How are UCs perceived in terms of prestige?

<p>Hi. First time posting here but been lurking around for a while.
I noticed that standards of the people in this forum is ridiculously high, considering how the "average joe" of this forum gets to be admitted to high caliber schools such as Georgetown or any of the "lower Ivies" and still consider transferring for the higher prestige.</p>

<p>And I also noticed how many people are eastcoast biased (not surprising though cuz more people and college exists in the east than the west).
I'm just wondering, how do you guys view UCs, especially the two top-tier schools, UC Berkeley and UCLA?</p>

<p>I'm applying for college this year, and being from California, these two schools are among the kids' dream schools along with Stanford, CalTech, and USC, but I just want to know if Berkeley and UCLA really deserve that much of recognition, and how people around the nation, including the eastcoast people, think of these schools.</p>

<p>I'm especially interested in hearing from the people of this forum because you guys are used to talking to people attending ivy-caliber school and I want to see how you guys and your "friends" that attend such schools view the two UCs, and the UC system as a whole.</p>

<p>Note: this thread is not intended to incite UC Berkeley vs UCLA argument. It's solely for checking to see how people view each school. We are trying to compare these two schools with other schools (mostly with the Ivies and the schools listed in the "CC Top Universities" section of this forum), not with each other.</p>

<p>Comments much appreciated :)</p>

<p>They are seen as great institutions in terms of research and graduate education - worldwide Berkeley is on a level with anyone - but their undergrad degrees are not amazing credentials because their selectivity is fairly low.</p>

<p>Well for Grad schools, Berkeley is definitely one of the top 5 best in the world. At undergrad level it has many top departments in liberal arts, as a well as sciences, engineering, and business. </p>

<p>In graduate studies, i would say that you cannot beat Berkeley for overall value of programs. Almost every single Berkeley Grad program is one of the 10 best in the world. Business, area studies, sciences, social sciences, humanities, law, and engineering grad programs at Berkeley are among the worlds best. </p>

<p>Besides that, they invented the nuke. So that is sayin something.</p>

<p>I think Berkeley is easily one of the 10 most prestigious universities in the world (at graduate level that is).</p>

<p>
[quote]
but their undergrad degrees are not amazing credentials because their selectivity is fairly low.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That has to be one of the most ill-informed comments I've read on these boards.</p>

<p>The UCs are very prestigious, easily one of the most prestigious public systems in the world. They're known for their research, their accomplished faculty, etc. Berkeley, as was said, is very comparable to other prestigious universities. It's pretty much only here on CC where people would make a distinction between Berkeley and schools like the Ivies, etc. Generally, they're seen as equals.</p>

<p>Berkeley's grad school is definitely its stronger area, though its undergrad is far from mediocre; it's easily one of the best in the country and indeed the world.</p>

<p>One person on these boards said: Berkeley has reputation, whereas UCLA has recognition. Each is prestigious in its own right, though I think in different ways. Both, though, are very prestigious, on an international level even. And they both most definitely "deserve that much of recognition."</p>

<p>By the way, there's plenty of west-coast bias on these boards -- the west coast has plenty of comparable schools to east coast ones (Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Caltech, Pomona, Harvey Mudd, other UCs, etc.). In fact, the UCs are some of the most popular schools on this board.</p>

<p>thanks guys. Glad to see the UCs are faring pretty well here :)</p>

<p>UCs seem to me to be like the "common man's" college. as in it is realistic for everyone and also well respected by the average person who knows something about academia and higher education. if you do well in school and in EC/activities, you will get in to a respectable UC--more or less. </p>

<p>I mean, a lot of ppl know Berkeley cus its such an awesome school. but it is not nearly as unpredictable to get into as compared to a school like Yale. basically, if you work hard, you may not necessarily get into yale, but UC system emphasizes on scores and such so it's more achievable/realistic. </p>

<p>even tho it is not terribly super hard to get into, some UCs garner respect like "wow you got into UCLA/UCSD, you must have worked hard in high school" kind of thing. </p>

<p>just my thoughts</p>

<p>UCs are the best public school system in the whole state of human existence, with some beating all the ivies in certain fields. </p>

<p>They are the top. Too bad they are so lenient towards California residents....talk about geographic-racism</p>

<p>I would say, the knowledge of undergrad professors at Berkeley and UCLA is about equal to that of top Ivys, but you lack the great instruction since classes are humongous.</p>

<p>At graduate level though, i would definitely say Berkeley would place in 1st place as best graduate school overall, along with a couple of other grad schools overall (like Harvard, stanford, etc). It by no means ranks lower than harvard and stanford at graduate level.</p>

<p>I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that UC-Berkeley as a University represents one of the greatest, most prolific (in terms of research) academic institutions in the world.</p>

<p>The problem lies with its undergraduate. At the undergraduate level, it is undeniable that it is much harder to gain admissions to the Ivy League/MIT/Stanford than it is Berkeley. One reason is that Berkeley is bigger--- hence its selectivity is lower de facto. As a result of a larger class, the individual attention and resources per student (whatever this really means--- it's more of a quantitative discrimination rather than one that's observable) also tends to go down. </p>

<p>The most obvious disadvantage Berkeley students face as undergraduates can be seen in grad school acceptance rates. WHile Berkeley perenially fares the best among graduate programs out of public schools, it has equal or lower # acceptances than some of the mid-tier Ivies (i.e Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn) despite being much, much bigger than these Ivies. </p>

<p>Also, in terms of prestige, the UC's being branded as "public" schools certainly don't help.</p>

<p>Let me just reiterate that I believe Berkeley as a University stands shoulder-to-shoulder with any of the top research Universities (as evinced by Berkeley's #3-4 ranking on ShanghaiJiatong rankings). I believe that the quantitative (GPA/SAT) aspects of the undergraduates students are more or less commensurate to any of the students at Ivies. However, simply because the Ivies are smaller and thereby more selective, they are able to attract students that have amazing Extracurriculars as well (whereas Berkeley is extremely numbers oriented). I hope I don't get flamed for this, but Berkeley seems like a place students with Ivy-League stats but lacking in EC's would go. </p>

<p>I DO NOT THINK IT IS FAIR, but at least in the Northeast, the midtier + upper (Dart, Columbia, Penn, Brown + HYP) Ivies are seen as more prestigious than Berkeley (since the OP was asking about prestige). I base this on graduate school admissions #'s (Harvard, Yale, Stanford Law school admissions #'s) + Investment Banking recruiting.</p>

<p>YLS Admissions #'s:</p>

<p>Columbia 21
Berkeley- 16
Dartmouth - 16
Brown - 13
Duke - 9
Penn - 9</p>

<p>Columbia/Dartmouth undergraduate size ~4500 students
Berkeley undergraduate size ~ 23,000</p>

<p>*Note: these yale numbers include students from all 3 years of law school.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but UC system emphasizes on scores and such so it's more achievable/realistic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, it doesn't. The UCs, more so the top ones, emphasize GPA, rigor of course load, and essays the most; they're listed as "very important" in the CDS, and scores are listed as just "important." In contrast, Stanford, Yale, etc. list scores as "very important."</p>

<p>
[quote]
Too bad they are so lenient towards California residents....talk about geographic-racism

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What? With over ~40,000 in-state applicants, and 8,000-9,000 getting in, Berkeley is hardly "lenient" with in-state residents. Now, I think it could be argued that they're more lenient with URMs and students who've overcome much adversity -- but then again, so are top privates (at least in the case of URMs).</p>

<p>
[quote]
the knowledge of undergrad professors at Berkeley and UCLA is about equal to that of top Ivys

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course they do. It's not as though Ivy professors will somehow know more about the subject -- after all, they do all have PhDs in their respective areas (for the most part).</p>

<p>
[quote]
but you lack the great instruction since classes are humongous.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How does the size of a class affect the instruction itself? I've never heard this argued before; the usual argument is that the instruction is fine, but access to professors isn't. And the classes at Berkeley aren't even "humongous." Compare Berkeley's class sizes with Stanford's:</p>

<p>Berkeley:
2-9 - 34%
10-19 - 27%
20-29 - 15%
30-39 - 6%
40-49 - 4%
50-99 - 8%
100+ - 6%</p>

<p>Stanford:
2-9 - 38%
10-19 - 35%
20-29 - 8%
30-39 - 5%
40-49 - 4%
50-99 - 6%
100+ - 4%</p>

<p>Not very different. In fact, the student:faculty ratio for Berkeley is 16.7:1 based on numbers from the new CDS (33,933 students:2,028 faculty), and Stanford's student:faculty ratio is 17:1 based on numbers from the new CDS (17,747 students:1,041 faculty). Stanford and comparable institutions often twist their numbers (saying they have 1,800 faculty when that includes more than just instructional faculty, to claiming a 6.3:1 ratio when that's undergrad students to total faculty, etc.), so comparison with schools like Berkeley can be difficult. That's why you use the CDS.</p>

<p>
[quote]
One reason is that Berkeley is bigger--- hence its selectivity is lower de facto.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While I agree that Berkeley undergrad isn't as difficult to get into as the top privates (assuming we're talking about in-state admission), I don't think bigger = less selective de facto. Harvard is considerably larger than Princeton, though I wouldn't say it's less selective.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As a result of a larger class, the individual attention and resources per student (whatever this really means--- it's more of a quantitative discrimination rather than one that's observable) also tends to go down.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not necessarily. At a larger school, you'll have more students, but you'll also have more faculty, more resources, etc. See above on class sizes. (I'd also argue that at some larger schools, resources can sometimes be better -- more facilities, more extracurricular activities, etc.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, simply because the Ivies are smaller and thereby more selective, they are able to attract students that have amazing Extracurriculars as well (whereas Berkeley is extremely numbers oriented).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As I said, simply because Berkeley is a public school doesn't necessarily mean that it's "extremely numbers oriented." I would argue that it's considerably less numbers oriented than most publics (if not all), and the only 'numbers' part that's extremely important is GPA; essays are as important. While I agree that many of the Ivies have students with amazing accomplishments, I would argue that so does Berkeley -- it just has many more students who don't have those accomplishments than the Ivies. Think of it this way: Berkeley (usually) admits the really amazing students, the great students, and a few of the not-as-great students. In the case of Ivies and co, the really amazing students are (usually) admitted, and then some of the great students, rarely some of the not-as-great students. Berkeley manages to attract many amazing students, too -- the Ivies don't have a monopoly on that one.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I hope I don't get flamed for this, but Berkeley seems like a place students with Ivy-League stats but lacking in EC's would go.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not flaming you, but that's blatantly not true. I've seen plenty of people with Ivy-League stats and lacking in ECs get rejected from Berkeley. Just for perspective:</p>

<p>-more than 50% of students with a 4.0 or higher were rejected
-more than 50% of students with an ACT score of 31-36 were rejected
-more than 50% of students with over a 700 on the SAT critical reading were rejected
-about 60% of students with over a 700 on the SAT math were rejected
-more than 50% of students with over a 700 on the SAT writing were rejected</p>

<p>So obviously, there's much more than numbers going on; ECs, honors/awards, and essays are apparently playing a big role.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but at least in the Northeast, the midtier + upper (Dart, Columbia, Penn, Brown + HYP) Ivies are seen as more prestigious than Berkeley (since the OP was asking about prestige).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, yes, regionally, that's how it'll work. There are many places where the Ivies are more prestigious -- in fact, the name "Ivy League" is automatic prestige in the US. But there are also many places where Berkeley (and often UCLA) is more prestigious, e.g. internationally.</p>

<p>To the OP: as you can see, these are many assumptions that people on these boards often make about UCs and top privates.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Not very different. In fact, the student:faculty ratio for Berkeley is 16.7:1 based on numbers from the new CDS (33,933 students:2,028 faculty), and Stanford's student:faculty ratio is 17:1 based on numbers from the new CDS (17,747 students:1,041 faculty). Stanford and comparable institutions often twist their numbers (saying they have 1,800 faculty when that includes more than just instructional faculty, to claiming a 6.3:1 ratio when that's undergrad students to total faculty, etc.), so comparison with schools like Berkeley can be difficult. That's why you use the CDS.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are using deceptive data. The official common data set says "Report the Fall 2006 ratio of full-time equivalent students (full-time plus 1/3 part time) to full-time equivalent instructional faculty (full time plus 1/3 part time). In the ratio calculations, exclude both faculty and students in stand-alone graduate or professional programs such as medicine, law, veterinary, dentistry, social work, business, or public health in which faculty teach virtually only graduate level students. Do not count undergraduate or graduate student teaching assistants as faculty."
That is, the CDS asks for the ratio of faculty teaching undergrads to the number of total students they teach. Stanford reports this number as: "Fall 2006 Student to Faculty ratio: 6.3 to 1 (based on 6,689 students and 1,066 faculty)." That is the official student to faculty ratio according to the CDS reporting requirements. You decided to count all the students is the stand-alone programs listed above, but not the faculty (as can be seen from the fact that your faculty number is about the same as the one reported in the CDS faculty/student ratio, but your student number being equal to the total student number).
Berkeley reports the same number as: "Fall 2006 Student to Faculty ratio: 15.3 to 1 (based on 29,445 students and 1,928 faculty)."</p>

<p>Those two ratios are reported in exactly the same way, according to the same specifications. You achieve your results by manipulating numbers, for instance counting all 483 part-time professors at Berkeley as if they were full time professors (ie, counting them as a whole professor in your total, instead of 1/3 as specified by CDS). Stanford only has 22 part-time professors, so you inflate Berkeley's professor total far more than Stanford's.
Plus, Stanford has many more professional students in comparison to the number of undergrads than Berkeley does. These students have entirely separate faculty (which, for some reason, neither Berkeley nor Stanford includes the number of) and so don't compete with undergrads for attention. By including them in your total students number, you inflate Stanford's number more than Berkeley's.
Incidentally, your choosing Stanford to compare is hardly a coincidence. Using your method (which is deceptive anyway) for Yale, for instance, you find 11,416 students and 1,559 total instructional faculty, for a ratio of 7.33:1, far lower than the numbers you arrived at for Berkeley and Stanford.</p>

<p>Berkeley is oftentimes very prestigious on an international level. I've heard that a lot of Asian countries respect Cal as much as MIT.</p>

<p>^</p>

<p>This is true. Because there are so many asians @ berkeley (50% of undergrads).</p>

<p>KyleDavid:</p>

<p>How do you explain this?</p>

<p>YLS Admissions #'s:</p>

<p>Columbia 21
Berkeley- 16
Dartmouth - 16
Brown - 13
Duke - 9
Penn - 9</p>

<p>Columbia/Dartmouth undergraduate size ~4500 students
Berkeley undergraduate size ~ 23,000</p>

<p>*Note: these yale numbers include students from all 3 years of law school.</p>

<p>5 times the amount of undergrads than "peer" schools yet has about equal # of acceptances at YLS?</p>

<p>
[quote]
That is the official student to faculty ratio according to the CDS reporting requirements.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, I'm aware; I too know how to read and interpret data.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You decided to count all the students is the stand-alone programs listed above, but not the faculty (as can be seen from the fact that your faculty number is about the same as the one reported in the CDS faculty/student ratio, but your student number being equal to the total student number)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, that's the point. People often point to Berkeley's 16:1 (or 17:1) student:faculty ratio, which includes all grad and undergrad students; but in the student:faculty ratio that people point to for Stanford, it only includes undergrads. This comparison isn't fair, and so it leads to erroneous assumptions about the universities relative to one another. In taking the total # students and faculty, I'm finding more common ground.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You achieve your results by manipulating numbers, for instance counting all 483 part-time professors at Berkeley as if they were full time professors

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not "manipulating" numbers; I'm using part-time professors in Berkeley's faculty, just as I'm using part-time professors in Stanford's faculty. It's fair. That isn't manipulating numbers. That Berkeley has more part-time faculty is something that would come in when examining the breakdown of faculty.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Incidentally, your choosing Stanford to compare is hardly a coincidence.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I chose any random university that's often cited for having a small, personal environment with smaller classes.</p>

<p>Despite my supposedly using "deceptive" numbers, I can see the same conclusion in class size breakdowns. The bottom line is, both schools are going to have about the same class sizes. My elaboration on the student:faculty ratio was simply an extension of the 'small class sizes' point; since we are talking about UCs' prestige, we got on the topic of class sizes, and people automatically assume that since Berkeley is large, it's going to have huge classes in comparison to other prestigious universities. This is blatantly not true.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is true. Because there are so many asians @ berkeley (50% of undergrads).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, that isn't why. It's because Berkeley is known for its achievements: its discoveries, its research, etc. That's what gains it international prestige, not because Asians go there. Harvard is probably as well known there, if not more well known, and it's only 15% Asian. So that's a false assumption.</p>

<p>
[quote]
5 times the amount of undergrads than "peer" schools yet has about equal # of acceptances at YLS?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think you can make any conclusion just based on those raw numbers. You'd need to know how many people from each school even applied to YLS. And at any rate, why the hell are we talking about YLS? It's irrelevant to this discussion, since that isn't why Berkeley isn't as prestigious as Ivies in the Northeast; YLS is simply one very small measure.</p>

<p>Oh, and i think that the Manhattan project itself is enough to give Berkeley one of the strongest reps in the world. I mean come on, they freakin invented the Nuclear bomb with Cal professors. Not to mention that Cal is the single institution responsible for the most radioctive nuclear elemental discoveries of any institution in the world.</p>

<p>On the collegeboard.com website for Berkely it says what state you live in is just as, if not more important than your SATs and GPA</p>

<p>But i agree you still cant be an "idiot" and get in just because of being a californian. I respect Berkely highly, just I feel its unfair that when I apply there I will be held up to a much higher selectivity level because Instaters get 'first priority' so to speak.</p>

<p>californian should have first priority cause berkeley is technically for californian...and you newyorkers have higher prioirty in your state's schools..</p>

<p>
[quote]
I mean come on, they freakin invented the Nuclear bomb with Cal professors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As much as I like the Berkeley love, I'll add that it was developed at various universities -- Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, etc.</p>

<p>
[quote]
just I feel its unfair that when I apply there I will be held up to a much higher selectivity level because Instaters get 'first priority' so to speak.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Er, that's how it's gonna be for most public universities. It's the University of California, so it's going to serve California residents first. And since it's such a huge state, there are few spots for out-of-staters.</p>