<p>
[quote]
I suspect that their prestige stems from a few other factors:</p>
<p>a. They are the oldest Universities in England. Heck, Oxford is the oldest University in the English-speaking world. That's a major factor in why they are the best and most well-known Universities in England. Just look at America's most prestigious university: Harvard. Is it a coincidence that it's also the oldest?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's a factor, but not as strong as some people make it out to be. For example, some of the schools with the best brand-names in the world - notably Stanford and MIT - are among the youngest universities in the world. Both of these schools have more prestige than many other schools that are far older. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Oxford and Cambridge and often ranked closely with Harvard, Yale, and are seen in a similar light, and we all know that Harvard, Yale, and other top schools in the U.S. are private. Is it a wonder that people think that Oxford and Cambridge are also private? Public schools (mostly undergrad) in America have gained a sort of stigma in that many people simply have this attitude that they are naturally not as good as private schools. Many people don't realize that in other countries, it's the public colleges that often fare better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, well, this cuts both ways. For example, a lot of foreigners don't understand the distinction between US public and private schools and are shocked to discover the kinds of tuitions that Americans have to pay to attend college, whether public or private. For example, I strongly remember one English guy I met who told me that what Oxford and Cambridge were charging British students was far less than what Berkeley was charging California state residents. While fees have recently increased at Oxbridge, the fact is, it's still almost certainly cheaper for Brits to attend Oxbridge than it is for California state residents to attend UC. For example, Oxbridge tuition is 3000 pounds per year (about $5600 US dollars) vs. $7432 for Berkeley for a year (2 semesters). Living costs at Oxbridge for one year for room, board, and living costs is about 5700 pounds (about $10,700) vs.
about $16,000 at Berkeley. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/finance/financeguide.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/finance/financeguide.pdf</a>
<a href="http://registrar.berkeley.edu/Registration/feesched.html%5B/url%5D">http://registrar.berkeley.edu/Registration/feesched.html</a>
<a href="http://www.xe.com/ucc/%5B/url%5D">http://www.xe.com/ucc/</a></p>
<p>More importantly, you don't have to pay any tuition to Oxbridge until you graduate and are earning more than 15k pounds (about $28k). This constrasts sharply with the US system in which you have to start paying back your student loans as soon as you are out of school, whether you have a job or not, and even whether you graduated or not. For example, I know plenty of people who didn't graduate, and nonetheless are still stuck with huge school loans to cover their tuition that they are now stuck having to pay off. At Oxbridge, if you don't graduate, you don't have to pay any tuition (although I'm fairly sure you still have to pay back any debt racked up for living costs). </p>
<p>But then again, a lot of the US university system completely mystifies foreigners. For example, it is very hard to explain to a foreigner that an American can get admitted to a US university just because he's a good football or basketball player. For example, I remember watching the movie Forrest Gump with a bunch of foreigners and then having to explain how Forrest Gump, who was stupid and a poor student, could nevertheless get admitted to the University of Alabama just because he could run fast with a football, and that, yes, that sort of thing is not purely fictional but that it really can and does happen in the US. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And, at least from my perspective, to "further improve its image nationally and globally" should not be the goal of UC. The goal should to improve higher education here in California, to provide resources to its students, to provide faculty resources. This is easier said than done. But that should be the priority of UC, not to play marketing and make-over with its image in the US and the world. It's goal is to serve California, not self-appointed international assessors of reputation and prestige.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
But it should remember that it's main purpose is for Californians.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, serving, as you put it, 'self-appointed international assessors of reputation and prestige' is precisely what Berkeley does now, particularly as it has to do with its PhD programs, which are Berkeley's crown jewels. Let's face it. The lion's share of Berkeley's resources go to its PhD programs. Each of its PhD programs vie to be among the very best in the world, and many of them are in fact among the best of the world. Yet its PhD programs clearly cannot be said to be 'serving Californians'. Only a small fraction of Berkeley's PhD students are truly California state residents (meaning that they held state residency BEFORE they got admitted to the PhD program, not those students who come from outside California and become state residents while they are completing their PhD). The Berkeley PhD programs certainly give no preference and no quotas to state residents. At least, not anything that I am aware of. I've never heard of a Berkeley PhD program setting aside some of its admissions slots for Californians, or anybody saying "Well, we really want to admit this highly promising PhD student, but because he's not from California, we have to reject him". </p>
<p>So you say that the purpose of UC is to serve Californians and so forth rather than trying to improve its image to the world. Yet here are all these Berkeley PhD programs who are not really serving Californians at all, but are instead trying to buff their image to the world. For example, every Berkeley PhD program is highly interested in improving its academic ranking and prestige. Every Berkeley department that I know is interested in producing ground-breaking research that the world academic community respects, and in bringing in the top PhD students to become the world's future great scholars. I never hear of any Berkeley PhD departments talking about the need to serve California. </p>
<p>So on the one hand, you say that UC ought to be serving California. On the other hand, Berkeley devotes all these academic resources to its PhD programs, of which most of the benefits do not go to Californians. What's up with that? You say that UC should not be trying to impress self-appointed international assessors of reputation and prestige. Yet all of the Berkeley PhD programs are trying to impress the world academic community, which basically consists of self-appointed international assessors of reputation and prestige. What's up with that?</p>
<p>Look, if what you are saying is correct, then what Berkeley should be doing is devoting fewer resources to its PhD programs in order to devote more resources to its California undergrads. Either that, or the PhD programs should be forced to admit a large percentage of California doctoral students every year, and if that means turning down highly qualified OOS students or foreign nationals for less qualified Californians, then so be it. I personally would oppose either of these moves because I know that either one of them would gravely hurt Berkeley's strong PhD programs, which are Berkeley's strongest suits. But if you really believe that the purpose of Berkeley is to serve Californians, then I think you have little choice but to conclude that what the PhD programs are doing does not serve Californians and therefore is wrong.</p>
<p>In fact, this discussion mirrors one I had with kryptic (who no longer posts). I disagreed with kryptic, but I respected his consistency. He was willing to say that he thought the Berkeley graduate programs were wrong and that they ought to be reserving most of their spaces for Californians, even if there were better OOS or foreign nationals who were applying. He also said that he was disappointed in how selective the Berkeley graduate programs were and that they should be vastly increasing the number of students they admitted, even (and especially) if that meant that a lot of less qualified Californians would be admitted. I passionately disagree with this notion, because I think that would result in a horrendous decline in the quality of Berkeley's graduate programs, but at least I respect the consistency of his position.</p>