<p>^ Blame the institution (Time Higher Education) who made the survey, not me. ;)</p>
<p>The list in my link is obviously incomplete. But the top 6 schools came out, just exactly what I intended it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>RML, you have to read what PG wrote more critically. Your rebuttal does not address what she wrote … namely that for most of the country’s undergraduate students, Berkeley is hardly on the radar screen as it is perceived mostly as a state and perhaps a regional school. This comment is not a pejorative one, but one easily supported by the admission data, as well as by Cal’s stated mission. A mission that also includes admitting an extremely large number of tranfers from community colleges.</p>
<p>Simply stated, Cal is a school with many visages, including many you are determined to ignore.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A survey? What survey?</p>
<p>Well if Berkeley isn’t on students’ radars, neither is Vanderbilt. Sorry, but if the average person is familiar with the name “Vanderbilt,” it isn’t because of the university.</p>
<p>Phantasmagoric, doesn’t that depend on the person sitting in front of the radar? Not being on the radar could come from blissed ignorance, or from fully knowing what different schools have to offer and at what price! </p>
<p>Vanderbilt has a broad appeal among people who know they will extend their search to schools that offer generous merit and recruit students on a national basis. </p>
<p>The attraction for full-fare paying families is not that great when it comes to state universities, unless the cost is substantially lower. Cal’s current proposal is neither cheap nor very attractive for OOS, especially considering the fiscal restrictions the school has been facing.</p>
<p>PS As an example, one can follow this link to see the past years matriculation at one Dallas school:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.smtexas.org/campus/counseling/matriculation.asp[/url]”>http://www.smtexas.org/campus/counseling/matriculation.asp</a></p>
<p>At UC Berkeley Master of Financial Engineering: [Meet</a> Our Current Students, Master of Financial Engineering Program - Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley](<a href=“Master of Financial Engineering Program | Berkeley Haas”>Master of Financial Engineering Program | Berkeley Haas)</p>
<p>Andhra University, India (BS, MS)</p>
<p>Banaras Hindu University India<em>/ Boston University
Boston University</em></p>
<p>Colgate University (Summa Cum laude)
Cornell University (with Honors) / Rochester (Ph.D.)
Chinese University of Hong Kong</p>
<p>Delhi Technological University</p>
<p>East China University of Science and Technology / Cheung Kong GSB (MBA)</p>
<p>Haha, the term undergraduate seems to remain impossible to comprehend in RML’s world!</p>
<p>^ What made you say that?</p>
<p>Anyway, I just posted the student composition of Cal’s MFE in case some of you would find it interesting. And, I’m not surprised by the relatively high representations of Singaporeans, Indians, Chinese and French Nationals at Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Xiggi, I don’t take offense on such statements. After all, I’m not a Berkeley alumnus (It’s my wife who’s an alumna). But as a product of a government-funded institution myself (Cambridge is public), I sometimes get bothered when some people try to besmirch public institutions with vain reasons. Not all public institutions are bad. Not all privately-funded institutions are good. It’s true that the funding sources and bureaucratic systems can affect the school’s academic standard, and I admit Berkeley has been affected by those. But I believe the damages affect only to some extent. </p>
<p>I do have an idea what for you is a prestigious school. In my understanding, a prestigious school for you should be small, snobbish, exclusive and student centered. Whilst your definition isn’t bad, it is obviously limited. Schools can also be prestigious even when they are large and less snobbish. My definition of a prestigious school lies heavily on 6 major components: 1. world-class faculty, 2. great facilities, 3. huge annual operational budget, 4. highly employable graduates and high salary scale, 5. excellent research output, and 6. high student selectivity. </p>
<p>While Berkeley isn’t somewhat stellar on number 6, it measures very highly on the other 5 major areas. Some of the schools that were ranked higher than Berkeley on USNews were performing excellently on # 6 but average only on the other major areas. For instance, Vanderbilt cannot compete with Berkeley on numbers 1, 2, 3 and 5. It is also more likely behind Berkeley on number 4. And, is only slightly better than Berkeley on number 6. </p>
<p>As to Berkeley’s having low OOS.</p>
<p>There are reasons why Berkeley does not get as many OOS applicants as the privates do, and foremost of which is because Berkeley is discriminating against OOS applicants/students. (Take note however that that does not make Berkeley a less respected school.) Attending Berkeley undergrad for someone from New York, for example, is like attending McGill or U of Toronto, or even Cambridge of Oxford. There is very limited financial aid packages or scholarship for students of other nationalities. And Berkeley, like we all know, is quite an expensive place to live in. OTOH, Vanderbilt gives out ample student grants to almost all OOS who seek for it. So, that’s one of the major reasons why Vanderbilt gets more OOS applicants than Berkeley does. But if Berkeley is as much generous to OOS as Vanderbilt is, it would not suffer from having more OOS. In short, having more OOS does have very little bearing to the general respectability of the school. </p>
<p>Another reason is California is a huge State and is considered the largest in terms of population. As a result, the top schools in California have a huge proportion of In-State students relative to their peers. Here’s the freshmen In-State rates at the ff schools (more or less): </p>
<p>Berkeley - 77% (Hopes to bring it down to 70% this year)
UCLA - 86% (Hopes to bring it down to 75% this year)
USC - 53%
Stanford - 40%</p>
<p><a href=“http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp[/url]”>http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp</a>
[Profile</a> of Admitted Freshmen, Fall 2010 - UCLA Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/adm_fr/Frosh_Prof10.htm]Profile”>http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/adm_fr/Frosh_Prof10.htm)
<a href=“http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/1011/FreshmanProfile2010.pdf[/url]”>http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/1011/FreshmanProfile2010.pdf</a>
[The</a> Undergraduate Program: Stanford University Facts](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/undergraduate.html]The”>http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/undergraduate.html)</p>
<p>I can’t find the data for the top Claremont Colleges HMC, Pomona & McKenna), but I suspect they are less diverse than their peers too.</p>
<p>Why do smaller schools seem to be called snobbish? I don’t really understand. Vanderbilt and Berkeley are both EXCELLENT schools, I repeat, EXCELLENT! You couldn’t go wrong going to either. In regards to why Berkeley has alot of students in top professional schools is the number of people at each school. I’m not exactly surprised that Berkeley is so high up just because of the number of students, all with impressive stats. Honestly, If you work hard enough, you can go to a top professional school from almost any college.</p>
<p>Phantasmagoric, that depends on where the student is. I assure you that here in Chicago, Vanderbilt is on far more radar screens than Berkeley. And the thought that students are “unfamiliar” with it is laughable.</p>
<p>Rofl, phantasmagoric. That survey doesn’t measure “prestige.”. It measures familiarity. The people answering Harvard to that prompt weren’t carefully considering the quality, selectivity and resources of the top schools and then pronouncing Harvard the winner after deep reflection. They were answering Harvard because Harvard owns the concept of best school. Just like if you asked what’s the best painting in the world most people would say the Mona Lisa. It’s based on knee jerk reaction, not knowledge. </p>
<p>rML, why does it matter that not everyone reveres Berkeley? Why isn’t the satisfaction of the quality education enough? You know, when I buy / enjoy fine things, it doesn’t matter to me if others know or recognize it. Why does it matter to you? Can’t quiet satisfaction be enough?</p>
<p>“There are reasons why Berkeley does not get as many OOS applicants as the privates do, and foremost of which is because Berkeley is discriminating against OOS applicants/students”</p>
<p>Here is another reason. For a smart hs student not in California, what outreach does Berkeley do? Do they do extensive school visits and fairs? No. And the idea of going to a school that is almost all Californians is unappealing. It’s a big world out there - every other elite school will have a range of students from everywhere but Berkeley won’t. What’s so appealing about that? </p>
<p>And Berkeley grads tend to stay in California. Or go back to Asia. So why are you constantly surprised every time we tell you that as good of a school as it is, it’s just not on the radar screen of most smart undergrads outside California? Why does that upset you so?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I know Chicago in and out. I have considered it my second home since the mid 90s. Vanderbilt is not recognized in that part of the country. Cal is not particularly known in that area either, but certainly has a significantly more recognized brand name. In Chicago, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford and MIT notwithstanding, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, UIUC, Michigan, Notre Dame, Wisconsin and WUSTL are the most famous and respect universities by a large margin.</p>
<p>Thanks, I’ve only lived here since 1982, what would I know about it? Lol.</p>
<p>But you inadvertently bring up an excellent point. NU and U of Chicago are both fine schools. Yet if you asked the average Chicagoan on the street (much like the survey phantasmagoric linked to), NU would beat U of Chicago. Not because it’s any better but because it has characteristics that make people more familiar with it - sports, the professional schools being in a downtown location, etc. Nonetheless, it doesn’t reflect poorly on anyone considering U of Chicago because the excellence speaks for itself. </p>
<p>Similarly, a lot of people outside California aren’t as familiar with Berkeley as RML would like. So what? It’s not good or bad. It doesn’t make the Berkeley experience or quality any worse just because most potential undergrads outside Calif simply don’t have it on their radar screen. But for some reason that troubles RML. Why is acceptance by the masses so important to you?</p>
<p>“So, that’s one of the major reasons why Vanderbilt gets more OOS applicants than Berkeley does. But if Berkeley is as much generous to OOS as Vanderbilt is, it would not suffer from having more OOS. In short, having more OOS does have very little bearing to the general respectability of the school.”</p>
<p>It has a great bearing on familiarity, though. Vanderbilt, like all other top 20 schools, schleps around the country trying to get a bunch of people from all over to apply. Berkeley doesn’t. They’re content to be overwhelmingly Californian and to the extent to which they are international, focused on Asia. Now, that’s their prerogative. It may be the desires of the taxpayers of Ca who are funding it - I don’t know. But the bottom line is, you can’t be overwhelmingly skewed to one state and expect to have high national visibility.</p>
<p>I went back to phantasmagoric’s list again. Why, according to that list, Texas A&M is “more prestigious” than Penn, Brown, Cornell, Georgetown and Columbia. That’s what people say! And prestige is what people say it is … right? </p>
<p>And Dartmouth isn’t anywhere on that list. It can’t be “prestigious” either! </p>
<p>Gotta laugh at the goofiness of people who care one whit what “the average person” perceives as prestigious.</p>
<p>Can we keep the list of professional schools prestigious please? Berkeley Law and Vandy Law aren’t the top 5 choices for top students at any top colleges. I say only consider stats from:</p>
<p>HYSCCN for law.
Stanford, Harvard, Wharton, Sloan, Kellogg, and Booth for business (US News top 5).
US News top 10 research for medicine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>RML, that would be inaccurate for two out of three, but I cannot blame you for not reading my posts correctly. I also do not blame you for not knowing the type of schools I considered when applying for undergraduate and graduate school. </p>
<p>After all, I do NOT engage in discussions about asinine issues of prestige, unless it happens to be as passing reference. However, since you listed “student centered,” I do admit that I would consider the experience available to a student during his or her four (or six years in some cases) to graduate to be of paramount importance. This experience can be positive regardless of the size of the school, and so can the quality of education. </p>
<p>Where we seem to be disagreeing is that there are education systems that place greater value on the education of undergraduates than on graduate students or on the pursuit of the almighty research dollars. Again, that does not make the larger research universities better or worse, but it makes them different. That is why an undergraduate student should seek the elusive fit for the combination that is best suiting. </p>
<p>For the record, let me also assure you that your kitchen list of “prestigious school lies heavily on 6 major components: 1. world-class faculty, 2. great facilities, 3. huge annual operational budget, 4. highly employable graduates and high salary scale, 5. excellent research output, and 6. high student selectivity.” is offered at a number of schools that you would also call snobbish and elitist. Expressed in a fraction, you might find an equally impressive set of attributes in the numerator, but a much smaller number in the denominator that expresses the number of students. </p>
<p>Lastly, since this thread has been moved to the graduate forum, it is important to remember that the admission process and students’ experience could not be more different than it is between the undergraduate world and the graduate school world. The dynamics are incredibly different and so is the choice of the school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“General respectability” is not the issue at hand; the number of OOS students separates schools with national outreach from state or regional stongholds.</p>
<p>As far as the diversity in Claremont, you may note that CMC in-state numbers are identical to Stanford’s as the school has 40 percent of students from California. Fwiw, CMC’s largest overlaps in applications are with Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Pomona, and Georgetown. </p>
<p>Draw your own conclusions! Now, we should let this thread veer into graduate school discussions!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even leaving aside the stupidity of throwing together top b-schools, med schools and law schools (any one student is only going to be interested in one of those pies) … IvyPBear continues to demonstrate the lame “look around me and see what other people prefer and then determine my own preferences based on that!” thinking that so permeates CC. </p>
<p>Personally, if choosing a graduate school, I couldn’t care less “what other people from my school” choose or don’t choose. Maybe they have bad taste. Maybe their priorities aren’t mine. All I care about is whether I get into <em>my</em> choice, not whether everyone else approves or thinks it’s the best choice. </p>
<p>How do you people ever get dressed in the morning? Do you put on your clothing and then go outside and see how people vote on them / react to them before determining if you like them? Get a backbone. Have your own preferences in life.</p>