<p>my friend forwarded this to me, its from an english news journal or something</p>
<p>UCBerkeley
Harvard
Oxford
Cambridge
MIT
Stanford
Princeton
Yale
CalTech
Columbia
Cornell
UPenn
Duke
Brown </p>
<p>I didn't know Duke had any internaitonal prestige since its like relatively new, and I think UC berk is high because its near japan lol</p>
<p>ok so its not really near japan at all</p>
<p>I would also add that Harvard does not give everybody a 4.0. The average GPA at Harvard is a 3.4, which is still high, but not even close to a 4.0. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/harvard.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/harvard.html</a></p>
<p>In fact, perfect 4.0's are extremely rare at Harvard College. In the last 25 years or so, there have been only 2 who have graduated from Harvard College with perfect 4.0's, and they happen to be siblings.</p>
<p>"Lisa B. Schwartz 03 has managed to achieve what most students consider impossible.
Over her four years at Harvard, Schwartz did not receive a single grade lower than an Anot even an A-minus, giving her a perfect 15.0 grade point average on Harvards 15 point scale. </p>
<p>Schwartz, also a Crimson editor, will receive the Sophia Fruend prize today, an honor awarded each year to the highest ranked summa cum laude graduate in the College. </p>
<p>But unlike most recipients of the award, Schwartz has a perfect academic record. The last person to earn this distinction was Lisas older brother Kevin S. Schwartz 01, who was the first undergraduate in nearly 20 years to achieve such perfection. "</p>
<p>^^That's the London Times thing, it was posted earlier</p>
<p>It's mainly an faculty-strengh survey which basically concludes that most people think Berkeley has the smartest professors....smarter than Harvard. </p>
<p>I agree because I've heard that out of 36 departments, 35 are in the top ten.</p>
<p>yeaah, it was forwarded by a professor, so that makes sense</p>
<p>
[quote]
The story about him (which I can't find at the moment on the transfer board) said he was 1-2 weeks shy of graduating and was graduating with whatever honor Yale gives to high gpa students.</p>
<p>That may have just been him flapping his mouth after he got caught, however. The point still stands: he did better at Yale than he did in CC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Considering that according to the news reports, his GPA at his CC was less than a 2.1, I think it would be difficult for him not to do better than that. </p>
<p>Also, looks like Mr. Grammer's claims of being close to graduating from Yale were also bunk:</p>
<p>"[Yale] professors are disputing claims that Grammer was in good academic standing at the University.</p>
<p>The New York Times surprised many people after reporting last Wednesday that Grammer, a C student at Cuesta Community College in San Luis Opispo, Calif., had maintained a B average at Yale. </p>
<p>But professors in the political science department say the Yale senior, whom Yale expelled for allegedly taking $61,475 in scholarship money under false pretenses, was a C student at best and did not have enough academic credits to graduate this May.</p>
<p>Athough Grammer did have scattered B-level grades and at </p>
<p>least one A minus, he also had his share of bad grades -- many Cs and Ds -- which pulled his average down substantially, said two political science professors, both of whom asked not to be identified.</p>
<p>He received at least one failing grade in political science professor William Odom's "Soviet Politics and After" course last semester for turning in a take-home final exam essay which Odom said was nearly identical to the work of another student.</p>
<p>Grammer could not be reached for comment but his attorney, John Williams, said he never told the New York Times or other newspapers that Grammer was a B student.</p>
<p>"I never said he had a B average. One of my associates in my office said it, based on conversations he'd had," Williams said. "I have never seen [Grammer's] transcript.""</p>
<p>Personally, my $.02 for somewhat well-educated people in the US</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Hopkins</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>Cal Tech</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
</ol>
<p>Guys, I think we have to be reasonable here. I think just the simple smell test will tell you that, if nothing else, Berkeley is not more prestigious than Harvard, MIT or Stanford.</p>
<p>That could be so, but not everything is based on undergraduate selectivity.</p>
<p>Where is UC San Diego at?
oh, wait, its prestige lays mostly in medicine (biomedical engineering)</p>
<p>Seriously, who cares??? Don't get caught up in the whole prestige thing and go to a university that will tend to your future desires better.</p>
<p>Sakky can't miss a chance to trash Cal. He goes as far as saying someone's own oppinion doesn't pass the "smell test." C'mon Sakky, people are free to think whatever they want without passing your test. There is nothing scientific about this topic.</p>
<p>Go to college to learn and make connections, but not to trash colleges that don't fit your "so called" prestige</p>
<p>For my generation, I can probably say that Stanford has surpassed Berkeley in prestige. But I dont' think that necessarily holds true for the older generations, and even less so for international professors, And as the Times ranking shows.</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>Basically I put the quote- above- to refute the idea of "genius." I don't think anyone can justify themselves as being "geniuses," therefore that term is either meant to demean other persons who are not as intellectually capable, or you are just deluding yourselves; I prefer the latter. Just because your parents tell their friends that they have a son/daughter that's a genius, doesn't make you so. Neither do the opinions of your teachers, friends, or SAT scores. Sure, I'm proud that my intelligence is, seemingly, higher than the norm, but I'm wary of that position. It's not the god-given gift that we like to believe, rather, it's just a matter of luck. If we, perchance, lived in a world where success is measured by one's ability to memorize scores from last night's football games and is much more valued than being able to analyze a Shakesperean play, and doing math problems is considered similar to playing video games or other useless activities, then who would be the ones coined "geniuses" and who would be the "slackers?" In short, either "hardcore genius" or the regular, ol' "genius" is not a title granted to anyone at any school, be it Berkeley or HYPS (where it seems the original poster of this comment is lead to believe that all of its students are (geniuses, or at least "better" or "more qualified," on some level).</p>
<p>Success is all relative. Take Notre Dame, for example, where 12% of its graduates go into volunteer services upon graduation. Pretty sweet, but not great for "average income" statistics. Berkeley grads go on to do many great things- at home and, as seen by many international students' personal accounts and several surveys, abroad as well.</p>
<p>Berkeley is a large school and it accepts a ton of students. As a public institution, I think the Admissions Committee is doing us Californians (and beyond) a service by accepting such a diverse group of individuals, not bound by some arbitrary cutoff SAT score that might tarnish a school's image, a school's reputation. By accepting transfer students, it is doing many students who did not fit well in the high school arena or was not afforded equal opportunities early on, a service by giving them a second chance to prove their worth. A better assessment might be that Berkeley accepts "accomplished people." That is, accomplishments that is either personally significant or significant as defined by society's standards. I come from an area where just going to a college is a big deal, let alone getting over a 1400 (which is a rarity). How can you compare students coming from this background against one who attended a private, New England secondary school and originally hailed from an upscale neighborhood in Boston? "Certain schools" would not dream of entertaining the thought, Berkeley relishes in finding these hidden jewels- "diamonds in the rough," if you will, a la "Aladdin." Which brings to the point of the "hardship" issue. If you have certain hardships, and I'm thinking financially here, you should be grouped amongst your, uh, for lack of a better term, "hardship peers." Berkeley does the single greatest job among any colleges in selecting the students at the top of every socioeconomic spectrum- from the top rich, white kids from private schools to top poor, Hispanic kid from more challenging backgrounds.</p>
<p>As for the main topic of this thread, I, unfortunately, cannot offer much of an opinion on that matter, and any faint efforts would be pure speculation as I am not international. Thanks for reading.</p>
<p>TTG</p>
<p>I am a firm believer in a true meritocracy. Everything should be based purely on one's academic, personal, and extracirricular accomplishments. Overcoming hardships should be lumped in the "personal" category, and should definitely count for something. But it should not be the end all and be all college admissions. If somebody had a hard life, they should definitely be given a boost. But no hardship should make up for a 900 SAT score and really lousy grades. Like it or not, everyone is a product of circumstance. The way I was nurtured and the evironment that I grew up in determined whether I would be a college student, or a murderer, or a dictator, or a hero, or a terrorist, or a ladies man, or a homosexual. Everyone is a product of their environment. Everyone inherits their brain from birth, and has no say about what tendencies it's going to have. Therefore, nothing we do is truly our own, and all our accomplishments/failures are the product of our nurture. So if the entire system of merit is based on evironment and cirumstance, why should we give such a large boost to people who lived in the ghetto just because they lived in the ghetto? Of course, because of their circumstances, they are going to be less academic than a rich kid living in suburbia. But both kids had no choice in the matter, and since everything is based upon circumstances anyway, it makes sense to admit the smarter rich guy than the less-educated poor guy.</p>
<p>uber- what you said makes no sense. Living in a ghetto is part of your "personal" accomplishment. Living in a ghetto and getting out with a decent GPA and an above average is heads-over-heels better than a rich white kid who has been fed with a silver spoon his whole life and went to SAT prep, college prep high schools and had personal tutors since age 5.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky can't miss a chance to trash Cal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh yeah, and pointing out that Berkeley is not as well known as Harvard and Stanford is 'trashing' Berkeley. So if I were that say that Kobe Bryant is not as good as Michael Jordan is, I suppose that would be 'trashing' Kobe. Or perhaps more to the point, unless I go around saying that Berkeley is the absolute greatest school in the world bar none, and that no other school can even pray to come close to its wonderfulness, then I must be trashing Berkeley. My my, the touchiness. </p>
<p>Ok, fine, gentlemenscholar, you win. Berkeley is the greatest school there ever was, and ever will be, and in fact, puts every single school in the history of mankind to shame. In fact, anybody who would ever even think of turning down Berkeley to go to, say, Harvard, is obviously so unbelievably stupid that we shouldn't even bother talking about them. Everybody who graduates from Berkeley is a genius, everybody who graduates from any other school is clearly an idiot.</p>
<p>Hey, I think I started to channel california1600/westside there. </p>
<p>
[quote]
He goes as far as saying someone's own oppinion doesn't pass the "smell test." C'mon Sakky, people are free to think whatever they want without passing your test. There is nothing scientific about this topic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously people are free to think what they want and that there is nothing scientific about the topic. Hence, if there is somebody in the world (not me, but somebody else) that believes that Berkeley is the absolute worst school in the world, even worse than the Cal States, you would have to concede that that person has every right to believe that. Not only that, but I would expect to see you hear zealously defending that person's right to say it. I would argue that the assertion that Berkeley is worse than San Jose State doesn't exactly pass my smell test either, but like you said, it isn't scientific and the smell test doesn't apply, so if somebody were to in fact make that assertion, you would have no choice but to come to that person's defense, right? Or what are you saying?</p>
<p>irock1ice, I don't understand your undying devotion to Berkeley. If you are going to Harvard, you're being such a hypocrit by passing off as a champion of the public schools. Going to Harvard makes you part of the so called "elitist" system. Now that you're wired into that system, your remarks are as useless as a capitalist's pretense about helping the poor or a hunter's concern about saving animals.</p>
<p>gutrade - i live in berkeley. i've been to berkeley public schools my whole life and I want a change in environment. also, no matter what I feel, I am going to Harvard in a sense for my parents. They worked their butts off so I can have a chance here in the United States and I know that they, in their wildest dreams, wouldnt have imagined their son to be attending Harvard. If I did not live in Berkeley and was not under these circumstances (immigrant, first generation), Cal would easily be my first choice. Anyways, whats wrong with someone standing up for a public school. Is it suddenly not OK that someone is speaking up for a public school that everyone derides as trash? Is it only OK if I attended UCB (which would then rile up all the Stanford trolls who would attack me by claiming I have an inferiority complex.. for those people. Suck on Harvard.)? </p>
<p>How am I wired into the system? Do you think that kids who are going to Harvard are instantly elitist bastards who are greedy and only thinks of themselves? One big reason I decided on Harvard (over YAle,Princeton) was because it was the most open-minded environment out of the big 3 (HYP). Your analogies make no sense. I'm a socialist who is going into a capitalist system and I'm aiming to exploit it. I also love eating meat but I want to save Pandas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
irock1ice, I don't understand your undying devotion to Berkeley. If you are going to Harvard, you're being such a hypocrit by passing off as a champion of the public schools. Going to Harvard makes you part of the so called "elitist" system. Now that you're wired into that system, your remarks are as useless as a capitalist's pretense about helping the poor or a hunter's concern about saving animals.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a poor argument. How about the military general who loathes war, because he knows that it is devastating (Eisenhower)? </p>
<p>I'm a graduate of a public school, but I will in the future be applying to privates for grad school. If I attend Harvard or Columbia for grad, does that make me a hypocrite? Not necessarily. I believe that the UC serves an essential function in educating and cultivating intelligent Californians. I also believe that Cal and UCLA are two of the most exceptional universities in America. Nonetheless, as an undergrad I would still probably go to Harvard. </p>
<p>That still won't stop me from defending Berkeley as an example of what a university should be. </p>
<p>Besides, Emerson argued that being a hypocrite is unavoidable, and therefore not as grievous a sin as some argue.</p>