How are UCs perceived in terms of prestige?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>To the OP: Berkeley (and to a lesser extent UCLA) hold unique positions in higher education compared with peer or near-peer institutions. On the one hand, Berkeley is among the creme-de-la-creme of research institutions. Across the board, its faculty and graduate schools rank among the uppermost elite of the world's institutions, from the sciences to engineering to the humanities. Also, though Berkeley has existed for a lot less time than most Ivy League schools, it has an important cultural pre-eminence as the place where campus Civil Rights protests were most active, where Oppenheimer kicked off crucial elements of the the Manhattan Project, where many Nobel Laureates have been spawned, where the "Berkeley Mafia" that guided Indonesia's economy to stability for many years was trained, etc.</p>

<p>Thus, it is cast as one of the world's most prestigious universities.</p>

<p>On the undergraduate level, though, its unquestionable prestige on the graduate level is called more into question and its position among the creme-de-la-creme is less clear. This may largely be because of Berkeley's mission: though it is the flagship, and most selective of, the University of California's campuses, it does admit a cadre of students that wouldn't be considered as likely candidates for admission to places like HYPS or even the other Ivy League institutions. UC has, as its mandate, to provide a place for the top 4% of the state's students. Berkeley must accomodate a share of these. (Don't get me wrong; getting in to Berkeley is not easy for anyone. But it is easier than for HYPS applicants, on average.)</p>

<p>It is interesting that Berkeley's undergraduate admissions stats are broadly comparable to the nation's other best public universities (Michigan, UVA, William & Mary).</p>

<p>Public institutions typically fulfill a mandate of admitting more students and charging them less for their education. The result is not necessarily a lesser education -- Berkeley's faculty is among the best and those of the other public schools mentioned sure are nothing to sneeze at -- but it means the process can be more crowded at some points and takes place in a larger, more anonymous atmosphere typically. </p>

<p>If you are considering going to Berkeley or UCLA, the questions for you are: how do you feel about the public mission and what that means? (Some people like it and others don't, with all the characteristics it implies. Some people would prefer more sheer elitism; they are not going to a school that is known for being less expensive and somewhat easier to get into. And others think the quality of the education itself is substantially different. Still others choose Berkeley because they look at either the cost or the perceived value of going somewhere else and opt for Berkeley and either like or don't mind its public mission. And some choose Berkeley 'cause they think it's the best thing going, full-stop.) Are you the kind of person who could be outgoing and really directed in terms of making sure that you are educated in college or would you like more handholding and guidance from the college? (If you aren't self-motivated in these regards, arguably you should stay away from a Berkeley or UCLA and go to a small school. If you go to Berkeley or UCLA and do well there, you will take yourself alongside graduates from a variety of elite schools public and private as you attend graduate school or go into the work world. For the right people, IMO, Berkeley provides every opportunity to connect with as much quality as one can find in the most prestigious Ivy League school; it just may take more effort and focus. Of course, the overall question of fit is paramount.) </p>

<p>On the national level, Berkeley has really strong profile throughout academia. In other areas, its profile has actually somewhat declined, IMO, from its heights during the 60s and 70s. I note a couple of perhaps arcane instances just to demonstrate: Berkeley's student newspaper had a weekly sex advice columnist for quite awhile. I had assumed this was a Berkeley innovation, though I could be wrong. Anyway, three or four years after the columnists (it rotated year-to-year) had done their thing there was an article in the New York Times about the innovation of Yale's student newspaper to have a sexual advice columnist. There was a time when the NYT might have sent someone to Berkeley's campus to see what was happening at one of the most exciting schools in the nation.</p>

<p>Or take the $500 million Berkeley just was granted from British Petroleum to undertake biofuels research. That gift got very little play in the national media, even though Berkeley was up against MIT, Cambridge, and a few others to contend for it and even though it was by far the largest corporate gift to a university ever. I can't imagine if the gift had gone to another school, it would have received so little attention. I think Berkeley has lost some of the "mindshare" in the popular imagination, probably reflective of a bias against the West Coast and a bias against publics. There was a time when Berkeley had a much stronger hold on the public imagination that for whatever reason has dissipated a bit. It's still quite high profile, though.</p>

22

<p>UCs are really good schools and the best public school system in my opinion. Most of them are in the top 100s with UCB being ranked as the highest for a public school.</p>

<p>UCB and UCLA and UCSD are really great schools. UCSB and UCI are also very good as well but not as good as those three.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

No it doesn't. The numbers it reports in the CDS are reported according to the same rules as the numbers Stanford reports. Counting the same types of students the same way (as in, according to the Common Data Set format), Stanford's faculty:student ratio is 6.3:1, Berkeley's is 15.3:1.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Despite my supposedly using "deceptive" numbers, I can see the same conclusion in class size breakdowns.

[/quote]

Actually, your class size numbers don't show that. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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%

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let's compare the number of large classes (50+ students). If we use exact numbers, Stanford has 10.3% of classes over 50 students (with 4.0% over 100). Berkeley has 14.2% of classes over 50 students (with 6.5% over 100). Looking at these numbers, you will see that Berkeley students will take, on average 1.625 times as many classes with over 100 students as Stanford students will, and 1.378 times as many classes with over 50 students. These are significant differences.
As you will realize with only a little thought, far more than 6.5% of the classes an average Berkeley student takes will have more than 100 students. To explain, imagine a very small school, with say, 200 students, each taking only one class. Say that there are 11 classes, 1 with 100 students, and 10 with 10 students each. Though only 9% of classes would have 100+ students (and 91% would have 10 students), 50% of the students would be in a 100 student class, while an equivalent 50% would be in a 10 student class. So, from the actual experience of a student, 6.5% of classes over 100 students probably means that 30-35% of one's classes would have more than 100 students. At Stanford, with only 4% of classes over 100, it would be more like 18-22%. That's a significant difference. Assuming that the average 2-9 student class has 5 students, the average 10-19 student class has 15 students, the average 50-99 student class has 75 students, and the average 100+ student class has 200 students, the ratio of students in large classes (50+) to students in small classes (20-) is 3.26:1 at Berkeley, and only 1.79:1 at Stanford. That means at Stanford, you are 1.8 times more likely to be in a small class (relative to a big class) than you are at Berkeley. Tell me that you don't consider that a significant difference.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to bash Berkeley here. I think it is one of the 20 or 25 best schools in the country for undergraduate education, one of the top 3 for graduate education and overall research quality, and the best public university for both undergrads and grad students (go away Michigan/UVa backers, Cal is better). But, at the same time, it's disingenuous to claim that class sizes are equivalent at Berkeley and Stanford. They simply aren't (and Stanford's class sizes are bigger than some of it's private peers, like Yale and Princeton).</p>

24

<p>UCB and UCLA are incredible. UCSD/UCI follow closely. UCSB, then. And the others trail along.</p>

25

<p>I understand how class sizes work. But I still maintain that a 2% difference, for example, is insignificant. Of course, the average student is going to take a certain percentage of large and small classes, but I don't see how your example is easily applied to a school where 7,000 courses are offered at any given time and the # courses taken is much more variable.</p>

<p>
[quote]
6.5% of classes over 100 students probably means that 30-35% of one's classes would have more than 100 students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How in the world did you come to that conclusion? I don't think you have enough data to make such a claim. It's much more complex in the case of Berkeley and Stanford.</p>

<p>
[quote]
At Stanford, with only 4% of classes over 100, it would be more like 18-22%. That's a significant difference.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Assuming that at Berkeley, you'd take about 40 classes (semester system, about 5/semester), .35<em>40 = 14. At Stanford, you'd take about 48 classes (quarter system, about 4/semester), so .22</em>48 = 11. A difference of 3. And I can't even make this claim with anything akin to certainty, since the # classes/semester is variable, the # students who take classes over the summer is variable, the # years at the institution is variable as the graduation rates are different, etc. Thus, it's much too complex to reduce to a simplified system in order to project the numbers. It'd be easier just to collect the real data. And I think the data would complement the data on class sizes.*</p>

<p>I'll add, a class is offered in multiple sections to combat exactly what you demonstrated in your example.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Assuming that the average 2-9 student class has 5 students, the average 10-19 student class has 15 students, the average 50-99 student class has 75 students, and the average 100+ student class has 200 students, the ratio of students in large classes (50+) to students in small classes (20-) is 3.26:1 at Berkeley, and only 1.79:1 at Stanford. That means at Stanford, you are 1.8 times more likely to be in a small class (relative to a big class) than you are at Berkeley. Tell me that you don't consider that a significant difference.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're looking at extremes here and comparing them. There are different proportions between the extremes -- very comparable ones. The only part where I can see it as a slightly significant difference is here:</p>

<p>10-19 - 35%
20-29 - 8%</p>

<p>whereas at Berkeley, it's:</p>

<p>10-19 - 27%
20-29 - 15%</p>

<p>Really, all in all, the difference in class sizes isn't major.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not trying to bash Berkeley here.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said you were, or implied it. I'm simply dispelling a misconception; you're free to disagree.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But, at the same time, it's disingenuous to claim that class sizes are equivalent at Berkeley and Stanford.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think I ever claimed they were equivalent, because not even I could defend that (4% != 6%). I was asserting that they are comparable.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They simply aren't (and Stanford's class sizes are bigger than some of it's private peers, like Yale and Princeton).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Agreed.</p>

<ul>
<li>In looking at the schedule of classes for computer science (one of Berkeley's larger departments), only 4 lower-division courses had more than 100. Most had class size caps of 32, 25, 28, 10, etc. Beyond that, only 1 upper-div course had more than 100; most had caps <20. I haven't done percents, but I think this is pretty typical.</li>
</ul>

26

<p>In terms of the average guy on the street on the East Coast, Berkeley is well-known and well-respected, although most people probably don't even know that it is a UC. UCLA is also well-respected and is probably more respected here than it is out west, from what I've seen on the boards. The average person doesn't know any other UC.</p>

27

<p>Interesting thread indeed.
I wouldn't know it for sure but from my understanding, the difference of prestige between Cal and UCLA tend to be perceived as negligible (that is, the two schools are more likely to be seen as equal) from a Californian stance. However as you go further and further out to the east, the perceived gap of the two school's prestige widens up to the point where if you go to the Northeast region, Cal tend to be seen as a step above from UCLA.</p>

<p>And you'd understand, OP as a fellow Californian, that most people see UCLA/USC as a "better" school than Boston College and NYU down here in the West. You'd get a complete opposite answer if you were to ask average joe from the Northeast. So I guess whether you'll like it or not, geographic bias will always hold.</p>

<p>My point is, do not let the "perceived prestige" be the main factor for determining the quality of the school, and most of all, do NOT let that be the determining factor for choosing where you'll spend the next four years of your life. :)</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
Assuming that at Berkeley, you'd take about 40 classes (semester system, about 5/semester), .35<em>40 = 14. At Stanford, you'd take about 48 classes (quarter system, about 4/semester), so .22</em>48 = 11. A difference of 3.

[/quote]

Back with the tricky math, are we? Stanford students take more total courses due to the quarter system. So yes, they will only take 3 fewer courses with 100+ students, but, if I were to use your tricky math to my advantage, I could say that Stanford students will take 37 classes with fewer than 100 students, while Berkeley students will only take 26. See, using total number of classes when students at one school take significantly more total classes is unfair. </p>

<p>
[quote]
How in the world did you come to that conclusion? I don't think you have enough data to make such a claim. It's much more complex in the case of Berkeley and Stanford.

[/quote]

I actually do have enough data to make an approximate claim. I didn't work it out exactly before, but I'm happy to now. </p>

<p>Let's begin. We will have to make a few reasonable assumptions first. Assume classes with 2-9 students have an average of 5, assume classes with 10-19 students have an average of 15, 20-29 average 25, 30-39 average 35, 40-49 average 45, 50-99 average 75, 100+ average 200.
From the common data set, Berkeley has about 5,895 student-classes with 2-9 students (5<em>1179), 14,055 with 10-19 students (15</em>937), 13,025 with 20-29 students (25<em>521), 7,770 with 30-39 students (35</em>222), 5,805 with 40-49 students (45<em>129), 20,025 with 50-99 students (75</em>267), and 45,200 with 100+ students (200*226). This is a total of 111,775 student-classes, which averages to 4.68 per undergrad (a reasonable estimate), since class numbers are for one semester (Fall 2006), and 4.68 classes is a perfectly reasonable approximation for how many the average undergrad will take in a term (showing that my initial assumptions were reasonable). Of those 111,775 student-classes, 45,200 had more than 100 students. This works out to 40.4% of an individual student's classes having more than 100 students, which is a little more than I originally estimated.
I will spare you the details at Stanford. The final working out is 35,490 student-classes. This is 5.52 student-classes per undergrad, implying that for Stanford, I overestimated class sizes in each range (since 5.52 is more that one would expect the average student to take). The place I'm most likely to have overestimated is in the 100+ range (as I can average for the others, and Stanford will have fewer of the 900 student type classes that Berkeley has a few of, which drag up Berkeley's average). Anyway, to make the numbers better for you, I won't correct for the flaw. 11,200 student-classes at Stanford have more than 100 students (if my 200 average is correct, which, for Stanford, appears unlikely, though it worked out for Berkeley). This works out to 31.6% of classes. So again, I originally underestimated (though, I believe this number to be an overestimate). So it's 40% versus 30% (rather than 30% versus 20%), but it still is a significant difference. </p>

<p>Incidentally, if I assume an average of 150 students per 100+ class at Stanford, we get 5.09 classes per student (more reasonable that 5.52, though still probably high), and only 25.7% of classes with over 100 students. I expect this latter figure to be closer to correct, implying that the average Berkeley student is 1.57 times more likely to find him or herself in a huge class than the average Stanford student.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In looking at the schedule of classes for computer science (one of Berkeley's larger departments), only 4 lower-division courses had more than 100. Most had class size caps of 32, 25, 28, 10, etc. Beyond that, only 1 upper-div course had more than 100; most had caps <20. I haven't done percents, but I think this is pretty typical.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, there are a total of 226 classes at Berkeley with more than 100 students (and that's just in one semester, don't know if your compsci data is for an entire year or just one term). Seems compsci is better than one would expect for a large department.</p>

29

<p>Great job on the analysis there -- I hadn't thought to do that. However, I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion:</p>

<p>
[quote]
So it's 40% versus 30% (rather than 30% versus 20%), but it still is a significant difference.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Assuming that these numbers are even valid in reality, let's look at what I did before:</p>

<p>Average of 40% student-classes over 100, average of 4.68 per student, total of 8 terms<em>: .4(4.68</em>8) = 15 classes over 100 per person.</p>

<p>Average of 26% student-classes over 100, average of 5.09, total of 12 terms<em>: .26(5.09</em>12) = 15.9 classes over 100 per person.</p>

<ul>
<li>This is assuming a 100% 4-year graduation rate -- which screws up the numbers even more, since that's far from reality.</li>
</ul>

<p>Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but I don't think these are right. In fact, I don't think your projections are quite right either -- an average of 5.09 classes per term on the quarter system is far too high, especially at a rigorous school like Stanford. But the fact that the 100+ is unbounded leaves more ambiguity in these calculations.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, there are a total of 226 classes at Berkeley with more than 100 students (and that's just in one semester, don't know if your compsci data is for an entire year or just one term). Seems compsci is better than one would expect for a large department.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The class sizes reported in CDS, including Berkeley's and Stanford's, are for one term only, so I surmise that my finding in compsci reflects this (it was for one term, the fall). And I don't think compsci is out of the ordinary. The largest class was 61A, which had about 350 people, but that class is required for admission to the major. (It's also supplemented with many small discussions.) But we can try something else:</p>

<p>From the schedule of classes, there are 152 majors listed. If we assume normal distribution, then there will be an average of 226/152, or 1.5, classes within each department that have more than 100 students. If you're in a given major, you should have an average of 2 classes that have more than 100 people, which is about 5% of the total classes you'd take at Berkeley.</p>

<p>I'm not even sure about these numbers, either -- the figure above assumes that courses aren't cross-listed to different departments and that students don't take courses outside their own major. So these numbers are probably skewed. If, however, we accept the above premises, then my example of computer science fits: it's a large department, and 4 courses had 100+, so that would put it a standard deviation or two above the average. I'm not exactly sure how close to reality this is, but it seems more likely than the comparison you made (average of 5.09 classes, etc.). And 40% classes that a person would take at Berkeley being over 100? That's ridiculous; that's almost half -- I really don't think that's the case. And these are just undergraduate classes, so it can't be skewed by grad courses. Hell, even 25-30% courses over 100 that a person would take at Stanford is nothing to be proud of.</p>

<p>Edit: I just re-read this:</p>

<p>
[quote]
the average Berkeley student is 1.57 times more likely to find him or herself in a huge class than the average Stanford student.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your estimates are indeed about right -- really great job on your part (your figure was 3.1% off). You could've figured out the same thing by doing:</p>

<p>(226/3481)/(56/1396) = 1.62 times more likely to find him or herself in a class over 100. That's 6.5% / 4%, which comes out to 1.63. But since the base number is so small in this case -- 4% -- any change in it is going to be radical, even if that change is slight. So while it's true that a Berkeley student is 1.62 times more likely to be in a class of over 100, the real difference is 2.5%, which is an insignificant difference in my book.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
And you'd understand, OP as a fellow Californian, that most people see UCLA/USC as a "better" school than Boston College and NYU down here in the West. You'd get a complete opposite answer if you were to ask average joe from the Northeast. So I guess whether you'll like it or not, geographic bias will always hold.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would think that UCLA and USC are better than NYU. Stern is probably the only part of NYU that is better than both of them. BC, on the other hand, may or may not be better. That one is debatable. NYU, on the other hand, is not so much.</p>

<p>[I'm ignoring Tisch, since it's not really academics-related...]</p>

31

<p>svalbardlutefisk: And by the way, I loathe statistics, so sorry if my interpretations of your data are off.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
I'm not exactly sure how close to reality this is, but it seems more likely than the comparison you made (average of 5.09 classes, etc.). And 40% classes that a person would take at Berkeley being over 100? That's ridiculous; that's almost half -- I really don't think that's the case. And these are just undergraduate classes, so it can't be skewed by grad courses. Hell, even 25-30% courses over 100 that a person would take at Stanford is nothing to be proud of.

[/quote]

I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's how it ends up working. The compsci numbers don't show that I'm wrong, no matter how representative they are. As I showed, even with only 6.5% of classes over 100 students, 40% of the ones the average student takes have more than 100.
As for the 5.09 being unreasonable, you may very well be right. But as I pointed out, the most likely way to correct this is to reduce the average number of students in 100+ classes, which would only increase the discrepancy between Stanford and Berkeley.
It doesn't really matter how unreasonable it sounds, it has to work out that way in order for the number of classes in each category in the CDS to be accurate. To provide some more info, I'll calculate the bare minimum of classes over 100 for the average student (this assumes the maximum number of students in all smaller ranges, ie, 99 in 50-99, 49 in 40-49, 9 in 2-9, and the minimum number in 100+: that is, 100. Of course this also creates a substantial number of 99 student classes, which aren't any better, but, anyway, here goes). At Berkeley, it comes out to 107,535 student-classes, which puts 21% of students in classes of 100+. This is the bare minimum. Since it assumes that all classes in the 50-99 range have 99 students, it actually means 45.5% are in classes with 99+, which is worse than before. If we make this a little more reasonable, and say keep 75 as the average for 50-99, but make the same changes we made earlier, we get 101,127 student classes with 22.3% over 100, probably a more accurate bare minimum. The real number is certainly higher, as the average for 100+ student classes is definitely above 100, while it's clearly unreasonable to say that all 10-19 student classes have 19 students. A more realistic minimum is 30% (and I still think my number is closer than that).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Average of 40% student-classes over 100, average of 4.68 per student, total of 8 terms<em>: .4(4.68</em>8) = 15 classes over 100 per person.</p>

<p>Average of 26% student-classes over 100, average of 5.09, total of 12 terms<em>: .26(5.09</em>12) = 15.9 classes over 100 per person.

[/quote]

Of course, with these numbers, Stanford students take 61 classes, while Berkeley students only take 37, so having the same total number with over 100 would still make Stanford far better on average.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hell, even 25-30% courses over 100 that a person would take at Stanford is nothing to be proud of.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree, so I'm going to do the math for two more institutions (with smaller class sizes): Yale and Amherst, and see what we get. I'll do it with the original method (assume 5 students for 2-9, etc, with 200 for 100+, we'll see how that works out for average classes per student). For Yale, we get 28,070 student-classes. This works out to 5.26 classes per student, clearly too high (at Yale you must take 4.5 per term to graduate. Since some take more than is necessary, and obviously no one takes less, the average would be higher than 4.5, but 5.26 is too much too high). So we'll try 150 for the 100+ classes. This gives us 26,270 student classes, or 4.93 per student, which, from personal experience, is reasonable. This puts 20.6% of classes at over 100 for the average student, which is better than Stanford (and twice as good as Berkeley). It also seems reasonable to me: an average of less than one course per term with over 100 students, about 8 total during one's time at Yale.
Amherst has only one class with over 100 students (in the Fall term, presumably two total) out of 360 classes offered. We'll see if this works out in a way that makes sense. We'll assume it has 150 students (this has worked better for the small class sizes). This produces 7035 student-classes, or 4.27 per student. Since Amherst students need only 4 courses per term to graduate, 4.27 is a reasonable average. We arrive at 2.1% of classes a student takes in their time at Amherst having over 100 students. I would call that reasonable. We would expect 300 people per year to take a class with over 100 students (assuming there is a similar course in the Spring). This works out to 1200 over 4 years. This means 72.8% of Amherst students take one of those two courses (of course, in reality the number is lower, as some take both, reducing the number that take one or more, but the math will be the same). If an average Amherst student takes 34 courses over their 8 terms (a reasonable assumption, as it's 2 more than the minimum), we would expect .728 of a course, on average, to be over 100 students. .728/34 = 2.1%, just the number we got earlier, reached from a different set of estimations. I think my method works.</p>

33

<p><a href="226/3481">quote</a>/(56/1396) = 1.62 times more likely to find him or herself in a class over 100. That's 6.5% / 4%, which comes out to 1.63. But since the base number is so small in this case -- 4% -- any change in it is going to be radical, even if that change is slight. So while it's true that a Berkeley student is 1.62 times more likely to be in a class of over 100, the real difference is 2.5%, which is an insignificant difference in my book.

[/quote]

But the fact is that the average student is taking far more than 6.5% (or 4% at Stanford) of their courses with more than 100 students. So it isn't really a 2.5% difference. It's something like a 10-15% difference (i.e. 40% vs 30% or vs 25%, depending on which of my Stanford numbers you like). Let's put it this way, at Amherst, 1/360, or 0.28% of classes are over 100 students. Is that "only" a 6% difference from Berkeley? Hardly, it's the difference between 40% of your classes having over 100 students and at most one or two classes during your entire college career having over 100 students. Apparently small differences in the numbers of large classes are really magnified by the number of students in those classes.
Even if Berkeley has the minimum possible number of classes with over 100 students (assuming some unrealistic distributions of class sizes), 22.3%, a Berkeley student will take 10 times as many 100+ classes as an Amherst student from that 6% (6.5% vs 0.28%) difference.</p>

<p>edit: incidentally, I apologize to the OP, as none of this has anything to do with the prestige of the UC system. As an apology, I'll attempt an answer. In my experience, the Berkeley has exceptionally good prestige in CA (and the West Coast as a whole), and excellent prestige internationally (mainly due to its amazingly strong faculty research and grad programs, but this carries over to undergrad). In the Northeast, a Berkeley undergrad education is not that prestigious because most Northeasterners are convinced of the complete superiority of the entire Ivy League, the good NE LACs, and various other Northeastern universities. In general, it's overrated in CA, and vastly underrated on the East Coast (the same is true for the system as a whole). LA has approximately equal prestige to Berkeley in CA, but far lower internationally, and marginally lower in the rest of the US. UCSD is a step down from UCLA in prestige terms everywhere, UCI+UCD+UCSB continue the downward trend. UCSC is the next prestige step down in CA, but nobody (by which I mean very few people) outside CA knows anything about any of the UCs below UCSD anyway, so it may not be considered less prestigious outside CA, but that's basically because neither it, nor the UCI-level group have very much prestige at all. UCR and UCM are again lower in CA, and perhaps also lower in the rest of the country/world (but since most people outside CA don't know very much about any of the lower UCs, it's probably not a big step down).</p>

34

<p>Oh, and I hadn't ever addressed this:</p>

<p>
[quote]
The numbers it reports in the CDS are reported according to the same rules as the numbers Stanford reports. Counting the same types of students the same way (as in, according to the Common Data Set format), Stanford's faculty:student ratio is 6.3:1, Berkeley's is 15.3:1.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, there's a disparity. In Stanford's reported ratio, it doesn't include grad students. In Berkeley's reported ratio, it does include grad students. On top of that, if they're to use full-time faculty + 1/3 part time, the total faculty for Stanford would be 1,026: 1,019 + 1/3(22) = 1,026. But Stanford reports: "6.3 to 1 (based on 6,689 students and 1,066 faculty)" -- where did it get 1,066 faculty? And, again, 6,689 is only including undergrad. In Berkeley's ratio, it says 1,928, but that's erroneous if you go by full-time faculty + 1/3 part-time: it should be 1,545 + 1/3(483) = 1,706. It says, "Fall 2006 Student to Faculty ratio: 15.3 to 1 (based on 29,445 students and 1,928 faculty)" and 29,445 is well beyond the # undergrads, so it must be including grads. However, I'm thinking these are old numbers.</p>

<p>I can see why the # faculty might be skewed because of this caveat:</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>But I'm sure that Stanford's ratio has only undergrad students, and Berkeley's includes more than just its undergrads. So it's not a fair comparison.</p>

<p>And at any rate, these ratios don't tell us much about class sizes, since grad student instructors, visiting scholars, lecturers, etc. help to keep class sizes smaller. This is true at both institutions.</p>

<p>Anyway, the ratios and the numbers they're based on are screwy to me -- just throwing that out there.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]

Anyway, the ratios and the numbers they're based on are screwy to me -- just throwing that out there.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Definitely true. I've been noticing the faculty size thing on a lot of schools' common data sets. With the student numbers, both Stanford and Cal use a number greater than the number of undergrads, but smaller than the number of total students (though with Stanford it's fairly close to the undergrad number) so there's something going on there as well beyond Stanford simply ignoring grad students while Berkeley counts them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And at any rate, these ratios don't tell us much about class sizes, since grad student instructors, visiting scholars, lecturers, etc. help to keep class sizes smaller. This is true at both institutions.

[/quote]

True, but I think that my class size analysis demonstrates that the "real" faculty/student ratio is substantially better at Stanford than Cal.</p>

36

<p>svalbardlutefisk, despite your supported calculations, it still doesn't seem realistic. The averages you have simply don't live up to reality. Almost half the courses a person taking at Berkeley have over 100 people? No, that can't be right. And it's not that I don't like it; it's that from real experience (as in, from the real schedule of classes), your calculations don't live up to it.</p>

<p>What do you have to say to my departmental breakdown? The 226/152 number. Where's the flawed logic in that, other than the fact that the department # might not be that high?</p>

<p>Looking at the courses for English, probably Berkeley's largest department, I can see only 1 course that had over 100 people, grad and undergrad. In electrical engineering, another popular major, only 5 courses had over 100. In philosophy, I saw 7. In geography, I saw only 1. In French, I saw none.</p>

<p>And I was mainly just looking at the size caps -- oftentimes, the class doesn't reach its cap.</p>

<p>
[quote]
True, but I think that my class size analysis demonstrates that the "real" faculty/student ratio is substantially better at Stanford than Cal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your numbers do, but I can't help but notice that they don't hold up well in reality -- that is, in these actual class sizes. I haven't been able to find any department that will have 15 of its courses with 100+.</p>

37

<p>kyledavid, my analysis works. I think part of the issue here is that people don't only take courses in their major. And when they take a course outside their major, what is it most likely to be? That's right, a large intro course (because they don't have the background for upper level courses). So yes, perhaps only 4 of a compsci major's, say 15 courses in the major (I have no idea what Berkeley's requirement is, but this seems reasonable) will have over 100 students, but 15 of his other 25 courses will as well. And, I've conclusively shown that it's absolutely impossible for fewer than 22% of the average student's courses to have more than 100 students at Berkeley, and that's making extremely unrealistic assumptions about the distribution of course sizes. The 40% number works, trust me.
I'll provide some anecdotal evidence to back up the stats (though the stats are more conclusive). At Yale, where I'm a student, my stats, using approximately the same method as I used for Berkeley (except I used 150 as the average course size of classes over 100 instead of 200, which fits with the average number of courses a student would take at both schools, and makes sense in light of the fact that Berkeley is much larger and will therefore have many more students in the types of large intro courses that produce 100+ classes) produced about 20% of courses over 100 for the average student. I have a lot of friends at Yale who took 4 or 5 courses (if not more) with more than 100 students in their freshman years alone (the time when these courses are most likely to be taken). Since 20% works out to about 8 courses over 4 years, the numbers fit with what I've observed. Since my methods for Berkeley are essentially the same, it would be reasonable to expect them to fit just as well.</p>

<p>edit:
[quote]
Your numbers do, but I can't help but notice that they don't hold up well in reality -- that is, in these actual class sizes. I haven't been able to find any department that will have 15 of its courses with 100+.

[/quote]

Why would it have to have 15 courses over 100+? That would assume that people take every single class in their major, which is not only untrue, but impossible (Berkeley has distributional requirements)</p>

38

<p>Perhaps they are taking courses outside their department, but I don't think it's enough to raise it to 40%. I'm pretty sure that many, if not most, will stay predominantly in their own department, but of course, I don't have any data on that. For L&S, one must take 6 units out of his/her major department, but those have to be upper-div units, and I doubt those upper-div classes will have 100+ students.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The 40% number works, trust me. I'll provide some anecdotal evidence to back up the stats (though the stats are more conclusive). At Yale, where I'm a student, my stats, using approximately the same method as I used for Berkeley produced about 20% of courses over 100 for the average student.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Simply because it works for Yale doesn't necessarily mean that it will work for Berkeley. It could be coincidental that it matches up. I'm not saying this is the reason, but I can't seem to accept your numbers in the face of the schedules of classes. It simply doesn't match up.</p>

39

<p>Since I've put so much time into these calculations, I've created a set of "real class sizes" for each of the four schools I've discussed in this thread: Berkeley, Stanford, Yale, and Amherst. It approximates the percentage of classes in each size range that the average student should expect at each school. So here it is:
Yale
2-9: 7.25%
10-19: 32.03%
20-29: 12.37%
30-39: 5.86%
40-49: 5.65%
50-99: 16.27%
100+: 20.56%
Total: 99.99%</p>

<p>Stanford
2-9: 8.10%
10-19: 22.35%
20-29: 8.34%
30-39: 7.07%
40-49: 8.26%
50-99: 20.19%
100+: 25.70%
Total: 100.01%</p>

<p>Berkeley
2-9: 5.27%
10-19: 12.57%
20-29: 11.65%
30-39: 6.95%
40-49: 5.19%
50-99: 17.91%
100+: 40.44%
Total: 99.98%</p>

<p>Amherst:
2-9: 5.69%
10-19: 35.39%
20-29: 21.68%
30-39: 12.94%
40-49: 8.32%
50-99: 13.86%
100+: 2.13%
Total: 100.01%</p>

<p>I know that I don't have accuracy to anywhere near two decimal points, but I calculated to that level to make sure everything added up right (and I wasn't making any mistakes), so I left the numbers in that format. In fact, probably every number should read +/- 2%, to give a reasonable error range. But it provides useful information for comparing the sizes of the classes you would actually find yourself in if you chose to attend any of these schools.</p>

40

<p>Guys stop arguing. You're both using questionable numbers, shaky logic, and with little experience of the school in question, to clutter up a perfectly good thread.</p>

<p>I'm just going to address a few points:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Although something like 4% of classes above 100 versus 6% of classes above 100 seems like only a 2% difference, it effectively means you'll have 50% more classes above 100. Think about it this way: given two schools with the same number of classes and those percentages, one will have 50% more classes with 100+ than the other.</p></li>
<li><p>Lower-div intro classes will have huge numbers. It's the case at Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard, everywhere. Upper-div classes, not so much. Are the classes larger on average than elite privates? Yes. But they are still a small minority. It doesn't make that much of a difference in the end. Just sit near the front, they are almost always empty seats.</p></li>
<li><p>kyledavid80, I'm not sure what data you're looking at, but I'm looking up the fall 2007 schedule on berkeley.schedule.edu and I see</p></li>
</ol>

<p>English 45B lec 002: 132
English 117A: 120
English 117S: 120
English 125A: 100
English 125D: 105
English 125E: 150
English 127: 120
English 135AC: 162</p>

<p>UC Berkeley and UCLA are good schools with minor flaws like major impaction, subpar graduate school admissions, iffy graduation rates, etc. I think US News is pretty accurate: not as good as HYPSM, better than the vast majority of other schools. Now stop flooding this thread and let's get back on topic.</p>