UC Berkeley = bad?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
21

<p>^^ I wasn't saying he wasn't. I was pointing out the conventional wisdom at CC -- offering a reason as to why people want small classes. Now, I think that small classes are overrated on CC, but I disagreed with pearlygate's assumptions on curves and small classes.</p>

22

<p>is there a legit connection b/n ucsf and cal or are y'all saying that just based on geographical proximity?</p>

23

<p>Stanford is better than UC Berkeley only in the sense that people would be way more impressed if you said you went to Stanford than if you said you went to UC Berkeley. that's about it... otherwise they're both great schools and you're likely to get a great job if you attend either institution.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
is there a legit connection b/n ucsf and cal or are y'all saying that just based on geographical proximity?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>UCSF was officially Cal's medical school for quite a long time.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In March 1873, the trustees of Toland Medical College deeded it to the Regents of the University of California, and it became "The Medical Department of the University of California."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think UCSF had eventually 'separated' in name so that it could legitimately claim more funds from the government. And it worked -- UCSF + Berkeley's funds > UCLA's (which includes a med school).</p>

<p>Part of the reason for splitting was actually the geography. After the 1906 earthquake, sciences/labs had shifted over to Berkeley, and clinical training happened in SF. This continued until WWII, when people started calling more for consolidation, as the geographical difference was causing problems in the curricula. Thus, more facilities were built in SF and the curricula were changed; UCSF was actually in control of all the medical workings, reporting to President Wheeler at Berkeley. Today, they share degree programs, facilities, funds, faculty, students, research, etc.</p>

25

<p>@Newjack88</p>

<p>I am not so sure about that. At China, they value UC Berkeley over Stanford. I personally gone there.</p>

26

<p>I think we are talking about America here, in which the general public as a whole would see Stanford as more prestigious than Berkeley. The USNWR does a good job generally of capturing American views on the most prestigious countries, however getting a good job upon successful graduation from either school should not be difficult.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
At China, they value UC Berkeley over Stanford.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not so sure about that, based on my acquaintance with Chinese people.</p>

28

<p>^ I'm Asian, and people I know from Asia seem to admire Stanford more as well.</p>

29

<p>Isn't this thread dead yet? </p>

<p>Stanford and Berkeley go head-to-head on the graduate level and are arguably the twin best. Stanford certainly edges Berkeley in terms of undergraduate prestige, though quality issues may be debatable. </p>

<p>Both are world-class institutions.</p>

<p>Where's the problem?</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley gets government funding -- about $400-500 million each year. Since a university typically spends ~5% of its endowment each year (I think Stanford spends about 4%), a university would need $8-10 billion in its endowment to match what Berkeley gets in government revenue

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, but like I said before, that government funding doesn't come 'for free'. It is provided precisely because Berkeley is mandated to charge less to instate students. Hence, what Governor Schwarzenegger gives, Governor Schwarzenegger also takes away. </p>

<p>The fair way to calculate this figure is to find the net government funding it obtains, that is the total funding from the government minus what it would have gotten had it been able to charge full-fare to all the instate students.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
@Newjack88</p>

<p>I am not so sure about that. At China, they value UC Berkeley over Stanford. I personally gone there.

[/quote]

i would have to say that your statement is probably false since it's debatable whether or not Berkeley is renowned in the United States let alone internationally. that is not to say that it's not a great school though; it's just that due to its lack of popularity compared to Stanford's it's perceived to not be as good.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
that your statement is probably false since it's debatable whether or not Berkeley is renowned in the United States let alone internationally.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wait, it's probably false because it's debatable? Last I heard, if it's debatable, it may or may not be wrong.</p>

<p>And by that logic, it's debatable that Stanford is renowned nationally, let alone internationally. You'd need to conduct a survey to really know what qualifies as "national" and "international" prestige.</p>

<p>But the general consensus, from what I've seen, is that both Stanford and Berkeley are nationally and internationally renowned. (To contest either seems an exercise in futility.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
its lack of popularity

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, that's debatable. Berkeley receives 2x Stanford's applicants. By that measure, Berkeley is more popular.</p>

<p>I'm assuming you mean 'renown,' in which case I would agree that Stanford is on the whole more well-known nationally.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
Uh, but like I said before, that government funding doesn't come 'for free'. It is provided precisely because Berkeley is mandated to charge less to instate students. Hence, what Governor Schwarzenegger gives, Governor Schwarzenegger also takes away.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, you can factor in that, but the idea is still there. It receives much funding that privates don't. On top of that, we all know that tuition and fees don't even begin to pay for the costs of running a university. Lastly, much of what does pay for students to attend are alumni, endowment funds, etc.</p>

34

<p>newjack:

[Quote]
i would have to say that your statement is probably false since it's debatable whether or not Berkeley is renowned in the United States let alone internationally. that is not to say that it's not a great school though; it's just that due to its lack of popularity compared to Stanford's it's perceived to not be as good.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>When I was at Harvard this past summer, I noticed an interesting trend: the only, and I repeat, only college sweatshirt I saw being worn besides Harvard's was Cal's. I even asked one guy if he was a student at Cal, and he said "no, I'm a junior at Harvard. But if I wasn't here, I would have chosen Cal---even over Yale." Umm, hello?</p>

<p>Let's just think about this for a minute:</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Renowned in the United States? The world? You tell me. This isn't a debate about which school is better. Undoubtedly Stanford boasts top programs and professors as well. This is about giving an excellent school the credit it deserves. If someone made such an ignorant statement about Stanford as Newjack did about Cal, I would have responded the same way. The two schools are rivals, but without each other, they simply would not be what they are today. Competition breeds rivalry, but it also breeds excellence.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
Wait, it's probably false because it's debatable? Last I heard, if it's debatable, it may or may not be wrong.

[/quote]

seems to me that you picked out one word from my sentence and tried to run with it. next time make sure to continue reading until you see punctuation that designates the end of a sentence i.e. a ".".</p>

<p>if you had continued reading what i said i went on to say, "since it's debatable whether or not Berkeley is renowned in the United States let alone internationally." which makes perfect sense. if you want me to elaborate more on this i will, but i think it's pretty easy for a reasonably intelligent person to understand.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And by that logic, it's debatable that Stanford is renowned nationally, let alone internationally. You'd need to conduct a survey to really know what qualifies as "national" and "international" prestige.

[/quote]

of course it is debatable; almost EVERYTHING is. however, it is easier to make the case against Berkeley than it is against Stanford. from what i've noticed Berkeley has the "WashU-syndrome" in that, like WashU, it is primarily popular and more renowned in its geographic region. schools like Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, and Yale (not as much) are renowned and popular EVERYWHERE in the country.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, that's debatable. Berkeley receives 2x Stanford's applicants. By that measure, Berkeley is more popular.

[/quote]

that doesn't prove anything. first of all, more kids have a realistic shot at making it into Berkeley than do at making it into Stanford. second, assuming that it is more popular than Stanford for the reason, this would only mean that Berkeley is more popular with people applying to colleges which is a very small segment of the American population. it would not refute my claim that Berkeley is less popular with the general American population/the world.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm assuming you mean 'renown,' in which case I would agree that Stanford is on the whole more well-known nationally.

[/quote]

please let's not be immature. besides, you can use either.</p>

<p>learnmestuff:

[quote]
When I was at Harvard this past summer, I noticed an interesting trend: the only, and I repeat, only college sweatshirt I saw being worn besides Harvard's was Cal's. I even asked one guy if he was a student at Cal, and he said "no, I'm a junior at Harvard. But if I wasn't here, I would have chosen Cal---even over Yale." Umm, hello?

[/quote]

"Umm, hello?" this is irrelevant. who cares what sweatshirts these kids are wearing. this is so besides the point it actually IS funny. though the fact that the only other sweatshirts you saw were Berkeley does not mean that Berkeley is as popular as a Stanford, i would like to say that it does not take a genius to figure out why Berkeley would be popular with kids at a school like Harvard. both Berkeley and Harvard have high admissions standards so there is likely to be some overlap between their respective admissions pools. thus it is likely that a Harvard applicant would be knowledgeable of Berkeley.</p>

<p>however, this is besides the point that i am making. i am saying that the average American is more likely to have heard about Stanford than to have heard about Berkeley. (i would bet that a lot of people don't even know that Cal is the same thing as Berkeley.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Let's just think about this for a minute:</p>

<br>

either "way to not read my post," or "way to totally misinterpret or ignore the words that i wrote in my post." i am not saying that Berkeley is a bad school. i am saying that because Berkeley is not as popular as Stanford it is perceived to be of lower quality than Stanford. anyways all of those things are great and definitely prove that Berkeley is a great school. no one is arguing this except for you and kyledavid80. anyways it's highly unlikely that your average American would even know any of these things. i would bet that more people know that John Elway went to Stanford than know that scientists at Berkeley discovered 17 elements.</p>

[/QUOTE]
<br>

<p>
[quote]
Renowned in the United States? The world? You tell me. This isn't a debate about which school is better. Undoubtedly Stanford boasts top programs and professors as well. This is about giving an excellent school the credit it deserves. If someone made such an ignorant statement about Stanford as Newjack did about Cal, I would have responded the same way. The two schools are rivals, but without each other, they simply would not be what they are today. Competition breeds rivalry, but it also breeds excellence.

[/quote]

there is nothing ignorant about my post. you are being ignorant because, presuming you live in California, you think that everyone is aware of the quality of the UC's which just is not the case. UC's/Berkeley are just not as popular as Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, etc. because the UC's/Berkeley are less popular they are merely perceived to be of less quality. please actually READ my posts before commenting next time so that you can actually know what you are talking about.</p>

<p>EDIT:
also, what is wrong with you guys. you guys are acting like i'm insulting your mothers. why do you even care so much? no one is saying that Berkeley is an inferior school. i am simply saying that it is perceived to be when compared to Stanford. WashU is a great school yet it well known only in the Midwest. (this is changing.) a lot of people on the east/west coast have never even heard of it.</p>

<p>being insulted by the fact that a school you like is not as renowned as another school is very immature.</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
if you had continued reading what i said i went on to say, "since it's debatable whether or not Berkeley is renowned in the United States let alone internationally." which makes perfect sense. if you want me to elaborate more on this i will, but i think it's pretty easy for a reasonably intelligent person to understand.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You said: "i would have to say that your statement is probably false since it's debatable ..." You did not insert a comma after "false," so the subordinate clause "since" is non-restrictive. Thus, it seems as though you were indicating a direct cause-effect releationship: that one the statement is false since it's debatable. But even then, your use of "probably" lends a sense of supposition that only makes the statement seem more ridiculous.</p>

<p>
[quote]
however, it is easier to make the case against Berkeley than it is against Stanford. from what i've noticed Berkeley has the "WashU-syndrome" in that, like WashU, it is primarily popular and more renowned in its geographic region.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're speaking purely from your own experience. So I'll throw my own anecdotal evidence out there: I've lived in different parts of the US--I grew up largely in the Midwest--and Berkeley is very prestigious there too. And in fact, many people around the country agree; just search the forums, as it's been discussed many times before.</p>

<p>Funnily enough, just last week, I was talking to a girl who just came from Montana; she did not know of Stanford. She knew of Harvard, but not Stanford.</p>

<p>So it's not so "absolute" as you seem to imply.</p>

<p>
[quote]
that doesn't prove anything. first of all, more kids have a realistic shot at making it into Berkeley than do at making it into Stanford. second, assuming that it is more popular than Stanford for the reason, this would only mean that Berkeley is more popular with people applying to colleges which is a very small segment of the American population. it would not refute my claim that Berkeley is less popular with the general American population/the world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My assertion was based on your misuse of the word "popular." You clearly meant something else -- renown. From what I can see, Stanford is more well-known to the general public; Berkeley is more popular (as a measure of the # students applying, thus expressing interest in the school). A school can be very well known but not so popular -- MIT, for example, which receives far fewer applicants than, say, Stanford but is easily as renowned.</p>

<p>
[quote]
please let's not be immature. besides, you can use either.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What 'immaturity' do you see? You were speaking ambiguously, and it was only weakening your argument.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"Umm, hello?" this is irrelevant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think it's pretty clear that learnmestuff wasn't really basing an argument around such a tiny anecdotal sample. Rather, it was an "introduction" of a sorts to what he/she was about to prove -- with many facts that supported the case for Berkeley's renown and that refuted your argument.</p>

<p>
[quote]
either "way to not read my post," or "way to totally misinterpret or ignore the words that i wrote in my post." i am not saying that Berkeley is a bad school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Way to totally misinterpret learnmestuff's point -- he/she isn't arguing about "quality." Examine each of the items that he/she listed -- they obviously support the notion that Berkeley is renowned (and with reason), but if you see quality there, go ahead (though that isn't the focus).</p>

<p>
[quote]
no one is arguing this except for you and kyledavid80.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not -- though you seem to be arguing with yourself, so don't let me impose! ;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
the quality of the UC's which just is not the case.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who's talking about the UCs? I believe the thread title is about Berkeley. And I don't see anywhere that learnmestuff is indicating anything about other UCs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
please actually READ my posts before commenting next time so that you can actually know what you are talking about.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You were dismissing Berkeley's renown. Others disagree. That is all. We aren't talking about quality. We aren't talking about relative prestige. We all know that HYPSM are more well-known. But to argue that Berkeley doesn't have national or (especially) international renown? Now that's the crux of the argument.</p>

<p>
[quote]
no one is saying that Berkeley is an inferior school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And we aren't saying it's superior, either.</p>

<p>
[quote]
i am simply saying that it is perceived to be when compared to Stanford.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, you aren't. You asserted that a while ago, and that was legitimate. But then you asserted this:</p>

<p>
[quote]
it's debatable whether or not Berkeley is renowned in the United States let alone internationally.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps you should worry more about what you say than what others do. ;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
being insulted by the fact that a school you like is not as renowned as another school is very immature.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again with this unfounded point on maturity. No, we aren't saying anything about relative renown; we're saying that Berkeley does have national and international renown, on an absolute scale.</p>

<p>But on the comparative note, yes, I believe you are right: Berkeley isn't as renowned as Stanford nationally and thus people won't perceive it as better. Yes, you're right, that speaks nothing to quality; it doesn't mean Berkeley isn't a great school. But I don't agree that Berkeley 'lacks popularity' or that it's in doubt whether Berkeley has national or international renown. That's just my opinion.</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
But on the comparative note, yes, I believe you are right: Berkeley isn't as renowned as Stanford nationally and thus people won't perceive it as better. Yes, you're right, that speaks nothing to quality; it doesn't mean Berkeley isn't a great school. But I don't agree that Berkeley 'lacks popularity' or that it's in doubt whether Berkeley has national or international renown. That's just my opinion.

[/quote]

lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
i would have to say that your statement is probably false since it's debatable whether or not Berkeley is renowned in the United States let alone internationally. that is not to say that it's not a great school though; it's just that due to its lack of popularity compared to Stanford's it's perceived to not be as good.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, Berkeley's more renowned internationally probably than in the US and certainly is renowned. In the US, Berkeley certainly doesn't have the prestige that Stanford does, since that kind of prestige is in part something that accrues to colleges with the highest level of undergraduate selectivity. </p>

<p>But in terms of research output, quality of academics, etc. -- in other words, graduate school -- Berkeley goes head-to-head with Stanford in terms of ranking and quality and is similary renowned especially among academics. In this regard a comparison with Wash U which is a fantastic school and has a great med school but is only really prominent in its own region is largely wrong. Berkeley recruits its graduate students from across the world and has a very strong profile among world-class institutions across a variety of disciplines. Stanford is probably the one school that has the profile that has the breadth and depth to go completely head-to-head with Berkeley, in a way. It has a huge number of top-ranked programs across a huge breadth of academic disciplines. Berkeley and Stanford are tops engineering schools, and they are top science schools and they are tops humanities schools. Stanford outperforms Berkeley in terms of undergraduate selectivity, and has more highly ranked professional schools, though Berkeley's aren't to sneeze at and Berkeley has a public policy school. Stanford has a med school and, if one counts UCSF as Berkeley's de facto med school (since it is for many purposes), the UC counterpart is perennially ranked above Stanford.</p>

<p>I think it's a losing battle to suggest that Berkeley is as prestigious as Stanford at the undergrad level -- or in that sense more popular. It's equally a losing battle to suggest that Berkeley is like Wash U a regional phenomenon; that's pretty ridiculous and I say that as someone who has a lot of respect for Wash U. It's a globally recognized academic powerhouse. Sorry, that's a fact. It's tied to what Berkeley has accomplished and continues to accomplish.</p>

<p>Now can we please let this thread die.....</p>

39

<p>
[Quote]
no one is saying that Berkeley is an inferior school. i am simply saying that it is perceived to be when compared to Stanford. WashU is a great school...

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>You questioned whether Berkeley was even prestigious in its own country. I'd say that's a pretty good example of someone "saying that Berkeley is an inferior school." Again, this isn't even an argument of Cal vs. Stanford. Stanford speaks for itself on this forum. This is a question of giving the #1 ranked public university *in the world<a href="don't%20believe%20me,%20look%20up%20the%20rankings">/I</a> the respect it deserves.</p>

<p>And I have much respect for WU, but comparing them is not only unfair, it's ignorant. It's like comparing Michigan and Vanderbilt. The schools are so different it's not even comparable. And no one in their right mind would argue that Michigan is as unknown outside the U.S. as Vandy (again, a school I have much respect for..but it's simply the truth that their prestige mainly lies w/in US borders). </p>

<p>You really don't have an argument. All the numbers go against you, all the scholars go against you. Heck, even Stanford students are giving Cal credit! And when that happens, you KNOW your opinion is false!</p>

40

<p>I really hate how people try to rank an undergrad program as a whole rather than focusing on specific majors.</p>

<p>Of course Berkeley's undergraduate program isn't as prestigious as Harvard's overall. But when it comes to engineering, Berkeley has a much more prestigious program (both undergrad and grad) than our crimson ivy. In fact, with regards to engineering, Berkeley ranks roughly on par with Stanford.</p>

<p>Don't think about the school's overall prestige, think about the school's prestige within your major, as that's what is truly going to matter when looking for a job.</p>