<p>Prop. 13 decimated the education system in California, it is true, but with a few important caveats: 1) Though Berkeley was being ranked as a number 1 university in the 60s - 80s overall, the fact is that a lot of qualities of the UCs have not deteriorated but improved since then, for example in terms of undergraduate overall quality. As with many schools, people who got into Berkeley earlier will tell you there is no way they would now; the quality of undergrads overall has gone up even though the universities in the system have grown. 2) California's K-12 system is the portion of the educational system that was decimated, not the UC system, nor I think the other state university system, Cal States. California's K-12 ranked first, or among the top, in the nation until into the 80s. Proposition 13 had been passed in 1978. The causal effect was clear. 3) Reagan was governor in the 60s, not the 70s and had nothing directly to do with Prop. 13. What he did do is levy fees against students at UC (it had been free to attend before), and the thinking supposedly went that students who had to pay would not be students who would protest.</p>
<p>The difference in reputation between then and now reflects the greater focus in the rankings on the demand side of the equation -- i.e., where do the best undergrads go (measured as averages, not totals, since a lot of great students end up in the totals in huge numbers at some of the higher-ranked large schools), as opposed to the question of where the most celebrated research professors are -- and what kinds of basic resources are there to support the students. These ""basic resource" items are made up of factors like student/faculty ratios, giving percentages of alumni, on and on. The difference also reflects a greater brand-nameism in my opinion: one can -- and indeed must in many cases -- argue that rankings have improved the service mentality of universities, but it's clear to me that they've also bred a more brand obsessed, hierarchical, prestige-focused mentality among would be students. Berkeley still comes out premier by many measures, but the "lens" has certainly shifted in a direction not favoring Berkeley. I wouldn't chalk up the difference entirely, or even primarily, to substantive factors, though I am sure others will disagree and can point out these factors readily.</p>
<p>From Time Magazine in the 80s:</p>
<p>Or quoting myself:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Without a doubt, Berkeley. For example, refer to this article from Time Magazine. Berkeley started receiving rankings from national magazines like this in the late 60s and early 70s.</p>
<p>But these kinds of rankings seemed to talked about universities as composites, grad and undergrad under a research banner, without specific regard for undergrad education. Berkeley would still be considered a top 3 university by any measure, if the focus were solely graduate school. But with undergrad in the mix as it is, Berkeley has gotten demoted in general rankings of national universities from the likes of UNWR which have really come to the fore in the last 15 years.</p>
<p>When one looks at particular departments in grad school according to the UNWR graduate school rankings -- and I haven't added these up so I am sure someone will prove me wrong -- Berkeley and Stanford seem to go head to head as the top graduate schools across the board from engineering to hard sciences to social sciences to humanities.</p>
<p>So, it's more a question of what looking glass one looks through than changes in the school itself. Certainly there is an argument that for undergrad experience the newer rankings are a lot closer to accurate. But by the same token, Berkeley's premier excellence on another level is overlooked because of greater reliance on those broad rankings alone.
[/quote]
</p>