<p>
</p>
<p>I believe Butchoky is actually a double legacy at Stanford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not… I do.</p>
<p>
Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Columbia, and Chicago.<br>
I think Berkeley should be in the top 10, if not top 5.</p>
<p>I would say Berkeley is a top 10 school overall, but not top 10 undergraduate.</p>
<p>thats a joke…Berkeley superior in undergraduate education to Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Columbia, and Chicago? How would you rate that prestige, acceptance rate, sat scores, class size…I mean there is really no way to substantiate that. I doubt you can even show that Berkeley is better for undergrad than Northwestern, Cornell, Wash U, and Hopkins…it is a really good top 20/25 school..For grad that is another story, but were not talking about that.</p>
<p>
Berkeley is superior in Computer Science, Chemistry, Engineering …
Berkeley beats those schools in PA score …</p>
<p>Bescraze … I think you tend to focus too much on selectivity … a ranking you posted in the “15 most prestigious schools” thread ranked schools almost exactly by average SAT score</p>
<p>Stop acting like Berkeley undergrad is completely responsible for it’s PA score.</p>
<p>The academic quality of undergraduate programs is typically close to their graduate programs. I haven’t seen too many published undergraduate program rankings, but this is one of them (for Michigan engineering):</p>
<p>[Michigan</a> Engineering | Rankings](<a href=“http://www.engin.umich.edu/about/rankings.html]Michigan”>http://www.engin.umich.edu/about/rankings.html)</p>
<p>Undergraduates are not taught by a separate faculty but by the same people (including graduate students for discussion sessions) who do the award-winning research that makes the graduate school of, e.g. Berkeley, so successful. As far as academics are concerned, Berkeley is ranked up there. What brings its overall undergrad ranking down a bit are things like class size, average SAT scores (it’s a public university), and alumni giving.</p>
<p>[QS</a> Top Universities: University rankings by indicator - employer review](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/results/2007/criteria/employer_review/]QS”>http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/results/2007/criteria/employer_review/)</p>
<p>Berkeley doesn’t do too badly either. I guess recruiters are not as “awestruck” as some of the posters here with the top private schools, assuming private = better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, since UCB brilliantly recently concluded that SAT scores are NOT an accurate projection of future college success (honestly, what took us so long to see that??), your rant about higher SAT scores is pretty unfounded and ridiculous. Do you honestly think the top 25% of students (assuming that the top 25% are the most motivated, driven students at the school) at Hopkins, Chicago, Dartmouth, etc., are <em>that</em> much smarter than the top 25% at UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UNC, UVA, etc?</p>
<p>ya, harvard is maybe more known worldwide but berkeley offers much more</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you 110%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Counterexample:</p>
<p>Harvard has an incredibly strong student body, immense amount of resources per student, the best faculty resources in the world, and a high alumni giving rate. Many would say they have no undergraduate focus. Hence these characteristics don’t necessarily measure undergraduate focus.</p>
<p>Yes, but Brownman most would argue that they are still the best undergraduate school in the nation. Thus is it really that relevant that the top professors may be predominantly taken up by grad students? Also Butchoky I agree with a lot of what you said, except I do not think a simple “academic quality” assessment is sufficient in determining, which schools are better than others. It is important, but not absolute. There is no question that Berkeley has contributed greatly through its research to our society, but as a prospective college student that really is not much of an incentive to attend a school. It is nice, but it in no way will change a college experience unless it translates into better job opportunities. I think you also make a good point about USNWR measuring convenience, but I also think you need to realize that this point only extends so far. I doubt you can argue that WUSTL is of a lesser academic quality than Vanderbilt, or that Princeton is less than MIT…it is really a mix of everything that goes into the rankings. Thats why when rating colleges, much more than simply the strength of their academics have to be considered. Since, I think a lot of people would agree that in any of the top 50 schools the education you receive is nearly identical—the same things being taught in the same classes. So as a result other measurements come into play, such as the strength of the student body, financial resources of the school, prestige ect…</p>
<p>This was a great post by Proconsul on this
</p>
<p>Harvard may not have a good “undergraduate focus” because it is so powerful in graduate departments (I know it sounds weird). The professors are so distinguished and absorbed in their research, that they perhaps don’t have time to devote to undergrads. I’ve experienced the same thing with a noble laureate as one of my molecular biology professors (although I’m at a different institution).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most prestigious? Yes. Best undergraduate school in the nation? Probably not.</p>
<p>Notice that proconsul claimed that a medium to measure undergraduate focus was measuring strength of student body, class sizes, financial resources per student, faculty resources, advising and alumni giving. I was simply refuting his claim, and I’m pretty sure I succeeded in doing so.</p>
<p>I would argue the best undergraduate school in the nation depends on fit. For me, it would have been either Yale or Princeton, because I would simply fit better there. For you, it may be Harvard because you are obsessed with prestige and selectivity. When you get to HYPSM level, they’re all about equally good. There is no point drawing distinctions between them. Everyone’s different.</p>
<p>Students at Harvard can cross-register for classes at MIT…</p>
<p>sooo technically,</p>
<p>Harvard Student’s engineering education > Berkeley’s</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually for me it would be between Yale, Stanford and Harvard…I recognize that they are all equally good, even if Harvard is Harvard. I never said that fit doesn’t matter, when schools that are peers are being compared. My only point is that Berkeley is not a peer. O and butchokoy who really cares about research output? Honestly, out of every single criteria I can think of for choosing a school that would be the most negligible. It has no impact on your experience there, your education, your job recruitment…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why are your views always so narrow? Just because you don’t find it important, obviously no one else cares?</p>
<p>I for one find it important. I wanted to go (and do go) to a school that has heavy research output. That was a big consideration in my applying to schools and was also part of the reason I didn’t apply to any LACs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That alone shows how very little you know.</p>
<p>When there’s lots of research going on, you can get involved in the research. That directly affects your experience–you surround yourself with elite intellectuals, creating new knowledge, in a new environment (often an expensive one, at that). Your education is obviously affected as well; you must master the subject of inquiry in order to find the answers to the questions still remaining in said subject. It may or may not affect job recruitment. It would help in grad school admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Going to a big-time research institutions means more research opportunities. More research opportunities = better grad school = better job.</p>