<p>[thread=701373]Most overrated/underrated colleges in the nation[/thread]</p>
<p>[thread=66299]Overrated/Underrated[/thread]</p>
<p>[thread=635960]CC Underrated Schools[/thread]</p>
<p>[thread=557117]Most overrated/underrated school on the USNWR?[/thread]</p>
<p>[thread=555045]Most Underrated and Overrated college?[/thread]</p>
<p>[thread=500954]Underrated/Overrated Top 20 Private Universities[/thread]</p>
<p>^^Your statement would have merit if you could actually explain what being #5 has to do with being overrated. Berkeley is an excellent institution, but at the undergrad level it’s a far cry from the graduate school/ research that has given it much respect. Large class sizes, difficulty signing up for classes, resulting low 4-year graduation rates, and severe budget cuts… all of this is from the viewpoint of Berkely as an OOS, but it still holds true for those paying out the nose for a ‘prestigious education’. Meanwhile, some of the smallest class sizes among any school, highly reputed UNDERGRAD teaching, and heavy emphasis on a special kind of intellectual learning passed over by nearly every major university as useless for being un-pre-professionalistic.</p>
<p>^ All you’ve done is spout off all nonsensical rhetoric about Berkeley undergrad from kids who don’t go there. Read the Berkeley threads…budget cuts haven’t impacted quality. Berkeley has added undergrad classes. </p>
<p>Here’s some merit for you: Chicago is a great school…but on par with Stanford and MIT? I think it’s slightly overrated at #5.</p>
<p>You mention undergrad teaching. Berkeley has been on USNWR’s list of schools dedicated to undergrad teaching. Chicago hasn’t been on the list.</p>
<p>This is such a pointless thread, as it’s all so subjective. As long as you seize the opportunity at any of these top 20 schools, job prospects are good…</p>
<p>I feel that all LACs are underrated, but for those of who are fans of these types of schools, and are familiar with the popular and ranked ones, I’m going to post a list</p>
<p>Illinois Wesleyan University
Trinity University Texas
Earlham College
Whitman College
Rhodes College
Millsaps College</p>
<p>As for universities, I have to go with</p>
<p>College of William and Mary
Tulane University
Washington University in St. Louis
Texas</p>
<p>I think people are more willing to rail on Berkeley undergrad precisely because its grad division is so strong. As far as I’ve seen, people rail on Berkeley undergrad far more than they do, say, UCLA undergrad - the two are comparable, but UCLA is nowhere near Berkeley in grad strength, so it doesn’t get as much flack for its undergrad strength. In reality, Berkeley (and UCLA) undergrad is very strong, comparable to many of the top-20 private universities. Despite the state budget cuts, Berkeley’s budget has remained constant (about $1.8 billion), and I think UCLA’s has actually increased a little. These two aren’t hurt nearly as much by budget cuts as other UCs are, but they’ll pretend they are so that they aren’t cut anymore / can get funding reinstated. They’re doing fine.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Phanta, isn’t Berkeley part of the longest running debate on College Confidential, and very much a chicken and egg story? Do members really rail on Berkeley because of the presence of a strong graduate school, or because supporters of Berkeley bring the grad schools ad nauseam all the while refusing to recognize the limitations of public schools in California? For years, we have had debates about Berkeley similarity to Stanford, with issues ranging from comparisons in prestige and student bodies. </p>
<p>You are correct that UCLA and Berkeley compare to many of the top-20 private universities (why shouldn’t they?) but they also compare to the next 30 schools that make the first page of the infamous USNews rankings? In addition, rankings a la USNews tend to obfuscate plenty of data points that might be important. While it is inherent to the mission of Berkeley (and not to privates’) the massive influx of transfers at Berkeley does not even show up in the “analyses?” It is not a matter of wrong or right, but this, of course, muddies the water in term of graduating student body. When it comes to comparisons, how can anyone measure what will student experience in their 4 years at some place, and five to six at others? How comparable is Berkeley’s experience to say Rice’s, or closer to home to that little Junior College across the Bay. You and I do know there is little if any comparison! Again, not necessarily better or worse, but the same it is NOT. As it has been debated here ad nauseam, there is no overlap in the enrolled student body at the freshman and especially at the senior level. </p>
<p>Fwiw, on those tables, Berkeley and UCLA are more or less stuck right between the HYPS of the world and schools such as UT-Texas, Wisconsin, UIUC or PSU. Anyone can create the “best” parallels according to bias and preferences. And most do on these shores, contributing to the futility of discussions about the under or over-rated and about whom appears to be “railed on.”</p>
<p>In the end, each school possesses positive and negative attributes, and almost all of them are in the eye of the beholder!</p>
<p>Sometimes it’s chicken, sometimes it’s egg. I think some (like you) may have different reasons for arguing against Berkeley, but too often I see people (usually not seasoned posters) saying something along the lines of, “Berkeley’s undergrad sucks! Its grad school is a lot better, but its undergrad is terrible by comparison.” Such arguments make me wonder whether they’re judging its undergrad more harshly because its grad division is great.</p>
<p>I do think that there are more universities whose undergrad is comparable in quality (I don’t know whether it’s 30 or 40 or 20 or whatever). Of course, US News emphasizes metrics that public universities don’t do well in (except PA of course), but IMO for most metrics for which this is the case, there are other ones that they do better that aren’t captured in most rankings (e.g. variety of majors/courses/student organizations/etc.). In other words, their undergrads are not better or worse, but different, as you say.</p>
<p>Still, I stand by my judgment that Berkeley undergrad gets quite a bit more flack than others, and I think it has something to do with the strength of its grad school. As far as I’ve seen, no other top public seems to be the subject of nearly as much criticism. What’s interesting is that even current Berkeley students rail on its undergrad a lot - far more than UCLA students do on UCLA undergrad. I always thought it was kinda just a culture of whining, but I also wonder whether they feel more justified in their complaint because of its grad strength. A similar phenomenon happens at Harvard.</p>
<p>There’s no way to know exactly what is the cause of all the complaining (both from students and from outsiders), but it’s interesting to theorize.</p>
<p>
Same could be said for privates like USC or Emory (Oxford campus)…</p>
<p>
Five or six years is more common at Cal State campuses vs. Berkeley.</p>
<p>Berkeley’s 4 year grad rate is 69%…compared to Rice (79%) and Stanford (78%). Not too different. Berkeley enrolls far more poor kids which impacts grad rates more than the myth of “access to classes”.</p>
<p>Yes, publics are different and have some different priorities than private research universities, I won’t deny that.</p>
<p>
Outsiders hear about budget cuts and that USNWR rates Berkeley at #21 vs. how it used to be top 5 back in the 80s (due to different methodology) and assume it’s lost its way. If USNWR used same methodology for its full best colleges ranking as it does with the grad school rankings, there would be a lot less complaining. :)</p>
<p>Berkeley is the only university that is public with a faculty and research reputation that matches the elite privates. Perception that a dichotomy exists of vast differences between Berkeley grad and undergrad makes it one of the most discussed schools on CC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, albeit it is purported to be the case, I do not argue against Berkeley. What I do is challenging the supporters of Cal who tend to rely on faulty and misleading data. I understand that correctly pointing out the numbers of enrolled from cross-admits and correctly pointing to the right admission numbers might deflate some misguided egos, but that is hardly arguing against Berkeley. </p>
<p>My point has always been (and won’t change anytime soon) that the UC system has a different mission than privates, and should not worry about the comparisons with schools, especially schools that are focusing on the undergraduate education. And, of course, my point has also been that the fanboys should read this gem by Aesop:</p>
<p>[The</a> Frog and the Ox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frog_and_the_Ox]The”>The Frog and the Ox - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>“Berkeley is the only university that is public with a faculty and research reputation that matches the elite privates.”</p>
<p>I would make that statement clearer than that UCB. There are only two or three schools in this country that can match Cal in that regard.</p>
<p>
<em>Clears throat</em></p>
<p>[Best</a> Undergraduate Teaching | Rankings | Top National Universities | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps it’s not as different as you think it is…</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Perhaps that source of yours is a lot less valuable than you might think. Any chance it is based on the same moronic methology as the your beloved PA? Poll the “educated” opinions of people who are swayed by what they read the year before or do not have a clue. Might as well ask a few hundreds fans at a Nascar meet or a couple of monkeys at the San Diego Zoo!</p>
<p>For my money, it is pure and unadulterated garbage, especially considering the inclusion of a school that obsessively focused on research and the pursuit for the dollars it brings to their divas.</p>
<p>
Meh, I think it’s just as good as evaluating it on average SAT scores and class sizes…data that can be manipulated vs. people’s opinions on subjective matters. All the data is pure and unadulterated garbage. I just like throwing up some roadblocks to your arguments. </p>
<p>
Yeah, I was surprised too at The Farm’s inclusion. :)</p>
<p>
How in the world do college adminstrators know anything about undergrad teaching at other schools? USN should be asking students, not college administrators.</p>
<p>UCB,
Sorry, there’s no way a school using grad students to teach or having 500+ students in intro science classes should be anywhere near the top for “undergrad teaching”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you really thinks that the officials who respond to the surveys at Clemson or Wisconsin can really offer an valid (as in having a factual basis) opinion on the quality and focus of undergraduate education at Cal? And, yes, I won’t stop short of reminding you of the absolute integrity those officials have demonstrated to have when it comes to USNews surveys? </p>
<p>Fwiw, it is easy to agree with the notion that SAT scores of students have no relevance to the quality of the delivery of education. On the other hand, class sizes might be an indicator. But not as good as audited “roll calls” for the actual hours taught by EACH professor in the past five years. And, for good measure, do the same for the armies of indentured servants that carry fancy titles such as GSI or something similar? In addition to actual hours in FRONT of a class, add the per capita metric to provide the impact of class size. </p>
<p>Utopian … that is for sure.</p>
<p>PS Perhaps the SAT verbal scores of the faculty and TAs could be instructive. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do Berkeley and Harvard have in common? they’re both #1 (public/private) That, at least to me, makes a lot more than some claim about graduate programs. People go to B/H and say “THIS is #1?” I mean, how exciting is Cambridge, MA anyway?</p>
<p>UCLA gets a lot less flack because the campus is amazing to look at and walk around, it’s in one of the world’s leading cities, and in one of the nicest areas within that city. And we’ve also been pretty good in sports historically too. Not to mention that are dorms food’s better, our healthcare center’s better, etc. This thread exemplifies this pretty well</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-berkeley/1251787-ucla-disgruntled-ucb-students-perspective.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-berkeley/1251787-ucla-disgruntled-ucb-students-perspective.html</a></p>
<p>I also think there’s this sort of “#1” elitism, like “we gave you your name, and this is what you’re paying for.” but that’s just conjecture on my part.</p>
<p>rjkofnovi,
If facualty and research are the only things that matter to undergrads, then all the LACs must be the worst place for undergrads.
Berkeley is a strange animal. On one hand, it’s faculty and research are matched by only a few, or even a couple. But on the other hand, its other numbers that pertain to undergrads seem lagging, despite the size. #students (even in absolute number, not just ratio) winning prestigious scholarships (Rhodes, Marshall, Fulbright, Goldwater, Cambridge Gates, Churchill) and med school placement rates are examples.</p>