<p>USNWR has professors rate schools they have never seen, never visited, know absolutely no one, and, in many cases, can't even find on a map. That's called "peer assessment". </p>
<p>And you have trouble with the COHFE rankings where students actually express in-depth opinions about the quality of education they are themselves receiving?</p>
<p>"Harvard has a far larger endowment, and I believe the overall physical infrastructure at both schools is quite comparable."</p>
<p>By resources, I didn't mean endowment, of which little is used each year. Cal's organization--both physical and educational--is designed to accommodate more students. More dorms, more classes, more teachers, etc.</p>
<p>The size of the business schools or law schools has nothing to do with quality, and business/law are just two examples--but overall quality? Cal has 300 degree programs; Harvard, 160 or so. Cal offers 7,000 courses; Harvard, almost 4,500. Also, as far as graduate schools, Cal has 35 of its grad programs in the top 10; Harvard, 26. Cal has 32 distinguished programs; Harvard, 25. But I still wouldn't say that either is better than the other, overall. Both are excellent in their own ways. (Also these are rankings from NRC, which still isn't the best for ranking but handles it better than US News.)</p>
<p>"The point is that merely reducing the undergrad student body of Cal would not, by itself, make it 'seem' like another Harvard."</p>
<p>You missed the point of what I was saying. I'm saying, by raising their standards, Cal would obviously get less students (unless it could somehow garner enough to get the number of students today yet still raise the standards). The reduction of the student body is simply the result of the rising standards, which would make Cal very difficult to get into, and the more difficult a school is to get into, the higher its prestige is (a fallacious correlation, but one that has imbued itself into our culture--as evidenced by Harvard's seemingly "flawless" reputation).</p>
<p>"Yet I highly doubt that anybody would contend that HBS or HLS are not prestigious."</p>
<p>I highly doubt that anyone would contend that Haas or Boalt are not prestigious, either. Compare the NRC numbers for political science:</p>
<p>1 Harvard 4.88
2 Cal Berkeley 4.66</p>
<p>Now really, is there a big difference? Come on.</p>
<p>"I would hardly doubt that anybody would seriously compare Michigan to Harvard for undergrad. I think even our esteemed poster Alexandre, a Michigan superfan, wouldn't say that undergrad at Harvard and Michigan are truly comparable."</p>
<p>I would. UMich is an excellent school. The thing is: our culture leads one to believe that Harvard is simply better than them all. I disagree.</p>
<p>By the way, when i (and i think most people here) use the word "comparable" they don't mean "equal." Comparable means able to compare, as we are all doing with Berkeley and Harvard right now. ;)</p>
<p>Well, when comparing number of high performing kids based on, say, SAT, it looks like Michigan has more high performing kids than Harvard. </p>
<p>Michigan has 6320 students with M & V scores over 1420, while Harvard has but 4987. Of course, Michigan has over 25,000 total students, but in absolute numbers one finds more high performers at Michigan. Now, if one, probably correctly, assumes that the higher performing kids take the more demanding classes, then the classroom peer groups are basically the same, and I doubt the professors these kids get at Michigan are any less accomplished.</p>
<p>haha. Yeah...I mean, Harvard students are much better than Michigans. The top 10% of Mich students are prolly around the middle 50% of Harvards though - all the elite schools have lots of kids who are alumni offspring, rich connects, etc. that lower the quality of the bottom half of the class but help the curves in classes.</p>
<p>Those 6320 students at Michigan are already higher performers than 25% of Harvard's students, and my guess is the distribution would show them to be about the same in score and performance as the remaining 75%.</p>
<p>Deciding where a school like Harvard ranks based on a survey of student satisfaction is as flawed as any other assessment, because the students at each school will have different standards for measuring the quality of their education. Harvard students expect to get the very best of everything, so if they find a small flaw then they may be more upset than a student at a lower-ranked school who discovers the same problem but isn't surprised- and that's just one example of a reason why the numbers could be skewed.</p>
<p>I think it's entirely possible that there are lots of better schools for undergraduate education then Harvard, but you can't conclude that based on the COFHE survey.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By resources, I didn't mean endowment, of which little is used each year. Cal's organization--both physical and educational--is designed to accommodate more students. More dorms, more classes, more teachers, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt it. Let's take it step by step.</p>
<p>*Dorms: </p>
<p>Harvard guarantees housing to undergrads for all 4 years. Berkeley only does it for 2. Furthermore, Harvard has extensive housing available to graduate students, whereas Berkeley offers very little housing to graduate students. Harvard Business School, for example, has its own dorms. The Haas School doesn't. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I've seen the undergraduate housing at Harvard and at Berkeley, and the comparison is like night and day. Heck, some of the Harvard undergraduate houses are so nice that some graduate students have said that they would like to live there. </p>
<ul>
<li>Teachers </li>
</ul>
<p>To be fair, I am not going to count medical faculty. Harvard has about 2500 non-medical faculty. Berkeley has 2000. Hence, Harvard actually has MORE teachers. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.news.harvard.edu/glance/%5B/url%5D">http://www.news.harvard.edu/glance/</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley</a></p>
<p>*Classes</p>
<p>I think this is a highly debateable point. After all, I don't think it really matters how many 'classes' you have, but rather how accessible the classes are to you. For example, at both schools, plenty of graduate courses are not accessible to undergrads. A Berkeley undergrad is not free to take law classes at the Boalt Law School whenever he wants, just like a Harvard undergrad is not free to take any classes he wants at HLS. Furthermore, Berkeley has a problem with undergraduate major impaction, in which undergrads are not completely free to major in anything they want. Harvard doesn't have this problem. Just because you want to major in, say, economics at Berkeley doesn't mean that you will be allowed to, as economics is an impacted major, which means that you have to do well in the lower-division prereqs and then apply to the major, with no guarantee that you will get it. Hence, some people come to Berkeley hoping to major in something, and then find out only years later that they will not be allowed to do so. In contrast, if you're a Harvard undergrad who wants to concentrate in economics, you just do it. There is no extra application procedure. Furthermore, there are very very few Harvard undergrad classes that are filled to capacity to the point where they actually have to turn away students. But Berkeley has classes like that. Who cares if your school has lots of classes if you can't get into the class that you want? A class that you can't get into is no different than not having the class at all. </p>
<p>Then we can look at things like physical plant. I believe that Harvard actually has MORE buildings, and MORE physical facilities than Berkeley does. Harvard's library system is bigger. As you can see from my links in my old post, Harvard has a larger annual capital budget, which means that either Harvard is stupidly throwing money away, or that Harvard is building and maintaining more infrastructure. I strongly suspect it is the latter. </p>
<p>The point is, it's not clear to me in the least that Berkeley has 'more' resources. It actually seems to me that Berkeley has LESS resources, but just tries to squeeze more people into it. It's like Berkeley is a 737 that has every single seat full, whereas Harvard is actually a 747, but has lots of empty seats. Which is going to be a more comfortable flight? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The size of the business schools or law schools has nothing to do with quality, and business/law are just two examples--but overall quality? Cal has 300 degree programs; Harvard, 160 or so. Cal offers 7,000 courses; Harvard, almost 4,500. Also, as far as graduate schools, Cal has 35 of its grad programs in the top 10; Harvard, 26. Cal has 32 distinguished programs; Harvard, 25. But I still wouldn't say that either is better than the other, overall. Both are excellent in their own ways. (Also these are rankings from NRC, which still isn't the best for ranking but handles it better than US News.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, you gravely missed my point. Business and law are just two examples that illustrate that you can have programs that are large and also highly prestigious. HBS and HLS manage to do this masterfully - they are the largest such programs in the world and are also among the most prestigious. So that begs the question, if Harvard can do that with its graduate programs, why can't Berkeley do that with its undergrad program? If HBS can run the largest MBA program in the world, and have it be ranked #1, why is it so impossible for Berkeley to run a large undergrad program and have it be ranked #1 too? After all, the ratio of the size of HBS to Haas is comparable to the ratio of the Berkeley undergrad program to Harvard's undergrad program.</p>
<p>As far as Cal having '35' top-rated grad programs, and Harvard having 'only' 26, I see that you are quoting from the NRC. The problem with the NRC is all in how you define a 'program'.</p>
<p>Let me illustrate. Here are the NRC rankings. </p>
<p>Now, tell me. Why is it that biological sciences consists of 7 separate 'programs'? I could easily separate chemistry into a number of discrete programs too. I could do the same for physics, math, economics, English, and any other discipline. For example, just like how bio is separated into cell development, biochemistry, ecology, etc., I could just as easily separate chemistry into OChem, PChem, Inorganic chem, etc. Why not? </p>
<p>Furthermore, plenty of other disciplines aren't even counted. For example, where are the doctoral programs in business? Business is an academic discipline in which people get doctorates. Harvard runs some of the most extensive doctoral business programs in the world, separated into business economics, strategy, technology & operations management, marketing, and so forth. Yet none of them are counted by the NRC. Why not? The same is true of public policy. The Harvard Kennedy School runs a number of policy PhD programs. None of them are counted in the NRC. Why not?</p>
<p>I would argue that more people get doctorates in business or in policy than they do in, say, geography. Yet the NRC decided to count geography PhD programs, and didnt' count the other ones.</p>
<p>That I see is the most serious issue with the NRC - it never actually defines what a 'program' is. I don't understand why biology is broken into a number of discrete categories, but other subjects are not. Furthermore, I don't understand why some programs are included and others are not. </p>
<p>But the major issue is this. I have never disputed that Berkeley's PhD programs are very good. But that's not the issue that I am talking about here. I am talking about UNDERGRAD here, because by context, that is what I think this thread is about and is what most people here are talking about. After all, some people here have talked about the LAC's. Obviously the LAC's can't compete at the Phd level because they mostly don't even have PhD programs (except for some misclassifed LAC's like Bryn Mawr). </p>
<p>
[quote]
You missed the point of what I was saying. I'm saying, by raising their standards, Cal would obviously get less students (unless it could somehow garner enough to get the number of students today yet still raise the standards). The reduction of the student body is simply the result of the rising standards, which would make Cal very difficult to get into, and the more difficult a school is to get into, the higher its prestige is (a fallacious correlation, but one that has imbued itself into our culture--as evidenced by Harvard's seemingly "flawless" reputation).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I got your point. You missed what I am saying - which is that reducing the student body is not guaranteed to raise your student quality to approach the level of your competitor. After all, like I said, the Haas School has a very 'reduced' MBA student body, but the truth is, that student body still doesn't compare to the student body at HBS or Stanford GSB. </p>
<p>The REAL issue is not just about admitting less students. It is also about convincing those students that you do admit to actually come - in other words, about raising the yield with the top students. Hence, Berkeley has a twofold problem. Berkeley admits a lot of so-so students who matriculate because they can't get into anywhere else better. But at the same thing, Berkeley admits some top students who also tend to get into other schools (i.e HYPSM) and who then tend to matriculate at the latter. Reducing the number of admits only deals with the first problem. You still have the problem of the superstars who get into both Berkeley and Harvard and who tend to prefer Harvard.</p>
<p>Now, dont' get me wrong. Berkeley is far from alone on this matter. Berkeley loses the cross-admit battle to Harvard just like every school does. For example, cross-admits to MIT and Harvard tend to choose Harvard, cross-admits to Yale and Harvard tend to choose Harvard, etc. All of these schools have a two-fold problem with respect to Harvard. #1, they all admit some students who don't get into Harvard, and these students then matriculate because they didn't get into anywhere else better. Sure, a school like Yale could reduce its admissions to eliminate some of these students. But Yale would still have the same problem of those students who get admitted into both schools will tend to choose Harvard. By reducing the number of admits, Yale would have done nothing to solve THAT problem. And that ultimately, is the real problem that Berkeley (and every other school) has with Harvard - that, like it or not, Harvard has that magnetic pull that tends to draw the very best high school seniors in the world that other schools can't overcome. </p>
<p>So let's be perfectly honest. Even if Berkeley were to reduce the number of admit letters it sends out, Berkeley would still have the problem that the (fewer) people it now admits will still tend to prefer Harvard. </p>
<p>Look at it this way. Harvard actually has a rather large-sized undergrad student body, compared to most of its peers. Harvard has about 6000 undergrads. MIT, Yale, and Princeton have about 4-5k. Caltech has less than 1000. Even if Berkeley were to reduce its student body to that of Caltech or even Yale, it would STILL not be as prestigious as Harvard for undergrad. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I highly doubt that anyone would contend that Haas or Boalt are not prestigious, either. Compare the NRC numbers for political science:</p>
<p>1 Harvard 4.88
2 Cal Berkeley 4.66</p>
<p>Now really, is there a big difference? Come on.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, nobody is disputing that Berkeley is great for your PhD. I have always said that Berkeley is a great place to get your PhD. Heck, I know people who have turned down Harvard for Berkeley to get their PhD. </p>
<p>But just because someplace is great to get your PhD at does not necessarily mean that it's great for undergrad. PhD education and undergrad education are two entirely different things. Most people are not going to get a PhD. Like it or not, for undergrad, Harvard and Berkeley are not comparable. For PhD, they probably are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, when comparing number of high performing kids based on, say, SAT, it looks like Michigan has more high performing kids than Harvard. </p>
<p>Michigan has 6320 students with M & V scores over 1420, while Harvard has but 4987. Of course, Michigan has over 25,000 total students, but in absolute numbers one finds more high performers at Michigan. Now, if one, probably correctly, assumes that the higher performing kids take the more demanding classes, then the classroom peer groups are basically the same, and I doubt the professors these kids get at Michigan are any less accomplished.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought about that before. But then you have to ask - why is it that a place like Harvard can generate far more international scholarship winners (i.e. Rhodes Scholarship, Marshall Scholarship, etc.) than Michigan can? I'm not talking about on a per-capita basis, I am talking about an * absolute * basis. The last Rhodes Scholar that Michigan produced was in 2004 (Joseph Jewell). Yet he wasn't even a Michigan undergrad. He's a Michigan grad student who did his undergrad at Caltech. Yet allright fine, let's count him. In the current academic year, Harvard won 7 Rhodes Scholarships. That's right, 7. </p>
<p>So just think about it. If Michigan really does have a larger absolute number of top students than does Harvard, then Michigan ought to be winning a greater absolute number of the top academic awards, right? That's logical. But it's not happening. </p>
<p>While this is speculation, it seems to me that Michigan just doesn't support its students as well as Harvard does when it comes to these competitions. While I am can't speak authoritatively about Michigan, I can tell you that at Berkeley, you get very little support if you want to win something like the Rhodes. You have to be the one to get all of your rec letters, you have to do miost of the prep work yourself, you have to prepare the package by yourself. Whereas at a school like Harvard, you have an entire team of staffers and consultants available to help you put together the best package possible. You also have a vibrant community of former winners who are available to provide advice. It's therefore not a surprise to me that Berkeley hasn't won a Rhodes since 2002-2003, and before that, not until 1989. I know some Berkeley students who were superstars who perhaps could have won the Rhodes (or some other major scholarship) if they had gotten the administrative support that Harvard gives to its nominees. </p>
<p>But what that means is that that's just another reason to prefer Harvard to Berkeley (or Michigan), because, rationally speaking, you want to go to the school that will give you the most support.</p>
<p>Wow this topic got way off board with all of this back and for th between Cal and Harvard I'll say this though, the best colleges are the best because people believe they are the best, period.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There may be, but in "comparative quality", do you know which is which? (We know that H., for example is somewhere below #27.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, what are you referring to? Compared to who? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess what has always perplexed me is this idea that somehow a school can be "better" than another. In high school it makes sense to the point where you have schools where people don't graduate, gang violence, and stuff like that, but that stuff doesn't happen at all for any of the top fifty, or top one hundred universities. What exactly about a lecture hall at Harvard University is better than a lecture hall across the river at BU? Is it the professors who aren't teaching the class? Is it the "intelligence" of the students (as measured by the impecibly accurate SATs of course!)?</p>
<p>I really strongly feel that if you really want to get the best education possible, you can do it at whatever school you think fits you best.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, nobody is denying that fit is important. </p>
<p>But let's get back to your first paragraph. There are indeed schools in the top 100 in which graduation rates are rather appallingly low. For example, schools like Minnesota, which I think are clearly within the top 100, graduate only about 56% of their students in 6 years. That's a pretty darn low 6-year graduation rate. </p>
<p>The main issue that I see is sociological. Human beings are social creatures, and they tend to copy what they see around them . When you go to a school where many of the students are not highly motivated, who would rather spend all of their time drinking and partying, then you will tend to not be motivated either. Granted, every school has some students who are unmotivated, but the issue is the fraction of them. The greater fraction of surrounding students who are unmotivated, the greater chance that you will tend to become unmotivated. For example, you have a lesser likelihood of taking up smoking if only one of your friends smokes, as opposed to if most of your friends and most of your family smokes. </p>
<p>The other issue is that of market signalling. Like it or not, your college alma mater is a brand name, and they serve the economic function of any other brand name in terms of reducing information uncertainty. Employers know that Harvard graduates a higher average level of student than does the #100 ranked school. Now, you might be the very best student at that #100 ranked school, in fact, maybe better than anybody coming out of Harvard. But how would employers know that? In order to deduce that, they would have to read over your resume, then perhaps interview you and wait for you to give them official transcripts (to make sure that you weren't lying about your qualifications). These are what economists would call 'search costs' - in that employers have to spend resources in verifying that you are as good as you say you are. From an economic standpoint, it is rational for an employer to dispense with those search costs by just hiring only from Harvard(or at least to optimize the benefit of searching by equating marginal costs to marginal benefits). It is therefore also economically rational for people to want to go to these schools.</p>
<p>Berkeley's 4 year graduation rate is 53%?</p>
<p>that's appalling.</p>
<p>Under federal law, schools must report a 6-year graduation rate for 4-year programs, a 7.5 year graduation rate for 5-year programs (usually co-op/internship programs), a 3-year graduation rate for associates. This is what US News reports so you can compare apples with apples. Many students require more than 4 years to graduate, especially at schools with engineering.</p>
<p>sakky:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Dorms at Berkeley are fine; grad students in theory could get the housing, but considering that the city of Berkeley has much opportunity for other housing, many simply go for their own place, etc.</p></li>
<li><p>Harvard does indeed have more teachers, but Berkeley is prepared for a higher student-to-faculty ratio. Thus far, I haven't heard a convincing argument of any correlation between the quality of education and the student-to-faculty ratio.</p></li>
<li><p>I don't see why you find impacted majors to be so bad. For one thing, why the hell would you try so hard to get into a competitive university and then be afraid to work hard to get your degree (granted, you'd be working hard at Harvard, too)? Work is the key. Also, I think it's a great sign that Berkeley has impacted majors: because there are so many students, majors can be difficult to get into (but not that difficult, as you seem to think), and thus those students--those 30,000+ students--are sent into the world with a great education (as long as they take advantage of it). Harvard? About 10,000 fewer. I don't see how a university can pride itself on preparing fewer students for the world with an excellent education. As an added note: Washington Monthly ranks universities based on their contribution to society and the world, and the Editors offer: "Sorry, red-staters. By our yardstick, University of California, Berkeley is about the best thing for America we can find." Harvard comes in at #28.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"So that begs the question, if Harvard can do that with its graduate programs, why can't Berkeley do that with its undergrad program?"</p>
<ol>
<li><p>This is assuming that Berkeley's undergrad program is not one of the best. Again, the whole point of this topic is that undergrad programs are too different to be compared, but no matter what, #1 and #31 offer excellent education.</p></li>
<li><p>The NRC rankings cannot be too specific in the fields they consider because not every university offers them.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"Harvard runs some of the most extensive doctoral business programs in the world, separated into business economics, strategy, technology & operations management, marketing, and so forth. Yet none of them are counted by the NRC."</p>
<p>I think it's rather arrogant to say that everyone should follow how Harvard divides business.</p>
<p>"The Harvard Kennedy School runs a number of policy PhD programs. None of them are counted in the NRC."</p>
<p>They <em>are</em> counted, because they are incorporated into the less-specific program "business." Not all universities will offer the same PhD programs as Harvard.</p>
<p>"Yet the NRC decided to count geography PhD programs, and didnt' count the other ones."</p>
<p>Where else would you put geography?</p>
<p>I suggest you look into the NRC rankings; I'm sure you could find plenty of resources explaining what a 'program' is by their standards.</p>
<ol>
<li>You missed my point, again. Forget that I said that the student body would be reduced. Now, if Berkeley were to raise its standards, it would be extremely difficult to get into. And then its prestige would rise, because people consider colleges with low admission rates to be more prestigious (again, fallacious). Eventually, Berkeley would be like another Ivy (in reputation). It wouldn't "lose" students to Harvard, because those who go to, say, Yale or Stanford are just as good as those who go to Harvard. To say they aren't is as elitist as collegehelp was seeming.</li>
</ol>
<p>"Even if Berkeley were to reduce its student body to that of Caltech or even Yale, it would STILL not be as prestigious as Harvard for undergrad. "</p>
<p>Again, it's not so much reduction of the student body as a rise in the difficulty of admission. And it would be extremely prestigious. As prestigious as Harvard? To many, no. Although, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who finds that Harvard is <em>much</em> more prestigious than Yale or Princeton or Stanford. But this is all prestige, which doesn't indicate with precision the quality of a university.</p>
<p>"Like it or not, for undergrad, Harvard and Berkeley are not comparable."</p>
<p>My point precisely. They are both excellent, and are too different to compare. Neither is inferior to the other.</p>
<p>You seem to have a disdain for Berkeley. I think you'd be <em>really</em> hard pressed to find someone who finds that students at Berkeley are "so-so" or that Berkeley is second-rate in any way.</p>
<p>In my opinion, I believe that it all boils down to you, the prospective student. As you all have proven, the ivies can easily be compared to other schools with similar stats, programs, etc. In the end, you need to choose the school that is most convenient for you. If going to Cali for Stanford is easier than Boston for Harvard, then that's what you do. Numbers only speak so much.</p>
<p>^ mhm, I agree.</p>
<p>Added note: Harvard is in Cambridge, which is near Boston. =)</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. Dorms at Berkeley are fine;
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? Perhaps you'd like to come to the Berkeley section of CC and tell the people there that. In particular, I get the feeling that posters like vicissitudes, who actually lives in a Berkeley dorm and dislikes it, would like to know why you think they are 'fine'.</p>
<p>
[quote]
grad students in theory could get the housing, but considering that the city of Berkeley has much opportunity for other housing, many simply go for their own place, etc
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that's not the point. We're not talking about what the infrastructure of the 'greater environment' has. We're talking strictly about what infrastructure * the university * has. </p>
<p>Besides, let me put it to you this way. Berkeley and Cambridge have roughly the same population (both around 100k). Yet Harvard provides more housing to its students. For example, Harvard guarantees 4 years of housing to all undergrads, despite the fact that Cambridge has plenty of outside housing available for rent to undergrads. Berkeley only guarantees 2 years of undergrad housing (and up to a few years ago, only guaranteed 1 year). </p>
<p>
[quote]
2. Harvard does indeed have more teachers, but Berkeley is prepared for a higher student-to-faculty ratio. Thus far, I haven't heard a convincing argument of any correlation between the quality of education and the student-to-faculty ratio.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That doesn't matter. You contended that Berkeley had 'more teachers'. I think we have now established that that is false. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I would like to understand your assertion that Berkeley is "prepared" for a higher student-faculty ratio. If that was so, then you would think that there would be no wait-lists for any undergrad classes, and undergrads would never be denied a seat in the classes that they want. Yet that happens routinely. If Berkeley is so prepared for a higher student-faculty ratio, then why are some Berkeley undergrads unable to get into the classes they want? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't see why you find impacted majors to be so bad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Tell that to the guys who can't get into the major that they want. Yeah, it's easy to say that they "aren't that bad", when you don't have to put up with it yourself. That's like a rich person telling a poor person that poverty "isn't that bad"</p>
<p>
[quote]
For one thing, why the hell would you try so hard to get into a competitive university and then be afraid to work hard to get your degree (granted, you'd be working hard at Harvard, too)? Work is the key.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Work is the key, is it? Perhaps you'd like to tell that to a guy I know who got around a 3.3 GPA in engineering prereqs, which is quite a decent GPA for engineering, and STILL couldn't get into engineering, and so ended up having to major in something he didn't really want. </p>
<p>The most painful part of the process is that he actually WORKED HARDER than a lot of existing engineering students. For example, there are plenty of engineering students who get less than a 3.0, including some who get less than a 2.5. Yet because they are existing engineering students, they were allowed to stay in engineering. Yet this guy, who actually got a HIGHER GPA than they did, was not allowed to enter engineering. That's sad. </p>
<p>
[quote]
and thus those students--those 30,000+ students--are sent into the world with a great education (as long as they take advantage of it). Harvard? About 10,000 fewer. I don't see how a university can pride itself on preparing fewer students for the world with an excellent education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By the same token, one could ask why Berkeley's graduate programs are so small. Why doesn't Berkeley expand those too? After all, Berkeley actually has about HALF of the graduate students that Harvard does. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As an added note: Washington Monthly ranks universities based on their contribution to society and the world, and the Editors offer: "Sorry, red-staters. By our yardstick, University of California, Berkeley is about the best thing for America we can find." Harvard comes in at #28.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let me ask you a simple question. Who do you think wins the undergrad cross-admit battle, Harvard or Berkeley? I think we can all agree that it's the former. So if that's the case, then why are so many people choosing a school that is supposedly is 'the best thing for America'? Are these people being stupid? </p>
<p>
[quote]
4. This is assuming that Berkeley's undergrad program is not one of the best. Again, the whole point of this topic is that undergrad programs are too different to be compared, but no matter what, #1 and #31 offer excellent education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that Berkeley undergrad is one of the best. But the question is, if you have a choice between #1 and #31, why wouldn't you pick the best? </p>
<p>Conversely, look at it this way. If there is no difference in quality, then there is no reason for Berkeley to improve. The Berkeley administrators can just say "Oh, we are #31 (or whatever it is), and that's good enough, so there is no reason to get better". Is that what you want? </p>
<p>If nothing else, these rankings spur schools to continually improve their programs. And that is useful pressure. Otherwise, a lot of school bureaucrats really would choose to sit on their hands and do nothing. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You missed my point, again. Forget that I said that the student body would be reduced. Now, if Berkeley were to raise its standards, it would be extremely difficult to get into. And then its prestige would rise, because people consider colleges with low admission rates to be more prestigious (again, fallacious). Eventually, Berkeley would be like another Ivy (in reputation). It wouldn't "lose" students to Harvard, because those who go to, say, Yale or Stanford are just as good as those who go to Harvard. To say they aren't is as elitist as collegehelp was seeming.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not saying it. THE PEOPLE are saying it, through their revealed preferences. Like it or not, Harvard wins the undergrad cross-admit battle with every school, including Yale and Stanford. Put another way, there are far more people who are at Yale but would rather be going to Harvard (but didn't get in), than vice versa. </p>
<p>Secondly, you never said that Berkeley would be "like" another Ivy. In many cases, I consider Berkeley to be quite comparable to Cornell ,which is an Ivy. </p>
<p>The issue is about whether Berkeley will ever 'compare' to Harvard, at the undergrad level. To this, I would say that this is highly unlikely without major changes. Because, like I said, this is a two-step battle. You have only dealt with the first step, namely cutting out the mediocre admittees. You haven't dealt with step 2, which is to convince the majority of the very top students to come. I believe that Yale actually had a lower admit percentage than Harvard did. But at the end of the day, Harvard is still seen as more prestigious. Like it or not, that is the reality of the situation. And that is not going to change as far as Berkeley goes without a number of reforms. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, it's not so much reduction of the student body as a rise in the difficulty of admission. And it would be extremely prestigious. As prestigious as Harvard? To many, no.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you. That was my point. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Although, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who finds that Harvard is <em>much</em> more prestigious than Yale or Princeton or Stanford. But this is all prestige, which doesn't indicate with precision the quality of a university
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I could. Again, whether we like it or not, Harvard is far and away the biggest brand name in education. Go to a village in some foreign country, and if the people there have heard of any one university (other than a home-country university), it will most likely be Harvard. </p>
<p>To give you an example, my former roommate (a Mexican-American) has relatives in Mexico who have only heard of one American university, and that's Harvard. They have never heard of MIT or Stanford or Yale, and definitely not Berkeley.</p>
<p>Look, I'm not saying that this is 'right'. I'm not defending the situation. I am simply stating the reality of the situation. Like it or not, Harvard is Harvard. That brand name is by far the most powerful brand name in education. I agree that in many ways, the brand name is undeserved. But that doesn't matter. What matters is not how we would like the world to be, what matters is how the world is. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My point precisely. They are both excellent, and are too different to compare. Neither is inferior to the other.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? If that is really true, then why does Berkeley get trounced by Harvard in the cross-admit battle? Are these students who seem to strongly preferentially choose Harvard just being stupid, if there is really no difference? </p>
<p>
[quote]
You seem to have a disdain for Berkeley. I think you'd be <em>really</em> hard pressed to find someone who finds that students at Berkeley are "so-so" or that Berkeley is second-rate in any way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Disdain for Berkeley, eh? Perhaps you'd like to ask me just how I know so much about Berkeley anyway? Hmm, which one of us knows Berkeley better? I wonder.</p>
<p>Besides, it's all relative. I think even most Berkeley studetns would concede that, from a quality standpoint, the average quality of undergrad student at Berkeley is not as good as that at Harvard. Whether you want to call that 'so-so' or 'second-rate' is all just a matter of semantics. However, I think you will get little dispute about who has the higher average quality of student. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Added note: Harvard is in Cambridge, which is near Boston. =)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Another added note. Part of Harvard is indeed in Boston.</p>
<p>Does the chart in the Revealed Preference study say that, of the cross-admits to Berkeley and Cornell, 98% choose Cornell? I am not sure if I am reading the chart correctly. </p>
<p>Cornell is in the top 15 of the Revealed Preference chart but it is the lowest Ivy. So, 8 of the top 15 in Revealed Preference "pecking order" are Ivies. (Same is true in US News. US News is corroborated again.)</p>
<p>Of the non-Ivy schools that are higher than Cornell in the Revealed Preference chart, two are tech schools (Caltech and MIT), one is a religious affiliated school (Notre Dame), and the rest are LACs.</p>
<p>This reaffirms the uniform preeminence of Ivy schools among universities. </p>
<p>The average SATs at Cornell are about 50 points higher than at Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Of the non-Ivy schools that are higher than Cornell in the Revealed Preference chart, two are tech schools (Caltech and MIT), one is a religious affiliated school (Notre Dame), and the rest are LACs.
[/QUOTE]
And what happened to good ol' Stanford (ranked 5th and only beaten by 2 ivies?).</p>