<p>I mean, some CAL colleges are already very popular and are well established enough to stand on its own. For example, CAL-Berkeley is a globally known university name and won't certainly need the name, "CAL", to boost its presence in the upper notches of the ranking league table of the best universities in the world. Same with UCLA and CAL-San Diego. I also think this would be an opportunity for the other CAL colleges like Irvine and the rest to reestablish their plans and goals so they could compete further. Berkeley and San Francisco can fuse together so that berkeley would have its own medical school. if this happens, i think this would spur growth and add more prestige to all CAL colleges. just my two cents worth.</p>
<p>and I think California should break apart from the United States and go hang out with Hawaii. ****, right? </p>
<p>The UCs and the UCs because they are and not out of practicality.</p>
<p>wow...where to begin...</p>
<p>all the UC's are connected, and now your talking about having the flagship UC school become a private? </p>
<p>The first question that comes to mind is how in the hell Berkeley would be able to fund itself without the state's money? Good bye $7,000 tuition, hello USC-Stanford level tuition of $30K +. </p>
<p>The original University of California school now strays away from its goal of providing higher education to all Californians, regardless of income level, and now many of those kids are left in the dust.</p>
<p>Berkeley alumni, open your checkbooks, because your former school now will heavily rely on your donations (Although this might not be such a bad idea change anyway, it'd be great to have Ivy type money lying around)</p>
<p>It sickens me how often this keeps coming up. People clearly don't understand the UC system, public schools, Berkeley's existence as a public school, etc. They act like the UCs are ivies and that their only concern is prestige; that isn't the case. That's why Berkeley is so much better than the ivies, because of its public mission.</p>
<p>"and I think California should break apart from the United States and go hang out with Hawaii. ****, right?"</p>
<p>LoL yeah, lets form our own country and screw the U.S. economy.</p>
<p>Just to correct your terminology, there is no "Cal Davis" or "Cal Merced." Cal is UC Berkeley, as in THE University of California. When anyone says Cal, they are speaking about Berkeley.</p>
<p>UC thinks of itself as one university with 10 or so different campuses, not 10 or so different universities connected loosely together. UC Berkeley is no more a freestanding university than Haas is a freestanding business school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
all the UC's are connected, and now your talking about having the flagship UC school become a private?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I can't speak for sansai, I don't know if he is necessarily saying that Cal needs to become private. He may simply be advocating that Berkeley just institute a name change to eliminate the "Cal" portion of the name and perhaps to make it seem less of a public school. Just like lots of people don't know that Williams & Mary is a public school, and the name of the school certainly makes it seem like a private school. Heck, lots of people don't know that Oxford and Cambridge are (technically) public schools.</p>
<p>I neither support nor oppose this idea. My point is, we ought to be clear about what exactly sansai is proposing.</p>
<p>Pardon me for confusing some people here. Here are actually what I had in mind when i wrote this. </p>
<p>First of all, I did not mean nor did I imply that the government subsidies will end when the names are changed. I just said, instead of attaching the "California" name to all these colleges, why not detach it instead. Rather than The University of California at Berkeley, which is a very "public" name, why not name it: The University of Berkeley? UCLA - The University of Los Angeles or Los Angeles University, and so on... It's just a brand name... It would still remain a government subsidized but sounds more classy and exclusive. better yet, private. </p>
<p>Second, it would lessen the bureaucracy within the UC administration. I mean, the newly elected president of the U of Berkeley (U of B) can exercise and implement his plans without further approval from the UC (system) president. Thus there would be faster actions, and objectives are met in the shortest time possible. </p>
<p>Third, because the separation would divide the whole UC population in to smaller groups, the students would feel they belong to an "exclusive" school where there are fewer students consuming for a huge resources. </p>
<p>I'm sure the reasons above are just perception but that's what works for most people. </p>
<p>And lastly, Sakky's examples are correct. Both Oxford and Cambridge (oxbridge) in England are State funded universities. The University of London (UL), on the other hand, follows somewhat the same as the UC system -- federal. Resources-wise, I do not think UL (London) is any different from either of the oxbridge. but reputation-wise, it's a different thing altogether. Again, perception plays a big role in it. Again, just my two cents worth.</p>
<p>It amazes me how many people have completely fleshed out ideas for university systems, yet don't bother to get the terminology or naming conventions right.</p>
<p>Just saying.</p>
<p>^ True. </p>
<p>That's the sad part of it, but that's what the reality is. Some people pick Columbia over UCLA becuse it's Columbia, the name itself means something to most HRs and to the general public as well. But academic -wise, I honestly don't think there's any different between the two. and if there's any, UCLA is better.</p>
<p>sansai,</p>
<p>The problem with any of the name arguments is that they're usually fed by positive feedback loops (or if you want to be a little more dour, vicious circles.) Universities earn a good name, which makes good students go there. Good students graduate from the university, and improve the name. Repeat ad infinum (nauseum?) </p>
<p>It's not like name brands come out of thin air. But it's also not like they're completely stainless, either. Look at the decline of certain corporate brand names as a potential proxy.</p>
<p>^ I'm not sure what your point really is, but it's clear you lack some reasons why some universities earn a good name. The tradition of academic excellence is one thing, but like any world-class university there is, budget plays a big role for it to continually dominate in the academic world. In UC's case, I believe this is rather the case, though I'm not 100% sure about it. Both CAL-Berkeley and UCLA are world-renowned unis, but what about the other UC colleges? Do they enjoy the same reputation? </p>
<p>I believe we're only limiting our discussion to the changing of names of these UC colleges to further improve its image nationally and globally. This idea only came out after reading comments from those Ivy League aspirants why they think the UC does not appeal to them despite the fact that they are fully aware that the UC education is not any different from those offered from the ivies.</p>
<p>So, if you think changing names wouldn't work, then what is? I'm free to listen.</p>
<p>sansai,</p>
<p>How do I "lack some reasons why some universities earn a good name?" All I argued was that good names are self-perpetuating.</p>
<p>The names having nothing to do with it, really. UC San Francisco is a UC, yet few would argue that it is amongst the elite for medical school (and its admitted class numbers and caliber of faculty reflect that.) A silly name change for Cal or UCLA would likely lead to a loss of good will if you ask me. What the UCs, if they seek to become even better, need to do is improve their programs. It's that simple. </p>
<p>And yes, funding matters a great deal. Look at the top universities and then look at endowments. It's not really a shock that the best universities are usually the best endowed (both per capita and in total.) Oh, and get your head out of the gutter, you pervs. You know what I mean.</p>
<p>As for why the other UCs haven't earned the reps of UCLA and Cal, I suspect time plays a part. Many of them are simply too young to really be accepted amongst the "upper echelon" of universities. </p>
<p>Finally, why do people choose Ivies? I suspect in part for resources. I suspect in part for the strength of the student body. I suspect in part for the history.</p>
<p>UCALri,</p>
<p>OK, it was a genuine explanation though you need not have to insult someone when you express something. For someone who claimed he has gone to UC, you could have been more moderate with others, or better yet, more civil and more professional. You appear to have proven other people here that those products of public schools do not put a premium on courtesy and professionalism. I hope Im wrong. Thank you for your contribution anyway. Somehow, you have a very strong point re: the topic.</p>
<p>sansai,</p>
<p>When did I insult anyone in my post? My "pervs" comment? That's because "endowment" is a double entendre.</p>
<p>How about this, OP, if you feel like the only way to impress people is to go to a private school (or one that sounds private?), then actually GO to a private school (or one that sounds private).</p>
<p>I thought about it a bit, and I realized that he does have a bit of a point. Look at Penn's students' complaints that the "public sounding" nature of the name oftentimes seems to lead to image issues for the university.</p>
<p>None of this has to do with the quality of a school. If you're so insecure about yourself that you need your school to be seen as being private and elite, then the school that you attend is the least of your worries.</p>
<p>SnuggleMonster,</p>
<p>I don't think it really has to do with insecurity, it has to do with quality of investment. Name DOES matter in the real world, and since college is a high-priced investment, you should get the most out of the name.</p>