<p>First off, I am not surprised to hear the story that somebody might choose UCSD over Harvard for a PhD. I have always said that not just Berkeley, but the UC's in general, are very strong places to get your PhD. But that obviously doens't mean that you should pick a UC over Harvard for undergrad.</p>
<p>I also agree that there are lots of brilliant students at UCSD, possibly comparable to the number of brilliant students at an Ivy. But again, the problem is, let's face it, there are also lots of less-than-brilliant students at UCSD. Since California1600 is a PEIS major, I'm sure he's familiar with the concept of market signalling. Basically, if you're an employer and you want to recruit some college graduates, the basic problem you run into is that you won't be able to tell off the bat who is good and who isn't. Everybody is going to try to seem as if they are good, but you know for a fact that many of them are actually not good. So if you show up to UCSD, sure, there are lots of very good students. On the other hand, there are also lots of not-so-good students who will try to appear to you as if they are good students. Nor can you use GPA as a perfect indicator of who is good because some wily (but not-so-good) UCSD students will deliberately go and take super-easy classes to boost their GPA (and certain really unethical UCSD students will simply lie about their GPA and if you ask them for a transcript, will create a forged one). The point is that if you go to UCSD to recruit, you will run into the problem of trying to figure out who is good and who is not good. You can figure it out, but it will take a lot of effort. It's easier simply to go recruit at someplace like Harvard where practically everybody is good. Again, to illustrate, it's safer for you to recruit at a place where 95% of the students are good then at a place where 25% of the students are good, even if, because of large class size, that 25% of good students represents a larger absolute number of good students. </p>
<p>I would also ask the question of if UCSF is considered to be Berkeley's medical school, then is it fair to say that MIT's law school is considered to be Harvard Law, and MIT's medical school is considered to be Harvard Medical? If not, why not? Is Caltech's medical school = UCLA Med? Again, if not, why not? If Berkeley can supposedly claim UCSF as its medical school, then why not? </p>
<p>Finally, I would point out that while we can talk about well-roundedness all day and all night, for the purposes of where you should go to study for a particular program, does it really matter? Are you going to attend a particular program at one school just because the school has other very strong programs which have nothing to do with you? For example, UCSF is clearly a very poorly-rounded school, because it basically competes in only one field (health services). So does that mean that if I get into UCSF Medical, I should turn it down in favor of Stanford Medical on the grounds that UCSF is not well-rounded? What if I get into Johns Hopkins Medical or WUSL Medical - should I also turn that down for Stanford Medical on the grounds that Stanford University is more well-rounded than Johns Hopkins University or WUSL?</p>
<p>I suppose if you honestly feel that way, then it's your right. As for myself, I would say that when you're an undergrad, you should worry about undergrad, and when you're a graduate student in X, you should worry about the programs in X regardless of what is happening at other programs at a particular school that have nothing to do with what you want to study. For example, if a guy went to Williams College for undergrad, and then UCSF for medical-school, it would be hard for me to argue that this guy didn't receive one of the finest educations in the world.</p>