<p>Harvard would trounce every single university on the face of the earth when it comes to academi prestige. In fact, all major international league tables have said that. Harvard is Harvard. Even in countries that do not speak English would know that Harvard is the most famous school on earth. It is even well-known in countries where English is not spoken. However, I'm not sure if Harvard would be a major consideration for those students who would really like to become an engineer. I guess this is where Harvard would fall behind MIT, Stanford, Princeton, and to some extent, Caltech and Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah I know. After visiting harvard, it sickens me to say that I absolutely loved it, and I am not even one of those typical people here who will die if they don't get into HYP.</p>
<p>it sounds like if bescraze could simply skip college altogether, and simply use some connection to get his associate postion at a bulge bracket, he would be completely satisfied with that.</p>
<p>College IS research. College is not supposed to be a trade school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it sounds like if bescraze could simply skip college altogether, and simply use some connection to get his associate postion at a bulge bracket, he would be completely satisfied with that.</p>
<p>College IS research. College is not supposed to be a trade school.
<p>I simply meant research is not that important, every school has it and has those opportunities. No one says you cannot have great professors, if you don't have a tremendous output of research (LACs anyone?), which is more focused on the math and sciences usually anyway. In other words, Michigan is not a better school than Williams or any other xyz school just because it has more research. This is mostly because its a gigantic state school like Berkeley. Its not all that important.....some kids want to do research, but overall it does not have the same effect as many other objective measurements. O and btw college is fun, the education is great and I think you grow as a person....yet I also think its impact on your future is extremely important. Forgive me, if I recognize that there is more to my life after 4 years in college.</p>
<p>Quote:
If people had to name the top 10 schools I bet it would be some variation of HYPSM, Penn, Columbia,CAL Tech Duke, then you can throw in some others....but Berkeley is not even there let alone the number 5 school ...
It depends whom you’re asking really. If you’d ask USNews, you would most likely going to have the same answer as yours. But I highly doubt it that each and every ranking survey institution would come up with the same list as you and USNews have. It is also highly unlikely that each and every student in the West Coast would have the same list as you have. And I’m quite positive that -- that is not the view of the people (students, scholars, academics, top employers and government leaders) outside of the US.</p>
<p>Like I said, USNews measures convenience. Let’s get real. It is neither a measure of ACADEMIC PRESTIGE nor a measure of ACADEMIC STANDARDS. I urge you to review the criteria – they’re more of less a measure of convenience. USNews doesn’t have data about the following:</p>
<ol>
<li>quality of instructions</li>
<li>quality of materials used by the students and instructors</li>
<li>quality of facilities of the universities</li>
<li>quality of products (graduates)</li>
<li>Research output</li>
</ol>
<p>All these are essential to rate UNIVERSITITES. However, USNews thinks that universities are Liberal Arts Colleges. That’s stupid. Universities are not Liberal Arts Colleges. USNews staff are confused. It’s ridiculous.</p>
<p>Universities have also responsibilities to the society. They are not just established to educate the people but also made to conduct research that would enhance the general living conditions of the human race. Which institution do you think is supposedly responsible for that in not the universities?
<p>Exactly. Quality of, and focus on, the undergraduate education is completely irrelevant when gauging the overall rankings of our national universities. It's all about research output and publishing. Now, if one wanted to have a superior undergraduate experience, the clear choice would be a liberal arts college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Like I said, USNews measures convenience. Lets get real. It is neither a measure of ACADEMIC PRESTIGE nor a measure of ACADEMIC STANDARDS. I urge you to review the criteria theyre more of less a measure of convenience. USNews doesnt have data about the following:</p>
<ol>
<li>quality of instructions</li>
<li>quality of materials used by the students and instructors</li>
<li>quality of facilities of the universities</li>
<li>quality of products (graduates)</li>
<li>Research output</li>
</ol>
<p>All these are essential to rate UNIVERSITITES. However, USNews thinks that universities are Liberal Arts Colleges. Thats stupid. Universities are not Liberal Arts Colleges. USNews staff are confused. Its ridiculous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do agree with some of this, but this is partly what Faculty Resources/Total Endowment/Endowment per Student is supposed to measure. Of course they're crappy tools of measurement but yeah...</p>
<p>Dartmouth is not that much of a balance... it's more on the LAC side. Princeton seems to be a great balance- it has LAC size combined with great research opportunities.</p>
<p>^^ I would say that Berkeley has many more resources. Its biggest problem is connecting the students to these resources; this inevitably happens with a university of its size. One way--the best one, probably--to help connect them is through advising, but it's exorbitantly expensive to staff a university so large in the way that, say, Dartmouth would be staffed. Because of that, students often aren't aware of the resources available to them, or they don't have the help to succeed in getting to them. That's why they always say that Berkeley doesn't "hold your hand"--you have to seek most things out on your own.</p>
<p>In short, the biggest problem that Berkeley's undergrad has (there are others, but they're minor) is guidance. Some, though, prefer that there not be too much "hand-holding."</p>
<p>Haha, I don't think Berkeley has a proportionate amount of resources to accommodate much of its student body -- when compared to schools like Dartmouth. Advising is obviously a problem; I'd also assume that Berks students are more tiered achievement wise -- yet the fact remains that they can't proportionally match the opportunities available at schools like Dartmouth or Columbia.</p>
<p>To cover up the former with the latter explanation seems irresponsible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Advising is obviously a problem; I'd also assume that Berks students are more tiered achievement wise -- yet the fact remains that they can't proportionally match the opportunities available at schools like Dartmouth or Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Columbia has 25,000 students, undergrad and undergrad. They don't give a crap about their undergrads.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Otherwise, the "incredible resources" that Berkeley has to offer are for naught.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, they aren't. For one, Berkeley does manage to staff the university better than most universities--just not to the point where students are assigned ten different advisers. However, it is not mandatory for students to utilize their services; students can, however, seek them out to get a hold of the resources they want and need. For another, many other students are able to guide themselves to the resources without the help of a person--either through departmental literature, online resources, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think Berkeley has a proportionate amount of resources to accommodate much of its student body
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think either you or I can really measure the resources available. Or anyone, for that matter.</p>
<p>I can offer my own knowledge of them, but that is purely anecdotal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd also assume that Berks students are more tiered achievement wise
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Tiered"? You could say the same of students at Stanford, even.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Columbia has 25,000 students, undergrad and undergrad. They don't give a crap about their undergrads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What kind of logic is this? </p>
<p>Oh you meant, UG and grad? </p>
<p>Still makes little sense.</p>
<p>Of course it's anecdotal. I'm being a bit presumptuous by asserting the common "large public school" stereotypes... I still think most would agree with me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Tiered"? You could say the same of students at Stanford, even.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course I could. I could say it about any school. The use here though, seems appropriate -- probably because the tiers would be a bit larger than the ones that would exist at the top privates. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Some, though, prefer that there not be too much "hand-holding."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^^ That would appear to imply that you semi-agree with me.</p>
<p>Of course it's anecdotal. I'm being a bit presumptuous by asserting the common "large public school" stereotypes... I still think most would agree with me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Resources are spread thin at Columbia as well, similar to Berk. There are 20,000 grads at C, 5,000 UG at C. Opportunities at C are probably similar to opportunities at Berk, in terms of resources- unlike what you claimed. Dartmouth? Yes. Columbia? no. Columbia is the largest Ivy in terms of total population, and is very grad focused- similar to Berk in this manner.</p>
<p>I was just giving examples of Privates with big endowments + less students vs Berkeley. </p>
<p>And btw, Stanford has 20k UG + Grad. Harvard too -- Approx. Where the hell is the magic number?</p>
<p>Here we go with these terms, UG and Grad focused -- this is turning into another "correlation/causality" phrase -- What does that imply? Would you consider schools like Stanford and Harvard to be "Grad focused?"...</p>