<p>
[quote]
I believe it can become better and more prestigioius, and STILL serve the citizens of California.
[/quote]
I agree with that. The difference is how that is achieved. Also, Berkeley already has quite a bit of prestige. Perhaps the focus should be on increasing the prestige of the other UCs before Berkeley's.</p>
<p>gabe,</p>
<p>Though I'm sure you'll disagree, I think that UCLA has few worries when it comes to prestige. </p>
<p>It's UCSD I feel deserves the biggest boost in name brand, anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Though I'm sure you'll disagree, I think that UCLA has few worries when it comes to prestige.</p>
<p>It's UCSD I feel deserves the biggest boost in name brand, anyway.
[/quote]
No, I agree. UCLA and Berkeley are fine. UCSD, however, doesn't deserve the biggest boost, in my view, because it is already overrated.</p>
<p>gabe,</p>
<p>How so? Great research, more award winning profs than even UCLA, many top 10 programs, and an almost-as-strong student body doesn't sound overrated to me.</p>
<p>Have you visited UCSD, Ari? Have you engaged in its student environment? UCSD has been around for a short time, is too narrowly focused and has done a great PR job making it seem like it is way better than it is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with that. The difference is how that is achieved. Also, Berkeley already has quite a bit of prestige. Perhaps the focus should be on increasing the prestige of the other UCs before Berkeley's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you read around on the boards, there have been numerous suggestions as to how Berkeley undergrad can be improved.</p>
<p>It's true that it has quite a bit of prestige, but that's only in the public's perception. Among prospective students it's often seen as "second-rate" compared to the elite privates such as HYPSM, and I would like to see this change. I don't want the people at Berkeley to say "hey we're the best public school in the nation, that's good enough" which is what I get sometimes. I want to see them aggressively and continously endeavor to improve its undergrad.</p>
<p>Obviously, personally I tend to care about Berkeley more than other UC campuses for personal ties.</p>
<p>I agree that the other UCs should also try to improve their prestige, but I think they are already doing so. UCLA has become more prestigious in the past ten years or so to rival Berkeley. UCI has announced plans to improve status and aspire to become a flagship UC campus. UC Merced is rapidly constructing to catch up to the other UCs. What I see is that other UCs are agressively trying to improve and catch up to Berkeley, while Berkeley tends to piggyback off of its history and its prestige rather than improving its school. (don't get me wrong, it has been improving, such as guaranteed 2 year housing; I just think it can improve more)</p>
<p>Besides, as the flagship campus, if Berkeley improves its status then that makes the entire UC system seem more prestigious, and sets the benchmark higher for the other UCs.</p>
<p>I don't think UCSD is overrated or underrated. I think it's recognized by many that it is very strong in the sciences, especially the biological sciences, and I think it's a well-known fact that its bioengineering program is top.</p>
<p>Also, I think it's well recognized that overall UCSD is not as good as UCLA or Berkeley, and its student body is a little weaker in general. I think it's right where it should be: 1/2 or one tier below UCLA and Berkeley.</p>
<p>When you look at Berkeley or UCLA, do you have to say it is good for one particular discipline? What about the ivies? No, those schools are known for all-around academic quality. UCSD is overrated, illustrated by how everyone has to focus on a narrow part of the school in making it look better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's true that it has quite a bit of prestige, but that's only in the public's perception. Among prospective students it's often seen as "second-rate" compared to the elite privates such as HYPSM, and I would like to see this change. I don't want the people at Berkeley to say "hey we're the best public school in the nation, that's good enough" which is what I get sometimes. I want to see them aggressively and continously endeavor to improve its undergrad.
[/quote]
Berkeley being the best public school in the nation isn't saying it isn't the best university in the nation or that privates are all better. It's a proud statement about being the best within its division, a division that every student who takes part in should be extremely proud of: the BEST division.</p>
<p>You have an a priori thought of publics being worse than privates; it's clear from your approach to that statement. Others who view Berkeley as the best public university in THAT LIGHT have a similar false preconception. And in that way, as others have pointed out, there is no solution. You and the others will always view Berkeley as less than the privates simply because it is public.</p>
<p>This is what it comes down to: the very things that make Berkeley a public school, its very makeup, are the things that some people are saying should change so that it can "gain more prestige." They essentially want Berkeley to be a private because they cannot get over their false preconception that privates, particularly the ivies, are better than public schools or more prestigious.</p>
<p>Just look at the term you used to describe them: "elites." Making Berkeley "elite" implies that Berkeley would indeed cut off access from many, a complete oxymoron to an American public school.</p>
<p>gabe,</p>
<p>UCSD has plenty of top departments outside of the sciences:</p>
<p>Econ, poli sci, IR, anthro are all top ten.</p>
<p>I don't think it's a "narrow" program they're running there. Add in the top med school, and you have a strong school. What it lacks is sports, but then again, so does Chicago and nobody argues Chicago's strength.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They essentially want Berkeley to be a private because they cannot get over their false preconception that privates, particularly the ivies, are better than public schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think there is a fair number of people who see privatization as a road toward efficiency for the university. I had a number of profs say that they'd prefer further privatization or centralization of control, if only to escape the Sacramento influence.</p>
<p>Indeed. Despite many criticisms of the university on this board by various users, UC Berkeley is still the best public university out there. Go bears!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with that. The difference is how that is achieved. Also, Berkeley already has quite a bit of prestige. Perhaps the focus should be on increasing the prestige of the other UCs before Berkeley's.
[/quote]
The UC system as a whole would do well to constantly attempt to improve.</p>
<p>However, each UC is somewhat independent of the others. Improving one doesn't preclude improving others.
My question is, why do students have to go to an Ivy to get the benefits of the name? Now, you might start saying public universities aren't meant to... but wait.</p>
<p>Public universities are suppose to allow opportunities to the citizens of the state. I personally think that it is good to offer opportunities, when as a university system you can, that normally are only attainable to those who are very well off financially. If your state institution is in a position to allow it to rival those out of state institutions, those out of state private schools, with relatively few changes... why not?</p>
<p>The UC system serves Californians. UC Berkeley and UCLA can do so best by accommodating the best California students, and preventing a brain drain from the state as many of the best believe that in order to get a similar education they must go elsewhere.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley being the best public school in the nation isn't saying it isn't the best university in the nation or that privates are all better. It's a proud statement about being the best within its division, a division that every student who takes part in should be extremely proud of: the BEST division.
[/quote]
Of course. It is certainly something to be proud of--however, complatency is certain not good.</p>
<p>Also, as said before, the name still means a lot to most college-bound students... and for good reason, given the benefits in the job market (with two otherwise equal candidates, one with a college with a better name).</p>
<p>Why shrink the size of the UCs? As UCLAri or visscitudes said, it'll allow the other UCs to take more students, and educate them with less crowding. Also, it'll add to the name.</p>
<p>Again, why the name!? Why the prestige?</p>
<p>Simple. UC is meant to serve California the best it can. The best way it can serve California, and the only way it can is economically. The best way it can serve California economically, is by rivaling the best institutions in the nation and the world in both academics and prestige--because this way, California retains the best of its students and prevents a brain drain.</p>
<p>As one of the tech centers of the world, the most important asset to CA is its intellectual base.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You have an a priori thought of publics being worse than privates; it's clear from your approach to that statement. Others who view Berkeley as the best public university in THAT LIGHT have a similar false preconception. And in that way, as others have pointed out, there is no solution. You and the others will always view Berkeley as less than the privates simply because it is public.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I believe that the current top public Universities in America are not as good as the top private Universities in America. I do not believe that public schools are inherently worse than private schools, which some people believe, and in fact I stated in my post that I want this perception that "because it's a public school it's worse than a private school" to change. How? By improving Berkeley and showing that a public school can indeed be as good, if not better, than the best private schools out there. I don't just want Berkeley to be the best public university; I want it to be one of the best universities in the nation period.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The UC system serves Californians. UC Berkeley and UCLA can do so best by accommodating the best California students, and preventing a brain drain from the state as many of the best believe that in order to get a similar education they must go elsewhere.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good point. If Berkeley and UCLA can improve to the level of HYPSM (a big if), then many California students (i.e. the top ones) will not have to shell out 40,000 and travel 3,000 miles to get a better/more prestigious education, so the UCs would, in effect, be serving Californians better. I think this is at least a reasonable goal, whether it can be achieved or not.</p>
<p>When we talk about improving, making better, and what makes a university great, you have to define these things. If you want Berkeley to improve, you have to say what those improvements would be, then consider how these would intersect with likely political situations and interests. This is really critical- what makes a university good, or better, great? </p>
<p>Are you guys aware that many UCs are intending to take more and more students over the years? I know this is true of UCR, and heard it's true of others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Good point. If Berkeley and UCLA can improve to the level of HYPSM (a big if), then many California students (i.e. the top ones) will not have to shell out 40,000 and travel 3,000 miles to get a better/more prestigious education, so the UCs would, in effect, be serving Californians better. I think this is at least a reasonable goal, whether it can be achieved or not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let us not forget about financial aid and how it operates, sometimes making it far cheaper for certain students to attend top privates and generous privates over public schools such as the UCs (especially the top UCs which give less merit aid and have more competition for it), especially in certain economic situations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want Berkeley to improve, you have to say what those improvements would be, then consider how these would intersect with likely political situations and interests. This is really critical- what makes a university good, or better, great?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think we have had this type of discussions numerous times on this board, and I didn't want to make my post even longer by repeating them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let us not forget about financial aid and how it operates, sometimes making it far cheaper for certain students to attend top privates and generous privates over public schools such as the UCs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but that's because top privates have so much endowment, something for which Berkeley can't exactly be blamed. I'm talking about those students who are not poor enough to get much aid from the top privates, and were accepted to Berkeley, but choose to shell out 40k anyway for a better/more prestigious education (I know quite a few).</p>
<p>I agree with drab's approach because I still feel like a lot of this boils down to preconceived notions of PRIVATE always being better than PUBLIC. If we find that the "improvements" necessary essentially constitute turning Berkeley into a private school, then argue for privatization. </p>
<p>Do you really want improvements or will Berkeley's public traits always cause it to be seen as a lesser school when compared to some privates?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you really want improvements or will Berkeley's public traits always cause it to be seen as a lesser school when compared to some privates?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think that the whole "public vs. private" debate is really limited to around 4 or 5 publics and about 20 privates. It's not like Cal isn't better than 90% (probably more) of the privates in the US. And it's not like Cal lacks great departments.</p>
<p>What bothers me with the Cal undergraduate situation isn't that it's a university wide gap between Cal and the top privates. It's just the undergrad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLAri </p>
<p>sansai,</p>
<p>When did I insult anyone in my post? My "pervs" comment? That's because "endowment" is a double entendre.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry if I did not understand you right away. My Asian origin must have barred me from understanding your texts completely. Though I was born in California 18 years ago, I was brought to Japan when I was 1 year old until I turned 3. I now live in the Philippines for 3 years now and will soon graduate from International School Manila. Both my parents are Japanese but they never bothered to teach me how to speak their language. Hehehe... I basically grew up in Singapore and spent a couple of years in a boarding school in England. So, I hope you understand why I reacted such way. Anyhow, I really appreciate your input in this thread. You're very eloquent and very smart. Cheers!</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLAri
Senior Member</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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You bet I knew such issues exist. My oldest brother graduated from UPenn's Wharton Business School in 2002, and he refuses to say he's a Penn alum. He would always say, he went to WHARTON, never UPenn! I did not understand his reason for doing so in the beginning. But after reading some posts here, particularly in UPenn's thread, it gradually sink in to my mind why he's sort of denying he went to UPenn. It just sounds PUBLIC. Hahaha...</p>
<p>
[quote]
*SnuggleMonster *</p>
<p>Posts: 97 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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This really sounds nice but in reality... this is not always what happens. and I hope you will agree with me that some people will judge you based on the school you came from. If you're a product of a private school then they're hats off to you or some sort. But if you're a product of a public school ... then you're poor, under-privilege, ill-mannered, etc... Interestingly, this sort of discrimination does only exist in America. I can tell you that it's very different in Japan, England, the Philippines and Singapore.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're a product of a private school then they're hats off to you or some sort. But if you're a product of a public school ... then you're poor, under-privilege, ill-mannered, etc...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Woah woah woah, hold on there. That's simply not the case. I've never had anyone try to argue with me that I'm "ill-mannered" because I graduated from UCLA. Similarly, there are people who can get into many private universities in the 2nd and 3rd tier of USNWR rankings, but couldn't DREAM of going to Cal.</p>