<p>
[quote]
butchokoy is simply a poster boy for berkeley...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe Butchoky is actually a double legacy at Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does anyone here actually consider Berkeley to be a top 10 undergrad school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does anyone here actually consider Berkeley to be a top 10 undergrad school?
[/quote]
</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>
[quote]
thats a joke....Berkeley superior in undergraduate education to Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Columbia, and Chicago?
[/quote]
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</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</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>
[Quote]
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.
[/Quote]
</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>
[quote]
That's correct, but that's not the very reason why I believe Stanford is superior to Berkeley as a whole, and Harvard is superior to Stanford, in general.</p>
<p>I agree to most of the posters here that undergrad is different from postgrad. However, since there's no specific data available that clearly separates the two academic levels, it is therefore imprudent to base our conclusion on mere assumption.</p>
<p>In other words, undergrad students at Berkeley are using the same facilities that the graduate students use. The undergads are handled by the same faculty that handle grad students. The teaching instructions are still rigid. The level of research is still top-class, and so on. The same can be said for the rest of great universities in American such as Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, Chicago, Michigan, Northwestern and the like.</p>
<p>According to USNews, Berkeley's graduate engineering education is a solid top 3. When the same ranking institution assessed the undergrad, they came up with very similar finding – top 3. I, too, believe that there is little difference between postgrad school and undergrad school at Berkeley. In the same manner that I do believe that there is very little difference that separates undergrad quality from postgrad quality in other great universities such as at Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Yale and Princeton.</p>
<p>Again, when it comes to academic quality, the HSMPY (or HYPSM) are the kings. Behind them are Caltech, UPenn, Berkeley, Columbia, Chicago, Cornell, JHU, Michigan and Northwestern. However, some of these schools (probably Berkeley, Cornell and Michigan) may not offer a convenient college environment as some of the schools in the top 25 (of the USNews Ranking) do. To some high school students, especially those who come from elite private high schools, schools that offer the better college environment is more desirable to choose than the schools that are more academic quality-oriented.</p>
<p>Thus, if you’d ask me which between Berkeley and Duke would rank higher in USNews, I would answer Duke because USNews is a measure of convenience. In the same manner that Chicago would rank higher than Northwestern or WUSL would rank higher than Vanderbilt or Princeton would rank higher than MIT. But as to whether Duke has higher academic standards than Berkeley has, that’s not likely going to be a yes. In the same manner that Princeton does not have a higher academic standard as MIT has or WUSL has got a higher academic standard than Vanderbilt has.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with you 110%.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is why strength of student body, class sizes, financial resources per student, faculty resources, advising and alumni giving. These are the best data points available to measure undergraduate focus.
[/quote]
</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
[quote]
Proconsul
New Member</p>
<p>Join Date: Aug 2008
Threads: 0
Posts: 7</p>
<p>Most college students don't go on to pursue academic graduate study and instead go on to law, med and biz school or get a job right from graduation. Very few college students are intent on getting a PhD in a subject. So, it doesn't matter if a school like Berkeley has a better Chemistry, English, History, Cultural Anthropology or whatever than another top school because most kids who major in these subjects go on to pursue careers that have nothing to do with what they majored in content wise. Engineering is the exception to this. However, I doubt Berkeley engineering attracts more recruiters than Cornell Engineering. Companies will recruit from schools that have high-quality student bodies. They could care less or might not even know about how high the departments at these schools are ranked. Harvard Engineering might be bad but Google, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. will still pick up the Harvard kids because they know they are the cream of the crop and will adapt to the workplace challenges and excel in no time.</p>
<p>I'm not implying that the only thing that matters is a college's prestige though. The learning environment that colleges create for students is the biggest influence on their development and success during the college years. This is why strength of student body, class sizes, financial resources per student, faculty resources, advising and alumni giving. These are the best data points available to measure undergraduate focus. On a more secondary level, prestige and job placement are important as well. The higher recruitment of students from the top 10 schools into top financial firms and grad schools are a clear indication of the undergraduate prestige and prowess of these places. Connections are the most important factor in getting a job. The Ivies, Chicago, Duke, etc. provide these connections.</p>
<p>There is no objective measure that shows Berkeley to be better than any top 10 school.
[/quote]
</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>
[quote]
Yes, but Brownman most would argue that they are still the best undergraduate school in the nation.
[/quote]
</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>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</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>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</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>
[quote]
It has no impact on your experience there, your education, your job recruitment
[/quote]
</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>
[quote]
It has no impact on your experience there, your education, your job recruitment.....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Going to a big-time research institutions means more research opportunities. More research opportunities = better grad school = better job.</p>