<p>Does Williams offer an undergrad education as good or better than UCB? Probably.</p>
<p>Are the Williams professors as smart and professionally accomplished as UCB professors? Probably not.</p>
<p>Are undergrads often exposed to whatever it is that the UCB profs know that the Williams faculty doesn’t know? Probably not.</p>
<p>It’s like what’s special about the UCB profs is stored on a shelf 9 feet above the ground, and undergrads can only reach 8 feet. The fact that it’s there doesn’t really do them any good.</p>
<p>goldenboy, the people outside of America who have attended, or who go to, Berkeley are some of the finest students in their country. Like I said, Berkeley is tough for international students. Let me give you some statistics. Out of the 28 Eton students, (Eton is one of the most prestigious college prep in Europe) who applied to Berkeley last year, only 6 were admitted (2 of them enrolled). Of the 34 Eton students who applied to USC, 28 were admitted (4 of them enrolled.) USC’s average SATs is slight higher than Berkeley’s. See the discrepancy? During my time it was worse. Berkeley admitted only 6% of the international applicants.</p>
<p>Look, goldenboy. No one here is arguing that Berkeley’s undergrad student body is slightly inferior to some small, top privates, based on SATs. But this is a world ranking. Would people worldwide rank Amherst above Berkeley because Amherst SATs are something like 100 points higher than of Berkeley’s???</p>
<p>RML, the question you posed has little relevance. If you were to ask me which school has the highest recognition for its graduate programs and research, I would be glad to NOT consider undergrad selectivity. Actually, I did once answer that question and listed your beloved Cal among the top five or six schools. </p>
<p>Now, if you look at the selectivity, prestige, and recognition of Cal’s UNDERGRADUATE my answer is that you can extrapolate its position as the average of its grad reputation and it’s USNews ranking. For clarity, that places it somewhere on the bottom half of the first page of the USNews, with it’s true peers from Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. </p>
<p>Not sure if I could it make more clear that this forum is ALL about undergraduate selection, and that the irrelevant drivel of ARWU, THES, and related garbage lists belongs in a different forum. </p>
<p>Xiggi, the very first post in this thread mentions the THES rankings and asks for comprehensive top 10 universities… But apparently you still have a fascination for undergrad selectivity instead of other factors that make it a premier public research university.</p>
<p>The irrelevance was noticed three months ago when this thread lingered without traction.</p>
<p>I am happy to match my fascination with issues relevant to the undergraduate selection process to your unabated OBSESSION with anything that makes Cal look better than it is. Since the measures at the UG level fall flatter than the Netherlands, there is a need to bring those graduate school and research listing up at every possible turn. </p>
<p>Cannot really blame you for having to dig far and away for your arguments because there little to nothing left to debate about how Cal’s UG stacks up on a local, regional, and national basis. </p>
<p>It is just hilarious how relentless some are to spread the gospel. Over and over.</p>
<p>lol on xiggi’s post. As usual, his hatred for Cal is ever glowing on this thread, haha…</p>
<p>If there’s any obsession here, xiggi, it’s your pathetic biased against Cal. Seriously. </p>
<p>This thread asks for the top 10 universities in the world based on academic prestige WORLDWIDE, faculty caliber, facilities, research output and student quality, yet here you are citing SATs and stuff. What a mess! </p>
<p>Frankly, I’m not even sure if you’re smart enough to get into Cal during your undergrad years (as evidenced by the undergrad you’ve attended), yet here you are talking as if Cal is accessible to everyone. Cal’s SATs, though not as high as Chicago’s or Duke’s, on average, is far from easy to get into! Many top SAT scorers don’t get into Cal every selection year, and Cal’s HS GPA average is 3.89. You call that easy, xiggi? Seriously??? lol…</p>
<p>Haha, RML, how do you conclude all of that from the original post? </p>
<p>Regarding SAT, did I cite the numbers or did I correct your erroneous sources? If posting accurate information is an indication of hatred, so be it. It surely beats all the pathetic rehashing of international prestige that consumes you enough to derail most threads into a silly debate about Cal.</p>
<p>And feel free to take shots at the schools I attended. At least mine are not the figments of a wild imagination. What is your connection to Berkeley again? Or to any US college? </p>
<p>Educated at the most prestigious college in the UK and obsessed with a California state school? Do you really think we are THAT naive or forgetful of your past CC incarnations?</p>
<p>^^^ As usual, when you can’t win in an argument, you resort to personal attacks. </p>
<p>Well, xiggi, you don’t know me, you do not know about my background, so do not pretend - say or act - that you do. Please. </p>
<p>You keep on arguing about the SATs I provided yet you do not have any source to counter argue my data. If you want me to believe you, show me your source, because I never claimed that the numbers I provided were 100% accurate. But, at least, I have a source, and it came straight from Berkeley’s website. You, on the other hand, were just full of blah-blahs. So, who’s derailing this thread? I think the answer to that is obvious.</p>
<p>And, so what if I didn’t graduate from Berkeley? Would I pretend that I do not know anything about Berkeley just because I didn’t go there? You’ve never attended Harvard yet you know a lot fo things about Harvard. Look at goldenboy, for example. He never attended Duke, yet we see him kiss Dukies’ assess on this message board all the time.</p>
<p>For those HYPSM material, yes. But the question is, are you a HYPSM material, 20more??? hahaha… (sorry, I can’t help laughing on 20more’s post.)</p>
<p>I have a hard time to follow this discussion about ad hominems and blah-blah about the SAT. Go back and read the posts as I am afraid you are confused. </p>
<p>I talked about the differences between estimates posted in the summer and commonly accepted numbers that are published in the Fall. Given that I introduced the concept of checking for the most recent Common Data Set about a decade ago on College Confidential, I do not think that lacking sources to quote is a problem that afflcts me. As far as I know, similar discussions about the preliminary data you like to quote and the lower official numbers have been repeated a few times in the past. </p>
<p>Although I am happy to keep correcting you and educating you on how to read and evaluate statistics, you should know that I really could not care less about the SAT numbers posted by Berkeley as they are merely one small element of a purported holistic admission process. I prefer to look at the admission rates for Cal and its UC system cohort and point to the generous transfer admissions that have no impact on the freshman admission statistics but a larger of influence on the graduating classes. </p>
<p>As I keep saying, everything is a matter of personal perspective. I happen to think that all of your pompom waving has a blinding effect on your judgment, especially when it comes to comparisons to schools such as Rice or Notre Dame, or even worse, to any of those unworthy LACs. </p>
<p>Now, feel free to hurl yet another ad hominem all the way from your far away land.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if this point has been brought up yet, but the reality is Cal’s students, are on average much poorer than any of the other top universities. This is important because while SATs are often ineffective measures of college performance, they are phenomenal predictors of wealth. It makes sense then that a school which has the second highest percentage of Pell Grant recipients of any top 25 schools would have lower scoring students. Low SAT scores (in context of this discussion) don’t indicate very much about the ability levels of ones peers, only that the peers are likely more socioeconomically diverse than similarly regarded private schools.</p>
<p>Comparing weighted to unweighted GPA is an exercise in futility. I don’t know a single person who got into any division of Berkeley with less than a 4.1. But even so, Berkeley only sees the UC GPA which leaves out most of the fluff classes. I imagine that if all classes were considered, Cal’s UW GPA would be substantially higher.</p>
<p>rhg3rd, Cal uses unweighed GPA, while Maryland uses weighed GPA. </p>
<p>At any rate, the OP never mentioned selectivity in his post. He clearly stated that the purpose of this thread was to discuss the best “comprehensive” universities in the world. There is little doubt that Cal belongs in the top 10. HYPSM, Cal, Chicago and Columbia all make the top 10 comprehensive list. Cambridge and Oxford round up the top 10. Many other universities can lay claim to the top 10, including a dozen or so US universities, a handful of British, French and German universities etc…, but I think the 10 I listed probably make the strongest case.</p>