<p>Berkeley and UCLA and UPENN have great names. They're not Harvard or Yale, but they're great names none the less. This IS about insecurity. If you are secure in yourself you'll be confident that you can take your education and apply it in the real world, no matter where you went to college.</p>
<p>Snuggle, </p>
<p>Many Penn students complain bitterly about Penn's name. Just look at all the threads that have popped up about it (especially the "Nittany Lions" jokes.) There's nothing wrong with it, either. If you're paying a ton to go to a school, then you should be able to get the name benefit out of it.</p>
<p>It'd be nice if the name didn't matter, but it really does.</p>
<p>Here's my take on it.</p>
<p>Sansai, you have an interesting idea. However, I don't think it would work well, nor would it ever be implemented. here's why:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The name "Berkeley" itself is commonly used. When people talk about UC Berkeley they generally say "Berkeley." If you tell someone in another country about UC Berkeley they will sometimes say "I didn't know there's a 'UC' in front of it. I thought it was just 'Berkeley.'" Heck, my sweatshirt says "Berkeley" and not "UC Berkeley." Thus, I don't think people will refer to Berkeley any differently if the name were to be changed.</p></li>
<li><p>You wrote:</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If we are talking about simply changing the name, then this will not happen. If we are talking about UC Berkeley breaking apart from the UC system, well...I don't think that will happen for reasons which I will go into in a moment.</p>
<ol>
<li>sakky wrote:</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
Heck, lots of people don't know that Oxford and Cambridge are (technically) public schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While this is true, I'm not sure how much that has to do with the name. 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?</p>
<p>b. 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.</p>
<ol>
<li>I think a University can be prestigious even with a "UC" title. After all, the graduate school at UC Berkeley is one of the best in the nation. No one hesitates to apply there because it's "public," and no one would argue that it's not one of the best graduate schools because it's "public."</li>
</ol>
<p>Another example: UC San Francisco. It is very well known and one of the best medical schools in the program. Its admissions acceptance rate was 4.9% for fall 2005. I bet those 95.1% wouldn't have minded to go there and didn't care that it is public.</p>
<ol>
<li>You wrote: </li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think most people pick Columbia over UCLA simply because it's a better school. I don't think you will find many supporters when you say that academic-wise, they are equal or UCLA is better. Columbia has more endowment (quiet UCLAri), better resources, arguably better networking, etc. As an example: Columbia has at least one library that is open 24 hours a day. At UCLA, the latest any library opens is until 2 a.m. (except finals week)</p>
<ol>
<li>Onto why it would never be implemented anyway. Berkeley is, like it or not, part of the University of California system, which is part of a three-fold master plan of California for higher education (or something like that) that includes the Cal State Universities, and the California Community Colleges. UC Berkeley is named so because it is one campus in the UC system, located in the city of Berkeley. Naming it otherwise while UC San Diego, UC Irvine, UC Davis, etc. remain the same, doesn't really make sense. Thus, in order to change the name of UC Berkeley, I think all the UC campuses should have their name changed. But then, that's not the point of the UC system, and it wouldn't fit in with California's master plan for higher education. Also consider this: many people only apply to UC Riverside or UC Merced because they are UCs. To have THEIR names changed along with Berkeley would be bad for them.</li>
</ol>
<p>I think rather than have the name "UC Berkeley" changed, Berkeley should do other things to improve its undergraduate programs, so that it will attract better students, provide a better education, and the prestige of the name "UC Berkeley" will naturally rise.</p>
<p>Still, it's an interesting idea, and I wonder how much "Berkeley University" would have affected its public perception. It certainly doesn't hurt that Oxford University isn't named "The University of Oxfordshire at Oxford."</p>
<p>vicissitudes,</p>
<p>As wont as I am to argue for UCLA's strengths, I can't help but agree that Columbia's program is (for most things) stronger for undergrad. </p>
<p>People seem to want to ignore the fact that the American university consumer isn't, on average, that stupid. They seem to have a good idea where the quality is, and they go for it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Good point. This entire discussion is fairly ridiculous. Berkeley students should be proud to go to a public school, the best in the nation. </p>
<p>Vicissitudes, your comparison with Oxford and Cambridge doesn't hold up; although those are public universities, they are very, very different from Berkeley or other public universities in the US, not just in areas beside their public/private status, but in the status itself--public meaning different things, especially historically. </p>
<p>Also, the official name is "University of California, Berkeley." This name thing is ridiculous as well because the name "Berkeley" actually carries a great amount of prestige and changing it is just a useless discussion.</p>
<p>I want to add a comment about public v. private, the ivies and school reputations. When judges, attorneys, etc. were polled on their opinion of law schools, "Princeton Law" received very high rankings. Of course, Princeton Law does not exist.</p>
<p>g1a2b3e,</p>
<p>I still don't think it's ridiculous. A college degree is an INVESTMENT. What's so wrong with wanting to maximize your marginal benefits in the long term?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I still don't think it's ridiculous. A college degree is an INVESTMENT. What's so wrong with wanting to maximize your marginal benefits in the long term?
[/quote]
Trying to make Berkeley into a private school is what's ridiculous. Just as others have stated, if people are consumed with that, they should go to a private school. Meanwhile, other students will purposefully go to Berkeley, proud of its public status, receiving a degree that is just as useful as a private one.</p>
<p>The term "CAL" is a nickname of sorts for the University of California, Berkeley. Cal is short of "California"; California is the athletic name for Berkeley. As the first University of California (UC), it used California for its athletic name. Subsequent UC's, like the University of California, Los Angeles, have decided to use their respective abbreviations (e.g. UCLA).</p>
<p>To reference other "University of California"'s, the pratice is to use the prefix "UC" then the location/region of the university. So for example, it would be UC Davis, NOT CAL-Davis. The reason I use "region" is because UC San Diego is located in the city of La Jolla. It experienced a name change decades ago for UC La Jolla to UC San Diego. Also, convention now uses: University of California , Berkeley, not University of California at Berkeley. Those the "at" still lingers in some university publications, the trend is to drop the "at" and use the comma.</p>
<p>Similarly, if you're refering to "California" as the state, CA is the appropriate abbreviation (from the US Post Office) for the state of California.</p>
<p>The University of California system should not be confused with the California State University (CSU) system, and the California Community Colleges (CCC).</p>
<p>Now, what are some possible explanations as why UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD (note the appropriate abbreviations) should not change their names? </p>
<p>The first refers to the Master Plan, developped by Clark Kerr in the 1960s. The Master Plan for Higher Education stated that California would have three systems: UC, CSU, CCC. CCC would take all qualifying students, and funnel students into CSU and UC. CSU would take the top 1/3 of California high school students and would focus on instruction as the primary goal. The CSUs would only confer Bachelor degrees (This was the original intention. Today, some CSUs confer Master degrees and Ph.D's in certain fields). The pride and joy of California, however, would be the UC system. The UC system oriented itself as research institutions that would take the top 1/8th of California high school students. As research institutions, they were the only system of the three that could confer graduate degrees.</p>
<p>I should note that the UC system was not created in the 1960s. The system itself had been established in 1868 with the founding of the University of California, Berkeley. Indeed, the founding of the University of California comes from the stipulations of the California constitution. The state used the Morrill Land Grant Act to create a school for Agricultural, Mining, and Mechanical Arts College in 1866. Around this time, Henry Durant founded the College of California. The Organic Act in 1868 merged these two institutions to found the University of California.</p>
<p>So the change the names of the universities would be running against the very foundation of the University of California. The reason why the "University of Berkeley" does not quite work out is because it neglects the very act of founding the university and the use of the name of the University of California. Think about it: by placing the University of California in front of it, it says something quite important: that this university belongs to Californians, not just Berkeleyans, Angelinos, etc. Far from prestige, the use of "University of California" highlights the very fact that the university system belongs to the people of California. And yes, this does make UC sound very "public." But that is the point of the University of California: a public education, not an exclusive, private education. To simply change the name of, for example, UC Berkeley, just to make it sound "more private" seems quite to the contrary of UC's purpose.</p>
<p>And I would argue that UC education is quite different from the Ivy League colleges. The goal of the UC is to provide an accessible education to those Californians who seek it (specifically those high school students in California who are high achieving). </p>
<p>And yes, there are problems with the University of California. And it does require change, but chaning names doesn't accomplish that.</p>
<p>And you mention administration. Technically, each chancellor (the head of the individual UCs are referred to as "chancellor" not president) does have the flexibility to implement policies on its own. There is great autonomy for the university to do what it needs to do. The entire system is governed by the Regents of the University of California, mandated by the current Constitution of California. The Regents and the Academic Senate work to establish guidelines. Such guidelines included the establishing of Comprehensive Review after the passage of Prop 209. However, Comprehensive Review has been implented differently depending on the university. UC Berkeley takes a "private-school" approach by looking at students in their entire context: geography, essays, scores, etc. However, UCSD takes a very mathematical approach to admissions. This illustrates the great autonomy that each chancellor has over the university. </p>
<p>The administration of the University of California system is done by the President of the UC system (President Dynes has been in the headlines for his practices. Another problem with UC, some say).</p>
<p>Now, to tackle the larger issue of reputation. Each UC enjoys varying degrees of prestige. That being said, however, the University of California is regarded as important to Californians. Despite the constant jokes about UC Riverside, and now UC Merced, graduating from UC means some recognition. Now, it's certainly not a Harvard, but it does say something to Californians when you attend a UC. That's why so many students opt to attend a UC every year: its affordable and provides a decent education; not Ivy League, but decent.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I would argue that UC education is quite different from the Ivy League colleges. The goal of the UC is to provide an accessible education to those Californians who seek it (specifically those high school students in California who are high achieving).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet the UCs seem to care quite a bit about being competitive with the best schools in America. As one of my profs at UCLA asked, "Is this how it should be?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
not Ivy League, but decent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd put Cal or UCLA up against some of the Ivys anyday.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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 those who self-appointed international assessors of reputation and prestige.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Serving California also means making a name known in the rest of the country and the world. Californians benefit California not only by staying in California, but also by going elsewhere and giving California a good name. Plus, a good name is important for attracting the best graduate students from all throughout the US. </p>
<p>Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you.</p>
<p>I should add that I don't intend to have a California-centric view of the world. The University of California certainly should continue producing world class research and maintain a global presence. But it should remember that it's main purpose is for Californians.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Vicissitudes, your comparison with Oxford and Cambridge doesn't hold up; although those are public universities, they are very, very different from Berkeley or other public universities in the US, not just in areas beside their public/private status, but in the status itself--public meaning different things, especially historically.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, I was not the one who initially compared Berkeley with Oxford and Cambridge, and I said that they were different from Berkeley, and that even public schools in other countries are different from public schools in the United States, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, at least from my perspective, to "further improve its image nationally and globally" should 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 those who self-appointed international assessors of reputation and prestige.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>effielguy87: good post. I have to say that I agree and disagree with your last point.</p>
<p>First, I think that the goal of UC should indeed be to improve its image nationally and globally, by improving its education. For example, WUSTL has been notorious for manipulating certain criteria in US News rankings to make itself seem more prestigious, and indeed, its rank has risen considerably in the past decade. However, many people still do not regard it as a top school and see it as "overrated."</p>
<p>However, I think that if and when Berkeley fixes its problems, I wouldn't mind a little marketing myself. Many people have this perception that public schools inherently can't be as good as private schools, and I would like to see this perception change. Right now I have trouble recommending Berkeley over HYPSMC, or even lower Ivies (in most cases), but if Berkeley undergrad gets its act together, I would like to see a rise in its prestige as well. Just because it is mandated to serve California doesn't mean it can't be prestigious.</p>
<p>I've always said that the top two or three UCs could easily tap into the existing capital and make their universities real undergrad powerhouses.</p>
<p>But then there is the politics of it all...</p>
<p>eiffelguy87, congratulations on presenting a wonderfully comprehensive but succinct history of the University of California! And even more importantly, highlighting why the public status of Berkeley and the UC system is so important.
[quote]
Think about it: by placing the University of California in front of it, it says something quite important: that this university belongs to Californians, not just Berkeleyans, Angelinos, etc.
[/quote]
Yes, great point. And this is also an argument for why calling Berkeley, "Cal," is actually a very good thing for all citizens of California. The University belongs to the citizens of California and not the City of Berkeley or its citizens alone. Calling it "Cal" cements its status as California's flagship university.
[quote]
Far from prestige, the use of "University of California" highlights the very fact that the university system belongs to the people of California. And yes, this does make UC sound very "public." But that is the point of the University of California: a public education, not an exclusive, private education. To simply change the name of, for example, UC Berkeley, just to make it sound "more private" seems quite to the contrary of UC's purpose.
[/quote]
I agree wholeheartedly; I'm glad that others understand the greatness of "UC" and aren't caught up in the ridiculous, overrated ivy crap.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because it is mandated to serve California doesn't mean it can't be prestigious.
[/quote]
The point is that the first, most important principle is serving citizens of California. It is, however, in their interest for the school(s) to be prestigious. But what is in their interest first is providing a high quality education to MANY citizens. I think the first way to make Berkeley like the privates is by cutting enrollment, and that would be disastrous to its core principles as a public university. Further, first and foremost, resources should be spent on allowing more students to get a high quality education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the first way to make Berkeley like the privates is by cutting enrollment and that would be disastrous to its core principles.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. It may help develop other UCs further, as people will be in effect forced to attend other campuses. That could actually be a boon for many of the newer campuses.</p>
<p>^ Agreed. Any many of the UCs are way under capacity.</p>
<p>I never said that its top priority should not to be serve Californians and provide a good education for Californians. After all, that's the purpose of the University. But just because it serves many Californians doesn't mean it can't also provide a top undergrad education, and that it can't be prestigious. It doesn't have to cut enrollment or become more like privates to increase its quality of education. I believe it can become better and more prestigioius, and STILL serve the citizens of California.</p>
<p>In many ways, it could be argued that by cutting out the bottom 25th percentile who usually struggle through Cal and UCLA anyway, you're doing them a favor by putting them in universities they're better suited for.</p>
<p>It could have many negative effects. Many California citizens who may have attended Berkeley, a public university, would end up going to private schools, not attending lower UCs. Also, there are already limitations in effect that are built to direct more enrollment to other UCs. With that said, I wouldn't say "many of the UCs are way under capacity."</p>
<p>Yes, some may attend privates, that's true. But if current Californian school choice trends are any indication, Californians are still very apt to go for UCs, even if they don't get into the Cal-LA-SD trifecta.</p>