<p>flamethrower: You neglect that we're including graduate programs as well in terms of name recognition and international prestige. Berkeley's English program is consistenly ranked as one of the top 5 in the nation.</p>
<p>And again, I refer to my thread called On Rankings; there is only so much rankings can say about a university.</p>
<p>"The distinctiveness of each individual college and the diversity among them tend to be lost in a scale of "best-good-worse." Research university or small liberal arts college? Religious affiliation or pre-professional training? Core curriculum or a multitude of majors? America's colleges offer all of these. A college that is exactly right for a particular student-- in its mission, mode of teaching, location, moral or religious character-- might receive a lower rank in the survey than a college which would not suit the needs of that student. </p>
<p>The kinds of data used to rank schools in the U.S. News and World Report survey are not indications of educational excellence. Some results highlight competitiveness, particularly in admissions. Examples are the acceptance to rejection ratio among applicants, average SAT scores, and class rank. Endowment per undergraduate, faculty salaries, alumni giving are indications of fiscal status, not necessarily of quality of education. So-called reputation rankings-- in which college presidents, deans, and admissions officers rate other schools-- are also misleading; they may overlook a fine but little-known college, and even if they do point out a good one, they do not tell you for whom that school is a good choice and why. "</p>
<p>Berkeley students don't impress people because Berkeley admissions are whack. Almost anybody can get into Berkeley though the community college route, and mediocre people with shoddy SAT scores are commonly offered admission. It's harder to get into schools like Cornell, Duke, Columbia, Penn, and Johns Hopkins than it is to get into Berkeley. Perhaps Berkeley has big name recognition, but it doesn't have big name-stopping prestige. I think of it as the opposite of Caltech. Caltech has almost no name-recognition, but has tons of prestige. People know Caltech kids are damn smart. Berkeley has tons of name-recognition, but not that much prestige. People know that Berkeley kids are not geniuses.</p>
<p>Dont get mad that your failed attempts to convince people that Berkeley sucks has fallen on deaf ears. Most people dont see things the way you do.</p>
<p>I think you summed it up perfectly Gutrade. Berkeley and UCLA are widely known, but their students are not seen as hardcore geniuses like the students of HYPSMC/ivies/top10 schools. People know that Berkeley and UCLA are not as selective as schools like the University of Chicago or Northwestern, even if Berkeley is more famous overseas.</p>
<p>Caltech is the perfect example to show the difference between name-recognition and prestige. Many people never heard of Caltech, but for the people who look at your resume (employers, grad schools,etc), they see Caltech as one of the best, most prestigious school in the world. Caltech students definitely bring to mind the word "genius."</p>
<p>Berkeley on the other hand is not so prestigious. People know that Berkeley accepts thousands of kids, many of whom got in because of "hardships." Many of them also got in with subpar SAT scores. Berkeley is widely recognized, but is far from prestigious.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley is widely recognized, but is far from prestigious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, this just reeks of poor observation.</p>
<p>If Berkeley is "far from prestigious," then why is it one of the leading universities in producing professors in the Ivy League and other top schools?</p>
<p>Or are we talking about some dumb schmuck on the street manning a hot dog stand?</p>
<p>"
Wow, this just reeks of poor observation.</p>
<p>If Berkeley is "far from prestigious," then why is it one of the leading universities in producing professors in the Ivy League and other top schools?
"</p>
<p>NO offense but the simple reason is because Berkeley gives out 3 times the amount of degrees of any other top school.I would guess 70% or more of Ivy League professors that are Berkeley grads dont have a Berkeley undergrad degree.</p>
<p>collegeperson12, you are correct that many students get into great schools like UCLA and Berkeley because of "hardships." If you think these hardship cases, i.e. poor people, are any less bright than someone who has had life easy you are mistaken. These are implications that you will find very hard to substantiate if you chose to do so. I really dont want to get very deeply into this but poor people have a much harder time in life than middle class and rich people. Poor people rarely have the money to take SAT prep courses one time let alone multiple times. They also must deal with public schools that are far from equal to schools of the more affluent. They have fewer opportunities to take AP classes so that obtaining competitive GPAs become much more difficult. Top this off with all of the other social factors that go into the equation such as malnourishment, fear of police and other authority figures, lack of hope, fear of being victims of neighborhood violence, needing to work to help support their families, etc, and all of a sudden we realize that the playing field is not at all even. </p>
<p>The point of all this is that it is much harder for hardship cases to attain the level of achievement that you associate with intelligence. Yes, I agree that UCLA and Berkeley do admit such students but that does not mean that they are any less bright than you think they are. </p>
<p>Sorry for digressing everyone. I understand that this is not what the OP wanted.</p>
<p>I don't think Johns Hopkins and Chicago are known internationally at all. It's weird that people keep puting them on their lists. They're very well known in the United States (at least to those in the know), but abroad, they're not really know at all.</p>
<p>While Berkeley may not attract what may be perceived as the best and the brighest, it certainly does build them by consitently pumping them out of its doors. Also remember that Berkeley's grades are incredibly DEflated. Students there have to work their butts off. </p>
<p>Perhaps it is best to look at what certain Stanford students have to say about Berkeley:: </p>
<p>And quite frankly, I don't see what's wrong with admitting people on "hardships." Everyone will profit in the long-run. Also, "harships" can obviosly be overcome, and certain Berkeley students seem to be incredibly good at it:: </p>
<p>"The more diverse your peers are, the more you're going to learn from them, and the more you're going to grow as a person," he said. "Here, there's a cutting-edge culture. People are challenging the status quo rather than perfecting the knowledge of it. It's such an alive, active campus."</p>
<p>MZ Lover - I think you are conflating causation and correlation. Just because Berkeley's average grades are lower, does not mean grading itself there is hard. Dump the entire Berkeley student body, magically into a Harvard grading system. I doubt they would achieve the same grading distribution that Harvard students achieve.</p>
<p>At the same time, I admit that many schools should use some serious deflation. Berkeley is good in that respect. But that doesn't mean that students there are given more work. They may just work harder because they have less innate ability, on average.</p>
<p>Also, those reports of medal winners, etc, are irrelevant. Berkely has a huge undergraduate student population, so give me the per-capita data, and I'll be convinced. Your explanation currently falls short.</p>
<p>Sorry, I have no access to the kind of information that would allow me to do that. How does the fact that they are Medalists detract from the fact that they're absolute brilliance was curtailed by their background? That's what I was implying.</p>
<p>I was definitely not saying that Berkeley does not detract from those sorts of accomplishments. Quite the reverse, in fact. However, it is likely that the success of those people was not created solely be Berkeley.</p>
<p>If Berkeley is "far from prestigious," then why is it one of the leading universities in producing professors in the Ivy League and other top schools?"</p>
<p>You know that it's much easier to get into Berkeley than it is to get into Harvard or Stanford or Yale. Therefore, the quality of the Berkeley degree is diluted, since less than stellar kids are offered admission. A school is only as good as the students it educates. If you transported all the Stanford and Harvard students to Berkeley, and transferred all the Berkeley students to Stanford, then I would enroll in Berkeley in a heartbeat. All that matters is the quality of the students.</p>
<p>to the contrary. If berkeley can enroll less stellar kids and turn them into ivy league professors in 4 years, whereas HYS enrolls more stellar kids who don't turn out much better, Berkeley is rather more impressive.</p>
<p>how sure are you of your statement?
I dont think any school can turn less stellar kids into geniuses</p>
<p>"MZ Lover - I think you are conflating causation and correlation. Just because Berkeley's average grades are lower, does not mean grading itself there is hard. Dump the entire Berkeley student body, magically into a Harvard grading system. I doubt they would achieve the same grading distribution that Harvard students achieve.
"</p>
<p>Not true Harvard does have some serious grade inflation. Im thinking of taking some classes there to boosts GPA. I think most kids who can do okay in college could do fine at Harvard.</p>
<p>nope, i'm only challenging the assumption that ivy league = more successful. What you posted: "I think most kids who do okay in college could do fine at Harvard" is actually in accord with what I'm trying to tell ericmeng.</p>
<p>I don't believe berkeley pulls magic tricks on kids who were never smart in the first place. My post before that was in response to this: "Therefore, the quality of the Berkeley degree is diluted, since less than stellar kids are offered admission. "</p>
<p>I don't believe that less stellar kids automatically means a berkeley degree is less valuable. What is the point of an education if you go in the same as you come out?</p>
<p>2bad4u , the part that worries me about grade inflation at elite colleges is the fact that kids leave those schools without having learned much of anything (see the infamous article published in The</a> Atlantic. This translates into an elite social class that doesn't always know/think about the consequences actions bring as throughly as say, their "peers" (President Wilson & Friends) who graduated hundreds of years ago would have done. </p>
<p>However, that's not to say that current Harvard students aren't capable of making sound judgements, but they have been known to err in the same way that students from other colleges do. I mean, with all due respect to anyone who wishes to participate, but Harvard's H-Bomb</a> H-Bomb really says something about the decadent state of things. I'm very liberal mind you, but this is just too much. Really, what kind of future leadership can we expect from those dangling pieces of flesh? :confused:</p>