that Budweiser is the best beer in the world, according to their marketing. Do you really believe them? McDonalds would like you to think that they sell the best food in the world. Do you believe them?</p>
<p>Look, there is nothing 'wrong' with Berkeley attempting to market themselves. Heck, they're supposed to do that. That's their job. But at the same time, it is our duty as informed customers to not believe everything that they say. And in particular, we should definitely be careful to attribute work. The notion of most "top 10" programs is not a "NRC tally" (as you have put it). It is a BERKELEY tally. Don't fall for Berkeley's marketing hype. </p>
<p>If you want to see the real NRC "tallies", here they are. </p>
<p>
[quote]
One thing I noticed is lets say that the NRC specialized chemistry like U.S. News, which I don't have an online membership to, but Berkeley beats Harvard in at least three out of six categories, Harvard only beats Berk in organic, in which Berk is number two. Lets see computer science, Berkeley beats Harvard in all categories, or math where Berkeley also has more in the top three. If you look at the NRC report in mathematics, computer science, and chemistry Berkeley beats Harvard, so it makes sense that it would beat Harvard in the specialty areas of those subjects as well. Lets look at MIT in English. In US News Berkeley is in the top three for six out of seven specialty areas- MIT is in the top three for 0. In History, Berkeley is in the top three for five out of nine specialty areas- MIT once again 0. Sociology Berkeley is in the top three for six out of seven specialty areas- MIT once again 0. Sakky you tend to not see that Berkeley may not be quite as high as MIT in
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dude, you're not understanding the point. I have never disputed that Berkeley has excellent and comprehensive graduate programs. That has never been in dispute - and in fact I have defended that very point numerous times in other threads. </p>
<p>The question at hand is, how does that benefit the average undergraduate? Sure, having great graduate programs is great if you're a PhD student. But most students at Berkeley are undergraduates. As UCLAri said, choosing an undergraduate program has to do with what is going to help YOU as an individual achieve your goals. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also I am sorry Sakky but the inventions and scientific advances that have came out of Berkeley have had more of an impact on the world than any of the LACs which for most of their history have been primarily been benificial to the elite upper classes. Also what has Williams ever done for me..... I know off the top of my head that Berkeley played a major role in ending world war two saving my grandfather from possibly having to go over to Japan- thus allowing me to be born.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? The question, again, is, which school should people choose that will help them achieve their goals. You don't choose a school because you feel a sense of historical obligation to them. You choose a school because you feel that school is the best choice to help you achieve YOUR goals. </p>
<p>But anyway, if you want to bring up the issue of the Manhattan Project, notice how none of the Berkeley participants had ever gone to Berkeley as undergraduate students. Ernest Lawrence got his bachelor's at the University of South Dakota. Glenn Seaborg went to UCLA for undergrad. Edwin McMillan went to Caltech. Emilio Segre went to a school in Italy. Owen Chamberlain went to Dartmouth. </p>
<p>Hence, what you can gather from your chosen example of the Manhattan Project is that people who were profs/researchers at Berkeley, and in some cases (notably Seaborg) gotten their PhDs at Berkeley made highly prominent contributions, but apparently not too many people who actually got their undergrad degrees at Berkeley. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also I guess obviously Luxembourg ( PPP per capita income 69,000)>>>>> United States (PPP per capita income 41,000).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're just reinforcing my point - which is that I don't think the people of Luxembourg are complaining. And that's the point. The fact that the US has the world's #1 economy doesn't exactly give a whole lot of solace to poor Americans who are living hand-to-mouth (and there are a LOT of Americans like that). I'm sure those poor Americans wouldn't mind being reincarnated as the average Luxembourgian instead, or even a poor Luxembourgian. At least they'd have a higher standard of living. </p>
<p>Hence, taking it back to the example here - the fact that Berkeley has some star research professors and cracker-jack graduate students - what exactly does that do for the average undergrad, or especially, the below-average undergrad? I know a guy who barely graduated with something like a 2.1 GPA in EECS. You think he really cared that the EECS department had all of these cutting-edge research projects? Ha! The only thing he cared about was not flunking out. I know plenty of other Berkeley students that actually * did * flunk out. These guys obviously REALLY don't care about Berkeley's research prowess. After all, it clearly didn't do them any good. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh and I did not mispeak I know that Cal Tech may have better programs in the sciences, but Berkeley has great programs in BOTH the humanities and sciences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, nobody is disputing this. The question on the table is - what does it matter? After all, if I am interested in science, I don't really care about how great the humanities programs are, and vice versa. People shift majors and interests, but rarely so dramatically from the sciences to the arts. {What tends to shift is the 'ease of graduation' - in that some people shift from sciences to arts not because they're really that interested in the arts, but because they find the sciences to be too hard and so they shift to one of the creampuff arts majors just to be able to graduate without having to work too hard.}</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you look at the NRC report in mathematics, computer science, and chemistry Berkeley beats Harvard, so it makes sense that it would beat Harvard in the specialty areas of those subjects as well. Lets look at MIT in English. In US News Berkeley is in the top three for six out of seven specialty areas- MIT is in the top three for 0. In History, Berkeley is in the top three for five out of nine specialty areas- MIT once again 0. Sociology Berkeley is in the top three for six out of seven specialty areas- MIT once again 0. Sakky you tend to not see that Berkeley may not be quite as high as MIT in
all the sciences, or Harvard in the humanities but it is pretty darn close. Can't say that MIT is close to Berkeley in the humanites. It's Berkeley's comprehensiveness that makes it. Harvard and MIT combined, yes they would easily beat Berkeley, but they are two different schools that complement dare I say one another's "weaknesses".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since you brought the issue up, especially in that last sentence of that snippet I quoted, I now feel entitled to bring up the issue of Harvard-MIT cross-reg. I think most people do not realize just how tightly bound Harvard and MIT are to each other due to the cross-reg agreements - that as a Harvard or MIT student, you literally have access to the entire undergraduate course selection of the other school, and, with some restrictions, to most of the graduate courses also (the most xenophobic apparently being HBS, unsurprising given its insular nature). </p>
<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/registrar/www/crossreg/xregi4h.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/registrar/www/crossreg/xregi4h.html</a>
<a href="http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/learning/advising_support/xreg.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/learning/advising_support/xreg.shtml</a></p>
<p>Not only that, but the 2 schools are literally only a couple of miles away from each other, and are connected by numerous convenient public transit links, most prominently being the Red Line (subway), and several public bus lines (especially the #1), such that it take you very litte time to get from one school to another. I knew one MIT student who actually calculated that it takes him LESS time to get from his dorm (Eastgate) to Harvard Yard and Widener Library (Harvard's main library) than it would take for him to actually get to his actual classes at MIT. That's right, LESS time. That's because the Red Line is right there. </p>
<p>Hence, since you were the one who brought up the notion of 'comprehensive education', again, I would argue that the relevant question is not which school has better programs, but rather which school offers better opportunities to its undergrads. One might say that the Harvard engineering and CS offerings are relatively weak. But if you're a Harvard undergrad, who cares, when you can cross-reg over to MIT and take their CS and engineering courses? The same can be said for MIT students who want to study humanities. In fact, I would argue that those cross-reg opportunities alone make the humanities "opportunities" at MIT vastly better than the opportunities at most other schools. Yeah, true, technically, those opportunities are obtained through Harvard courses, but who cares? As an MIT student, you have access to them, and that's all that really matters for the purposes of the * education*. </p>
<p>Similarly, in those areas where MIT's and Harvard's strengths actually overlap (i.e. the sciences, economics), you can enjoy a wide breadth of opportunities. For example, the style and culture of the Harvard econ department differs greatly from that of the MIT econ department. So if you're a Harvard econ student looking for a change of pace, and want to see a different economics perspective, you can just cross-reg to an MIT econ course, and vice versa. </p>
<p>Berkeley doesn't offer this. There is no powerhouse school nearby that Berkeley has such a broadly based undergrad cross-reg arrangement with. As a Berkeley undergrad, you can't easily "decide" to take a bunch of courses at Stanford for a change of pace, for administrative reasons. There do exist some agreements for graduate students, but not for undergrads. Logistics is also a problem, as it's not exactly trivial to get from Berkeley to Palo Alto, especially with traffic. </p>
<p>So while you can talk about Harvard and MIT being separate schools from an * administrative * standpoint, from an * educational* standpoint, they largely operate as one school for the purposes of providing an undergraduate education. You said it yourself - Harvard and MIT combined would defeat Berkeley, but for undergrads, they basically are "combined" from a course catalog perspective. You can take classes at the other school. </p>
<p>So again, I ask, if you are a high school senior admitted to Berkeley and to either Harvard or MIT, what exactly would be the reasons to choose Berkeley? Again, the relevant question is, which choice is going to make * you* better off? You brought up the issue of complementarity, and I am bringing up the issue of integrability. Harvard and MIT are not only complements, but * integrated * complements.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But anyway, if you want to bring up the issue of the Manhattan Project, notice how none of the Berkeley participants had ever gone to Berkeley as undergraduate students. Ernest Lawrence got his bachelor's at the University of South Dakota. Glenn Seaborg went to UCLA for undergrad. Edwin McMillan went to Caltech. Emilio Segre went to a school in Italy. Owen Chamberlain went to Dartmouth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>sakky, i wouldn't go there if i were you. there are plenty of people who received bachelor degree from berkeley and went on to become Nobel laureates. </p>
<p>i thought this thread is about berkeley's "prestige" not about school choices. from being through all the application process, i think where you go to school as undergrad doesn't matter so much in grad school. it really depends on the individual's effort to be in a good grad school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, i wouldn't go there if i were you. there are plenty of people who received bachelor degree from berkeley and went on to become Nobel laureates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, plenty? </p>
<p>Try 10</p>
<p>Is that "plenty" to you? Given Berkeley's undergraduate size? You tell me. I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. </p>
<p>
[quote]
i thought this thread is about berkeley's "prestige" not about school choices.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, that's what it started as. But as in many other threads, the topic has diverged. For example, if we just wanted to talk about pure prestige, I think there is no comparison between Berkeley and Harvard. After all, let's face it. Harvard is Harvard. Whether we like it or not, Harvard is, far and away, the most prestigious brand name in education. </p>
<p>The thread diverged somewhere along the way to compare 'comprehensive' education (whatever that means). Berkeley indeed has a very broad base of excellent PhD programs and research breadth. The problem is that, as UCLAri and I have pointed out, the vast majority of undergrads are not going to become researchers, and have no intention to. Most undergrads just want to get a non-research job. Or if they go to graduate school, it's often times a professional school, which, once again, leads to a non-research job. </p>
<p>
[quote]
i think where you go to school as undergrad doesn't matter so much in grad school. it really depends on the individual's effort to be in a good grad school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You'd think so, right? I used to think so too. And certainly if you go to a no-name undergrad school and go to a highly prestigious grad school, your 'overall' prestige will ratchet up accordingly. </p>
<p>But prestige doesn't seem to ratchet downwards at the same rate. For example, if you go to Harvard for undergrad, and then go to a no-name grad school, you are still going to be known as the "Harvard guy".</p>
<p>Sakky, don't worry.... I did not read every single word of your thesis, only about 50 of them. From that 50, I already know your feelings about Berkeley. Berkeley is a public university, serving a much much higher percentage of students who are the first in their family to attend college. There is a much higher percentage of students in the lower economic level than the ivies and LACs. Many of these students do not expect to go on to grad school, many will be required to earn an income right after college.</p>
<p>We cannot compare between large state universities, LACs, and the Ivies. There service a different crowd and different needs. The fact that Berkeley is recognized as having some level of prestige makes your blood boil. I am the first to say that Berkeley is not Havard, but the prestige is real.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.onlinecolumnist.com/101703.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.onlinecolumnist.com/101703.html</a></p>
<p>Old, but worth a discussion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is that "plenty" to you? Given Berkeley's undergraduate size? You tell me. I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, all things considered, I'd consider that plenty.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i think where you go to school as undergrad doesn't matter so much in grad school. it really depends on the individual's effort to be in a good grad school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes...and no. I find that even here at my program, undergrad matters a teensy bit. </p>
<p>Finally...</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is a much higher percentage of students in the lower economic level than the ivies and LACs. Many of these students do not expect to go on to grad school, many will be required to earn an income right after college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't get this. How does this make sense? After all, most people don't pay immediately for grad school (if at all.) Why do Berkeley grads need to work, then? Yes, it's true that many grad programs want work experience, but that's going to affect all undergrads (including top privates.)</p>
<p>Why is the per capita acceptance rate to, say...Harvard Law so much lower for Berkeley than other top undergrads? Why do little LACs totally kick its butt, if the prestige is so important?</p>
<p>
[quote]
We cannot compare between large state universities, LACs, and the Ivies. There service a different crowd and different needs. The fact that Berkeley is recognized as having some level of prestige makes your blood boil. I am the first to say that Berkeley is not Havard, but the prestige is real.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you're assuming way too much about sakky. For one, he has just as much to gain from Cal's doing well as anyone else. But the point is that it's silly to assume that prestigious research programs are ipso facto better for you as an undergrad.</p>
<p>Quote 1:
"There is a much higher percentage of students in the lower economic level than the ivies and LACs. Many of these students do not expect to go on to grad school, many will be required to earn an income right after college." </p>
<p>Quote 2:
"I don't get this. How does this make sense? After all, most people don't pay immediately for grad school (if at all.) Why do Berkeley grads need to work, then? Yes, it's true that many grad programs want work experience, but that's going to affect all undergrads (including top privates.)"</p>
<p>UCLAri, I don't think the point was that Berkeley grads go to work because they can't afford to attend grad school (since it's mostly free as you mention). I think the point was that Berkeley grads, having a higher percentage of folks in the lower socio-economic range, may need to start earning income sooner (right after receiving a bachelor's degree) rather than waiting another 2 - 5 years to get a graduate degree before earning real income.</p>
<p>Personally, I think this is a terrible assumption. Why? What difference would it make for people who are poorer? Loans can be deferred, and grad school is usually completely subsidized in some form. </p>
<p>The argument just doesn't make sense.</p>
<p>But even if that's the case, look at the student bodies at top grad programs, and even controlling for time spent working, the LACs and top privates are kicking butt. </p>
<p>I'm not saying that you can't do well from Berkeley. The overwhelming majority do. But I'm saying that the prestige value of taking a class with Prof. Super Hotshot is very little in the long-run as an undergrad. Especially if the aforementioned individual is an incompetent pedagogue. </p>
<p>Undergrad is about a solid foundation, not about the upper limits.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is that "plenty" to you? Given Berkeley's undergraduate size? You tell me. I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>there are 160 total nobel prize laureate (including peace prize and literature prize which are less prestigious) in the US. plus that also includes people who were educated abroad and did their Nobel work in the US. 10 is not a number to be sneezed at. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But prestige doesn't seem to ratchet downwards at the same rate. For example, if you go to Harvard for undergrad, and then go to a no-name grad school, you are still going to be known as the "Harvard guy".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i've seen enough people who went to mit, harvard for undergrad and dropped out of berkeley grad school. they certainly rn't known as the "mit guy/girl" or "harvard guy/girl". in fact, nobody even cares that they went to prestigious schools like mit or harvard. they are jsut people who cant pass qualifying exams. seriously, no journal will publish your work just because you went to a certain institute for undergrad</p>
<p>
[quote]
Undergrad is about a solid foundation, not about the upper limits
[/quote]
</p>
<p>can't agree more.</p>
<p>eastcoastbound,</p>
<p>I think the point is just that we shouldn't be worrying about the Terence Tao's or George Smoots as undergrad. We should be worried about pedagogy and learning the basics. Prestige is, for undergrads, relatively meaningless in the long-run. Berkeley is undoubtedly a prestigious university-- but so what? I'd rather learn biology in a class of 25 than 250. That's why I tend to eschew the argument that Berkeley's fantastic faculty is somehow an "I WIN" card (button, if you enjoy video games).</p>
<p>So what? What does this have to do with getting an undergraduate education? Going to college is an investment, and you should seek to maximize those four years. After all, that's a 4 year opportunity cost + the NPV of the cost of the education. That's a lot of money! You should be seeking to go to a undergrad that will maximize your return. It's nice that Berkeley has a bunch of Nobelists amongst its ranks, but why should I care if I just want to get a BA in poli sci and go work for the government? I don't need to know the secrets of quantum physics-- I need the basics.</p>
<p>Look at how successful LACs are at getting students into top grad schools. Seriously. It's almost obscene.</p>
<p>Why do you and Sakky keep on bringing up undergrad, I've never challenged yours statements regarding Berkeley undergrad. I have only spoken to Berkeley's prestige and grad programs rankings, specifically the NRC.
I never said that LAC's aren't more successful at getting their already priveledged students into great grad schools, but then again I was never even talking about undergrad at all? I entered this thread in response to some of the statements Sakky made regarding the NRC report, and in this in that quote I was speaking to Sakky challenging my statement that Berkeley has had a greater impact on the greater good of society than any LAC, which I stand by. Research and innovations that come out of Berkeley affect the lives of people across the world, even people who don't even know of Berkeley. LAC's improve (greatly I'll add) and affect the lives of those who are lucky enough to attend, or afford, to go to them. UCLAri you said earlier that Cal's prestige comes primarily from its grad programs but what difference does that make, especially outside the US. If I were to go to Europe or Asia and say that I am going to Berkeley, do you really think the person would ask me "Well, for undergrad or grad, oh undergrad, thats good but its not as good as the grad". In the end the STJU ranking and the THES ranking just say the Best Universities, they don't specify grad or undergrad. Thus Cal's prestige to Asia or Europe, even for undergrad, will only grow in my opinion as these two rankings become more known.</p>
<p>sofla951,</p>
<p>How many American college students are going to go work in Europe or Asia, however? Berkeley is primarily a product consumed by Americans who will live in America. It's great that Berkeley and UCLA are really well known in Japan, but it's relatively meaningless to me when I go to compete with Duke grads in the job/admissions game.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>well, i would like to learn from people who write textbooks and is a world-class researcher on the subject he is teaching. i think it really depends on personal preference.</p>