<p>The point that KyleDavid was making, if I'm not mistaken, is that you painted "Asians" with too broad of a brush. You claimed to speak for an entire continent with your statement. It doesn't matter if he's Asian or not-- a fallacy is a fallacy. </p>
<p>Based on my own experiences living in Japan (both Kanto and Kyushu), most Japanese don't even know what Brown, let alone Duke, really is. I suspect that most Japanese would be more inclined to call Berkeley the superior school, simply based on familiarity.</p>
<p>But I cannot claim to speak for all of Japan.</p>
<p>Also, which is the "top" Korean university? There's SKY and all, but is it really Seoul that's the top?</p>
<p>Hi, UCLAri. My dad is current law prof at Korean University. He also was an assistant professor at Waseda University school of law for 4 and a half years.</p>
<p>Waseda doesn't have a school of law. They have a law department. Law schools didn't exist in Japan until quite recently, as law was an undergraduate study.</p>
<p>As for Korea being the top, that's arguable. Not that your dad's a slouch or anything, but most seem to agree that Seoul National is the tippy-top. But SKY = SKY as far as I'm concerned.</p>
<p>UCLAri, also, when I was talking about Duke and Brown, I was attempting to convey the notion that the rankings that Kyledavid80 and others on the forum were using were misleading. I am aware that Duke and Brown are not well known in Japan, but I am certain that they are at least better known than u of wisconsin, UC San Diego, or U of Washington - all of which are ranked significantly higher than either Duke or Brown on that ranking. But, ur right, Berkeley is better known than Brown or Duke in Japan and Korea.</p>
<p>UCLAri, you are right to say that law schools(in the sense of grad school like in u.s.) did not exist in Japan until recently. Same is true also for Korea. However, There Are Law Schools in both Japan and Korea. They are just part of the undergrad curriculum and not grad school curriculum</p>
<p>There are now (in Japan.) However, prior to recent changes, it's hard to say that there were "law schools" in the sense that we'd use the phrase in English. 法学部 is often translated as "law school," but it's much more accurate to call it a "law studies department."</p>
<p>And since it was always a 法学部 until quite recently...</p>
<p>In Korea and Japan, at least until very recently, both medical school or law school (or law department, as u insist) are part of undergrad curriculum. Here in the U.S., students wishing to become lawyers or doctors must go past undergrad and then apply and get accpeted to medical or law schools. In Korea and Japan, they filter students out in h.s. So, korean and japanese students apply directly to medical or law schools (or departments) while they are completing the last year of h.s. That is why many people argue that korean and japanese high schools are so much harder than that of U.S. Korean and Japanese high school students are competing to get into their intended field of study starting Freshmen year in college, and thus, the admission process to get into top law or medical college ( or departments) are insanely ridiculous. </p>
<p>However, the reason I said "Law School" not "Law Department" is bc the Japanese students who finish "Law Department" are certified to become lawyers, w/o necessity to go on to get further training in grad school, unlike the U.S. Thus, I thought that it was misleading to describe it as "Law Department" since regardless of it (law department) being undergrad curriculum, it serves the equal function as the U.S. Law Schools in preparing its students to become lawyers.</p>
<p>I'm quite well-versed on the Japanese university system, having done part of my education in it (Tsukuba). I also taught at the secondary level in Japan. Both my undergrad and grad degrees focused on Japanese language and politics. I'm not some run-of-the-mill anime fan qua Japan expert. I'm pretty good with Japan stuff. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, it's not "misleading" in any way to call it a law department, even if you need to go to law school in the US (except for a state or two where that is not necessary.) Remember, the US and its peculiarities shouldn't cause us to no longer call a duck a duck. If I'm not mistaken, most European countries follow the old Japanese model of not having separate schools for legal education. </p>
<p>So really, it's perfectly acceptable, even reasonably pedantic, to call it the law department at Waseda. It's a duck and quacks like a duck. Or ga gas like one, in the Japanese case...</p>
<p>My experience with Korea, however, is limited to the academic and working for LG. </p>
<p>But you did post a nice little summary of some of the differences, so thank you.</p>
<p>Interesting argument...also I see that ur an interesting individual having to spent considerable amount of time in Japan and in Korea( working for LG!!!)<br>
But, let me throw u this one question: In Japan and Korea, do u suppose that it is correct to call all the medical schools by the title "Medical Department"?
Keep in mind- all the students who graduate from the med schools, regardless of the med schools being undergrad study, certify its graduates to become doctors.</p>
<p>Sure, why not? You're basing your argument on the North American notion of "medical school." It's true that there are dedicated medical schools in Japan (Sapporo Medical University, for example), but most Japanese medical students will undertake their education as a student in a medical faculty within a university.</p>
<p>Again, the direct, and most correct translation of 医学部 is department of medicine-- not "medical school."</p>
<p>Of course, one's philosophy on translation may be different, and that's fine too. However, it can also be argued-- and I think quite successfully-- that medical education and legal education were still handled quited differently even prior to the genesis of independent law schools in Japan. You can't really say because medical education can be labeled "X," then by definition law schools must also be labeled "X," simply because they have been treated differently for a while now.</p>
<p>I don't believe that just because you are given a certification in something then it must be considered a separate school. After all, not everyone in either the US or Japan who is a CPA went to "accounting school."</p>
<p>You seem to have a philosophical point here. But, I believe most people in Korea or Japan just say "Law School", not "Law Department". In the context of how koreans or japanese define the word "school", you should not assume that the word "school" necessarily implies the seperate entity from a university. However, I do fully understand where ur getting ur points from. Your logic works here in the U.S., but I believe that there is a little bit of cultural differences between korea/japan and U.S. in defining what "School" is. After all, the popular korean and japanese culture say "medical school", "law school", and "business school".</p>
<p>That's the point, patlees88. They do say 医学生, but the actual word for the unit where they are students is 医学部, not necessarily 医学. The point is that you are, at least in Japan, considered a faculty member of the law department at a school. Look at the titles of profs at various law departments, and they almost never refer to their title as "professor at _____ law school," but usually (the law schools are the exception) "professor at _______ law department."</p>
<p>This is not really a "cultural" difference at all. This is a linguistic issue. Please don't assume that because I am gaikokujin I am also necessarily ignorant of the linguistic, or even cultural, issues at hand. I am not.</p>
<p>I never assumed that ur ignorant of certain linguistic or cultural issues at hand just bc ur a foreigner. Frankly, I did not know that I had to describe my dad as "professor at the law department" when I have always said that he is "professor at X law school". And, I have never heard a verbal phrase such as "professor at X university's medical department". I never went onto the University websites to verify my claims, but I just assumed that it was the proper usage and did not think of the necessity to put "department" to describe my dad's profession, since I never had to b4.</p>
<p>Well, I admit that it is pedantic. However, most Japanese, in my experience refer to a school's law department. The notion of dedicated law schools, at least in the North American manner, is fairly new there.</p>
<p>The point, if there really was one, is just that it's more "correct" to say "law department" if you're referring to Waseda. At least that's what the meishi says.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Kyledavid80 - are u asian? if so, are u Indian, malysian, indonesian, or vietnamese? If you belong to one of the nationalities metioned above, I see how you can argue that Berkeley could be as prestigious as HYPSM in these specific regions since I am not familiar with how Berkeley is viewed in those places.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As UCLAri said, my point was that you can't justifiably speak for a whole continent. My ethnicity is irrelevant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was attempting to convey the notion that the rankings that Kyledavid80 and others on the forum were using were misleading.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look through the thread -- I was not 'using' any rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, I'm not sure about that. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'caliber'. If by caliber, you mean specific knowledge and experience within the field in question, then sure, I guess then by definition, the grad students at any school are of higher 'caliber'.</p>
<p>But if you mean 'caliber' in the sense of general intelligence or ability to learn, then we mean something else.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not referring to general intelligence at all. There are some very naturally smart people I know who don't work hard and don't do well in school, but do very, very well on standardized tests without studying. I think those people are naturally smart but they will never succeed in the academic world.</p>
<p>The caliber I am referring to is knowledge of the material and passion for the subject. Most undergraduates will not pursue a graduate degree in that field. They will get a job, or go to med school, get a professional degree, etc. To pursue a graduate degree solely in the field takes a lot of passion and dedication. That is what I mean by caliber, experience and passion. As an undergraduate who is about to graduate I can say that I lack that sense of passion for my major--in fact I am starting to dislike my major--and will be pursuing a professional degree in future.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The caliber I am referring to is knowledge of the material and passion for the subject. Most undergraduates will not pursue a graduate degree in that field. They will get a job, or go to med school, get a professional degree, etc. To pursue a graduate degree solely in the field takes a lot of passion and dedication. That is what I mean by caliber, experience and passion. As an undergraduate who is about to graduate I can say that I lack that sense of passion for my major--in fact I am starting to dislike my major--and will be pursuing a professional degree in future.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, then I'm not sure that you're making a fair comparison then. Simply by your definition, obviously grad students in a particular subject well then be of 'higher caliber' than undergrads in that same subject. But that fact alone doesn't make that grad program necessarily 'better' than the undergrad program. After all, I could take the opposite stance that 'caliber' refers to whoever happens to possess broader knowledge and interests, and in this case, the undergrad would be considered to be 'better' than the undergrad program. For example, you are far more likely to get into Harvard if you specialize in one and only one particular area and have absolutely no EC's or other diverse interests if you are applying to a Stanford PhD program than to the Stanford undergrad program. In other words, being a sports star will help you tremendously in getting into the Stanford undergrad program (especially if you're being recruited for the team), but won't help you get into a Stanford PhD program. </p>
<p>But I don't think that's the right way to measure 'caliber'. A better way is to examine the issue on a relative scale, or what statisticians would say is to 'control' for program. That is: how does the undergrad program match up to other undergrad programs at other universities, how does the grad program match up to its counterparts at other universities? The truth of the matter is that Berkeley matches up far better with Stanford (and other schools) in its grad programs than in its undergrad program. That is to say, it is far more common to find a Berkeley grad student, especially a PhD student, who turned down Stanford, then it is to find a Berkeley undergrad student who turned down Stanford. Let's be honest. Whether we like it or not, the sad truth is that most students who are admitted to both Berkeley and Stanford for undergrad will choose Stanford. But that's far less true of PhD programs. I think it is fair to ask why.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the students here are undergrads who believe that Berkeley is just as prestigious as Stanford due to some ranking
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, then liquidmetal, that just begs the question of why does Stanford win the majority of the ug cross-admit battles with Berkeley? If Berkeley really is as prestigious as Stanford, then the cross-admit battle outcome should be a tie, right? Heck, it should actually fall in Berkeley's favor because Berkeley is probably cheaper than Stanford (for those not qualifying for financial aid), right? So then why is it the case that Stanford wins, if not because of prestige?</p>
<p>^^I agree that Berkeley is not really as prestigious as Stanford for undergrad. I was just pointing out the opinion of the undergrads here who are convinced that Berkeley = Stanford in prestige due to the numerous rankings out there. </p>
<p>Even so, Stanford offers far more opportunities for its undergrads and for middle/lower income bracket who get in, Stanford is willing to cover much of the expenses. Of course higher income brackets would then also choose Stanford. One thing is certain: to climb the academic ladder it will not matter if you go to Stanford/Berkeley because only the best from each respective school will move on. I think we can all say that those who can survive the Berkeley curve are of high caliber regardless of their "mediocre" <sarcasm here=""> high school stats. </sarcasm></p>
<p>And going off on a tangent here: prestige is not a surefire indicator of who wins cross admit battles (though it is a pretty good one).</p>
<p>sakky: A lot of people like sterile environments, such as Stanford, over a 32,000 person public school. Think about it, if you had the chance to attend Stanford, with its rich alums, immediate connections, etc., where the student body is 1/4 the size of the competing elite public university, where would you go? To Stanford, or to 32,000-person Cal, where nobody holds you by the hand and offers you a fresh tree-smell every morning when you wake up? UCLA has a great motto, I think, when they say that "Nobody here cares who you are. They just want to see what you do." Then you watch a USC commercial, and all they show are George Lucas, John Wayne, Reggie Bush, etc. Notice the difference in perspective? I think it's a pretty similar one between Cal and Stanford. Both are just as prestigious as each other, just in different ways.</p>