Which University is the Most World Renowned and Why?

College Search & Selection
61

<p>This is the typical CC thread.</p>

<p>Everything is fine until the Cal fanatics come in and start claiming they are the no. 1 school in the world, better than Harvard or Stanford or Oxford or MIT. They come up with statements like:</p>

<p>"I'm from the Island of Dr. Moreau, and here on this Island, Berkeley is held in the highest esteem -- higher than the most prestigious university on this Island -- the University of Dr. Moreau. Heck, even Dr. Moreau went to Berkeley, can you believe it? I'm not even kidding you. So that should settle things. You don't owe me any explanations now. You simply owe me awe." </p>

<p>It's completely laughable.</p>

<p>Basically, its a fascinating study in inferiority complexes.</p>

62

<p>^^ attack the arguments, not the arguers. If you can't reply with any compelling argument, then don't bother replying at all.</p>

<p>And again, where are these comments? I don't think anyone's saying that Berkeley > Harvard. I don't think anyone's claiming that worldwide Berkeley is more prestigious than Harvard. From what I see, the general consensus is that a) Harvard is #1, and b) the next few are Stanford, MIT, and Berkeley. It's possible that some of those may have higher prestige than Harvard in certain places. However, worldwide, Harvard is still #1.</p>

<p>You're the one saying that this thread is about prestige, yet then a paragraph down, you go on about quality; and in post #72, you still go on about quality. We're talking prestige, not quality. It was you who first said:</p>

<p>
[quote]
unfortunately Cal's undergrad is ranked in the 20s. It's hard to argue that Cal is the best university in the world when its undergrad program ranks below 20 odd universities in its own country.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When datalook was just talking about prestige and the # distinguished faculty as a measure (which is largely a measure of prestige). So if you want to downplay those damned "Cal fanatics," look to where the source is first. (Seems you were the first one to confuse quality and prestige.)</p>

<p>And even after reading your argument on technology and Stanford's place, I still see little sense (or relevance) in it, and I have not seen any evidence to the contrary (as you did not provide me with an example of where your point was true).</p>

63

<p>A fun little experiment to find out what people in any country think of schools is to ask them what schools are in the Ivy League.</p>

<p>Harvard and Yale always make it onto the list, but the other Ivies (even princeton) are hit-or-miss. I've heard people say NYU when they were probably thinking of Columbia. Penn gets confused with Penn State (of course) and a shocking amount of people have never heard of Brown or Dartmouth.</p>

<p>I also hear:
-Stanford
-Berkeley
-West Point
-Georgetown
-MIT</p>

64

<p>^^ yes, I asked a few of my friends in other countries whether they knew certain universities, and many said that Yale and Princeton were rather vague. Harvard was a duh. Stanford and Berkeley also seemed well-known, and MIT made it a few times too. A few of them had also heard of UCLA, Cornell, and Columbia (and vaguely of the other Ivies).</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
^^ attack the arguments, not the arguers. If you can't reply with any compelling argument, then don't bother replying at all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Touch a nerve did I?</p>

<p>Nice try. I was merely pointing out the weakness of providing anecdotal evidence to support one's claim that so-and-so has higher prestige than so-and-so. This is "attacking the arguer?" No, this is absolutely attacking the argument. So sorry that my arguments don't jibe with your "Cal is the best ever" fanaticism.</p>

<p>And then when I bring up a widely recognized ranking that practically everyone on CC cites, the USNWR -- and merely point out that in the latest ranking, Cal is no. 21 -- i.e. that there are 20 universities ranked above it -- I am somehow being "irresponsible"? Oh, and btw, 2008 is no anomaly either -- USNWR hasn't ranked Cal higher than 20 going back to 1995 -- that's over 10 straight years. But the Cal fanatics refuse to address this glaring weakness in their love for Cal.</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is, the Cal fanatics love to throw Cal in the company of Harvard and Stanford and MIT to create this "prestige by association" -- which frankly exists mainly in the minds of the Cal fanatics. I happen to think its a load of bull (and I'm not the only one) So, I'm the bad guy when I challenge this notion? Spare me your sanctimonious rhetoric.</p>

<p>Cal, as I've stated repeatedly, is a great institution (though I will fully admit I have a fairly low opinion of some of its cheerleaders). I've also repeatedly stated that Cal is probably the best public university in America. I'm on record stating that numerous times.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
Touch a nerve did I?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No -- I can recognize a weak argument when I see one.</p>

<p>You're attacking those who argue in favor of Cal by saying that they just come along and destroy the thread by fanatically pointing out its strengths. Then you say their claims are "laughable" and that they have inferiority complexes. If that isn't a personal attack, I don't know what is. Others seem to maintain a sense of respect in these threads.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The fact of the matter is, the Cal fanatics love to throw Cal in the company of Harvard and Stanford and MIT to create this "prestige by association" -- which frankly exists mainly in the minds of the Cal fanatics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Honestly, if Top Private University X, such wouldn't be inferred of its supporters. Again, look at the merits of the argument rather than the intentions of the arguer.</p>

<p>This seems to go back to what I said before: that this is inferred because Berkeley is "bridging the divide" between public and private, and some will consider it to be a "bad private but a great public." Some will think otherwise. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I've also repeatedly stated that Cal is probably the best public university in America. I'm on record stating that numerous times.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet, as soon as someone mentions that in prestige Berkeley is up there with Harvard, Stanford, and MIT worldwide, you're quick to point out Berkeley's weak undergrad (again confusing quality and prestige), which rules it out for the "best university," when that clearly isn't the discussion.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
No -- I can recognize a weak argument when I see one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Likewise.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yet, as soon as someone mentions that in prestige Berkeley is up there with Harvard, Stanford, and MIT worldwide, you're quick to point out Berkeley's weak undergrad (again confusing quality and prestige), which rules it out for the "best university," when that clearly isn't the discussion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So, basically you are recognizing the fact that Cal has a relatively weak undergrad program (quality). Thank you. </p>

<p>And no, I am not confusing this with prestige. Cal has a strong reputation for grad schools, particularly the sciences. But let's face facts, its undergrad program is nowhere near the top tier schools (HYPSM) or the other Ivies for that matter. When you look at the big three professional grad schools (law, business or medicine), none of Cal's schools are considered Top 5 programs -- whereas, say, Harvard and Stanford can easily claim Top 5 programs across that entire spectrum, from undergrad to the big professional grad programs (law, business and medicine). So, again, the Cal fanatics tend to have an overinflated opinion of their school, plain and simple. And when someone has the gall to point that out, they are considered "attacking" the person. No, its attacking the argument.</p>

68

<p>You're all elitists.</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
So, basically you are recognizing the fact that Cal has a relatively weak undergrad program (quality). Thank you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I'm not even going to go into that issue, as that's far beyond the scope of this thread. If you couldn't recognize it, I was repeating what your argument was.</p>

<p>And again, it doesn't matter how good Cal's undergrad program is. It doesn't matter how good its professional programs are. What does matter in this discussion is prestige. Rankings are not necessarily indicators of prestige. A school could be mediocre and still prestigious.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And when someone has the gall to point that out, they are considered "attacking" the person.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, it's when they have the gall to say that somebody else has an inferiority complex, which is downright uncalled for and unfounded. That's a personal attack. Here's a definition of that if you need it:</p>

<p>Fallacy:</a> Ad Hominem</p>

70

<p>Harvard
Why: I don't know, overrated. My old classmate goes there and feels like he would have had more nurturing environment in a less hooplad school, although his parents want him there for prestige sake</p>

71

<p>^^^ unfortunately Cal's undergrad is ranked in the 20s. It's hard to argue that Cal is the best university in the world when its undergrad program ranks below 20 odd universities in its own country.</p>

<p>Prestige you were the one to attack first with this post when datalook posted his opinion of what he thought the most reknowned which included Berkeley. You were also the one who put in the word "best". Yet you attack people who defend Berkeley saying they say Berkeley is better than Harvard or Stanford, which I havent seen anyone say. This thread is about reknowned, and beside Cal's undergrad which you say is "weak" which is absurd, what else can you possible say disqualifies Cal as one of the top Universities in the world. It was ranked the #1 IT university, #2 in the London Times at one time, #4 in the Shanghai rankings, #4 on webometrics, #3 on G factor. It's graduate programs have 97% in the top ten (more than any other university, according to the NRC(1995 rankings.. new one come out soon) and even US News has its grad school ranked at the very top in their fields. So beside the undergrad's SAT range can you please tell me what makes Berkeley not one of the most reknowned universities in the world; and I am not saying that it is more reknowned than Harvard or Stanford so please don't try and miscontrue what I am saying. Also the rankings I used metrics are not necessarily the best, but neither is US News. Just because you say in your opinion Berkeley undergrad is "weak" and thus Berkeley is not reknowned doesn't make it true, and people who disagree post their opinion and don't need to be called "Berkeley fanatics". I think we make a strong case that it is one of the most reknowned, all you have is US News undergrad rankings... and you seem to have conveniently forgotten to post Berkeley early rankings in US News in one of your past posts.</p>

72

<p>The correct spelling is renowned.</p>

73

<p>^that completely rebuts everything I said in my post, sorry I do not have perfect spelling while hung over.......but great job rebutting my argument....at least you have perfect spelling</p>

74

<p>Hehe...another Berkeley "cheerleading" thread.</p>

<p>I'll bite. </p>

<p>Prestige, I understand that you don't think Cal's undergrad is on par with some of the other top 20 national universities ranked ahead of it in USNWR.
But, Cal does have some top-notch programs...business, engineering, sciences, etc. are easily within top 5. Cal, like Stanford, has the most well-rounded portfolio of top programs.</p>

<p>Now, I understand that this thread was about world's most renowned university and I agree several institutions place ahead of Cal in this regard - but Cal's pretty darn good too. If looking at world ranking surveys, Cal is normally in the top 10 - sometimes top 2-3. In the USNWR survey, Cal's peer assessment score is one notch below HPSM, and tied with Yale. If you ask academics, Berkeley ranks up there with elite peers.</p>

<p><em>Done with my cheerleading</em> ;)</p>

75

<p>
[quote]
Everything is fine until the Cal fanatics come in and start claiming they are the no. 1 school in the world, better than Harvard or Stanford or Oxford or MIT. They come up with statements like:</p>

<p>"I'm from the Island of Dr. Moreau, and here on this Island, Berkeley is held in the highest esteem -- higher than the most prestigious university on this Island -- the University of Dr. Moreau. Heck, even Dr. Moreau went to Berkeley, can you believe it? I'm not even kidding you. So that should settle things. You don't owe me any explanations now. You simply owe me awe." </p>

<p>It's completely laughable.</p>

<p>Basically, its a fascinating study in inferiority complexes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, more interesting is that Prestige spends a lot of energy going after Berkeley -- and often initiating the conversation. That says something strong about inferiority complexes.</p>

<p>There are two qualities, essentially, that go into determining a university's prestige:</p>

<p>1) selectivity of undergrad and perceived ranking based on this
2) overall academic quality of programs and departments, the best proxy for which are graduate departments and their depth, breadth, and quality.</p>

<p>USNWR is heavily skewed toward the former and so is CC, and that makes sense given that a lot of the ranking concerns and game seem focused on people making college choices.</p>

<p>But "world renown" is much more about #2. What gives a university its profile? The overall academic performance of its faculty -- their relative prestige among peers, advancements in their field of knowledge, awards, etc.</p>

<p>Berkeley is clearly one of the most world-renowned schools. It actually has a greater breadth of top academic programs than any other school except Stanford because it has similarly ranked programs in engineering as well. (Harvard doesn't and MIT doesn't do well in humanities areas where Berkeley is tops.) </p>

<p>But Berkeley doesn't have the undergrad selectivity of a Harvard or Stanford, that is a fact. Putting aside the argument of whether such a university can provide an equally strong education based on its core academic strength -- and there is a strong argument to be made, IMO -- it deserves its lower ranking in a USNWR kind of scheme. </p>

<p>There is one illustrative question: are Amherst or Williams world-renowned? No one would suggest they are, but the fact is they are very selective undergrad institutions. It's not about undergrad selectivity, the notion of world renown. It's about academic and research prominence.</p>

<p>Prestige, the CC poster, is heavily focused on undergrad selectivity, and his schema of university and school prestige rigidly follows the order dictated by the usual suspects of Ivy League selectivity, as I've seen it. He misses a big part of reality. He's on his own Island of Dr. Moreau in a way.</p>

<p>Top</a> 500 World Universities (1-100)</p>

<p>I actually think that USNWR is a weird hybrid between considering undergrad selectivity and, on the other hand, academic strength and research prowess. It weights undergrad selectivity high, but academic prowess determines what universities make the list to some extent as well. If the rankings were reflective of relative quality of students and institutions, LACs would feature much more prominently. The fact is these rankings don't consider which schools offer the best education. They essentially consider, among differing levels of prominent universities, which schools have the most undergrad selectivity.</p>

76

<p>Bed Head,</p>

<p>I love how you automatically pull out your anti-Ivy brush and then proceed to paint me with it. </p>

<p>In case you haven't been keeping up with this thread, my posts have nothing to do with the Ivy League. My initial post argues that Stanford is best positioned to take the title of "most renown" university in, say, 25-50 years time. </p>

<p>Secondly, "a lot of energy" on Cal is quite a hyperbole. When I state my view, its going to ruffle some feathers (obviously: witness the War and Peace type replies that follow). Just because I am firm in my view, this make me "spend a lot of energy" on the position? Next, my posts about Cal are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the literal ocean of pro-Cal posts on CC, but I'm flattered that you have taken the time to wade through that ocean to identify my specific posts (stalk much?)</p>

77

<p>
[quote]
Just because I am firm in my view, this make me "spend a lot of energy" on the position?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And just because people who oppose you are firm in their view, they are fanatical and have inferiority complexes? Hmm...</p>

<p>
[quote]
All your bases are taken from USNews which is a wrong thing to do since USNews’ rankings are limited to the US.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And, by the way, the US News peer score, which is essentially a measure of academic prestige, places Berkeley in the top 5, as UCBChemEGrad pointed out.</p>

<p>At any rate, this is all largely irrelevant to the OP: the #1 school, without a doubt, is Harvard in prestige.</p>

78

<p>btw, Bed Head, where do you or did you go to school? </p>

<p>It wouldn't be Berkeley by any chance would it?</p>

79

<p>^^ not to mention the whole position on Stanford's rivaling Harvard (due to its proximity to and involvement with Silicon Valley) for its place in lexicon still makes little sense...</p>

80

<p>congratulations! yet another thread hijacked by the Cal fanatics.</p>