Cal's Prestige??

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
101

<p>
[quote]
there are 160 total nobel prize laureate (including peace prize and literature prize which are less prestigious) in the US

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Furthermore, we should note that the number of Nobel laureates by country is not relevant, as plenty of foreigners come to US universities to study, and then later go on to win Nobels (but are still counted as foreigners). For example, just off the top of my head, take the case of Robert Aumann, 2005 winner in Economics. He is a Jew born in Germany, but is now an Israeli citizen. Hence, he is counted as both a German and an Israeli, but not an American. Nevertheless, he went to American schools for both undergrad (CCNY) and his PhD (MIT). Similarly, Canadian Sidney Altman went to MIT and then later won the Chemistry Nobel. </p>

<p>I'm also not entirely sure that I would have gone on record as having said that the peace and literature prizes are somehow less prestigious than the other nobels. That's an unnecessarily provocative statement.</p>

102

<p>
[quote]
My God...the sheer amount of ego...it could destroy the Earth, sucking it into a black hole of self-love.</p>

<p>Let's not discuss such terrifying doomsday scenarios, sakky.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, I didn't say it was a good thing. I'm simply describing what would happen.</p>

103

<p>
[quote]
Or let me put it to you more starkly. How much larger is the Berkeley undergrad popuulation compared to, say, Harvard's? Now, how many more Nobels have Harvard undergrads won compared to Berkeley?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>yeah harvard is a great school, better than berkeley. i dont think anybody disagree with you. but there are hundreds other schools, and berkeley isnt doing so bad among them. plus, student body of harvard is more selected than berkeley. and berkeley has to admit hundreds if not thousands of people with special circumstance which makes them academically less competitive comparing to private schools. so there are tiers of talents in students. so if you only look at the big picture, yes not all berkeley students can be successful. but at the individual level, it varies dramatically. it's very presumptious to dismiss berkeley's prestige because of that. a lot of time, if you do a simple averaging, you lose a lot of information in the data.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, we should note that the number of Nobel laureates by country is not relevant, as plenty of foreigners come to US universities to study, and then later go on to win Nobels (but are still counted as foreigners).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>these cases are very rare. most of Nobel prize winner with foreign origin came to the US for grad school. and most of them tend to stay in the US because of US universities' excellent research capacity. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm also not entirely sure that I would have gone on record as having said that the peace and literature prizes are somehow less prestigious than the other nobels. That's an unnecessarily provocative statement.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>emm... i dont consider that as a provocative statement. Nobel prizes in hard sciences and econ are unquestionable the ultimate honor for a scientist/economist/maybe some mathematician (even tho field prize is more presitigious in that area). for the Nobel literature, there are way more controversies in bestowing the prize. pulitzer prize for example is considered more prestigious than Nobel literature in many circles. as for the peace prize, it's a joke. its giving out by another country and its impact on the world is minimal. even jimmy carter can get a peace prize for the north korea situation...</p>

104

<p>I entered this thread speaking to Sakky's comments about the NRC, I never challenged you two's comments on the undergrad. But I will say that comparing Berk to a small LAC is ludicrous. First Pomona is much more expensive and basically caters to the upper class. Cal is much larger, but its average class sizes are not much larger than Harvard. Most of the largest classes are introductory courses, which usually have nothing to do with your degree. Maybe O chem will have many 200 people in the class, and yes it will be a challenge, but in a way if I learn to deal with situations that aren't easy and don't get one on one attention all the time. I could alway go to lets say New College of Florida, which has a faculty ratio of 10 to 1 compared to Cal's 15 to 1, but the resources at Cal, being as large as it is, are greater if you learn to assert yourself and be a go getter, which in the end is something you'll need to learn eventually to be successful. So Pomona may have its advantages that Cal cannot provide but Cal also gives you advantages that Pomona doesn't, especially you work hard. Also when you focus on your major junior and senior years the classes are much smaller and those are the classes that really matter. Also as great as Pomona is its not very well known outside the West Coast.</p>

<p>Also you are making assumptions about globalizations based on the current situation today, if you think Canada, population 33 million is going to remain America's largest trading partner, when china's economy is growing close to double digits and has a population of 1.3 Billion thats crazy. Either way I think that Berkeley's prestige outside the U.S. will only become more and more of a benifit in the long run. Plus its not like Berkeley undergrad is not prestigious in the United States, HPYSM, no, I have never argued this but compared to UCLA, especially outside of California, the prestige will make a difference. </p>

<p>Sakky Yes its not the NRCs ranking i was wrong but is ten really such an arbitrary number...its not like they picked the top 12 or 13. Its funny because CMU used ten when they analyzed the report.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Elanday/nrc-rankings95.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~landay/nrc-rankings95.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>so did UPENN</p>

<p><a href="http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v42/n4/gradrank.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v42/n4/gradrank.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>and also the NYT in this article</p>

<p>From the New York Times (selected quotes):</p>

<p>"In the nation's most comprehensive assessment of university doctoral
programs, released yesterday, Harvard, Stanford and the University of
California at Berkeley remain at the forefront of scholarly quality...."</p>

<p>This refers to a four-year study done by the National Research
Council, a Congress-chartered independent organization. 3,634
academic programs at 274 institutions were studied, and more than
8,000 faculty members evaluated programs based on "scholarly quality,
educational effectiveness and change in program quality over the
previous five years." Also a factor was how faculty members across
the country regard their peers.</p>

<p>"[A] surprise was that Berkeley, whose budget was cut 11 percent from
1990 to 1993, had 35 of its 36 departments rated among the top 10 in
their fields in terms of faculty competence and achievement -- far
more than any university in the nation." UCLA was also mentioned as
doing well. Directors of the study largely discounted the US News &
World Report rankings.</p>

<p>But Berkeley's "marketing strategy" is just trying to trick us. I would say Berkeley's analysis of the report makes more sense than MIT's-</p>

<p>Ranking Totals, All Programs</p>

<p>First column: Total of 1's, 2's and 3's (faculty quality)
Second column: Total of 1's, 2's and 3's (program effectiveness)
Third column: Combined tally </p>

<p>MIT 17 17 34
UC Berk. 20 7 27
Princeton 8 11 19
Stanford 10 8 18
Harvard 11 7 18
Yale 9 8 17
U. Chicago 6 8 14
U. Michigan 4 6 10
Caltech 4 6 10
UC SD 5 3 8</p>

<p>If you do the top five, you can check my math but I'm pretty sure its correct, MIT does come out on top, with 18 out of 23 programs in the top five, or 78%, but you can argue more easily that the NRC may help MIT the most in these rankings because it specializes engineering, but not lets say Poli Sci, which if they did I think that Berkeley would come out on top. Berkeley, with 24 out of 36, and Harvard with 20 out of 30 are tied at 66%. But Berkeley for all areas has a higher average rating than Harvard, with an average of 4.49, only behind MIT. Berkeley's way of calculating seems to help its neighbor, Stanford the most, with has 16 out of 40 programs in the top five, or 40%. Either way in the NRC report I thinks its pretty clear that Berkeley came out as the number one most comprehensive and highly ranked grad school. In the next report which comes out this coming fall they are putting UCSF and Berk together, which makes sense and will only help Berk in the Biological Sciences.</p>

<p>Also I know about the relationship between MIT and Harvard, but for grad school it is not as easy to take classes at both and what difference does it make CS student at Harvard and you take classes at MIT, you still get your degree at Harvard which is great, but no Berkeley or MIT. Once again they are two seperate school, Berk is one school and is overall more comprehensive. </p>

<p>I actually have a friend from Luxembourg who moved hear because yes its great if your family is already wealthy and firmly established in Luxembourg, but for those who are the poorest, it provided little social mobility. The sheer size of the U.S provides more opportunity for those who are the most disadvantaged if they work hard. Its crazy that the U.S., population 300 million, can actually be compared to Luxembourg with a population 465,000.</p>

105

<p>Anyway I am tired of arguing, OP go to where you want to go for undergrad and good luck in your decision.</p>

106

<p>
[quote]
Also you are making assumptions about globalizations based on the current situation today, if you think Canada, population 33 million is going to remain America's largest trading partner, when china's economy is growing close to double digits and has a population of 1.3 Billion thats crazy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, on this I think I'm going to have to say that I probably am a bit more intimately connected to this issue than most, so I'll add my $.02...</p>

<p>Trade is a funny thing. Even with China's GDP growing as rapidly as it has, the differential between trade with China and Canada is huge (For every $5 with Canada, $3 with China.) There are a number of reasons for this, but the two most important are NAFTA and proximity. For example, if you actually look at future growing trade partners, Mexico is likely to become an incredibly important player in the US trade balance, simply because it is a member of NAFTA and close to the US.</p>

<p>Now, I'm not saying that China won't grow as a trading partner. Heck, it's already the #2 partner. But really, the vast majority of American business in China is going to be in FDI and greenfield investment anyway. To that end, nobody in Xinjiang is going to care if you went to Harvard or Harvard Driving School. They're just going to want to see the USD.</p>

<p>I know it's pretty irrelevant, but I thought I'd discuss it a bit more, as it's something that I do actually do a lot of work on. I'll be with State this summer working on a project on the crossroads of trade with Japan, China, and the US.</p>

107

<p>sofla,</p>

<p>I agree that LACs have limitations that Berkeley does not. But I'm just saying that if you want to go to grad school, LACs kick all the most prestigious schools out the door. Assuming that academics actually know a thing or two about academic quality of programs, I think that's a strong statement.</p>

<p>Of course, there are tons of omitted variables-- is it that academic career-minded students go to LACs? Is it that professors all went to LACs and now have some sort of affinity for LAC grads (self-perpetuation). Is it that LAC grads go on because they have no marketability?</p>

<p>As for the last one, one that is bandied about quite often, I find it interesting that even controlling for work experience, LACs still beat Cal students to HLS and HBS (using those two as proxies for "good grad schools").</p>

<p>Heck, even here at UCSD IR/PS, the LACs are well-represented. And both of the Pomona grads are two of the strongest students here. That, and both weren't "rich" by any standard.</p>

<p>That's what I just don't get. Assuming that you want any sort of graduate degree (and if most on this site do), why not go to wherever will maximize the chances of getting the best admission?</p>

<p>Now, if you like Berkeley, then GO. 100%. Take it and run. But really, I'd rather get into a good grad school than have super professor for one semester any day.</p>

108

<p>
[quote]
these cases are very rare. most of Nobel prize winner with foreign origin came to the US for grad school. and most of them tend to stay in the US because of US universities' excellent research capacity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, but plenty of them maintain their foreign citizenship along the way and are therefore still counted as foreigners. Robert Mundell went to MIT for grad school, taught at Columbia for many decades, and then won the Nobel in Economics, but is still counted as a Canadian. Similarly Myron Scholes went to Chicago for grad school, taught at MIT and Stanford for many years, and also won the Nobel, but is also still counted as a Canadian. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Nobel prizes in hard sciences and econ are unquestionable

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know about that. The economics prize in particular has been one that has been repeatedly questioned for political bias in tending to award work for libertarian neoclassical economics. Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm quite libertarian personally. But I would also say that the assumptions regarding man's perfect rationality that are inherent to neoclassical economics are deeply questionable. </p>

<p>Now I know what you're going to say - you're going to say that economics is not a 'hard science'. Allright fine. Then, similarly, consider some of the controversies surrounding the science Nobels. Egas Moniz won the Nobel in Medicine for discovering the lobotomy - which is now widely regarded to be a barbaric medical practice. Heck, even the totalitarian USSR under Stalin banned the lobotomy. Karl von Frisch won the Medicine Nobel for discovering how bees communicate through dance, despite never having presented any actual proof of the mechanism involved, and when later work showed that the mechanism is actually * different * from what von Frisch proposed, but in fact, more strongly supported the alternative theory of one of his detractors (who didn't won the Nobel). </p>

<p>And then we have cases of major scientific discoveries that have not been awarded. For example, arguably the most important discovery in modern physics, along with quantum physics, was the Einstein's discovery of special and general relativity. But Einstein never won the Nobel for this discovery - his Nobel was won for his arguably less influential work on the photoelectric effect, which is indeed important, but surely not more important than relativity. Ironically, later physicists would win Nobels for running experiments that confirmed the theory of relativity, and that extended our understanding of relativity, but no award was given to for the discovery of relativity itself. </p>

<p>One other major issue with the Nobel is the stipulation that it can only award prizes to people who are alive (hence, there are no posthumous Nobels). This has served to exclude the work of numerous worthy candidates who just unfortunately happened to die before they could be awarded. For example, one of the foundation discoveries in modern chemistry was the discovery and characterization of the periodic table. The discoveries of the periodic table (especially Mendeleev) almost certainly should have been recognized with a Nobel, but they died before they could be so awarded. </p>

<p>But the point is, don't try to pass off the science Nobels as 'unquestionable' to me. There have been plenty of controversies surrounding the science Nobels also - whether we're talking about great discoveries that never got awarded, or awards for discoveries that later turned out to be either unethical (Moniz) or downright false (von Frisch), or with simple problems of attribution (i.e. Shockley's Nobel for the transistor was widely criticized even by the 2 other co-winners because it has been widely alleged that Shockley did very little work on the transistor, and that his proposed design was nonfunctional).</p>

<p>Look, the truth of the matter is, the Nobel prize procedure, as are all procedures inherent in the scientific process, is a manmade process and is therefore subject to the social and psychological predilictions of man. An entire field of study known as the 'sociology of science' is dedicated to studying how scientific progress is really made, and how the scientific community, like any other organization, often times attempts to purge those with dissident views, even if those views are later proved to be correct. Older, established scientists effectively become gatekeepers that actually serve to retard the promotion of new scientific ideas, especially those new ideas that serve to nullify the old discoveries that made the names of those old scientists. Max Planck once infamously said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it". Hence, the notion that the Nobel Prizes, or any other scientific recognition process, is somehow 'unquestionable' is itself highly questionable. These are manmade social constructs, and all social constructs are inherently flawed in some manner.</p>

109

<p>
[quote]
First Pomona is much more expensive and basically caters to the upper class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Let's face it. Universities in general tend to cater to the more wealthy in society. Let's face it. The average student at Berkeley comes from a wealthier background than does the average Californian in general. There are * plenty * of poor people in California who will never go to Berkeley, or to any college at all for that matter. </p>

<p>Besides, even if some schools cater to a richer population, wouldn't that be a reason for you to want to go there even more? Let's face it. A lot of the value of college is in the networking. I would argue that if you want to become rich yourself, it behooves you to network with as many other rich people as you possibly can. Steve Ballmer came from only a midde-class family. He went to Harvard where he became the poker-playing buddy of the scion of a rich Seattle family - the Gates family. You know the rest of the story. Let's be honest. If Ballmer had never gone to Harvard, he would not be a billionaire right now. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also you are making assumptions about globalizations based on the current situation today, if you think Canada, population 33 million is going to remain America's largest trading partner, when china's economy is growing close to double digits and has a population of 1.3 Billion thats crazy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, don't be so sure that this is going to continue. Many commentators predict that China is headed to an economic collapse because of all of the social and political strains created by their economic growth, as well as the massive environmental degradation it has caused. Accompanying the weel-publicized rise of Chinese industry that has greatly benefitted a minority (maybe 200-300 million) of the people in China has been a loss of social protections and preditability and stability for the rest of the people in China. You have to keep in mind that the vast majority of people in China are rural farming peasants. Industrialization and globalization doesn't really help them, and in fact, often times actually * hurts * them - i.e. by polluting their lands with industrial waste (according to Forbes Magazine, the 10 most polluted cities in the world are in China), or by forcing Chinese farmers to compete against more efficient (and heavily subsidized) Western farmers. </p>

<p>The Chinese Communist Party's main challenge is to find millions of new jobs a year in order to absorb the millions of rural peasants that can't or don't want to work on the farms anymore and so come to the cities looking for work. The CCP knows that if it cannot do this, they run the risk of a social conflaguration. So basically, China is growing economically because it HAS to grow economically. Chinese history has been wracked with periodic peasant revolutions, some of which have managed to overthrow the political leadership, the Communist Revolution under Mao Zedong being the most recent of them. </p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. I certainly don't want any of that to happen. I want China to develop into a stable and prosperous nation, and I recognize that the current state of affairs is probably the only way they have to do it (the alternative being that they could have remained stable, but extremely poor like they were in the 1950's). But I also recognize that politically and economically, China stands on the edge of a knife and that things could easily deteriorate into chaos. Hence, there is certainly no guarantee that China will become the top trading partner of the US, or with anybody else, in the future. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But Berkeley's "marketing strategy" is just trying to trick us. I would say Berkeley's analysis of the report makes more sense than MIT's-

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said there was anything 'wrong' with Berkeley, or any other school, using a marketing strategy. Heck, that's what they SHOULD be doing. But we should also recognize that they are using marketing strategies. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also I know about the relationship between MIT and Harvard, but for grad school it is not as easy to take classes at both

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ha! If anything, it is * even easier * than it is an undergrad. In fact, it is often times * encouraged * that you do so as a graduate student. After all, as a graduate student, especially as a doctoral student, you tend to take fewer classes than undergrads do, which means that scheduling becomes less of an issue. Furthermore, academic collaboration amongst different schools is not only accepted, but is * encouraged *. </p>

<p>
[quote]
what difference does it make CS student at Harvard and you take classes at MIT, you still get your degree at Harvard which is great, but no Berkeley or MIT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know. You tell me. I thought you were talking about the quality of the education. So by taking MIT CS classes, you are effectively getting an MIT education, right? So who cares if your degree ends up getting badged as a "Harvard" degree, or a Wellesley degree or a degree from any other school that MIT has a cross-reg deal with? I thought you said it is the actual education that utimately counts, right? </p>

<p>
[quote]
In the next report which comes out this coming fall they are putting UCSF and Berk together, which makes sense and will only help Berk in the Biological Sciences.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
you still get your degree at Harvard which is great, but no Berkeley or MIT. Once again they are two seperate school, Berk is one school and is overall more comprehensive.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, is THAT how you want to play? So it's OK to count UCSF and Berkeley together, but it's somehow not OK to count Harvard and MIT together, despite the fact that MIT and Harvard are far closer to each other geographically and administratively? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I actually have a friend from Luxembourg who moved hear because yes its great if your family is already wealthy and firmly established in Luxembourg, but for those who are the poorest, it provided little social mobility. The sheer size of the U.S provides more opportunity for those who are the most disadvantaged if they work hard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know about that. It seems to me that you haven't really interacted with a lot of poor Americans. Trust me, it ain't fun being a poor American, just trying to get by. While I love America, I agree that it's not a fun country to be in if you're poor and that Europe is arguably better. For example, if you're poor in Luxembourg, at least you have access to free government-paid health insurance and a social welfare system that is far more generous than that in the US. At least you don't have to put up with the level of violent crime that is endemic to many poor areas in the US, especially the inner cities. </p>

<p>Now, don't get me wrong, I agree that the US is better than Europe in some ways too. For example, I am convinced that the European system does breed laziness. And I certainly agree that entrepeneurial opportunities are far stronger in the US, and hence economic growth tends to be faster. But let's face it. The vast majority of poor people in any country will never be entrepreneurs. </p>

<p>And besides, now because of the political and economic integration of the European Union, as a Luxembourgian, you are quite free to live and work throughout Europe. You don't like the social strictures of Luxembourg? Fine - move to, say, Ireland, which has had one of the world's most dynamic economies of the last few decades. Move to Spain, another nation with dynamic economic growth. The point is, you don't need to move to the US to find economic opportunities, as plenty are available in the EU. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Its crazy that the U.S., population 300 million, can actually be compared to Luxembourg with a population 465,000.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why not? Again, we're talking about what's good * for the individual*. Like I said, there are a lot of poor Americans out there. The fact that they live in such a powerful and rich country doesn't do them a whole lot of good - and I'm sure that plenty of them would prefer to be citizens of Luxembourg where at least they would get free health care and not have to deal with constant violence.</p>

110

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>you are the king of tangent huh.</p>

<p>
[quote]
sure

[/quote]
</p>

<p>ok, case closed. 160 is an estimate with very small error. if you want to find the exact number, you can go to
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_laureates_by_country%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_laureates_by_country&lt;/a>
to check out each laureates. let me know when you figure it out.</p>

<p>and can you name 1 award that you want to get rather than nobel prize in physics/chemistry/medicine/economics? </p>

<p>btw you never address your dismissal of the fact "only" 10 nobel prize winners went to cal as undergrad.</p>

111

<p>eastcoastbound,</p>

<p>In economics, the John Bates Clark medal is arguably a more important award within the field itself.</p>

112

<p>UCLAri,</p>

<p>ok its nice to know. i gladly admit my ignorance in the field of economics. its just my perception and my encounter with it (AP micro and macro) :)</p>

113

<p>joshua007,</p>

<p>First off, I think that sakky knows just as much about Berkeley as anyone else on this board...if not more. However, ad hominems aside, I think you're missing a key point. We're not arguing that Cal is not an intellectual playground. We're arguing that the quality of a research department's faculty is not necessarily the best indicator of undergraduate program quality. It doesn't matter how many Nobelists, Fields Medal winners, or members of the academies are at your school. If they aren't dedicated to pedagogy, it's meaningless to undergrads.</p>

<p>And really, I don't think that Cal educates the best and brightest students in California. Stanford, Caltech, and Pomona are all endowed with significantly stronger student bodies at the undergrad level. The one place where Cal shines-- graduate education-- is even a hard sell. Stanford's PhD and professional programs are clearly on par with almost every offering at Cal.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In other words, Cal has the biggest single gathering of the intellectual elite in the whole nation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>By what metric?</p>

114

<p>
[quote]
you are the king of tangent huh.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you don't like what I write, then don't read it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
ok, case closed. 160 is an estimate with very small error. If you want to find the exact number, you can go to
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_laureates_by_country%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_laureates_by_country&lt;/a>
to check out each laureates. let me know when you figure it out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not exactly my job to figure it out. </p>

<p>
[quote]
btw you never address your dismissal of the fact "only" 10 nobel prize winners went to cal as undergrad.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think I did. Compare it to the 23,000 undergrads. With that many undergrads, you would expect there to be many many Nobel winners, right? </p>

<p>Again, I'll put it to you this way. Harvard has 6000 undergrads, which is nearly 1/4 of the total of Cal. Yet I am quite sure that Harvard has had far more than 10 undergrads win Nobels. Hence, even on an * absolute * basis, Harvard wins out. And when you're talking about a * per-capita * basis, there is no comparison to be made. </p>

<p>So the real question is, who are you really comparing Cal to? Sure, I agree that it's better than the other UC's. But are you satisfied with simply being better than the UC's? I know I'm not satisfied with it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, you still don't seem to understand Cal's role/set-up/system.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ha! You're actually going to try to tell * me * about Berkeley? This should be interesting indeed. </p>

<p>But please, go ahead, try to enlighten me as to what you think you know about Berkeley that I don't know. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Cal educates the best and the brightest students of California, USA and the world, as evidence by the statistical data at Cal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is that right? THE best and brightest, is it? Seems to me that even in the state of California, most of the best high schools students don't really want to go to Berkeley, instead preferring to go to places like HYPSMC. </p>

<p>But as a case in point, consider the winners of the Intel Science Talent Search (formerly known as the Westinghouse Competition). Even the winners from California don't express much interest in going to Berkeley. </p>

<p>For example, in 2006, the 2nd place winner, Yi Sun, was from San Jose. Where did he indicate that he's going college? Harvard and MIT. He ended up choosing Harvard</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/65sts/winners.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciserv.org/sts/65sts/winners.asp&lt;/a>
<a href="http://presskit.ditd.org/2006_Davidson_Fellows_Press_Kit/2006_DF_Yi_Sun.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://presskit.ditd.org/2006_Davidson_Fellows_Press_Kit/2006_DF_Yi_Sun.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In 2005, the 3rd place winner, Kelley Harris, was from Sac-town. What college did she plan to attend? Harvard.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/64sts/winners.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciserv.org/sts/64sts/winners.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In 2003, the 4th place winner, Peter Pawlowski, was from Fullerton. What college did he want to go to? Stanford. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/62sts/winners.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciserv.org/sts/62sts/winners.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In 2001, the 2nd place was, Nathaniel Craig, was from Sac-town. Where did he plan to attend? Harvard. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/60sts/winners.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciserv.org/sts/60sts/winners.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>{Note, in case you were wondering, there were no winners in 2007, 2004, or 2002 who came from California}. </p>

<p>Before 2001, the Intel STS will only publish bio's of finalists (not the winners). Of the 4 California finalists of 2000, 1 wanted to attend Princeton, 1 to MIT, 1 to Harvard, and the other indicated no preference to anywhere. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/59sts/Huynh.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciserv.org/sts/59sts/Huynh.asp&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/59sts/Williame.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciserv.org/sts/59sts/Williame.asp&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/59sts/Biswal.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciserv.org/sts/59sts/Biswal.asp&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/59sts/Cherng.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciserv.org/sts/59sts/Cherng.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In 1999, of the 5 finalists from California, * including one from the city of Berkeley itself *, none indicated that they wanted to go to Berkeley. Instead, one i(the Berkeley guy) ndicated he wanted to go to Harvard or Princeton, 1 to Caltech, 1 to Yale, and 2 to MIT. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/58sts/finalists.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciserv.org/sts/58sts/finalists.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think that's enough and that you see my point. I think we can all agree that the Intel STS winners and finalists are superstar budding scientists. Yet I find it very very interesting indeed that even those who come from California don't indicate that they want to go to Berkeley for undergrad, instead, repeatedly preferring places like HYPSMC. </p>

<p>Let's be perfectly honest. A lot of Berkeley undergrads are there simply because they weren't good enough to get into another school. This notion is further reinforced by the fact that Berkeley only yields about 40% of its applicants - meaning that the majority of students who get into Berkeley choose not to go (usually because they got into a place like HYPSM and choose that instead). So Berkeley can't even really claim to be educating the best students * even from California *. And of course, there, frankly, isn't that much reason for the very best students who are not from California to want to go to Berkeley for undergrad, if they can go to a place like HYPSMC instead. After all, they won't even get in-state tuition subsidies. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, stat-wise, Cal has the most number of brightest students in any school in the whole USA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"Brightest" is a highly loaded word. I'm sure UCLAri would agree. After all, think of it this way. If these guys were really so 'bright', why didn't they get into one of HYPSMC? Is it money? Well, then why couldn't they be like my brother - he got a * full merit ride + stipend * to go to Caltech. If these guys are really so brilliant, why can't they do the same? </p>

<p>Look, I don't mean to bag on Berkeley unfairly. After all, for all its problems, it's still clearly within the top 1-2% of all undergrad programs in the country. But let's be honest. Berkeley is not as strong or as desirable for undergrad as some of the other schools out there, and as a result, many of the very very best high school seniors out there, even from California, don't really want to go to Berkeley. And Berkeley doesn't put much of a fight in trying to get them. I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. I'm personally tired of Berkeley being an undergrad safety school for HYPSMC. But the truth is, that's what it is. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But that should NOT make Berkeley's teaching and research standard any less than Harvard or MIT or whatever school for that matter.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, you can mosey on over to some other threads around here and find that there are many Berkeley profs that are quite mediocre teachers. The truth is, you're not hired as a prof at Berkeley to be a good teacher. You're hired to be a good researcher.</p>

<p>So let's then talk about the researcher. As I and UCLAri have said, most undergrads don't care about research. Again, most undergrads have no intention of becoming researchers themselves. They're there in order to get a degree so they can get a decent job. Either that, or they're using undergrad to launc them into to professional school (i.e. law school, med-school) to, again, get them a decent job. Simple as that. Whatever research the school has, frankly, doesn't matter to most undergrads. </p>

<p>Now, to be fair, the same can be said for any of HYPSM. So the real question is, which one of these schools will get the undergrads to where they want to be? Again, the fact that Berkeley tends to lose the cross-admit battles with these schools is a telling factor - people are voting with their feet.</p>

115

<p>
[quote]
Well, you can mosey on over to some other threads around here and find that there are many Berkeley profs that are quite mediocre teachers. The truth is, you're not hired as a prof at Berkeley to be a good teacher. You're hired to be a good researcher.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To be fair to Berkeley, this is just the case with all research universities. From Harvard down to ASU.</p>

116

<p>
[quote]
To be fair to Berkeley, this is just the case with all research universities. From Harvard down to ASU.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think I noted that in my final paragraph.</p>

117

<p>
[quote]
Again, I'll put it to you this way. Harvard has 6000 undergrads, which is nearly 1/4 of the total of Cal. Yet I am quite sure that Harvard has had far more than 10 undergrads win Nobels. Hence, even on an absolute basis, Harvard wins out. And when you're talking about a per-capita basis, there is no comparison to be made.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>if you read my earlier post, you will find that i concede that berkeley is less prestigious than harvard. if harvard is all you can use, i'm gladly taken #2. the fact that the student body in berkeley is way less as selected as harvard, yet still achieve such a feat says a lot about berkeley. btw when people say # of nobel prize winner per school, they are using absolute numbers, not number per capita.</p>

118

<p>Sakky the only way to be considered bright is to get accepted HYPSMC.....those kids at my school who got rejected, three who had perfect math SAT scores, one with a 1570 and is going to UF, are all just a bunch of dumb******. Meanwhile a kid, who while very smart, lied on his app saying he was black instead of arabic among other things and bragged about it, had lower SATs and was lower ranked than me and the others got into Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and Cornell. While the others that applied got into zero! I'm not saying that I am smarter than him but just becasue he got into those schools doesn't make him smarter than me imo. George Bush got into Yale so I wouldn't say that the Ivies a necessarily full of brillant people.</p>

<p>Berk does fine in the Bio Sciences so having UCSF wouldn't change too much but I would say that UC San Fran and UC Berkeley are more interlinked than even Harvard and MIT.</p>

<p>Even with its internal problems, which I know about, I still think China will continue to be more and more important to the U.S. economy just based on its sheer size, I don't think its current growth is sustainable but I don't think its growth as a trading partner will ever end due to the fact that the hundreds of millions of Chinese people have been greatly exposed to Western Culture.</p>

<p>Anyway I have a Prom to go to and most likely won't be all there for the next couple day or two so I will talk to you guys later.</p>

119

<p>
[quote]
Sakky the only way to be considered bright is to get accepted HYPSMC.....those kids at my school who got rejected, three who had perfect math SAT scores, one with a 1570 and is going to UF, are all just a bunch of dumb******.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not what any of us are saying. Being in the top 1% of universities is clearly being part of the best.</p>

<p>But to say that Berkeley is where THE BEST California students go is somewhat silly, when we know that it's not necessarily true. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Even with its internal problems, which I know about, I still think China will continue to be more and more important to the U.S. economy just based on its sheer size, I don't think its current growth is sustainable but I don't think its growth as a trading partner will ever end due to the fact that the hundreds of millions of Chinese people have been greatly exposed to Western Culture.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not what I said. I never argued that it won't be an important trading partner. I just said that it's not guaranteed to be THE MOST important trading partner simply based on numbers. If that were the case, wouldn't Japan, with a population richer and larger than Canada, almost certainly be a larger trading partner than Canada?</p>

<p>Besides, your point was that it matters if people in China know your degree. When doing trade, such things RARELY (if ever) come up.</p>

120

<p>
[quote]
if you read my earlier post, you will find that i concede that berkeley is less prestigious than harvard. if harvard is all you can use, i'm gladly taken #2. the

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then let's talk about HYPSM. Which one of those do you think Berkeley is more prestigious than? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky the only way to be considered bright is to get accepted HYPSMC.....those kids at my school who got rejected, three who had perfect math SAT scores, one with a 1570 and is going to UF, are all just a bunch of dumb******. Meanwhile a kid, who while very smart, lied on his app saying he was black instead of arabic among other things and bragged about it, had lower SATs and was lower ranked than me and the others got into Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and Cornell. While the others that applied got into zero! I'm not saying that I am smarter than him but just becasue he got into those schools doesn't make him smarter than me imo. George Bush got into Yale so I wouldn't say that the Ivies a necessarily full of brillant people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't say that everybody in the Ivies was bright, nor did I say that everybody not in the Ivies was dumb. However, the TREND is clear. You said it yourself - Berkeley has to admit a tail end of not-so-highly-qualified people. That decreases the quality of the average student at Berkeley. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Berk does fine in the Bio Sciences so having UCSF wouldn't change too much but I would say that UC San Fran and UC Berkeley are more interlinked than even Harvard and MIT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh really? How? UCSF and Berkeley are about 45 minutes away by public transit, and located in completely different cities across a body of water. Harvard and MIT are about 5-10 minutes in the same city. UCSF and Berkeley do not have a fully functional cross-reg agreement (the agreement that exists is heavily restricted). Harvard and MIT do. Plenty of MIT students, especially grad students, live in Harvard Square (which is a quite nice place to live and convenient to get to MIT via the subway). I don't know too many Berkeley students who would want to live in Duboce Triangle (it's just too darn far away). I hardly see how UCSF and Berkeley can be considered "more" tied than Harvard and MIT are.</p>