<p>OP, the reason why the best schools in America are not public like in other countries is because America does not have a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY just like they have in other countries. </p>
<p>You mentioned Berkeley, for example. Whilst Berkeley is great and all, it isn’t a NATIONAL university. It is just the flagship campus of California’s public university. The budget that Berkeley receives comes from the State of California, not from the Federal funds. The budget that the University of Tokyo, for example, comes directly from the national government of Japan. As a result, when the State of California experienced crises, Berkeley was severely affected but not UMich or UVa. </p>
<p>Therefore the simple answer to your question is that the United States of America does not have a national university just like the other countries have. Imagine what will happen to UMich, for example, if the US government will declare it as America’s national university. it will surely blow Harvard away.</p>
<p>@bclinton, I think the OP was asking why Berkeley or UMich or UVa are not number one in America while U of Tokyo, Oxbridge, NUS, ANU, for example, are number one in their respective countries.</p>
<p>@Alexandre, thanks for the list. I never thought Cambridge is the richest public-run university on earth! All i knew is it is the perfect place for royalties… But I guess you missed one rich and well-endowed university in Saudi Arabia. A few years ago, they commissioned Berkeley scholars to help them structure their 10 billion US dollar university. I don’t recall the name of the institution however. But if it has US$10B, it must be richer than Cambridge.</p>
<p>I remember they were emailing students from Top US universities and a couple of UK universities (Imperial is one i remember) offering to offer them a free masters to KAUST with a guaranteed job or somethin ridiculous like that.</p>
<p>Yet there is little doubt that it is much easier to get into Cal than to Caltech as an undergrad. Cal would be a substantially stronger school - perhaps surpassing even Harvard - if it would emulate the admissions policies of Caltech.</p>
<p>I also tend to find department rankings to have little relevance for the typical undergrad, as such rankings are based on research, which many undergrads do not participate in and hence derive little benefit. Heck, I would go so far as to say that the average Caltech student in engineering and physical sciences is more steeped in the research culture than his Cal counterpart, due to the widespread undergraduate research opportunities that Caltech provides. Caltech’s pedagogical model is to treat the undergrads as graduate students from the very beginning. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I don’t really know what it means to say that, for example, Cal has “stronger engineering” than Caltech, for I suspect that the average Caltech engineering undergrad to be at least the equal of the average Cal engineering undergrad. Let’s face it: Cal admits a large tail-end of students, even within the engineering programs, that really aren’t very talented and probably shouldn’t be there. True, many of them are weeded out of the program, but not all of them: those with 2.0-2.3 GPA’s nevertheless pass, albeit barely, and they’re certainly not benefiting from Cal’s vaunted engineering research prowess. Caltech has some engineering students who barely pass as well, but at least they were able to get into Caltech in the first place. Hence, aggregated over the entire class, the Caltech undergrad engineering student body is probably at least the equal of the Cal undergrad engineering student body, which then calls into the question what the true meaning of a higher departmental ranking truly is. After all, it’s not as if Cal is teaching “secret engineering concepts” to its undergrads that Caltech undergrads don’t know about. </p>
<p>Happily, graduate programs are an entirely different story and I am confident that Cal’s graduate programs can fully match Caltech’s. Cal’s grad programs seem to be at least as selective as Caltech’s, and it is regarding graduate programs that departmental rankings do actually seem to matter. Cal would be a greatly transformed school if its undergrad program would be as selective as its graduate programs.</p>
<p>Well, that may be what the OP MEANT, but it’s sure not what the OP SAID. Let me give you a couple of direct quotes: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now I find it difficult to read that as anything other than a claim that our public universities are somehow inferior to those in the rest of the world, and falling father behind. And that is just plainly false.</p>
<p>Our top public universities are the envy of the world, with the possible exception of Oxford and Cambridge which I, like many other people, would put on roughly the same plane with UC Berkeley (though I know many academics who think Oxford has slipped recently, falling behind Berkeley and Cambridge). The fact that in addition to most of the world’s best public universities we hold a near-monopoly on the world’s best private universities, including some as good or better than Oxbridge and UC Berkeley, should hardly be a cause for alarm. And to view it as somehow problematic for our top publics that while maintaining their dominance in the world pecking order they also face domestic competition from equally or even more capable private institutions strikes me as . . . well, “odd” would be a kind way of putting it. Hardly an indication that they are not “thriving” or that they “pale in comparison” to the rest of the world. Nothing could be farther from the truth. </p>
<p>I will give the OP one point for pointing to accessibility and affordability as critical issues. That is a critical problem. But we’ll soon be joined by others in the same boat. Look for huge fee increases at Oxbridge and other UK universities in the next budget, probably doubling by next year, with talk of fees rising even higher in coming years. Surely others will follow.</p>
<p>sakky, my comment referred to mostly graduate rankings (where individual departments are assessed). Of course Caltech is more selective…it’s private and has about 4% the total undergraduate student body of Cal.</p>
<p>But that only reinforces SentimentGX4’s point: that many (probably most) Berkeley students do indeed look up to Caltech students, for the simple reason that the majority of Berkeley students are undergraduates, not grad students, and nobody disputes that it is significantly more difficult to get into Caltech than into Berkeley for undergrad. </p>
<p>As far as the graduate/research rankings are concerned, SentimentGX4 never claimed that Caltech was better than Berkeley, and if he had, I would have taken your side. He simply said that Caltech is one of the premier scientific institutions of California, which I don’t think anybody can dispute. Heck, if anything, it’s an understatement: Caltech is one of the premier scientific institutions in the world.</p>
<p>Sakky, Many high achieving guys at Berkeley undergrad probably had no desire to go to Cal Tech. It would be a poor fit for them socially and they know it. My older son got a letter from Cal Tech basketball in 2005 (it is D3 but they started trying to get some players that could actually play-there is a documentary about their basketball team). The letter said essentially in Cal Tech’s way that they had run some numbers and his name came up(780, 800’s, 5’s in physics, calculus,etc). He did not pursue it as it was a poor fit for him socially. He happily went instate to UVa in engineering and had a great 4 years.</p>
<p>Interesting thread! One correction though on what was stated earlier on in regards to Harvard being created for Christian missionaries. Although that was one of the objective of some of the English church fathers, that only played a minor role. The real reason at the time was that the English crown were competing with the Jesuits and Huguenots for discoveries in Earth Science and couldn’t let those blasted French beat them again!</p>
<p>Plus Stanford’s vision, due to the death of their only son, was in theory suppose to be a college nearly anyone with potential could attend.</p>
<p>And the opposite is also surely true: many guys at Caltech undergrad probably had no desire to go to Berkeley (or Virginia, for that matter) because of a poor social fit. For example, as my brother who’s a Caltech alum would freely admit, many Caltech students are quirky geeks who want to be around other quirky geeks and would not fit well in a standard college environment. So this issue is a wash. </p>
<p>But that’s beside the point. Just because you may not want to do something doesn’t mean that you can’t admire those who are able to do it. I have no desire to be a physician, but I nevertheless admire those people who have the fortitude to finish medical school and residency. I have no desire to become a Navy SEAL but I admire those people who have the discipline to survive the training and selection process. </p>
<p>Let’s face it: most Berkeley undergrads, and Virginia undergrads for that matter, would have to admit that, on average, Caltech students performed better than they did in high school and that’s why they were able to win admission to Caltech. Similarly, I wish I was as physically fit and mentally tough as a Navy SEAL.</p>
<p>Of course, Sakky- most kids wind up where they are meant to be-with both social and financial fit being very important. Of course, Cal Tech students are also going to have better stats than the average Berkeley or Virginia student. That is a given as Cal Tech has fewer than 1000 students, I believe, and takes only the best scoring ones to begin with and those that clearly excel in science and math. That does not not mean there are not many of the top students at public schools (that have a public mandate to their citizens) like Berkeley ,Michigan, Virginia , etc. that could do well academically at a place like Cal Tech . Both Cal Tech and Berkeley are great schools.</p>
<p>The documentary about Caltech basketball, by the way, is called Quantum Hoops. It got good reviews and may be interesting to those who have a Caltech connection.</p>
<p>Nobody has ever disputed that many top students are at public schools - indeed, given the sheer numbers of students at those schools, it would be nearly statistically impossible if there weren’t. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that those public schools also have a tail-end of students who aren’t highly talented or dedicated and didn’t perform that well in high school, relative to how Caltech undergrads performed. Most of them surely wish they had more talent and dedication. I can think of a number of Berkeley undergrads who candidly admit that they should have worked harder in high school and thereby perhaps had won admission to another school - surely some Michigan and Virginia undergrads think the same. These students do indeed look up to the performance of Caltech undergrads as sentimentGX4 stated, regardless of whether they actually wanted to attend Caltech themselves, in the same way that I admire the physical fitness and dedication of Navy SEALS, even though I don’t actually want to become one myself.</p>
<p>Well, maybe that’s a California thing. Because I just don’t see or hear about Virginia kids being caught up in worrying about not having as much talent and dedication as kids at other schools. The ones I know seem pretty happy, in general, with our public schools like UVa, William and Mary and Virginia Tech. Many parents put their kids in private high schools hoping to make them more competitive for admission. Many top students in Virginia stay in Virginia because of our very good public schools. Of course , many do go to private schools as well , particularly if they are affluent, legacies, go after merit aid(which UVa really doesn’t have) elsewhere,etc. I guess because Caltech and Berkeley are in the same state, there is more focus on comparing the two? Caltech and Berkeley are both great schools . I don’t see what purpose it serves to keep looking for ways that one may be better than the other. They’re both very good schools . Why not leave it at that.</p>
<p>Is that right? Then let me put it to you this way. According to the Department of Education, here are the yield percentages of the following schools:</p>
<p>So think about what that means: in every school listed, the majority of students who are admitted to those schools chooses not to go, but rather chooses to go elsewhere. That doesn’t seem to indicate a high level of satisfaction with those particular public schools. </p>
<p>Now, in fairness, it should be said that Berkeley’s natural rival is not really Caltech (whose yield is also a rather paltry 37%), but rather a certainly relentless tough and attractive competitor in Silicon Valley. The truth of the matter is, of those California high school seniors who are admitted to both Berkeley and Stanford, a strong majority will choose the latter. {And then of course there is the unmatched drawing factor of Harvard, who tends to yield the vast majority of those who are admitted, even those who are also admitted to any other Ivy, Stanford, or MIT.} </p>
<p>Now, certainly, I give great credit for Virginia for yielding a higher percentage of admits than any other state school does. Heck, I wish Berkeley could match Virginia’s yield. But - let’s face it - even Virginia has problems matching up to the top private schools. I suspect that many of the best Virginia high school students don’t really want to go to UVA, but simply treat UVA as a safety school, to be invoked only if they aren’t admitted to where they really want… such as Harvard. {It’s no shame to admit that Harvard beats UVA in cross-admits, as Harvard beats everybody in cross-admits.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Competition and comparison improves performance. Only by discovering in what ways other schools are performing better than you are will you then improve. </p>
<p>I also hardly see how greater information can possibly hurt. Students who are considering Berkeley or Caltech should do so with the most information they can possibly have before they make a decision. That’s better than finding out the hard way once their decisions have been made. Berkeley offers a wider range of opportunities than Caltech does, including a ‘regular’ campus experience complete with major college sports and a vibrant student culture. On the other hand, it can’t be denied that the average Berkeley undergrad is not as accomplished as the average Caltech undergrad.</p>
<p>Sakky,Since you do not live in Virginia, I would guess you do not know what goes on in Virginia. Therefore, since you say that you hardly see how greater information can possibly hurt, I will provide more information about Virginia.UVa is indeed the top choice for many instate top students since it affords a great education, affordable price and sense of history. It was founded by Thomas Jefferson and the campus is part of a World Heritage Site.The yield for instate students is higher than 48%. That figure is skewed by the number of out of state students who apply. For an out of state student to be admitted, they tend to have the kind of stats that would make them competitive for the Ivy’s. Of course, many top Virginia students look elsewhere, particularly those who are affluent and can pay for any school, legacies elsewhere, have a particular program they need , want and feel the need for a higher prestige school than UVa,etc. However, UVa, William and Mary are very attractive to many Virginia families. We are lucky to have such good public schools. If anything, the kids in Virginia who tend to wish they had been more dedicated students in high school tend to be the ones at the less competitive instate schools (if only I had done better, I could have been at UVa, William and Mary,VT,etc) as opposed to any private school in Virginia. This may be one of the things you may not be getting. California obviously has Stanford and Caltech. In Virginia, it is the PUBLIC schools that are well regarded.</p>
<p>Also, in Virginia, some top kids who may need financial help in paying for college and for whom even instate tuition is tough, may go toward out of state schools that offer merit aid for top stats . UVa really does not give merit aid so some kids will go out of state to get it at places like University of Alabama, Univeristy of South Carolina, Clemson, etc. that I believe give automatic merit aid for certain grades and scores.</p>
<p>To be clear, nobody - least of all I - is disparaging UVA. To reiterate, I have often times said that I wished Berkeley could become more like UVA in terms of its undergraduate focus. To boast of a 48% undergraduate yield is to boast of a highly impressive achievement - clearly one of the highest rates of any state school, and, frankly, significantly better than Berkeley’s.</p>
<p>However, the fact remains that UVA, like all public schools, admits a tail end of students who, frankly, really aren’t that strong. I give great credit to UVA for nevertheless graduating a high percentage (93%) of their students in 6 years - a rate that I wish that Berkeley could boast of. Nevertheless, the fact remains that many UVA students are surely there because they couldn’t get into the school they really wanted, whether that be an Ivy, Duke, Stanford, MIT, or whatever. UVA therefore serves as the ‘safety school’ for the better Virginia high school students.</p>
<p>But note, it doesn’t have to be that way. The Berkeley graduate programs are safety schools for nobody. I know many Harvard or MIT graduate students who didn’t get into the corresponding Berkeley graduate programs. The Berkeley graduate programs compete toe-to-toe with any graduate programs in the world. I dearly wish the same could be said for the undergrad programs, but I can’t.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the point stands that sentimentGX4 is (sadly) correct - Berkeley undergrads do look up to Caltech undergrads. I wish it wasn’t true, but it is true.</p>
<p>Is there a point in this discussion? Most of California public school students aim for Berkeley and UCLA like Virginians aim for UVa and William & Mary as well. </p>
<p>It’s not as if students have to resent a school to appreciate another one.</p>
<p>Well, I don’t see any evidence that anybody is resenting any school. </p>
<p>I am simply pointing out the, IMO indisputable fact, that Caltech admits an undergraduate student body of higher average qualifications than Berkeley does. That’s not a shot at Berkeley necessarily, as Berkeley is obviously bound by its public mandate, but simply something that Berkeley could improve in the future.</p>
But I guess you missed one rich and well-endowed university in Saudi Arabia. A few years ago, they commissioned Berkeley scholars to help them structure their 10 billion US dollar university. I don’t recall the name of the institution however. But if it has US$10B, it must be richer than Cambridge.</p>