<p>I am not sure I get the reference with San Diego. It is hard to compile this list. I guess I think Columbia should be south of Princeton, Chicago, and Oxford. Though I do think Columbia’s on its way up (I think Columbia was an amazing research powerhouse which slipped and now is regaining). Instinctively, I think Michigan should make top 10, but I don’t know what it should replace. Caltech is such an amazing school, but so narrow. Don’t “full-service” universities deserve more standing than really narrow ones? So many questions…</p>
<p>Thank you. That’s all I wanted to confirm. And let’s be frank, its not just a pro-Cal stance, you have a decidedly anti-Ivy leaning as well. At least you are man enough to own up to it. Its very refreshing and I will give you all the credit in the world for coming out and stating so. </p>
<p>Truth be told, I am pro-Ivy. That’s no secret. But there you go. When I first came to CC I was really surprised to find that a large percentage of posters here were so vehemently anti-Ivy. Not to mention the guerrilla fighter-like Cal folks (and I am not suggesting that you are one of them) but they certainly do stand out. What other school ends up hijacking the most threads? Harvard? Stanford? Princeton? MIT? Caltech? No. </p>
<p>Its Cal hands down. You have to ask yourself why that is? You are giving me way too much credit if this is a phenomenon due to posters like me – this phenomenon existed way before I got here.</p>
<p>Next, you believe that I take things to the extreme, but I am only being absolutely firm in my beliefs. For instance, I think Cal is an outstanding institution. If you want to do a search of the many times I have complemented Cal, there are more times than I can remember. </p>
<p>But the issue I have is with those who would catapult Cal into “no. 1” type status (into HYPSM status). Its just wishful thinking. I personally believe that Cal’s continual (and consistent) sub-par performance in the yearly USNWR ranking is a major issue with many pro-Cal folks who subsequently feel compelled to discredit (or overcompensate for depending on your view) its low ranking. And let’s face it, for every anti-Cal post out there, there are multiple pro-Cal ones. This is a fact. Just look at the imbalance on this current thread.</p>
<p>Likewise, when I first came to CC, I was really surprised to find that so many were vehemently anti-Berkeley, and so many pro-Ivy. (I think the pro-Ivy people far outnumber most here – as can be seen from the apparent obsession with Ivies, etc.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aren’t Cal supporters being firm in their beliefs? So, you’re allowed to, but they aren’t? Because your claims are factual, whereas theirs are just biases perpetuated by inferiority complexes, as shown in the US News ranking?</p>
<p>Really, this is all just a difference of viewpoint. Once you accept that one viewpoint isn’t necessarily correct and that others don’t necessarily have inferiority complexes for asserting their ideas, you’ll see that there’s much less fact and much more subjectivity.</p>
<p>Look, as I said before, I believe Cal is one of America’s leading academic institutions. I just happen to think (and I’m not alone) that its not THE preeminent academic institution – it just isn’t at HYPSM level. But so what? 99.99% of colleges fall under this category. No shame there. Dartmouth and Brown are outstanding schools, but they aren’t as good as HYPSM. Do you see those folks getting bent out of shape?</p>
<p>When I point out that Cal has consistently ranked 20-ish over the last decade (plus) by USNWR – are they being particularly cruel to Cal? Then, people point out Cal’s PA score – but we have long argued that this is reflective (a halo effect) of its outstanding reputation for its graduate schools and affiliated world class research output (particularly in the sciences) more than anything else (and I don’t think that this is a “bad” thing). If I were a potential grad school student looking at the hard sciences, you bet I’d be looking at Cal. But for undergrad? It just isn’t at that level. The other point is that the most popular (big three) grad schools (law, business, med), Cal isn’t in the Top 5 across the board the way Harvard and Stanford are. Finally, plenty of people will tell you that this lower USNWR ranking is justified, namely Sakky (someone who knows Cal intimately). Again, if Cal’s academic reputation (via PA score is so high) why, then is it ranked so low by USNWR – and then when rankings are summarily dismissed, why is it then valid for Cal folks to bring up Cal’s outstanding grad school rankings (to establish its greatness – isn’t that at least a little hypocritical? isn’t that being conveniently selective in which rankings are “valid”? the ones that don’t put Cal in a great light are just merely rubbish, but those that do are golden?) </p>
<p>The analogy I’d make is this: if Cal were a stock trading at $100 and, say, Princeton were a stock trading at $100. Let’s suppose that both schools were to spin-off their undergraduate schools into a separate stock. Cal’s undergrad stock would fetch much less in the market than Princeton’s. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it would only be worth, say, a $1 out of the $100, but it certainly wouldn’t be above $50 (IMO no where near that much) – because Cal’s brand is overwhelmingly driven by its grad school reputation which is world class. But it has its weakness, namely its undergraduate program (again, I’d point to a consistent 20-ish ranking for USNWR for its undergrad program). Princeton’s undergrad, on the other hand, would fetch far more in the market than Cal’s, at least $50 (if not more) –> due to its undeniable undergrad strength (more no. 1 rankings in USNWR than any other school in history). A stock like Harvard probably trades higher on the grad school side but much more evenly than a Cal, say a $60 / $40 split given its tremendous grad school reputation (even above its outstanding undergrad one – the school with the second most number 1 rankings by USNWR). They key point being, as a shareholder of either the grad or undergrad stock, you are fairly indifferent if you had were a HYPSM shareholder. If you end up holding Cal undergrad shares, you aren’t so happy, you’d rather either hold the grad school stock or never had that stock spinoff in the first place. That is the key difference.</p>
<p>So to summarize, schools at the HYPSM level have earned their reputation because they don’t have any major weaknesses. Cal has a glaring one – its undergrad program. Further, Cal’s professional grad schools can argue a Top 10 position for its law (and maybe its business school) but across the board for Med, Law and Business, it doesn’t go toe-to-toe vs. Harvard and Stanford. It’s not at that level, but so are many, many other schools.</p>
<p>No, The_Prestige, don’t foist your equivalence on me. I am pro-Cal, admittedly, but I am not all anti-Ivy. I have never said anything that would suggest that I am anti-Ivy – except in jest on the thread I quoted above. I have the utmost respect for Ivy League universities across the board. I won’t own something that I don’t ascribe to. Apparently for you if I am one – i.e. a supporter of Cal – I must be the other. This animus, which is rather boring, seems to drive a lot of your posts about Cal. And then you get surprised when other people attack your posts. And you claim their numbers are inflated when in fact your being unreasonable is inflating a reasonable reaction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, so you’ve apparently designated yourself to argue against Cal folks who would catapult it into an Ivy League echelon and to put those people in their place. Cal has a decided sub-par performance, as you put it, in the USNWR college rankings. I have never disputed that. In this very thread, I state it. Cal also happens to kick absolute butt in the USNWR graduate school rankings. Funny that you mention the former and not the latter. Again, as I have stated elsewhere in this thread, these two things are real and they co-exist. I am not defensive on Cal’s behalf in this regard in the least, but you are decidedly offensive against Cal in this regard. </p>
<p>The difference between your form of bias and mine is that I am not picking and choosing the facts and realities. Cal is, by any standard, one of the most world-renowned institutions. A lot of indicators bear this out. It is not at the level of H/Y/P/S undergrad, on the other hand.</p>
<p>Exactly. So HYPSM is excellent across the board and Cal is not. Hence, Cal is not at HYPSM level all things considered. You have basically proven my point.</p>
<p>There have been many threads discussing the US News ranking. hawkette posted a particularly insightful thread on it. I recommend you search for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In comparison to its grad programs, I suppose its undergrad would be a “weakness.” But on an absolute scale, IMO its undergrad is excellent. Most of the measures that people point to are often irrelevant, pointless, or sometimes downright untrue. Of course, this is just my opinion. You’re free to think otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In your opinion. In many others’, undergrad is Harvard’s and Stanford’s weakness. I tend to agree.</p>
<p>Really, funny that I just mentioned this exact topic in the post just prior to yours – i.e. the hypocrisy of dismissing the USNWR undergrad ranking for selective purposes and then holding up Cal’s high grad school rankings for selective purposes. The hypocrisy is decidedly on the other side not mine. Not once have I failed to acknowledge that many of Cal’s grad schools are highly ranked.</p>
<p>You keep referencing US News and the like as though they’re definitive. Perhaps those who think that Stanford’s and Harvard’s undergrad is their weakness don’t think they’re quite top 3 or top 5. Hell, many people say that if you want a great undergrad experience, you’d be much better off going to a school that puts more into its undergrad than its grad – for example, an LAC. At both Stanford and Harvard, grads outnumber undergrads by 2:1. So, in comparison to their grad school strength, their undergrad very well may be their “weakness.” Of course, this is assuming that the LAC model is much better, and it isn’t necessarily. Again, it depends on your viewpoint.</p>
<p>This is exactly why I have long argued that the best undergrad experience is achieved at those highly ranked schools with an undergraduate focus, namely, Princeton, Dartmouth and Brown (all three schools are highly ranked, all three schools have student populations where undergrads outnumber grads, none of the three have all “big three” professional grad schools). I’ve stated that repeatedly. It is also why in my “stock” scenario Harvard probably trades higher on the grad school side (at least slightly). But be that as it may, Harvard can still boast one of the absolute best undergrad programs in the country, a claim that Cal cannot and this is the point.</p>
<p>Glad to know that’s your point, as if it wasn’t obvious. Apparently you posit Ivy excellence against that of Cal; my point is they co-exist. Cal has across the board excellence that puts it in equivalence to Harvard, Stanford, and MIT on the graduate level – i.e. at the top echelon.</p>
<p>For graduate school, Cal is therefore above the overall par for HYPSM. On the undergraduate level, you could say (and you would) something else.</p>
<p>Nice attempt to put words in my mouth. But you failed.</p>
<p>Now, as to the point of this post, world renown accrues broadly to the universities with superlative research prowess, the best proxy of which is the strength of PhD programs. By continuing to harp on undergrad quality, you rather missed the point of this thread and established your pretty clear biases. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This from the guy who brought up inferiority complexes and the Island or Dr. Moreau. What a friggin’ hypocrite. If you can’t take it…</p>
<p>Not only did I not prove your point, but I won.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cal doesn’t have a med school. One could argue that UCSF is Cal’s de facto med school – though I know you’ve gone vehemently on record as saying it shouldn’t be. But UCSF shares resources, has joint degree programs with Berkeley, and in any functional equivalent sense is Cal’s med school especially if you are going to NYC-based Cornell for instance is every bit a part of Cornell as co-located Penn med is part of Penn. UCSF is the top med school on the West Coast outranking Stanford. Do MIT or Princeton have law schools? Does MIT have a med school? Does Princeton have a business school? By most rankings, Yale’s business school is not ranked as well as Haas/Berkeley. So when you say Berkeley is not at the level of HYPSM and then change the terms to Harvard and Stanford, you’re being kind of ridiculous.</p>
<p>Cal’s law and business schools are barely Top 10 schools. Harvard and Stanford can argue Top 3 - Top 5 rankings across medical, law and business schools (with solid arguments for no. 1 position at any of those schools – a claim that is laughable for Cal unless anyone here thinks that Cal business and law schools are no. 1) – PLUS Harvard and Stanford have Top 3 - Top 5 rankings for its undergrad to boot, whereas Cal’s is ranked no. 21.</p>
<p>Its no contest. Cal is absolutely NOT on HYPSM level .</p>
<p>I lived in South Korea for 10 years and lived in Japan for 4 years. What I know from my international background is that Berkeley is only known to people who are college educated. “Normal” people on streeets in Asian countries are not going to recognize what Berkely is. I would say confidently that people who are remotely cultured or have at least high school diploma know of Harvard, Yale, MIT, and Stanford. People who have graduated from respectable colleges would know of schools like Berkeley, Cornell, Penn, or Columbia. So, Berkeley definitely is not on par with HYPSM in terms of prestige or recognition in Asia. (At least in Korea or Japan)</p>
<p>Why are we all arguing with one person? It’s not worth it. Let the_“prestige” think whatever he wants. I think those that have supported Berkeley have done a good enough job backing up our opinions and really don’t need to continue arguing.</p>
<p>patlees, I have never lived in Korea or Japan myself. However, when at Cornell, I met befriended many Korean and Japanese students and they painted a very different picture. According to them, among the educated elites, Harvard is next to God and Cal (along with MIT and Stanford) is a not-too-distant second. Schools like Cornell, Princeton and Yale, although highly regarded, are not as popular. Now that’s just according to a few students I met at Cornell, but it was a pretty uniform picture that was being painted.</p>
<p>Alexandre.
You are correct to say that Berkeley’s reputation is strong in Korea or Japan. But, like I said before, Berkeley is only known to people (in Korea and Japan) who have graduated from some of the top national universities. The reason for that, I suppose, is many top professors from those top universities got their Ph.Ds from Berkeley. This surely would lead many students at these top schools to think that Berkeley should be a very good school since these smart, well known profs went there. But, the only few schools from U.S. that are known well by the general public is Harvard, Yale, and MIT (nowdays Stanford as well.) As an example, my grandparents, who did not even graduate from middle school, know of Harvard and Yale. They do not know of any other U.S. universities, including Cornell, which is where I go to. So, I would say that Harvard and Yale, in particular, are generally viewed as elite universities.</p>
<p>for those people who know both Berkeley AND HYPSM in Korea, would you say that they would equate Berkeley equal to or better than HYPSM or would you say that even if they knew about Berkeley they would still consider HYPSM at a higher level?</p>