<p>Do I agree with the USNWR methodology? No. That's why I made my own rankings much earlier:</p>
<p>
[quote]
There seems to be a contradictory in your statements. In post #42, you said this: "this doesn't change the fact that there are consistently about 20 universities ranked ahead of its undergrad program."</p>
<p>So I took it that Cal was outside of the top 20 (for undergrad) because there are 20 more ahead of it, yet in your very own creation of ranking tables, it was actually amongst the top 20.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely NO contradiction AT ALL. None. USNWR currently ranks Cal outside the Top 20. Period. Go look it up.</p>
<p>My ranking ranks Cal AT no. 20. Read that quote again "there are consistently ABOUT 20 universities ranked ahead of its undergrad program".</p>
<p>So, let's summarize shall we? USNWR currently ranks 20 universities ahead of Cal. My ranking places 19 universities ahead of Cal. That makes it ABOUT 20 universities ahead of Cal. Where is the contradiction?</p>
<p>I love how your arguments focus on the minutiae of 21 vs. 20. Nothing you have written addresses the fact that no established ranking places Cal anywhere near no. 1 (far from it). Even Alexandre will agree (unless he departs from his previous view) that Cal's undergrad is not at HYPSM level. So why not step up and actually address that for a change?</p>
<p>No. Let's not confuse things here. Let's be very clear.</p>
<p>Prior to you asking whether I agreed with the USNWR ranking (in post #46), I stated very clearly that Cal ranks outside the top 20 by USNWR. That is not an opinion that is fact. </p>
<p>Any discussion AFTER post #46 has nothing to do with the fact that Cal ranks no. 21 by USNWR. Don't try and mix things up to suit your needs.</p>
<p>So let's be clear once more, since you like mixing things up:</p>
<p>1) Prior to post 46, my statement that Cal ranks outside the Top 20 by USNWR holds. It holds now. It holds tomorrow and will hold until the next USNWR ranking comes out.</p>
<p>2) Any discussion after post 46 merely serves to point out that Cal's undergrad is nowhere near no. 1</p>
<p>This is getting tiresome and frankly since you refuse to address Cal's weaker undergrad ranking, I will refuse address any more of your posts.</p>
<p>The UCBerkeley brigade as arrived.</p>
<p>There's a reason why the abbreviation so commonly seem on these boards is HYPMS. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford. That's often the first tier in terms of prestige. I've seen 'W' tacked on, for Wharton (HYPW). I've seen C tacked on sometimes, for Caltech(HYPMSC). Beyond that, I've never seen any other form of the abbreviation. I think the abbreviation is a good indication of which schools people consider to be in the most elite league of schools.</p>
<p>This really shouldn't be an issue with a lot of heated discussion, because the way to answer the question would be to conduct a scientific worldwide survey (what would the relevant population be, by the way?) and no such survey exists. Of course everyone posting here will speak up on behalf of his or her favorite college, but you (and I) are not the whole world.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I don't see why Prestige keeps focusing on rankings. Everyone within academia knows those rankings are fundamentally flawed.</p></li>
<li><p>Harvard's reputation is boosted multi-fold by its alignment with the ruling class and its stratospheric endowment. Many who have attended Harvard undergrad have remarked about how underwhelming it is. I think Harvard's reputation sits on its graduate programs.</p></li>
<li><p>I don't see how Berkeley is even in a discussion about the most prestigious in the world. I've read the arguments. I still don't see it at all.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
And for your information, HYPSM or CHYPSM does not exist really outside of the US, and when yu rate a university, you do not just rate undergrad level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And is the US not a huge part of the academic world as far as prestige is concerned?</p>
<p>^ A fractional part of the world. You've failed to mention other schools outside of the US that are just as good.</p>
<p>I've mentioned Oxford and Cambridge previously. I said that in terms of international prestige I would consider Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge to be the most world renowned.</p>
<p>you also need to take culture and language into effect.</p>
<p>However eminent the top 5 Chinese universities are becoming, the difficulty of the Chinese language precludes many of the world's brilliant minds from studying/working there. This is the same issue facing China's difficulty in becoming a truly world cultural power, its unadaptive tonal-hieroglyphic language.</p>
<p>And in India, where the uber selective (~2%) IITs are concerned, Their educational infrastructure which is already taxed to the max, probably concerned more with being super practical (Business-Tech) would not be a great place for someone wanting to do more theoretical research (nobel anyone?)</p>
<p>And we come to Europe, which has the oldest universities in the world, Oxbridge/Coimbra. Although the rise of the Euro will be propitous for the steady strength of the institutions, their society doesnt have the vigor it used to before two world wars wiped out the flower of their society. </p>
<p>Lastly, I don't know how long King Abdullah University and its neighboring inst. can grow once oil runs out.</p>
<p>How about harvard simply stops taking legacies? At this point they are so rich that they can operate independently of their alumni...</p>
<p>powergrid don't waste your time let them believe whatever they want to about Berkeley....they seem to hold US News as the gold standard for prestige bar none, and although thats seems true nowadays, they don't seem to realize that Berkeley is a major exception because its grad school absolutely kills all schools ahead of it in excellence and depth except for Stanford, MIT, and Harvard, it can be argued its even better than those schools, and they ignore how major of a research university Cal is. Internationals don't come to the United States usually for undergrad, but for grad school. They also know more about the research quality of universities and the excellence of their faculty rather than whether one schools SAT range is 30 points higher than another, which is why Berkeley is much more renowned outside the US. And for those who constantly attack Berkeley for its SAT range looking at SAT data from Berkeley from 1999 to 2006 its appears to me berkeley is saying screw you US news and your system of using SAT range to dictate a students ability. In 1999, Berkeley's SAT range was 30% 800-700 41% 700-600 29% below for verbal, and was 44% 800-700 37% 700-600 19% below for math. In 2006, it was 31% 800-700 41% 700-600 and 28% below for verbal, and 46% 800-700 35% 700-600 19% below for math. It appears to me that with Berkeley's applications increasing 50 perent from approximately 30K to 45K out of those 15K additional application it could at least have at least a whole class of above 600 in both subjects, with the average SAT score for the whole 45K being 1220. That means 22K scored over 1220 with Berkeley having a freshmen class of 4K. My point is Berkeley seems to weight things differently and SAT is not their main metric, its your GPA, your essay, and ECs. If you look at the statistics it could even appear Berkeley has a certain percentage on what amount of high scoring applicants it accepts and what percentage of lower scoring applicants it accepts... which is somewhat weird but thats Berkeley.</p>
<p>Even if Berkeley is the worst college in the world, it is entirely irrelevant to the thread, which is addressing "renown". </p>
<p>If you are raising a new issue for some reason, and saying the renown incorrectly represents the true quality, perhaps you are right. On the other hand, perhaps not, since internationals mostly care about grad programs and research, and Berkeley has the most top-ranking PhD programs of any university.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even if Berkeley is the worst college in the world, it is entirely irrelevant to the thread, which is addressing "renown".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's true. It's notionally possible for a college to be famous even if it is lousy. But see </p>
<p>Amazon.com:</a> Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious: Books: Gerd Gigerenzer </p>
<p>for a very interesting discussion of the "recognition heuristic," when fame is used as a proxy for quality.</p>
<p>cherokeejew what I am saying is Berkeley is renowned because most internationals don't look at undergrad rankings.....they use a different metric which is grad and research and because Berkeley is on top the very top of those metrics it is one of the most renowned colleges in the world. How can anyone say Berkeley is lousy even for undergrad, when its ranked 21 in the country based on US news metrics, which seem to be biased toward privates. Berkeley at one time was ranked much higher than it is now in the early 80s because US News metrics back then, they changed them in some ways that can be argued to be biased towards privates. Its true some lousy colleges are well known because of their sports teams, but Berkeley isn't renowned for sports but academics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I am British but I have lived in the Philippines for 5 years now and I challange you to provide 6 other schools that are considered as more prestigious than UC Berkeley in the Philippines. And please don't tell me that Berkeley is not such a huge name is the UK.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As the_prestige said, you're changing the goalposts. I am simply questioning just how important it really is to have access to "famous" profs, many of which, frankly, are bad teachers. </p>
<p>
[quote]
here are many, many countries around the world where UC Berkeley, Stanford and MIT are as prestigious if not more prestigious than Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am quite mystified as to exactly which countries would be ones where Stanford, MIT, and (especially) Berkeley might actually be more prestigious than Harvard. Hey, I wish it were true, but I have my severe doubts. Berkeley more prestigious than Harvard? That's a big stretch. Oxbridge perhaps, especially in the Commonwealth nations. But Berkeley? That's a tough argument to make.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the undergraduate level, Cal is among the top 10. Saying that it is not one of the top 20 undergraduate institution is irresponsible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't use such language to respond to someone else's opinion, and so far I'm not sure I share the quoted opinion. How would one make an affirmative case that Berkeley is a top-ten undergraduate university in the whole world, and on what basis? (Note that this is all topic drift, as the OP was asking about "renown," which could possibly have little or nothing to do with which university is really the top university.)</p>
<p>I'm genuinely curious when I ask this. I do not mean any sarcastic tone. What is it that draws so much passion from the Berkeley boosters?<br>
Is it that they feel slighted in their reputation? </p>
<p>I mean, there are a lot of people who passionately think schools like MIT, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Columbia... are worthy of the highest regard, but you'd rarely if ever see them engage in such a fight on a thread of this nature. As great as their schools are, I think few would have the gall to assert that their school challenges Harvard (at least nationally) in the category of "renown". Why do Berkeley people engage in this fight?</p>
<p>What is this?</p>
<p>
[quote]
This thread is a discussion about THE most prestigious university in the WORLD.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nothing you have written changes the fact that Cal's weak undergrad program takes them out of the discussion as world's best university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As was pointed out, quality isn't the focal point here; it's prestige. (Yes, the two are correlated, but the topic is renown, not "the quality of undergrad.")</p>
<p>
[quote]
As great as their schools are, I think few would have the gall to assert that their school challenges Harvard (at least nationally) in the category of "renown".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Er, yes, they do. That's what people are arguing here -- that in some places, Stanford or MIT, etc. may "overtake" Harvard in prestige. And one poster specifically is arguing for the future Stanford overtaking Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do Berkeley people engage in this fight?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not so much Berkeley "people" -- there are many people who have no vested interest in the school, but see worthwhile points. For example, I would argue for Dartmouth or Notre Dame or Vanderbilt or, hell, even Cal State Northridge, if I saw it worthwhile.</p>
<p>As has been discussed before, some think Berkeley tends to pop up in contentious threads often because it "bridges the divide between public and private" -- in other words, a public school that competes with privates in its offerings and quality. So on the public side, it's widely regarded as the best (though you could also make the case for other top publics such as Michigan, Virginia, or UCLA), but on the private side, it doesn't quite fit. So you'll have those who argue for and against it, but as always, the equivocal issues (where, in this case, Berkeley is "on the fence") are the contentious ones.</p>
<p>applejack people from Berkeley could ask why so many people from the privates seem to always get up in arms if berkeley is even compared with the top privates. Maybe its because most students at Cal pay much less than most students at privates have to pay and private students get angry when the school they paying alot more to attend is compared to Berkeley... hell I would if I was paying 45K. </p>
<p>Also Sakky I think your making a gross overgeneralization when you say those top professors are horrible teachers....any quantifiable data to back that up..... I think anyone make could say the same about professors at Stanford, Harvard, and many other privates. I also find it questionable when people perpetuate the idea that going to privates automatically gaurantees personal attention when Harvard, MIT etc have similar percentages in terms of class sizes.</p>