<p>I disagree with post #5. Using the USNews formula, Berkeley is probably a bit overrated as UCal @ Berkeley benefits tremendously from its 4.8/5.0 Peer Assessment rating, which constitutes 25% of each school's overall rating. Berkeley undergraduate school is overrated because of the fame & success of its graduate programs. Berkeley's weaknesses when compared to higher ranked schools are class size, quality of students and lack of funding. Even so, USNews bestows its #1 ranking on Berkeley in the category of The Top 50 Public National Universities category ahead of Virginia, UCLA & Michigan. Berkeley has a poor student/faculty ratio of 15/1 for such a highly ranked university. In fact, Berkeley has the worst ratio of the top 23 ranked National Universities in USNews. Typically, a high student/faculty ratio is a sign of low funding. The 4.8 Peer Assessment rating is the same given to Yale, and trails only Princeton, Harvard, Stanford & MIT which have a 4.9 rating. Berkeley's 4.8 PA rating by USNews beats out every LAC including Williams, Amherst & Swarthmore which have PA ratings of 4.7, 4.7 & 4.6 respectively. It is highly unlikely that the average Berkeley student is superior to the average student at Williams, Amherst or Swarthmore. Again, Berkeley's undergraduate school appears to be benefitting from the stellar reputations of the graduate schools at Cal. The USNews PA rating system & the USNews ranking system is Berkeley's best friend in the world of university rankings.</p>
<p>"with graduate department after graduate department ranking higher than equivalent Ivy department"</p>
<p>this is something that i have learned in college - getting into the ivy grad schools is impressive, but getting into berkeley is even more remarkable.</p>
<p>In brief, Berkeley is a great undergrad school, but it just doesn't compare to the Ivies (and Ivy equals).<br>
UChicago, UPenn, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Duke, Yale, MIT, and Dartmouth are all undoubtedly "better" than Berkeley. Seriously, if u got accepted to all (or just any) of these schools and Berkeley, would you go to Berkeley over these? I'd venture to say most people wouldn't. Case in point, Berkeley is not top 10 for undergrad.</p>
<p>I'm sure that you can find several people at Berkeley that turned down UChicago, UPenn, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Duke, Yale, MIT, and Dartmouth. AND just because you go there as opposed to another, more highly ranked school does not mean that it is a worse school.</p>
<p>asa, and thats why sprtn117 said "most people" and not all, hinting towards sure, you can find "people at berkeley that (who) turned down uchicago, penn, hypsm, columbia, duke, and dartmouth."</p>
<p>Overrated, much?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, the PA score is Berkeley's best friend. However, the PA is ranking some other intangible that objective measures can't. The PA is a poll for a measure of "distinguished academic programs". Frankly, Berkeley has more distinguished academic programs than any school - except maybe its cross bay rival, Stanford. Engineering, business, economics, math, chemistry, humanities, social sciences...all majors are "distinguished" at Berkeley. This is what the PA measures. </p>
<p>Why would USNWR have objective measures for student quality and then ask the same questions in an opinion poll?</p>
<p>UCBChemGrad: Thank you for agreeing with and re-emphasizing my point. And to follow up on your post, the concern with Berkeley's high PA rating is that the programs are really grad school programs. If the PA rating's weight was diminished from 25% of the entire ranking to 10%, Berkeley's ranking would fall. Graduate "distinguished academic programs" should not influence undergraduate ratings, but it is quite difficult to separate the two under the survey system utilized by USNews. Post #29 below is further evidence that Berkeley's high PA score is based on the graduate school programs & performance as the "visable awards like Nobels, academy membership, and research publication" probably is based entirely on achievements by those in Berkeley's graduate schools. So, at least in USNews, Berkeley's undergraduate school is overrated due to the substantial weight given the PA score which largely reflects graduate school successes. P.S. I know that this is not what Berkeley students want to read, but to be fair Berkeley--while a top30 school--is probably a bit overrated at #21.</p>
<p>In USNWR's ranking of undergrad programs (business and engineering), Berkeley ranks #2-3 in both categories. So, Berkeley's undergrad programs are "distinguished" as well. The same professors teach grads and undergrads...there are no separate undergrad and grad faculties. </p>
<p>One question though is how do you define a "distinguished" undergrad program? Surely you might want to measure how successful the graduates are...but this would be very cumbersome. Program prestige will come from the reputation of the people that remain at the university and build the reputation - i.e. the professors. PA is a poll of academics. "Distinguished", rightly or wrongly, to academics are visible awards like Nobels, academy membership, and research publication.</p>
<p>misssmith, the Stanford President who wrote the article wasn't Hennessy, it was Gerhard Casper back in 1996. </p>
<p>Criticism</a> of College Rankings - September 23, 1996</p>
<p>At any rate, although Cal is vastly underrated by the USNWR, and on CC, in the academic and corporate world, Cal is definitely given the respect it so richly deserves.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's high PA score is based on the graduate school programs & performance as the "visable awards like Nobels, academy membership, and research publication" probably is based entirely on achievements by those in Berkeley's graduate schools
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which school that visable awards aren't based entirely on achievements by those in the graduate schools? Find me an undergraduate from HYPSM or the other ivies who did work that led to a Nobel prize.</p>
<p>I think I once demonstrated statistically that the top of the Berkeley freshman class contains a Harvard freshman class. The counterargument is that these top Berkeley students are "diluted" among somewhat less capable students. There is probably something to that counterargument. But, there is also something valid to the point that large universities enroll large numbers of very bright students as well qualified as Ivy, MIT, or Stanford students. It places the smaller, elite schools in a different perspective.</p>
<p>On a different topic, I think Gerhard Caspar was wrong about the "value added" factor in US News. It is valid and helpful. I'm not sure why Garhard Caspar decided to lampoon US News but he was clearly overlooking the great service that US News provides for consumers of higher education.</p>
<p>College Presidents aren't so smart.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In brief, Berkeley is a great undergrad school, but it just doesn't compare to the Ivies (and Ivy equals).
UChicago, UPenn, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Duke, Yale, MIT, and Dartmouth are all undoubtedly "better" than Berkeley. Seriously, if u got accepted to all (or just any) of these schools and Berkeley, would you go to Berkeley over these? I'd venture to say most people wouldn't. Case in point, Berkeley is not top 10 for undergrad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is exactly what my original post tried to address. For the entire student body at Brown, if you picked the exact same number of top students from Berkeley, the Berkeley students are stronger due to their placement into graduate school. And with Berkeley GPA deflation, they definitely all deserve to be there. So, this fallacy that you and others keep on insisting like if you're smart, got into Brown and Berkeley, you'd go to Brown. How do you explain why so many smart kids stayed in Berkeley and finished strong?</p>
<p>Regarding post #31: That is exactly my point! And since Berkeley is weak--when compared to higher ranked universities--in across the board quality of undergraduate students, very weak with respect to student/faculty ratio at 15/1, and weak in funding & available assets. Even with the grossly exaggerated weight given to Berkeley's unfairly inflated PA score, UCal @ Berkeley only manages a total overall score of 78 by USNews versus scores of 86 to 100 for the top 15 national universities under the system used by USNews (which heavily &, in my opinion, unfairly favors Berkeley's undergraduate school due to Cal's great grad programs). As a graduate school, UCal @ Berkeley is a top 5 school, but as an undergraduate school it is not underrated by any fair & proper method used, offered or suggested. To the post below: I do not agree as the point is how does Berkeley compare to the national universities ranked above it by USNews. And Berkeley compares, at best, as number 21 in the nation thanks to an unfairly inflated PA score which is used by USNews in an improperly exaggerated fashion (25% of the total overall score). And Berkeley ranks as #21 based not just on endowment, class size & student/faculty ratio, & quality of students, but based on an over a dozen ratings utilized by USNews.</p>
<p>^ But you're missing the point icy...there is much more to a great undergrad school than high SAT scores, low faculty/student ratio, and a huge endowment...</p>
<p>Berkeley has top academic programs and top faculty despite the other numbers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To the post below: I do not agree as the point is how does Berkeley compare to the national universities ranked above it by USNews. And Berkeley compares, at best, as number 21 in the nation thanks to an unfairly inflated PA score which is used by USNews in an improperly exaggerated fashion (25% of the total overall score).
[/quote]
How is it grossly unfair? It's an opinion poll that measures intangibles and asks about academic programs...ranked from distinguished to marginal.</p>
<p>Berkeley has many distinguished programs!</p>
<p>Berkeley offers a larger variety of distinguished majors (i.e. academic programs) than Caltech, Duke, Columbia, U Chicago, Dartmouth, WUSTL, Cornell, Brown, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Emory, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame. Its high PA score reflects this fact.</p>
<p>You can argue about the methodology, but you can't argue about what it's measuring. How do you argue with the collective opinion of over 2,000 academics - just because it's different from your view?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, at least in USNews, Berkeley's undergraduate school is overrated due to the substantial weight given the PA score which largely reflects graduate school successes. P.S. I know that this is not what Berkeley students want to read, but to be fair Berkeley--while a top30 school--is probably a bit overrated at #21.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While i do argree that berkeley might be a bit overrated by some people around here who claim that its prestige is on par with mit, stanford, ivies, or the like, but i don't think that berkeley is either underrated or overrated on US news rankings. To be fair, Berkeley's undergrad is still pretty good and many would agree that it is among best state schools in the country, undergrad included. As a note, UVA, which is also a state school, is ranked at #23. ucla at #25. and the list goes on. at #21, Berkeley is rightfully ranked considering the fact that its pretige overall is greater than either uva or ucla or other schools that are ranked below it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And Berkeley ranks as #21 based not just on endowment, class size & student/faculty ratio, & quality of students, but based on an over a dozen ratings utilized by USNews.
[/quote]
All ratings that overwhelmingly favor privates...</p>
<p>If I go only by USNWR's objective data, I can envision a hypothetical undergraduate university that would blow away all of the top schools:
1. Admit 1 perfect SAT scoring student... It's SAT average is tops.
2. Have 2 professors...the Student/Faculty Ratio is 2/1, again tops (assuming a total enrollment of 4 students - one frosh, one soph, one junior, one senior).
3. Faculty is highly compensated...faculty resources rank is high.
4. All alumni donate $0.25 each year...100% alumni giving rate.
5. There are 100 applicants, making the admit rate 1%.
6. The school is founded by a billionaire and he has infused the endowment heavily...its financial resources rank is high.</p>
<p>This might be a fantastic school, but it would be pretty boring without many students to interact with...The profs won't be well versed in all academic fields either...</p>
<p>The problem with focusing only on objective data and conducting a ranking around these data, is that it has potential of providing a very myopic view.</p>
<p>
"Pretty good"?!...LOL!...This has to be the understatement of the day!</p>
<p>This is stupid. We really don't need to prove how good Berkeley is because besides some idiots on CC, most people are very impressed by Berkeley. Also the only schools that would win cross admits pretty easily are Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton, and Yale... and thats if there not in Engineering. I know two people on my floor now who got into Columbia but decided to come here and both my friends got into Duke and came here. UChicago are you kidding me...most lay people haven't even heard of UChicago and while a great school which may give more individual attention, it opens no more doors than Berkeley. Also I've read that Berkeley has the highest absolute number of 1500+ scorers in the country, over 3500+ so i would venture to say the top 25% can rival the ivies. SAT doesn't show your full intelligence, especially your crystalized intelligence. I know idiots who have done well on the SAT, while most of the top ten of my class did 1350 ish. Trust me the ones in the top ten are more intelligent.</p>