Harvard Vs Uc Berkeley

College Search & Selection
81

<p>The Shanghai rankings are a joke, 50% of the score is for Nobel Prizes and publications in Nature and Science, and it's barely corrected for size. </p>

<p>THES > Shanghai. I consider peer assesment scores, recruiter scores, alumni success etc... a much better indicator of a university's performance, and prestige, even though the process ia a bit mysterious and it's very hard to use the same method for every country. I'm not denying Oxbridge are great, I think 15-20 in research (which as you mentioned isn't everything) seems pretty right considering how many great American research universities there are...</p>

<p>Your right though, at least 6 of the categories used by the HEEACT are related to size and that can possibly account for why there are so many public American univ.s in the top 25 (And the University of Toronto -> 74000+ students)</p>

<p>I would also think Harvard has a much larger faculty.</p>

82

<p>
[quote]
THES > Shanghai

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The THES rankings change drastically from year to year... which really destroys any credibility they had.</p>

83

<p>But I should add those categories only account for 20%.</p>

<p>"research productivity (accounts for 20%), research impact (30%), and research excellence (50%)"</p>

<p>80% impact and "excellence" vs. 50% nobel prizes and publications in two (albeit the most important) journals in the natural sciences. Shanghai looks much more flawed.</p>

84

<p>
[quote]
80% impact and "excellence" vs. 50% nobel prizes and publications in two (albeit the most important) journals in the natural sciences. Shanghai looks much more flawed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think it's more accurate to say that the Shanghai ranking has left itself open for the possibility for flaws; in other words, there's more opportunity for error to pop up in their rankings. However, you'd be surprised how highly correlated Nobel Prizes/publications and impact/excellence are. Thus, the rankings will be similar.</p>

85

<p>Also the numbers don't add up correctly...</p>

86

<p>Also the very stupid thing about Shanghai's Nobel Prize ranking is that it awards points to an institution if the laureate is a member of the faculty in the univ. at the time of winning the prize, rather than rewarding universities where the Nobel prize winning research took place. Pulications in N and S are also closely related to the size of the university.</p>

87

<p>remember dark knight? i think that he and dark ninja are both trolls....</p>

88

<p>I'm from illinois, </p>

<p>If it wasn't for CC I honestly wouldn't think Cal was a big deal. Outside of california i don't think a debate about whether Cal was better than Harvard, even Duke, and probably even John Hopkins or Notre Dame, would even occur. </p>

<p>UVA, UMich, and UCLA are all considered peer schools of Cal. And in my opinion I would attend UMich then UCLA over Cal, and I would guess a lot of people share my sentiment.</p>

<p>Just some perspective to keep in mind.</p>

89

<p>yea, bottom line... all you Cal undergrads OVERRATE it so much... if you're are an OOS Cal undergrad, you were definitely an accomplished high schooler... good job on getting there...</p>

<p>Cal is known for its grad school while Harvard is just all around great...</p>

90

<p>^^ I too am from Illinois, and while even there I wouldn't consider Cal better than Harvard, I could see arguments made about Cal being better than Duke, JHU, or ND. This is purely from its reputation; I honestly wouldn't see much point in arguing about that, since each has its strengths and none is better than the other.</p>

<p>
[quote]
UVA, UMich, and UCLA are all considered peer schools of Cal. And in my opinion I would attend UMich then UCLA over Cal, and I would guess a lot of people share my sentiment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And a lot more wouldn't. Cal, I believe, is generally preferred over UMich and UCLA, if you look at the revealed preference rankings, which are flawed, though.</p>

<p>
[quote]
all you Cal undergrads OVERRATE it so much... if you're are an OOS Cal undergrad, you were definitely an accomplished high schooler... good job on getting there...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not even a Cal undergrad and I don't think that those here are "overrating" it. Harvard, while being an amazing school, doesn't have that much of an advantage over schools like Columbia, Berkeley, etc. at the undergrad level. I would say that Harvard overall is better than Berkeley overall (with Berkeley being stronger for grad school, Harvard for undergrad).</p>

<p>Either way, why would you say "good job" to those who get in OOS? Getting into Berkeley period--in-state, too--is pretty amazing. The acceptance rate is very very low, roughly 1 in 5, for in-state.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Cal is known for its grad school while Harvard is just all around great...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some would say that Harvard also suffers from the same problem Cal does: a lack of undergrad focus. Of course, it would be to a much lesser extent, but you get my point.</p>

91

<p>ok, UCBChemEGrad..... obviously you are biased... but anyways, berkeley is NOT a better graduate school overall than harvard... let's be serious... it may very well be top 5 in the nation though which IS amazing... the students in state that get accepted to UCB are "pretty amazing" according to you?!? i mean... that's a matter of opinion i suppose, but considering that the average SAT score of UCB is barely over 1300, and it is known to be MUCH easier to get into in state, one would think that the in state students aren't all that great on average... then again, i'm sure many are.... </p>

<p>Harvard does focus more on grad school, for that is where the prestige lies... but it is still consistently ranked as one of the top undergraduate schools in the world... </p>

<p>and i don't consider UCB undergrad a peer to Duke and JHU (maybe ND)... those two are overall better undergraduate institutions, while UCB is an overall better graduate institution... </p>

<p>i really don't think this is all that complicated...</p>

92

<p>Duck And Run People!! Duck And Run!</p>

93

<p>danielstennis08 -- again, it depends on the discipline. </p>

<p>For the 3 professional schools (which I gather is all that most posters here care about), H is #1, Berkeley is #4.</p>

<p>For the 41 Ph.D. disciplines grouped into 5 major areas, Berkeley is #1 and H is #4.</p>

<p>There are two answers to which is better for grad school.</p>

94

<p>
[quote]
but anyways, berkeley is NOT a better graduate school overall than harvard

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I'd say it is. Berkeley was ranked in the top 10 in 35 disciplines, compared to Harvard's 25. In the US News rankings, Berkeley was ranked in the top 10 in all of them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
that the in state students aren't all that great on average

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm sorry that CC has corrupted your mind so much that you consider top students like those at Berkeley to be "not all that great."</p>

<p>
[quote]
those two are overall better undergraduate institutions, while UCB is an overall better graduate institution...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can see why you think that. FWIW, I'd easily choose Cal over JHU and Duke even if they are "better" for undergrad (because, in my opinion, there are more important things than the % classes under 20 and the alumni giving rates).</p>

95

<p>
[quote]
UC schools are a joke. the UC schools system is designed for retards. look at their exit exams - designed for an 8th grader. all of the kids entering the UC's are practically retarded.

[/quote]

Just because you pass the exit exam, doesn't mean you can get into a UC. You're probably confusing the UC system with the CSU one, only because the requirements for those schools are generally lower. Either way, at least students who pass the exit exam can usually form coherent paragraphs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
they forget that a Harvard grad vs a Cal grad with the same grades = Harvard getting the job every time.

[/quote]

Not when you take into account experience, field of study, and the assholishness of the applicant.</p>

96

<p>

For some majors and disciplines, yes, that is true - particularly in the grossly limiting major of biomedical engineering. For other majors and disciplines, Cal is stronger than Duke and JHU.</p>

97

<p>i've never heard BME referred to as "grossly limiting," but yea, they do kick Cal's ass in that area plus many many more....</p>

98

<p>^^ BME is often referred to as "limiting," because it boxes you in and narrows your focus, harming marketability. Many recommend a more traditional engineering path.</p>

<p>It's hard to say that they "kick Cal's ass" in BME when Berkeley is also ranked in the top 10. Please tell me what other ("many many") areas that Duke and JHU beat Cal in. Then I can tell you all the areas that Cal beats Duke and JHU in. :)</p>

<p>(All of Berkeley's programs are consistently ranked in the top 10. Duke/JHU can only claim a handful. In fact, in the five main areas, no other university has the breadth and depth that Cal has, but a few come close. In world rankings of the main areas of study, Harvard and Berkeley ranked at the top. Duke and JHU didn't even come close.)</p>

99

<p>in undergraduate ranking, berkeley doesn't come close to duke, jhu, and especially not harvard... deal with it</p>

100

<p>read what berkeley students say... that should tell you enough about cal's undergrad...</p>

<p>berkeley</a> sucks for an undergraduate education - Google Search</p>

<p>first site that pops up...</p>