<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:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hello vicissitudes. Welcome to this thread I created. Im actually aware that proposal is not that feasible. But lets discuss it for fun. Who knows? A couple of months ago, I got an email from my friend back in London that Imperial College London is bolting out from the federal, University of London (UL). The UL has somewhat a similar structure with the UC. Imperial thought theyre so established enough that their name (Imperial) supersedes that of the UL name. Among other major reasons, the schools top honchos believe that the London name, laggards the progress of their agenda which is to become the number one engineering school in the world. At this point in time, I think Berkeley is more dominant than the name CAL or UC or what other names Berkeley is known for. So I thought that would be a good starting point to open up this thread. </p>
<p>
[quote]
*vicissitudes *
Member</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."
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<p>2 points:</p>
<p>One. Despite Berkeleys global reputation, majority of the Americans still dont consider it at part to Harvard, Yale and the like. But when you go outside American, people have an inverse notion. Harvard and Berkeley are the top 2, while Stanford, Princeton and the like are second-tier but still world-class. </p>
<p>Two. I dont know if this is a shock to you, but other than Berkeley and UCLA, all the rest of the UC colleges dont have such high reputation outside the US. So, if their names would be changed, it would definitely have an enormous effect on them. Whether thats positive or negative, that would depend how well they take advantages of the changes and the resources at hand. </p>
<p>
[quote]
*vicissitudes *
Member</p>
<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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In medicine, I dont think UCSF enjoys the same reputation as Harvard or Johns Hopkins in the international scene. And like what I have been telling here, its not always that the most popular to Americans are the most popular internationally. I would suggest UCSF to fuse with Berkeley to enjoy global reputation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
*vicissitudes *
Member</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)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, this is only the opinion of the Americans. But to the sight of the international aspirants, they both belong to the same pod. Both are excellent schools but one cannot claim its better than the other.</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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry but I have come accross threads where people from private/ivy league sort of a school would bash those who go or graduated from UCLA, Berkeley, Michigan, UNC, Virginia, Indiana, etc.. simply because they're products of public schools. or it is just for fun?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm sorry but I have come accross threads where people from private/ivy league sort of a school would bash those who go or graduated from UCLA, Berkeley, Michigan, UNC, Virginia, Indiana, etc.. simply because they're products of public schools. or it is just for fun?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've never experienced any sort of "bashing," and many of my friends went off to Ivys and other top privates. I think a lot of what goes on on CC.com isn't representative of most attitudes, and falls into one of two categories:</p>
<ol>
<li> Insecure bratty children who don't realize that college prestige isn't a zero sum game</li>
<li> People just being tongue-in-cheek as a response to number 1.</li>
</ol>
<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...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i thought this is another reason why UC colleges should part ways -- to diminish if not completely eradicate politics in UC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Two. I dont know if this is a shock to you, but other than Berkeley and UCLA, all the rest of the UC colleges dont have such high reputation outside the US.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let's face it...tons of Americans don't know the London School of Economics, but it's clearly well-respected amongst the circles who know it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In medicine, I dont think UCSF enjoys the same reputation as Harvard or Johns Hopkins in the international scene. And like what I have been telling here, its not always that the most popular to Americans are the most popular internationally. I would suggest UCSF to fuse with Berkeley to enjoy global reputation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know medical students here in Japan who would give their left arm to get into UCSF.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've never experienced any sort of "bashing," and many of my friends went off to Ivys and other top privates. I think a lot of what goes on on CC.com isn't representative of most attitudes, and falls into one of two categories:</p>
<ol>
<li>Insecure bratty children who don't realize that college prestige isn't a zero sum game</li>
<li>People just being tongue-in-cheek as a response to number 1.
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<p>It's really nice to hear that, UCLAri. After reading some of the posts in this site, I'm beginning to question myself if it would still be a good idea to drop Harvard and princeton for Berkeley. I really would want to earn my degree from Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know medical students here in Japan who would give their left arm to get into UCSF.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe, but I'm sure as hell that they would pick harvard and/or Johns Hopkins in any single day over UCSF. although this is a bit exags. hehe...</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's really nice to hear that, UCLAri. After reading some of the posts in this site, I'm beginning to question myself if it would still be a good idea to drop Harvard and princeton for Berkeley. I really would want to earn my degree from Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So then go to Berkeley. Yes, there is a gap in the quality of undergrad education at Cal and at Harvard, but it's probably not as wide as CC.com would have you believe.</p>
<p>Besides, do you plan on staying in the US anyway?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe, but I'm sure as hell that they would pick harvard and/or Johns Hopkins in any single day over UCSF. although this is a bit exags. hehe...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, probably. But I bet that a lot of people would choose UCSF over Yale and Duke.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So then go to Berkeley. Yes, there is a gap in the quality of undergrad education at Cal and at Harvard, but it's probably not as wide as CC.com would have you believe.</p>
<p>Besides, do you plan on staying in the US anyway?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, though I'm an American citizen. </p>
<p>My dad wants me to go to Todai (U of Tokyo) for my MS to get orriented with my roots, culture, tradition, ets... But eventually, i might end up working in the States if the family decides i'm not fit to take care of the family's businesses. i'm going to read physics, btw.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One. Despite Berkeleys global reputation, majority of the Americans still dont consider it at part to Harvard, Yale and the like. But when you go outside American, people have an inverse notion. Harvard and Berkeley are the top 2, while Stanford, Princeton and the like are second-tier but still world-class.
[/quote]
Graduate schools are seen as roughly indicative of undergraduate education outside of the US due to the unity in the universities outside of the US.</p>
<p>US have liberal arts colleges and others that focus sole on undergraduate, so there is a notion of a divide. In any case, for your average American, they'll either be impressed you went to Berkeley... or not... regardless of graduate or undergraduate. Your true "average" American has no clue either.</p>
<p>When you get high enough in the education level, people don't care either. Your private schools have loyalty to their own alma mater the strongest, yes, but still respect all other instititions on a similar level. People who don't have notions of a halo around Ivy League institutions become less impressed with a degree from one--evening the field for personal accomplishments.</p>
<p>It is that middle of the road, who knows enough about colleges, but who has not actually attended such institutions or similar to be dispelled of the mystique that disparages public school alumni. Usually, this catagory is made up almost solely of college-bound students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm sorry but I have come accross threads where people from private/ivy league sort of a school would bash those who go or graduated from UCLA, Berkeley, Michigan, UNC, Virginia, Indiana, etc.. simply because they're products of public schools. or it is just for fun?
[/quote]
When bashing occurs, it's often about the arrogance and sense of entitlement that private school graduates have as well. Thus, negative stereotypes exist for both, except of course the notion that private school students are always smarter even if arrogant. But again, this is mostly true of the middle of the road.</p>
<p>The problem comes that all levels (moreso with the bottom and middle, less a problem at the top) will, due to the fact that public schools are bound to at least make a semblence of a populist policy (as many attendees as possible, regardless of quality), which may or may not truly apply, depending on the instutition. This causes many to automatically associate your Ivy League graduates with some sort of sublime intellect... which is not so percieved of public school graduates.</p>
<p>And many students who are college-bound care about this--who can blame them? Why have someone who is not necessarily more able than you be percieved so, merely because of the intitution where you attended? Thus, despite having the potential for an education equaling that of your Harvards, Yales, and Princetons out there, the students who are able will go elsewhere.</p>
<p>It becomes then, a self-fulfilling prophecy where the best students will leave, and student quality will drop. As interaction with other students is a primary aspect of a college education, it weakens state universities. Thus, the brain drain from the state, and leaving those who can less afford the cost, or are unwilling to leave the state, with an education that isn't on par with those with the means to attend private institutions.</p>
<p>This entire thing is a large part political. The fact that taking more students will weaken flagship state institutions, and overall weaken not only the flagship state university but the state as a whole (best talent leaving) is a concept too difficult for politicians to bother explaining to voters. </p>
<p>It is a far more appealing and rewarding path, politically, to simply attempt to expand and pack flagship state institutions. The negative results will then either be written off due to public school inability to measure up to private or be too far in the future to be attributed to the politician who caused the problems.</p>
<p>Public schools can be easily as good as private institutions. As long as political wrangling and short-term benefits reign, however, that handicap that private schools don't have will ensure that in truth, top public schools like Berkeley won't be able to compete evenly with top private institutions.
It isn't a matter of simply, "Serve the people of California and admit many people! That's the best way! That's how public universities should work!" That's easy to digest political rhetoic that overall is damaging public universities, both in perception and reality, but beneficial to the politicians that spew it.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that's necessarily what anyone here is saying, but I'm making the point (repeatedly) that the notion that public universities should not be competing with private universities on the same level because they "serve a different purpose" is inherently flawed because to serve the public purpose, they MUST compete with private universities.</p>
<p>Of course the other UC's wouldn't carry an international reputation. In all your discussion about the UC's, you've neglected their purpose, their duty to California. To improve UC's image abroad and at home, one must understand the University of California: it's history, it's purpose, and it's State.</p>
<p>The UC's that have built a reputation have done so because they focused on serving California, and a by product included reputation and prestige. UCSD gained its fame for the Scripps Institute, one of the leading world institutes for oceanography. UC Berkeley contributed to the sciences (e.g. the early enrichment of uranium by the use of calutron invented by E. Lawrence to buold the Hiroshima bomb). UCLA has established itself as a leading medical institute on the west coast. </p>
<p>The UC's are meant to generate leaders for California and indeed, they have done so wonderfully. This is not to say that California should only have UC graduates serving in its government, businesses, &tc. Indeed, looking at the June 6 Primary for the Democrats, Angelides graduated from Harvard and Westly graduated from Stanford, neither of them from a UC. But looking at California's history, some governors of California have been graduates of UC Berkeley (for example), mayors of Californian cities, justices on the California Supreme Court, members of the California Senate, members of the California Assembly, and more. </p>
<p>Again, I stress, however, that I don't intend to convey a California-centric view of the world; to so would be incredibly naive and foolish. And UC should continue to build its international base. But, UC also needs to remember its primary duty to California and Californians. And to have universities part ways to feed the need of those international assessors of prestige seems contrary to the goal of educating California.</p>
<p>This goal of providing services for California is part of the reason why Chancellor Cordova at UC Riverside is pushing for a medical school since the Inland Empire currently suffers from a lack of medical professionals (despite the presence of Loma Linda University).</p>
This goal of providing services for California is part of the reason why Chancellor Cordova at UC Riverside is pushing for a medical school since the Inland Empire currently suffers from a lack of medical professionals (despite the presence of Loma Linda University).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's true of most of California- I've heard there is far more demand for doctors than those produced by medical schools in the state, and that many are imported.</p>
<p>Allorion, I think your post is making it seem worse than it is, that terrible people are being admitted to Berkeley or something- I think that the range of poor people is fairly small, although that might be my naive idealism. I think that it's hard to get in, even in state- in generally, not impossibly hard, not very, very hard, but pretty hard, and very very hard out of state and internationally, and that msot of the kids let in are of at least a fairly high quality- not amazing, but pretty good. </p>
<p>But eiffelguy87's post brings up another issue, and I think an important one. Some of the goals of the UC seem to clash, and they must find a balance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This entire thing is a large part political. The fact that taking more students will weaken flagship state institutions, and overall weaken not only the flagship state university but the state as a whole (best talent leaving) is a concept too difficult for politicians to bother explaining to voters.
[/quote]
UC ITSELF IS POLITICAL IN THE SENSE THAT THE CITIZENS OWN IT!!! And that concept is ********. Taking more students IMPROVES a public university that has as its purpose to provide a good education to as many citizens as possible. I don't buy your "best talent leaving" idea either. Not all students simply judge a school by how many people it rejects--not to mention, increasing the applicant base would keep the admissions numbers the same while still providing a good education to more citizens. </p>
<p>I chose not to apply to any out-of-state schools or in-state private schools because I feel a strong connection to the UC system, as the system of the people in California, in particular its flagship university: Berkeley. Also, let's keep in mind that it is an amazing deal for California residents and will continue to be so barring any significant changes; you are wrong in assuming that the "best talent" will quickly leave if the UCs work to take in more students.
[quote]
But eiffelguy87's post brings up another issue, and I think an important one. Some of the goals of the UC seem to clash, and they must find a balance.
[/quote]
Yes, and in particular, the fact that it has a very different purpose than a private school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hello vicissitudes. Welcome to this thread I created. Im actually aware that proposal is not that feasible. But lets discuss it for fun.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good, then we're in agreement. I'm all for discussing the possibility for fun, or else I wouldn't bother posting in this thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One. Despite Berkeleys global reputation, majority of the Americans still dont consider it at part to Harvard, Yale and the like. But when you go outside American, people have an inverse notion. Harvard and Berkeley are the top 2, while Stanford, Princeton and the like are second-tier but still world-class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is because other countries tend to look at a university overall, undergrad and graduate. I think few Americans who are in the know would argue that Berkeley graduate school is not up there with Harvard and Stanford. However, we are discussing undergrad, and you have to admit, Berkeley undergrad isn't as good as Harvard undergrad. For example, if we were to ask how many people at Berkeley would rather go to Harvard but couldn't get in, I bet we would find quite a few. On the other hand, if we were to go to Harvard and ask how many people would rather go to Berkeley but didn't get in, we would find very few people. Is this just because of the "Harvard" name? I think it's more likely that Harvard just offers a better undergraduate education. For example, Harvard's extensive library system, second largest in the country next to the library of Congress. Harvard's freedom of choosing majors. Harvard's dominance in humanities programs. Even if you wanted to do something like, say, engineering, you can as a Harvard students, hop two subway stations over to MIT, and take a class there. People don't just say "oh Berkeley is public so it is automatically worse." Some private schools are better because they offer a better undergraduate education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Two. I dont know if this is a shock to you, but other than Berkeley and UCLA, all the rest of the UC colleges dont have such high reputation outside the US. So, if their names would be changed, it would definitely have an enormous effect on them. Whether thats positive or negative, that would depend how well they take advantages of the changes and the resources at hand.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it's not a shock to me. Did you notice that you said "other than Berkeley and UCLA?" It seems to me that UCLA has gained quite a bit of status and prestige in the past 10 years of so, domestically and internationally. Yet, it is referred to as "UCLA." Yes, with "UC" in the front. But it's still become prestigious. Why? Because it improved its programs and its offerings. For example, the honors college at UCLA has quite a few perks for top entering freshmen, and entice top students to choose UCLA over other schools, raising the quality of the student body. It has also been working hard to obtain research funds, and attract world-class professors. I think something like this would improve Berkeley's status more than just removing "UC" from the name.</p>
<p>You're right in saying that by breaking apart from the UC system it would have a large effect on the campuses. But for most of the campuses, this would probably be negative. Let's face it, many students apply and attend UC Riverside because they couldn't get into a better UC, and hey, UC Riverside is still a UC. If UC Riverside became Riverside College do you think it can still attract nearly as many people?</p>
<p>Let's use another example. How much have you heard about Fordham University? Or Southern Methodist University? I haven't heard too much about it. How many high school students, do you think, have heard of these schools? What about UC Santa Cruz? All three are ranked about the same on US News. Yet, if nothing else, many students can easily identify UC Santa Cruz, if nothing else, as a UC. Santa Cruz University? It'll probably be lost among other schools with fairly little public recognition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In medicine, I dont think UCSF enjoys the same reputation as Harvard or Johns Hopkins in the international scene. And like what I have been telling here, its not always that the most popular to Americans are the most popular internationally. I would suggest UCSF to fuse with Berkeley to enjoy global reputation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that because UCSF is not as good of a school, or because Harvard University, and Johns Hopkins University, as wholes are more well-known than UCSF, which is only a medical school? I bet people nationally and internationally, who know medical schools well, would say that all three schools are comparable in offering a top medical education.</p>
<p>And perhaps UCSF and Berkeley should just become one campus. I'm not sure. I certainly won't mind silencing all the people who put down Berkeley because it lacks a medical school. But then again, it seems to me like there's really no necessity in such a move other than that Berkeley and people like me can boast of having a top medical school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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)
Again, this is only the opinion of the Americans. But to the sight of the international aspirants, they both belong to the same pod. Both are excellent schools but one cannot claim its better than the other.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So it's only the opinion of Americans that Columbia has better endowment? The endowment of Columbia is $5.2 billion.</p>
<p>I don't buy that internationals who know a great deal about the two schools would honestly say that the undergraduate education at UCLA and Columbia are of the same quality. Maybe they're close, but I don't think it's accurate to say that they are the same.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i thought this is another reason why UC colleges should part ways -- to diminish if not completely eradicate politics in UC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I agree that the politics in the UC system can sometimes be overbearing, it also has its benefits. For example, I don't think some of the lower UCs could have risen in status as quickly without modeling after the top UCs and riding off of their fame, such as UCSD.</p>
<p>What I think could be done is simple to improve the UC administration. The beaucracy can get truly tedious at times, but I believe it can be improved, rather than just give up on the system altogether.</p>
<p>
[quote]
After reading some of the posts in this site, I'm beginning to question myself if it would still be a good idea to drop Harvard and princeton for Berkeley. I really would want to earn my degree from Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are many factors to consider, such as what you want to study, and environment. There are many resources at Berkeley, but they aren't as easily accesible. The beaucracy can be a pain, it's hard to change majors, and it's tough to get a good GPA. The class size can get big, and the quality of students are also on average, lower. On the other hand, Princeton is about as exciting as a rock (their only social feature they can boast is eating clubs? Come on) and Harvard students have been complaining about large classes, and the poor quality of some professors. Weather in Boston and NJ isn't exactly great, and Berkeley's vibrant atmosphere and surrounding city is hard to beat. If you want to study something like engineering or chemistry, Berkeley is probably better. If you want to study something in the humanities, Harvard might be better. It's about personal fit more than anything else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, we are discussing undergrad, and you have to admit, Berkeley undergrad isn't as good as Harvard undergrad. For example, if we were to ask how many people at Berkeley would rather go to Harvard but couldn't get in, I bet we would find quite a few. On the other hand, if we were to go to Harvard and ask how many people would rather go to Berkeley but didn't get in, we would find very few people.
[/quote]
That is not relevent in actually comparing the undergraduate quality of the schools. This is another example of using irrelevent factors to decide school quality, such as what the acceptance rate is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Taking more students IMPROVES a public university that has as its purpose to provide a good education to as many citizens as possible. I don't buy your "best talent leaving" idea either. Not all students simply judge a school by how many people it rejects--not to mention, increasing the applicant base would keep the admissions numbers the same while still providing a good education to more citizens.
[/quote]
[quote]
you are wrong in assuming that the "best talent" will quickly leave if the UCs work to take in more students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that the "best talent" probably won't leave just because the UCs take a few more students. However, I also agree that if the UCs such as Berkeley take in many more students, the quality of the student body will decline and in turn, the education offered at the school will decline. Look at it this way: much of your education at a school is affected by the quality of your classmates. If you are surrounded by mediocre students who asks dumb questions all day in class and squanders the professor's time, you're not going to learn much. If you are surrounded by great students who offers valuable insights during class and outside of class, you will learn more. If the UCs take in more students, they have no choice but to take in more "mediocre" students, thus lowering the education at the UCs.</p>
<p>You argue, but isn't taking in MORE students better? Not necessarily. How is it better to worsen education for 191,000 California students who are attending the UCs? How is it better to let more students attend UCs, many of whom aren't ready and would have done better to go to a Cal State?</p>
<p>Another solution some people have created is: why not simply allocate students differently amongst the UCs? Berkeley has 23,000 undergraduates, while UC Merced has about 900. Why not take some of the worst students at Berkeley, and move them to somewhere like Merced? Berkeley's student population would get stronger on average, and seeing as how those people who are moved got into Berkeley, they would improve UC Merced's student body. Both school wins.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is not relevent in actually comparing the undergraduate quality of the schools. This is another example of using irrelevent factors to decide school quality, such as what the acceptance rate is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why not? So you're saying that the opinions of 23,000 undergraduates at Berkeley and the 6,600 undergraduates at Harvard don't matter? Are they just stupid for preferring Harvard over Berkeley? The obvious reason seems to be that Harvard simply offers a better undergraduate education, so everyone wants to go there.</p>
<p>And I wouldn't say acceptance rate is completely irrelevant. Sometimes it's not as accurate because of the different sizes of the schools or the different admissions criteria, but they're still somewhat useful in determining the strength of a school. Is it just coincidence that the top schools are also the most selective?</p>
<p>Look at it this way: what if a school accepted 100% of its applicants? Yes, even the girl with the 1.2 GPA and 320 SATs could get in. Would good students really want to go to a school like that? Could that school really be good, with these students abounding on its campus?</p>