<p>I do not get it. UCB is a State school! Why is it ranked so high in Biology (and other programs). It is up there with the private big names.</p>
<p>Because it has top programs...for a "state school". Berkeley is the best state school in the nation. </p>
<p>History, research prowess, top professors, top grad students and strong undergraduate students are the reasons Berkeley is ranked high.</p>
<p>Thank you.
"strong undergraduate students" I did not know that enters into the ratings.</p>
<p>One more question. Why is UCA and CAL synonomous. Are not all California Schools CALs?</p>
<p>It is ranked high because of the graduate programs... it is ranked lower than it should because of the undergrad programs.</p>
<p>It was the first UC, hence the claim to the name "Cal"</p>
<p>Thanks everyone.
I'll be going there next Fall for grad school. I am from the southwest so I am trying to learn something about my new school and CA.</p>
<p>The prestige from Cal's grad programs kind of flow over to the undergrad.</p>
<p>maybe because it's best public school in the world?</p>
<p>in the universe!</p>
<p>Cal is better than most of the private institutions and the best for public... so it's the top school in the world get it?</p>
<p>It's ranked highly because of the graduate programs and the faculty.</p>
<p>The undergraduate program is "good" by national standards, but in terms of tier 1 schools, it still has a lot of improvements that could be made.</p>
<p>It's ranked highly due to its graduate programs, the faculty, and research output. It is also highly selective: as selective for undergrad as the lower Ivies while for graduate school, it has the best programs (along with Stanford). There is a downward trickling effect from grad to undergrad programs, but both are "highly" selective.</p>
<p>To be honest I am surprised that people from the Southwest don't know much about Berkeley and why it's ranked highly. I grew up in the Southwest as a kid and it seems that most people have at least known that it's prestigious.</p>
<p>BerkeleySenior: I knew it was prestigious when I applied. I choose to go there over Duke, Carnegie Mellon, Baylor, Michigan and Yale. All admitted me. What surprised me was that it was a state school in a state with such fiscal difficulties.</p>
<p>^ for grad or undergrad?</p>
<p>Two additional reasons that UCal @ Berkeley is highly ranked: Every undergraduate student graduated in the top 10% of his or her high school class (only 88% at CalTech & 89% at Stanford & 83% at Swarthmore & 86% at Amherst) plus the average freshman retention rate is 97%--which indicates student satisfaction with the quality & variety of courses & campus life.</p>
<p>"Every undergraduate student graduated in the top 10% of his or her high school class (only 88% at CalTech & 89% at Stanford & 83% at Swarthmore & 86% at Amherst)"</p>
<p>This is a useless statistic. The difference in difficulty between high schools varies widely. Whereas Cal and UCLA would consider a valedictorian with 1700 SAT's, Caltech and Stanford would not even entertain the idea of putting such an applicant on the waitlist. Private schools heavily emphasize the academic abilities of a student while UCLA and Cal are willing to look beyond them. I think it's unfortunate that UCLA and Cal do this. Applicants should be admitted solely based on their merits and not their backgrounds. But then again, it's just the nature of the beast for the public schools.</p>
<p>The statistic is actually quite useful as it is highly indicative of the work ethic and intelligence of the entire studentbody at UCal Berkeley. It is rare to find such a universally applicable & relevant statistic to measure the academic prowess & work ethic of every undergraduate at one university. Although it is true that high schools vary in academic quality, as a state university with a primary mission of educating residents of California, there is no more single relevant statistic. This is especially true as statistics dealing with standardized testing are either averages or medians and subject to claims of cultural bias. Some Canadian & Scottish universities--among other nations--require a minimum of 600 or above on each section of the SAT I, a highly relevant statistic which applies universally to students at those schools. Although I do think that UCal @ Berkeley is in a position where it could require both a minimum class rank of top 10% and a minimum of 600 on each section of the SAT I standardized test.</p>
<p>I'd have to disagree with that statistic. I go to a very competitive high school and did not get in the top 10% of my class when I applied, but I still was accepted for fall and do plan to attend. There are many students at my school who have worse grades than mines and still have been accepted.</p>
<p>I think you mean that most people at Cal graduated in the top 10% of the class. If you say top 10% in the state, the statistics might be believable, but I think Cal mainly does the cutoff by GPA and scores.</p>
<p>UCal @ Berkeley reports that 99% of its accepted freshmen were in the top 10% of their class. Same for UCSD. Both stats are for the high school class entering Cal & UCSD in 2006. Apparently you & your friends are the one percent exception or Berkeley & UCSD are misreporting.</p>
<p>Ovaldia: Berkeley has a great graduate bio program. You've made the right choice out of the schools that accepted you. Despite Cal's fiscal difficulties, we spend a lot on research output and our graduate programs (often at the expense of our undergrad programs).</p>
<p>Also, to the posters above I graduated in the top 1 % of my class of 500. So I guess it's sad that I go here. lol especially if they misreported.</p>