<p>^ Maybe. But please don’t divert the issue. </p>
<p>Again, more than 2 thousand people who occupy high seats in academia think Berkeley is a great school. Even MIT and Stanford think Berkeley is a great school. MrPrince and his cohorts don’t think so. Who do we believe now?</p>
<p>^These same people also think highly of Emory, Vanderbilt, WUSTL, Columbia, etc. MIT and Stanford consider them peers. HYPSM doesn’t exist to them which is why Stanford has no qualms working/doing research/hiring profs from these places.
And yet you insist on discriminating universities and expect none to cross your own discrimination. Good job.</p>
<p>I will be honest- Mr Prince is on point. HYPSM does not exist with professors and academics. And I can confidently say this because I have worked with professors from these places before and they have a different idea of prestige- They dont give too hoots about it but the caliber of person they encounter and their ability to conduct research</p>
<p>Let’s see if MrPrince and sefago are correct. </p>
<p>UCBChemgrad, kindly post the PA scores of the universities mentioned by MrPrince so s/he and his/her cohorts can see for themselves how the academic people regard those universities vis-a-vis Berkeley and HYPSM. Let’s clear this up once and for all.</p>
<p>Ok, I think you really have poor logical skills. First of all the US NEWS does not tell you what HYPSM professors think. They tell us what 2000 academics from Ivies think all the way to University of Tennessee. the academics are doing guesswork, because most are not even informed about the schools they are ranking.</p>
<p>Its just a fill in the bubble exercise to them, except they really dont have much to gain except denigrating their rivals.</p>
<p>For example, in one of the PA surveys obtained, it showed that the Berkeley Chancellor did not consider Michigan University at par with other UCs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[News:</a> Reputation Without Rigor - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/19/rankings]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/19/rankings)</p>
<p>As long as you have not seen the PA scores given by the professors at the real top schools to their peers, not Cal State (Which might rate Berkeley as distinguished but know nothing about Dartmouth) then it is difficult to judge.</p>
<p>Moreover, professors at these ivies, attended mostly liberal-arts and undergraduate focused schools before going to do their PhD at research universities. Common sense tells you where their biases lie. That’s why Harvard uses Williams College as the undergrad it wants to be like. Not Berkeley or Michigan LOL</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There must be more than 2000 people occupying “high seats in academia” who think Berkeley is a great school. Depends on how high is high and how great is great, I guess. Academics don’t exactly speak w/one voice. MIT + Stanford ^= The Korean Workers Party.</p>
<p>FWIW, I think it’s a pretty great school. If you like the Wash Monthly criteria, it’s fairly ranked at #1. If you like the USN criteria, it’s fairly ranked at 20-something (plus or minus a little slop in the peer review sampling.) </p>
<p>To address the OP’s question, one of the great things about America is how many Harvards we’ve got. Harvards of the South, Harvards of the Midwest, techno Harvards, the Mormon Harvard, little Harvards, virtual Harvards. Berkeley is the public Harvard.</p>
<p>[Inside</a> the Ivory Tower | Foreign Policy](<a href=“http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/02/16/inside_the_ivory_tower]Inside”>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/02/16/inside_the_ivory_tower)</p>
<p>Georgetown actually has a school, accounting for about 1/5 of its undergrad and maybe 10% of its graduate enrollment which does either outrank(at the masters level) or rank with (at the undergraduate level) HYPSM in the field of international affairs.</p>
<p>Outside of this, Columbia climbed into the top 5 in US News this year.</p>
<p>These two also have extremely bright futures, anchored as they are on Washington and New York, the centers of power and affluence of the country.</p>
<p>^ says someone who did their undergrad at Georgetown and MBA at Columbia.</p>
<p>LOL. Can’t people think objectively hehe. Really its not that hard. I am beginning to see a pattern here of school aggrandizement. This is one of the major reasons I dont truest PA scores. </p>
<p>Imagine if RML was filling them out? Or Alexandre? Or rjknovi? Or Lesdiableus? Or me? Or . . .the list goes on. People who pick schools based on their own subjective evaluation of the school. And then people on a board would quote it as evidence</p>
<p>^^ Georgetown’s strength in IR is well known. Many schools in the top 20 or more, perhaps also a few LACs, have at least one department at the undergraduate or graduate level that ranks with HYPSM or higher. Berkeley has a slew of graduate departments that are #1-5. Chicago? Economics, anthro. Duke and Hopkins? Biomedical engineering. Penn? Finance. CalTech is #1 or close to it in physics, earth sciences, maybe more. UCLA and Michigan have top psychology programs. CMU can claim to outrank any Ivy in computer science and most of them in engineering. Etc.</p>
<p>sefago-I may be prejudiced (I am) but Foreign Policy and US news presumably are not.</p>
<p>
Did I say USNews tells us what HYPSM professors think? I said, 2 of the HYPSM schools (MIT and Stanford) have already acknowledged that Berkeley is a high caliber school. And I doubt if HYP would disagree. </p>
<p>USNews’ PA ranking isn’t perfect. But is a good indicator of the school prestige as viewed by the people in the academe. There may be some respondents who tried to manipulate the result by being bias. But at the end of the day, the collective result would tell us the right picture of how the schools stand against each other as academic institutions. </p>
<p>
Isn’t that what we are doing here as well? The difference though is that they are more knowledgeable than most of us on CC, including you.</p>
<p>
It does not matter if I will respond on the said survey. It does not matter if four or five of us would respond on the said survey. Because at the end of the day, the end result would tell us that the better schools would occupy the first few ranks, which actually what has happened, as we have seen it. Now, if everyone thinks the same way as I do, then I probably am right. I think we have to assess who between the two of us is wrong.</p>
<p>“Imagine if RML was filling them out? Or Alexandre? Or rjknovi? Or Lesdiableus? Or me? Or . . .the list goes on. People who pick schools based on their own subjective evaluation of the school.”</p>
<p>I would say academically Michigan and Duke are peers at the undergraduate level, just like academe does…</p>
<p>“I said, 2 of the HYPSM schools (MIT and Stanford) have already acknowledged that Berkeley is a high caliber school. And I doubt if HYP would disagree.” </p>
<p>Gerhard Casper (Stanford President from 1992-2000), Charles Vest (president of MIT from 1990-2004) and Harold T. Shapiro (president of Princeton from 1988-2001) have all publically stated that Cal and Michigan are arguably top 10 universities (in the context of undergraduate education).</p>
<p>^ I agree. Michigan is a “top 10” school when measured as an ACADEMIC institution. I could not name many schools that are superior to it academically. Its professional schools - as a whole - is only bettered by Harvard and Stanford.</p>
<p>Michigan isnt as prestigious as HYPSMCDBPennDukeVandy etc. I think the OP is talking about in terms of prestige, but I could be wrong</p>
<p>^ My opinion about that is different. In my personal opinion, Michigan is more prestigious than Vanderbilt. Michigan is as prestigious as Duke. For undergrad, it varies form region to region and program to program. For professional schools, it varies on the program (MBA- Michigan or tie, Law- Michigan, Medicine - tie, engineering - Michigan). Same for PhDs.</p>
<p>scales, in educated circles, there is no distinction between academics and prestige. Among high school students, I would agree with your statement. They look at selectivity and USNWR rankings to determine “prestige”. Among the masses, you are actually off. Schools like Brown, Dartmouth and Vanderbilt are not prestigious at all. Schools like Berkeley, Duke, Michigan, Notre Dame, UCLA, UNC etc… are more likely to be prestigious thanks to the high profile athletics programs they have. </p>
<p>But among the highly educated and adult elite, academic excellence and prestige are one and the same. There are many in such a demographic who would argue that non-HYPSM private elites are more prestigious than Cal and Michigan, but there are just as many who would argue that Cal and Michigan are more prestigious than most of their private peers. Those cancel each other out. By and large, the mass of highly educated adults would not differentiate between Cal and Northwestern or between Michigan and Cornell because regardless of what they studied, whenever they looked at rankings of their own disciplines, Cal and Michigan would inveriably always have been near the top.</p>
<p>^ Okay thanks! I understand now</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, why I am confused. You just personified two universities MIT and Stanford. When did Stanford and MIT (both individuals in your book) collective acclaim berkeley is a high caliber school? Moreover, do you expect these schools to be denigrating other universities?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duh it is obvious that is what everyone does. But why should more weight be placed on people who dont have more informed decisions than we do? Because of the word “academe” right? You actually think academia involves you checking and learning about the academic programs in several schools. Please go and find out what chancellors, presidents and dean do. Some deans just have a masters degree and are not in anyway part of academia.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I have met a large number of deans and most of them dont even know about the programs at their schools not to talk of thousands of other schools. Logic dictates I should not attach more importance to a “fill in the bubble” exercise based on nebulous criteria.</p>
<p>There is no proof, just pure, unadulterated conjecture</p>
<p>@Alexandre</p>
<p>Come on really, moreover this is a pattern I have seen in reality. Professors think anywhere the spent a significant part of their academic life is top notch. And most importantly they were not speaking purely about undergraduate education.
</p>
<p>[NAE</a> Website - Charles M. Vest](<a href=“http://www.nae.edu/15/Governance/NAEExecutives/CharlesMVest7886.aspx]NAE”>http://www.nae.edu/15/Governance/NAEExecutives/CharlesMVest7886.aspx)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As an academic institution (research based), maybe yes. As an undergraduate its 29th and not a peer of Duke or neither is it in the tier right under the schools that make the next tier.</p>