<p>I would say that Harvard’s reputation is the strongest and can not be touched by no one else. If you go to bookstores in Korea or Japan, there are numerous books titled like “How to get into Harvard”. In korea or Japan, if you watch TV or movies, the name “Harvard” is mentioned quite often as well. I think that since the media portrays Harvard as the ultimate elite universitiy, people accept this to be truth even if they know nothing about this school at all. To answer your question, I would say that the prestige or recognition of other top schools such as Yale, Stanford, and MIT (but not Princeton) are much stronger in Korea or Japan. As an example, most of the kids at my middle school knew of Harvard, Yale, and MIT as ultimate elite schools. At that time, Stanford was not that famous, but it has been gaining tremendous amount of recognition nowadays because some of the leading politicians and scientists in Korea and Japan graduated from Stanford. But, I did not hear of Berkely then (Back in middle school). If you asked a normal middle school or high school kid in Korea or Japan about Berkeley, they would not know in most circumstances.</p>
<p>thank you for your detailed explanation patlees88.</p>
<p>so, you have basically confirmed the two points I have made on this thread:</p>
<p>1) Stanford’s star is on the rise (particularly in Asia)
2) HYSM (sans Princeton) is regarded at a much higher level than Cal – or in other words, Cal is not amongst the “most world renown” schools (in your experience) living in Korea and Japan (despite everything written on the pro-Cal side claiming how Cal is equal to the likes of Harvard, Stanford, etc.)</p>
<p>here is a final question. between Princeton vs. Cal, which school would be held in higher regard for those people who know both schools?</p>
<p>the prestige.
Your last question is rather a tricky one in general. Many people do not know of Berkeley, but many do not know of Princeton either. But, the only group of people who know either Berkeley or Princeton are very well educated people who graduated from some of the top schools in the country. So, my guess is that these educated people would probably know that Princeton, although not that well known in general, is an ivy school that is on par with Yale or Stanford, but not Harvard. But, I met some people in the past from Japan who seemed to think that Berkeley is better than Princeton or Columbia. Others think otherwise. So, the comparison between Princeton and Berkeley is not clear cut.</p>
<p>still, its good to know that you have basically confirmed pretty much everything I’ve been saying on this thread – i.e. Cal is not at the “most world renown” levels that Harvard, Stanford, Yale and MIT enjoy in your experience in Korea and Japan. Or to state it more bluntly, Cal folks have an overinflated opinion about their school which isn’t justified.</p>
<p>sorry Cal folks, you’re reading it straight from someone who has no dog in this fight.</p>
<p>Kyle there is absolutely a difference. One is claiming Cal is “world renown” at Harvard levels who is clearly a pro-Cal person (either a Cal student, Cal alum etc) who is arguing the pro-Cal position. Why should we expect that person to provide an anecdotal view other than a pro-Cal view? It carries little weight.</p>
<p>vs.</p>
<p>Someone who has no connection to HYPSM or Cal – no connection to either pro-Cal or anti-Cal posters – who is providing an objective opinion based on his or her experience.</p>
<p>Yeah, there is a legitimate difference. Let me simplify. That’s like kyledavid80 saying that kyledavid80 is a great person… well, with all due respect, I wouldn’t expect you to say anything else. Bring in an outside opinion who has no dog in this fight, and this is a much more legitimate view.</p>
<p>In a perfect world you could make this case. But when one is arguing a certain position, providing anecdotal evidence is not very compelling (if even credible) because you have every motive to provide such evidence which will back up your position.</p>
<p>In this recent instance, although it is anecdotal evidence (and I will grant that it is still anecdotal), still this person, patlees88, has provided an objective view who has no motive to side with either argument one way or the other. This is a much more credible view, would you disagree with that statement?</p>
<p>The_prestige, I have no connection to Cal whatsoever, and as one of the most well travelled posters on this forum, I should think my views would carry some weight on this particular subject.</p>
<p>Alex, you don’t have any connection with Cal, I will grant you that. But you have (rightfully) been a staunch defender of the elite publics (such as Cal and Michigan – and I’d expect you to be as a fiercely loyal UM grad) – as much as I have been a staunch defender of the elite privates.</p>
<p>You are also well traveled, as am I. My experiences fall pretty much in line with patlee88. We will have to, respectfully, agree to disagree (yet again). </p>
<p>My point, however, still stands. This last anecdotal evidence has no prior connection to any previous Cal discussion and has provided an objective view.</p>
<p>The_prestige, I am a staunch defender of what is right. I defend public and private universities alike. I do not favor one kind of university over another. Do remember that I am also an alum of an Ivy League.</p>
<p>Alex, are you suggesting that I am a defender of what is “wrong”? I fully submit that my defense is generally on the side of the privates. But that doesn’t necessarily mean what I defend is “wrong”.</p>
<p>I acknowledge that you defend both private and publics, but at the end of the day, you defend what you believe to be right. That is all I am doing as well. With all due respect, let me amend what you wrote. You don’t defend what is necessarily “right”. You and I (and all of us) defend what we believe is right.</p>
<p>There will be little evidence to prove that someone is wholly right or wholly wrong in many of these discussions. Of course there are differences between an “informed” view and an “uninformed” view. Your view is absolutely an informed one. I believe mine to be informed as well. They just happen to be divergent views in many instances.</p>
<p>However, some other top schools (Stanford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, CalTech, Berkeley, and UCLA) are ranked high in terms of prestige in Asia. And although Berkeley is not as highly ranked in US, it is ranked in par with Stanford, Yale, Princeton in many Asian countries. </p>
<p>In S. Korea for example, Berkeley and UCLA are more recognized than some ivy (cornell, dartmouth, brown, upenn). I am sure many Koreans in Korea think Berkeley is as hard to get into as HYPS.</p>
<p>With all due respect, a quick check of the threads you have initiated (aside from the general pool of SAT / High School related forums) clearly indicates activity in two specific school forums:</p>
<ul>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>UC Berkeley (including a “How to get into UC Berkeley” thread)</li>
</ul>
<p>You have not initiated a thread in a single other institution’s dedicated forum aside from Cal and UCLA – so clearly you’re a fan – which is what it is I suppose – but I’d hardly call you an objective observer.</p>
<p>If people in Korea think that, they need to get out more. I will observe, having been to many places in east Asia, that people who have cousins or classmates or other people they know from their own country now living in California will generally get caught up in the same views of colleges that many Californians have. People with relatives, friends, or former co-workers in New Jersey think about colleges the way people in New Jersey do, and so on. A large portion of the immigration connection between the east Asia and the United States results in east Asian immigrants ending up in California, so there probably is a lot of buy-in in east Asia to the idea that Berkeley is a great college, but we might want to check some other regions of the world before concluding what the overall world opinion is.</p>
<p>Are you talking about undergraduate admission or graduate admission? I would require detailed evidence to believe that statement as made, while agreeing that Berkeley is a fine college and quite hard to get into.</p>
<p>In this thread, we have a discussion about prestige and renown. We have already established the strong relation to renown and … graduate schools. I see no big surprise that, in this context, Berkeley would rank as high as Alexandre an others advance. After all, the reasons why graduate schools are attractive is the presence of subsidized studies PLUS the possibility of being accepted. This combination pushes candidates to **large **research universities who are expert at landing research contracts, especially federally funded ones, and NEED armies of TAs. RAs. or teaching fellows. Then, throw in laxer standards for mastery of English for research and (unfortunately) undergraduate teaching assistance, and the stars align for many international students. Again, as it applies often to Berkeley, it is a matter of being the best school that one can get accepted to, but not necessarily one out of many higher ranked options. </p>
<p>This situation is TOTALLY different at the undergraduate level. So, why don’t we figure out the truth behind a statement such as “For international students, Berkeley is just as hard to be admitted as HYPS.”</p>
<p>The way to do it is get the **correct **data for applications, admissions, and enrollment at the UC System for both undergraduate and graduate level. </p>
<p>My hunch is that the numbers regarding selectivity will be pretty clear.</p>