Is Berkeley is way underrated?

College Search & Selection
41

<p>Ranking of institutions on CC, and indeed in a lot of other cases, tend to focus on selectivity of undergrads. Harvard has arguably the highest selectivity and is number 1. There are a lot of people that would hold though that other universities -- and indeed LACs are better at training undergrads. This undergrad selectivity is paramount. People point to a vague prestige factor or one study of cross-admit selection to justify a certain ranking of schools.</p>

<p>On top of this selectivity is a second measure: the academic productivity of the institutions. The best proxy for this is the strength of graduate schools.</p>

<p>Normally these two things mesh fairly well; in many fields, though not all, Harvard is tops and is also still the most selective undergrad.</p>

<p>The USNWR ranking tries to squeeze both these basic criteria together. There are big problems with this. 1) Schools like Dartmouth or some LACs may be under-rated because they don't have huge academic productivity, but are very selective. 2) Public schools are almost by definition less selective (on average; there are exceptions -- for example, engineering schools), though not across the board; indeed as the OP points out the top echelon of students at top publics may outperform their peers at many selective private schools. But they can have a core academic richness far surpassing schools with higher undergrad selectivity.</p>

<p>A unidimensional ranking is pointless. Berkeley is one of the best universities in the world, bar none. It is strong across the board -- arts, sciences, engineering and if you count UCSF (let the debates begin) medicine. This refers to its core academic productivity. In terms of undergrad selectivity overall, it doesn't match up to some of its academic productivity peers or academic lessers. </p>

<p>We need two axes. On one axes is breadth and quality of academic achievement. The highest ranking universities in terms of across-the-board academic breadth and quality are:</p>

<p>Stanford (full-service powerhouse)
Berkeley (full-service powerhouse)
Harvard
MIT</p>

<p>In terms of selectivity, there are plenty of posts on CC that parse this out, and the usual suspects would be:</p>

<p>HYPSM (most selective schools)</p>

<p>It's sort of pointless to argue Berkeley's position on a unidimensional ranking. Those who hold undergrad selectivity key will demerit Berkeley, even though its one of the best universities in the world. Those who argue against the proponents of a selectivity-focused ranking are arguing for essential academic productivity, and that is a fair argument, IMO.</p>

<p>The USNWR peer assessment is a measure used to determine, by proxy, academic achievement and broad academic excellence. Those who argue against its use, again, are essentially saying overall undergrad selectivity is paramount. They say it slants things favorably toward Berkeley as if core academic productivity is somehow illegitimate or a sleight of hand; this strikes me as kind of ridiculous since I am sure they would not make the same arguments in other cases that their pre-conceptions. Would they say the same thing about other things that clearly slant the rankings in favor of private institutions, things such as endowment sizes? Berkeley gets a lot of state funding, funding that in some senses provides an equivalency with a large endowment. That, however, is not counted. Also, Berkeley and UCSF are among the largest recipients of a wide variety of government and private grants.</p>

<p>Having gone both public and private, I'd say the privates are much more efficient generally in purveying a brand image. They are often over-rated. Berkeley overall is under-rated on the unidimensional scale, IMO. And those who argue its over-rated are arguing against its demonstrated primacy in core academic productivity, as I said.</p>

<p>In the end, who cares? The upper segments of students at Berkeley, at the very least, will do just fine. They are, after all, being taught by the leaders in their respective fields.</p>

42

<p>Having grown up in CA, I think some of the changes in perceptions are in no small way due to CA's overall economic issues and treatment of its college system (not just UCB) but the state system also. It does not help to see students at the state schools on CNN protesting for more faculty to teach classes so they can graduate. It is sad what has happened over the years. But I think that washes over to Berkely and others in the UC system.</p>

43

<p>Unfortunately, this thread has become a bit too emotional at the expense of discussion. It should be of great comfort to know that USNews has UCal Berkeley ranked as the top school in the category of "The Top 50 Public National Universities". Trying to compare large public research universities with incredibly wealthy, ultra selective national universities and elite LACs just cannot be done on an even & fair basis. The large publics have student/faculty ratios starting at 14/1 (UNC) and going higher. The top 15 ranked national universities range from 5/1 to 11/1, but average at about 6/1 or 7/1.The top 25 LACs range from 7/1 to 10/1. Schools dependent on state funding should be ranked separately as they have a somewhat different mission--educating state residents--that significantly affects the studentbody quality & composition along with significant funding issues which affect class size & resources. It is good to be proud of one's state flagship university, but emotions should not overshadow well reasoned analysis based on verifiable data. USNews has done a wonderful job--even with the inclusion of the unscientific & unverifiable Peer Assessment score which heavily favors Berkley. USNews is UCal Berkeley's undergraduate school's best friend & supporter in the world of national university rankings.</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
this thread has become a bit too emotional at the expense of discussion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't you think you used a lot of pretty emotional and loaded language here:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Even with the grossly exaggerated weight given to Berkeley's unfairly inflated PA score,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>grossly exaggerated? unfairly inflated? </p>

<p>I'd say that you are the one getting emotional at having a lot of your blithe assumptions challenged effectively or at least called into question. You hardly based your positions in the realm of cool, disinterested discussion. You should listen to yourself.</p>

<p>How is Berkeley's PA "grossly exaggerated" as you say when it is manifestly an institution of top academic productive caliber? </p>

<p>We can agree on the following: </p>

<p>
[quote]
Trying to compare [world-class] large public research universities with incredibly wealthy, ultra selective national universities and elite LACs just cannot be done on an even & fair basis.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My "world-class" was added, since you stacked the deck in that sentence so thoroughly in favor of your biases.</p>

45

<p>BedHead: You might want to read an entire post before reacting with unsubstantiated emotionalism & personal attacks. I have supported my positions; you just fail to acknowledge the facts. I did not start this thread. Your style of argument and "reasoning" isn't going to convince anyone that Berkeley is underrated.</p>

46

<p>Discussing Berkeley is always interesting, because it is the embodiment of the research university. And its a fantasitic research institution. In some cases, particularly areas with direct learning such as computer science, its one of the best. Yet research universities have disadvantages at the undergrad level. These disadvantages include:</p>

<p>Less money spent per undergrad impacts: undergrad grants (far easier to get $10K for thesis research at Williams, Princeton, or Dartmouth), special undergrad programs (like access to a in-house fellow on campus or study abroad for every major), advising (lesser ability to have very focused pre-med advising for example). All these things help you get into grad school.</p>

<p>Fewer professors per student/ research oriented faculty: Results in classes taught by TAs, large classes, less access to professors (office hours, dinner at homes - all impacts ability to get recs), difficulty in securing thesis advisor.</p>

<p>Large Student population: Less community oriented student body (you don't know everyone through a few degrees of seperation), lower alumni loyalty (at some Ivies you have 80% of the class at 5yr reuinions) less overall "prestige" because of lower selectivity, less interface with college after graduation (much less likely to get calenders, mugs, have free events with college with small but powerful alumni groups). Much of this results in less loyalty when it comes to business. </p>

<p>Department/ Major Driven (i.e. Harder for english major to get a finance job, harder to switch majors). Lack of a liberal arts focus and size makes students/ alums highly classified by major and decreses flexibility during and after college.</p>

<p>Large student body results in unfriendly/ bureucratic administration: Far less ability to negotiate with registrar to get into classes, less access to administrators to start new clubs, huge amounts of annoyance (from computer IT to residential life to safety and security).</p>

<p>I think people often ignore the differences between small, well endowed private schools such as most of the Ivies and top LACs vs. the big research universities.</p>

47

<p>slipper:</p>

<p>Unless you've attended a UC, your post is pure speculation, and a lot of it incorrect.</p>

<p>You are incorrect about switching majors within L&S, the liberal arts college, where one can fashion a liberal arts major. Indeed, L&S requires distributives, just like that small college on the hill.</p>

<p>Harvard and Yale are medium-sized "resarch universities."</p>

<p>A UC student does not "negotiate" with the registrar for classes.</p>

<p>Few LACs have their own "in-house" study abroad programs, and where they have them, its to London and Paris and maybe Madrid.</p>

<p>OTOH, unlike the Ivies which are 50%+full pay, each UC campus is comprised of ~30%+ of Pell Grantees.</p>

<p>Bureacratic -- yes, absolutely, primarily housing. IT & security work well.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
BedHead: You might want to read an entire post before reacting with unsubstantiated emotionalism & personal attacks. I have supported my positions; you just fail to acknowledge the facts. I did not start this thread.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How is quoting you back to you unsubstantiated emotionalism? It's all there in black and white. Again, you don't reflect on your own biases.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your style of argument and "reasoning" isn't going to convince anyone that Berkeley is underrated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And yours isn't convincing anyone of a disinterested, detached viewpoint, though you claim to be only looking at the facts. Your argument is based on an emotional attachment to the notion that Berkeley's strengths are not legitimately obtained. Your language pretty much said it all, as I pointed out. And given that, I have no delusion of convincing you of anything, even of the truth.</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
Fewer professors per student/ research oriented faculty: Results in classes taught by TAs, large classes, less access to professors (office hours, dinner at homes - all impacts ability to get recs), difficulty in securing thesis advisor.

[/quote]

absolutely not true.<br>
All professors are required to do research. Berkeley faculty is extremely research oriented. Most have several research going on at the same time. They must teach at least one class / year.<br>
All upper division classes are very small. (< 20)
All big classes are taught by professors or lecturers. TA only holds discussion. For most classes, 3 to 4 hours of lectures/week by professors + 1 to 2 hours/week by TA. How is this classes taught by TAs? Where do people get this idea?
Why do you care to dine with your professors? Patterson, arguably one of the biggest EECS profs out there, actually take the entire class out to lunch several times, ask each of the students about their plan, etc...
All student if wanted, will find a thesis advisor. This is Berkeley, no time to hold your hand to guide you through this. If you take the initiative to do things, the opportunities are way better than all other schools.</p>

50

<p>middsmith, slipper was saying Berkeley profs are more research oriented...he did not mean to imply fewer research oriented faculty.</p>

51

<p>I realized that, that's why I said with all that research, they still must teach at least one class/year.</p>

52

<p>But therein actually lies a big difference between the elite privates and large research institutions like Cal (or Cornell for that matter). At LACs the number is 3-4 classes per prof. And this isn't counted in student faculty ratios, which actually means at the top LACs and undergrad focused privates the student faculty ratio is actually even lower than USNEWS publishes. Essentially all the profs are FTEs as opposed to one-class researchers (or in some cases profs who never really teach at all).</p>

53

<p>The elite privates do engage in quite a bit of research as well. </p>

<p>I do agree that Dartmouth, Brown and the LACs have a distinct undergrad focus.</p>

54

<p>slipper:</p>

<p>R U really saying that Harvard's faculty is less "research oriented" than Cal's (or Stanford's)?</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
But therein actually lies a big difference between the elite privates and large research institutions like Cal (or Cornell for that matter). At LACs the number is 3-4 classes per prof. And this isn't counted in student faculty ratios, which actually means at the top LACs and undergrad focused privates the student faculty ratio is actually even lower than USNEWS publishes. Essentially all the profs are FTEs as opposed to one-class researchers (or in some cases profs who never really teach at all).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>True with LACs by and large, IMO. Not true with "elite private" research universities, even non-Cornell ones. In this aspect, the most meaningful distinction is between LACs and research universities public and private.</p>

56

<p>I love how many smart people there are in the world.</p>

57

<p>and, btw, slipper, are you sure that Harvard (and Yale & Columbia) don't have some full professors wandering around the Yahd who haven't seen the inside of an undergraduate classroom in years?</p>

58

<p>Sigh, and here we go: the most common misconceptions about publics.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I think it’s a bit underrated on US News *because many of the other factors are clearly biased toward private schools<a href="for%20example,%20alumni%20giving%20rate">/i</a>.</p>

<p>
[quote]
to higher ranked schools are class size

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Berkeley:
% classes under 20: 61%
% classes over 50: 14%</p>

<p>MIT:</p>

<p>% classes under 20: 61%
% classes over 50: 14%</p>

<p>Harvard:
% classes under 20: 69%
% classes over 50: 11%</p>

<p>So, how bad can it be? Not to mention all of the large classes at these schools, including Berkeley, are supplemented with small discussions.</p>

<p>
[quote]
quality of students

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In reality—once you’re there—you don’t see a difference. There comes a point when perceiving the difference between the two is difficult. And Berkeley, along with other publics, has reached that pointed, though you and other CCers are reluctant to admit it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
lack of funding.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>“Lack”? Berkeley has a ~$3.5 billion endowment. Now, consider that Berkeley gets ~$500+ million each year in gift aid from the government. Since a university typically spends ~5% of its endowment each year, a private school would need ~$10 billion endowment to match what Berkeley gets from the government each year. Of course, Berkeley has more students to support, and most students pay in-state tuition (but then again, the cutoffs for financial aid are low, so that somewhat counterbalances it). And that’s not even taking into consideration private funding (for example, the $113 million from the Hewlett foundation—and Berkeley is in the middle of a multi-billion dollar campaign that’s been quite successful, raising over $1 billion so far).</p>

<p>Sure, it’s not lavishly funded like HYPS, but to say that it has a “lack of funding” is misleading. It is able to maintain its worldwide position because it’s well funded. The fact that its name is very strong will also help it in private funding.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley has a poor student/faculty ratio of 15/1 for such a highly ranked university.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That, too, is a misleading figure. Look at the common data sets for universities: Berkeley puts total faculty against total students (Berkeley has no official med school, so those faculty can’t skew it). But schools like Stanford, etc. will twist numbers by reporting total faculty (non-medical) against undergrad students only (despite the fact that 2/3 of the school is grad). Reporting these numbers is not so standardized. That’s why you shouldn’t take it at face value, and also why it’s better to look at class sizes than at student:faculty ratios.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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…

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The PA rating is not for student quality; it is for overall opinions of the school.</p>

<p>I’d also argue that the PA score is partly US News’ way of saying, “The rest of the numbers might not work so well, so this number is the general perception of quality and will help to offset that.”</p>

<p>Honestly, these discussions are old. I don’t expect CC to quite digest and accept what I’ve said (even when data backs it up), given the generally narrow-minded perception of schools here. Either way, it’s gettin’ nowhere.</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
In reality—once you’re there—you don’t see a difference.

[/quote]

I would notice a difference if I went to a school where everyone got perfect SAT scores and has ambitions of becoming President of the United States...what a nauseously caustic environment that would be...:rolleyes:</p>

<p>Seriously, you will be looked upon with disdain if you even mutter your SAT score when you get on a college campus...</p>