Why is Berkeley ranked relatively low?

<p>
[quote]
What? You as well as I know that even where it sits now in rankings, Berkeley doesn't seem to doing much to change its flaws. The undergrad population just keeps getting bigger, perpetuating--and at times instigating--some of the problems (large classes, guaranteed housing years, financial aid, etc.). You've said this before, I think.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually I think Berkeley is moving in the right direction. They've recently expanded housing from one-year guaranteed to two-year, the CS major has recently been uncapped, the recently implamented unit cap should help boost graduation rate, and regarding financial aid, the pell grant limit has been increated this year by several hundred dollars. Change is happening but it's been slow. With such a large school management becomes difficult. But I agree with sakky about the pressure that US News puts on Berkeley. The administrators like to bring up the "US News ranks us #1 public" line a lot.</p>

<p>^^ what's this recently implemented unit cap you speak of?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The US News list gives a lot of points for fundraising, which automatically favors the private schools over the public schools, (which get tax money instead of having to do so much fundraising.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"A lot of points"? It gives 5% points to it. Take it away, and the effect on the rankings would be manner. Maybe Berkeley would move up by several ranking slots. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"Well, I think you'd find that very few people would say that Michigan (tied for 24) is equal to Princeton(#1). Even a Michigan fanatic like Alexandre would not say such a thing."</p>

<p>I would.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Interesting. Maybe you should contact Alexandre and argue with him that Michigan is in fact as good as HYPSM. I would like to see such a discussion. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If you want to be picky, amend all those claims as, "US News has a bias against publics in its undergrad rankings." Its undergrad rankings are much more known than its grad rankings; thus there'd more pressure to keep the Ivies at the top, etc. in the undergrad ranking. Or so it seems.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But then that would just beg the question of why one of USNews's rankings would be biased against public schools, but not the other ranking. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"I happen to think that that's just a fair reflection of the fact that public grad programs (including Berkeley's) simply tend to be better than public undergrad programs."</p>

<p>I don't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If there is a difference in quality of the programs, something for which I think few people would dispute, then the rankings ought to reflect this fact if they are fair. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"It would mean that the Berkeley administration would know that they could probably get away with doing very little, knowing that only a true disaster would cause them to fall out of the top tier."</p>

<p>What? You as well as I know that even where it sits now in rankings, Berkeley doesn't seem to doing much to change its flaws. The undergrad population just keeps getting bigger, perpetuating--and at times instigating--some of the problems (large classes, guaranteed housing years, financial aid, etc.). You've said this before, I think.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not true. Berkeley has indeed done some things to change its flaws. For example, Berkeley now provides 2 years of guaranteed housing. I don't think it's particularly great housing, especially for the 2nd year (where apparently people tend to get shunted into triples). But hey, at least it's a 2nd year of guaranteed housing of some sort. It was only a few years ago that they only offered 1 year of guaranteed housing, and before that, they used to offer zero. Furthermore, I have noticed that, for example, the food available in Units 1 and 2 is significantly better than it was in the old days. </p>

<p>So Berkeley does indeed improve. Certainly nowhere near the speed that I would like it to improve. But some things do happen. In contrast, without the constant spur of the ratings, nothing at all might happen. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The administrators like to bring up the "US News ranks us #1 public" line a lot.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet another spur to improvement. To be able to boast of being the #1 public school, you have to at least actually * be * the #1 public school. Berkeley and Virginia have a long-standing rivalry in USNews as to who gets to be #1 in certain years. There are times when Berkeley loses. It is that fear of losing to Virginia that spurs Berkeley to improve. Without that spur, I strongly suspect that Berkeley would do nothing at all.</p>

<p>
[quote]
^^ what's this recently implemented unit cap you speak of?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There's a unit ceiling of 130 units. Once you've taken more than 130 units at Berkeley, they block your registration and you have to graduate unless you petition or something. For double-majors it's 138. This makes it hard for students to stay for 6, 7 years or more like they used to do. I'm hoping this will improve the graduation rates although some people have been complaining about it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Not true. Berkeley has indeed done some things to change its flaws. For example, Berkeley now provides 2 years of guaranteed housing. I don't think it's particularly great housing, especially for the 2nd year (where apparently people tend to get shunted into triples).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not to mention many people don't even use the guaranteed housing because they think it's too expensive.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There's a unit ceiling of 130 units. Once you've taken more than 130 units at Berkeley, they block your registration and you have to graduate unless you petition or something. For double-majors it's 138. This makes it hard for students to stay for 6, 7 years or more like they used to do. I'm hoping this will improve the graduation rates although some people have been complaining about it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A fairer way to go about things is to simply start charging full price (i.e. no state subsidy) to those students who overstay their limit. Nor should you be getting any financial aid. You want to keep hanging around Berkeley and keep taking classes? Fine. But I think it's fair that the taxpayers no longer support you.</p>

<p>^^ and if you feel your education wasn't quite complete? that you do, by units, have the degree, yet you would like to take a few more classes to finish your training? so that you can, hopefully, do your future job better? That's not worthy?</p>

<p>
[quote]
^^ and if you feel your education wasn't quite complete? that you do, by units, have the degree, yet you would like to take a few more classes to finish your training? so that you can, hopefully, do your future job better? That's not worthy?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you really think those extra classes are "worthy", then you should have no problem paying market price for them, right? At least to me, that's the real question - * who pays? * </p>

<p>I think 4 years worth of undergrad education (i.e. 130 units) is enough of a burden on the taxpayers. At that point, they've put in their fair share. After that, I think you should put in your fair share.</p>

<p>I actually agree with Sakky on this.</p>

<p>The OP wants to go to graduate school for public policy. Yeah go to Berkeley. Berkeley graduate programs are ranked most of the time #1. Only Stanford can compete. The graduate departments are top notch.</p>

<p>The rankings that are "low" are for undergraduate only....although it's also based on endowments, etc. etc. It is still the number one public university. (publics normally have much less money/endowments. :))</p>

<p>Also, it's funny how the OP mentions in some of his other posts that people have heard of St. Andrews in the US, and not say a better university such as Edinburgh. That's because of Prince William. In the US, we think of the top UK schools as Oxford, Cambridge, and St. Andrews. HOWEVER, the truth is the top schools are Oxford, Cambridge, and LSE. It depends on press/famous people who attend.</p>

<p>"If you really think those extra classes are 'worthy', then you should have no problem paying market price for them, right?"</p>

<p>When I said "worthy," I'm saying the cause itself. And by that logic, you should have to pay for your entire undergrad education, because it was all "worthy" to you.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Once you've taken more than 130 units at Berkeley, they block your registration and you have to graduate unless you petition or something.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's more complex than that. The cap as I understand it only pertains to L&S students who were admitted as freshmen. If such students go over 130 units after they have been at Berkeley for more than nine semesters, only then is their registration blocked.</p>

<p>
[quote]
When I said "worthy," I'm saying the cause itself. And by that logic, you should have to pay for your entire undergrad education, because it was all "worthy" to you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, you (or more specifically, your parents) paid taxes into the state in return for a level of services. But those services are (or at least, should not be) provided indefinitely. You can't just soak up as many taxpayer-provided services as you feel like. The government has the right to cut you off at some point. I think the 4 year cutoff for undergrad is fair.</p>

<p>Besides, think of it from an equity standpoint. By continuing to hang around Berkeley and not graduating, you are effectively denying a spot from somebody else who wants to study at Berkeley. This provides even more of an impetus for the government to cut you off at some point.</p>

<p>But to your larger point as to whether all undergrads should have to pay for all their education - i think they should, according to their means. More specifically, a better way to provide an education is, instead of providing state subsidies to public schools, is to instead simply provide education 'scholarship vouchers' to every taxpayer in the state which they can use to subsidize the costs of whatever education they can get, whether it's at a university or not. For example, if I'm a California state resident who has been paying taxes all this time and I want to attend Stanford, why shouldn't I get back some of the taxes that I put in? Why should I "lose" those taxes just because I want to go to a private school? If I don't want to go to college at all but would rather attend classes to learn auto repair or cooking, again, why shoudn't I get back some of my taxes to pay for that? Or, how about this - let's say that I don't want any education at all, but my brother does - so why can't I transfer my subsidy to him? Or perhaps save it and pass it on to my children? Think of the features that a completely portable subsidy would provide.</p>

<p>I think its worth noting that US News changes their 'decision equations' a little bit every year - sometimes making one factor more or less important than the year before. That said, I think its fair to say that Berkeley Undergrad always sucks in the US News Equations - we've got huge classes and we're taught by GSI's who often have difficulty understanding English.</p>

<p>I think our one saving grace is the caliber of many of our students. Note I said many - I think 25% of the students here are Ivy-League caliber. These students are the ones who make it worth studying here and learning with. </p>

<p>I spoke with the Dean of Letters and Science one time (he was my freshman seminar professor) and I asked him his personal opinion. He said only Harvard, Oxford, and Berkeley had what he liked to call and "exciting academic environment." He said that people recognized this when they heard the name Berkeley. I think this is why we feel slighted when Berkeley is #20 or so in the rankings.</p>

<p>
[quote]
More specifically, a better way to provide an education is, instead of providing state subsidies to public schools, is to instead simply provide education 'scholarship vouchers' to every taxpayer in the state which they can use to subsidize the costs of whatever education they can get, whether it's at a university or not. For example, if I'm a California state resident who has been paying taxes all this time and I want to attend Stanford, why shouldn't I get back some of the taxes that I put in? Why should I "lose" those taxes just because I want to go to a private school?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A few points here. At least until recently, Stanford students were also subsidized by the state indirectly to the tune of several thousand dollars per student as well. This was true with private colleges across the board and when I found it out (it was reported in the SF Chronicle), I was stunned.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/25/BAGCU57IVS1.DTL%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/25/BAGCU57IVS1.DTL&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Regarding the portable vouchers vs. the funding of particular institutions in California, the UC's in particular but the college system as a whole provide benefits to our society that far exceed the training given to undergrads. In this respect, it makes sense to tie the support to particular institutions and not let it roam freely, IMO.</p>

<p>And on the other side of things, people make really stupid decisions with the kind of money that goes to voucher support. For instance, an acquaintance received money in a legal settlement and she went to attend cooking school to become a chef. But she never confronted the issue of how tough it is to actually succeed in that field. In essence, she threw away a lot of money, she now feels. </p>

<p>Schools will grow up and take money to teach anything, whether or not it has any usefulness to the person or society; vouchers or not, this problem's not going away, but with vouchers that aren't tied to the support of particular institutions, the chances of this waste are exacerbated. Mere accreditation is not an ample screen, I think.</p>

<p>^^^^</p>

<p>REPLACE FIRST PARAGRAPH ABOVE with the following:</p>

<p>A few points here. At least until recently, private college students were also subsidized by the state indirectly to the tune of several thousand dollars per student as well, in fact at levels higher than the state students (in terms of just aid, not the whole package). This was true with private colleges across the board and when I found it out (it was reported in the SF Chronicle), I was stunned. Everyone knows private colleges have a high retail price so that they can do the "tax and transfer" shuffle with the more affluent students. But should CA state taxpayers have been paying that high tax for that ends up subsidizing the likes of Stanford and Pomona at levels higher than if the students went to state schools?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I spoke with the Dean of Letters and Science one time (he was my freshman seminar professor) and I asked him his personal opinion. He said only Harvard, Oxford, and Berkeley had what he liked to call and "exciting academic environment."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I have to imagine that there are more schools than that that offer an 'exciting academic environment'. At the very least, I would think that you would have to nominate MIT and Caltech. After all, if MIT's and Caltech's environments aren't exciting & academic, then it's hard to think of an environment that is. </p>

<p>
[quote]
He said that people recognized this when they heard the name Berkeley. I think this is why we feel slighted when Berkeley is #20 or so in the rankings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would say that this is just a simple reflection of the fact that the Berkeley undergrad program has some flaws that can (and should) be fixed. After all, Berkeley's graduate programs are quite impressive. Why can't the undergrad program be as good as the graduate programs? </p>

<p>
[quote]
A few points here. At least until recently, private college students were also subsidized by the state indirectly to the tune of several thousand dollars per student as well, in fact at levels higher than the state students (in terms of just aid, not the whole package).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
But should CA state taxpayers have been paying that high tax for that ends up subsidizing the likes of Stanford and Pomona at levels higher than if the students went to state schools?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is precisely a point that I have made in other threads. For example, I would argue that a school like Caltech actually takes in * more * taxpayer dollars on a per-capita basis than any public school does. Granted, most of it is in the form of government research money, but so what? Those research dollars go towards providing Caltech undergrads with stellar research opportunities which are, frankly, better than the research opportunies available at most public schools. Hence, in some sense, you could say that Caltech is a de-facto "public" school. </p>

<p>Hence, if these private schools are in a certain sense, actually 'public' schools, than why shouldn't taxpayers receive a tuition subsidy to attend them? </p>

<p>Of course one could argue the extreme opposite stance by saying that the private schools should receive absolutely no public dollars * at all*. But to that, I would say, again, that the government made funding decisions because it believed it would help the public good. For example, the public research dollars that went to Stanford helped to foster Silicon Valley, which like I said has been an immense boon to the economy. Public dollars went to Berkeley, but Berkeley did not create anything economically comparable to Silicon Valley. Hence, at least in this case, a 'private' school was able to generate public benefits better than the 'public' school could. </p>

<p>Hence, if that is the case, then why not directly subsidize the tuition for people to go to Stanford? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Regarding the portable vouchers vs. the funding of particular institutions in California, the UC's in particular but the college system as a whole provide benefits to our society that far exceed the training given to undergrads. In this respect, it makes sense to tie the support to particular institutions and not let it roam freely, IMO.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I'm afraid I don't see that. I agree that the college system provides great benefits to society. But I don't see any benefits that * public * colleges provide that aren't also provided by private colleges. As a case in point, from an educational standpoint, Stanford created Silicon Valley. Berkeley did not. True, Berkeley had an auxiliary role in developing Silicon Valley. But the prime educational driving force is and has always been Stanford. Hence, Stanford, through the creation of Silicon Valley, has created immense economic and social benefits for the state of California, and for the country as a whole.</p>

<p>Yet students don't get any public taxpayer tuition support to attend Stanford. Why not? Taxpayers put money into the system but get a tuition subsidy back only by going to a public school. Why? </p>

<p>Think of it this way. There are no 'public' supermarkets or 'public' restaurants. The entire foodstuffs industry is private, despite the fact that everybody has to eat. Yet the US is the most well-fed nation on Earth (in fact, TOO well-fed if obesity ratings are any indication). Private industry is very very effective and efficient at delivering goods/services - in fact, usually more efficient than the government is. Restaurants that don't provide customers what they want will quickly go bankrupt. Private colleges that don't provide a desired service will quickly go bankrupt (and many have). But public universities that fall on hard times can always invoke the government as their sugar daddy.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And on the other side of things, people make really stupid decisions with the kind of money that goes to voucher support. For instance, an acquaintance received money in a legal settlement and she went to attend cooking school to become a chef. But she never confronted the issue of how tough it is to actually succeed in that field. In essence, she threw away a lot of money, she now feels. </p>

<p>Schools will grow up and take money to teach anything, whether or not it has any usefulness to the person or society; vouchers or not, this problem's not going away, but with vouchers that aren't tied to the support of particular institutions, the chances of this waste are exacerbated. Mere accreditation is not an ample screen, I think.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh come now. You don't think this happens at public schools? Even at Berkeley, there are plenty of students who are studying topics that, frankly, have no value to the person or society. And that's just Berkeley. You can take useless courses at community college. Or you can take useful courses at community college, and put in no effort to passing them. I know a guy who once got straight F's in a semester at community college (because he never showed up to class). Yet he did so on the taxpayer's dime. That is clearly of taxpayer resources. </p>

<p>The virtue of the voucher is that it is * limited *. You want to blow off a bunch of community classes and not learn anything? Fine. But you will have burned up some of your voucher money by doing so, and once it's all gone, that's it. In contrast, the current system allows you to keep taking community college classes over and over again for the rest of your life, all on the taxpayer's dime. </p>

<p>Secondly, there are some people who just don't want to go to college. For whatever reason, they just don't want it. They don't like it, they don't have the temperament for it - whatever it is. Yet these people are paying taxes into the system in return for a service that they just don't want. So in effect, these people have, in some sense, "wasted" their tax dollars. I believe these people should be allowed to sell or give away the educational voucher that they don't want to use anyway. </p>

<p>Just think of it from a public finance perspective. You are forcing taxpayers to pay for a service that some of them don't really want. That's not particularly equitable. Granted, there are plenty of other examples of governments forcing some taxpayers to pay for policy decisions that they don't really want. But that doesn't mean that we should be perpetuating this practice.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yet students don't get any public taxpayer tuition support to attend Stanford. Why not? Taxpayers put money into the system but get a tuition subsidy back only by going to a public school. Why?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really simple, if you understand the concept of retail vs. actual pricing, as happens in education and health care.</p>

<p>Charge 50K for something (on paper), but in actuality only charge your very high-end customers full freight. The rest, defray costs by grants some of which come from the government. In essence, then you are asking the government to help the customers get to full retail. Why should govt. pay full retail or contribute to the paying of full retail vs. just paying students at the same level of subsidy? Otherwise one incentives the system towards providing an inflated yet hidden subsidy to private schools. Also, educational institutions public or private get non-profit status so de-facto are subsidized anyway. Why should they get it coming and going?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Oh come now. You don't think this happens at public schools?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You didn't understand my point. People get MFAs and become soda jerks. (I met a failing graphic artist who had gone to Stanford and was going to become a copier salesperson). Duh. It happens up and down the educational system, and any idiot can see that the benefits of education are often indirect or not captured in obvious economics terms and other times don't exist at all.</p>

<p>My point is tying the subsidies to institutions that on an overall basis achieve tremendous public good makes more sense than letting subsidies spur sexy yet arguably no public good on a much more obvious basis.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Just think of it from a public finance perspective. You are forcing taxpayers to pay for a service that some of them don't really want. That's not particularly equitable. Granted, there are plenty of other examples of governments forcing some taxpayers to pay for policy decisions that they don't really want. But that doesn't mean that we should be perpetuating this practice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The biotech industry as we know it started at the University of California, San Francisco when H. Boyer co-developed gene splicing and spun out Genentech to become the first recombinant DNA technology-based firm. The industry now employs nearly 100,000 people in the Bay Area alone. </p>

<p>If you look at the value proposition for the higher education system in narrow terms such as you are suggesting -- which undergrads are trained to move up the chain -- you are recommending the quickening of what is already happening to our country, our imminent decline as a nation owing to our massive disinvestment in education.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Of course one could argue the extreme opposite stance by saying that the private schools should receive absolutely no public dollars at all. But to that, I would say, again, that the government made funding decisions because it believed it would help the public good.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Point above regarding non-profit status.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Stanford created Silicon Valley. Berkeley did not. True, Berkeley had an auxiliary role in developing Silicon Valley. But the prime educational driving force is and has always been Stanford. Hence, Stanford, through the creation of Silicon Valley, has created immense economic and social benefits for the state of California, and for the country as a whole.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, that's what Stanford says, and there is a great kernel of truth, but there was great contribution from Berkeley in a secondary relationship and many other institutions (University of Illinois Champagne Urbana, e.g.). Stanford also co-developed the recombinant DNA tech above-mentioned though it was Boyer that left his lab at UC and went commercial.</p>

<p>In terms of your public-private distinctions at the research level, it gets really hard to parse, and I don't see this fact leading to your conclusions.</p>

<p>British Petroleum just put out a huge tender to MIT, Cambridge, University of London, and other institutions public and private to undertake a $500 million multi-year biofuels research project. Berkeley, with UICU as a junior partner, won that contract.</p>

<p>Private money deciding a public institution could do things better. They said specifically that Berkeley had a successful track record in Big Science. </p>

<p>I just think you have a bias against a public system, that you say because research funding is often public, let's go ahead and privatize it all. And I think you overemphasize the value of private, versus public, in education and research.</p>

<p>The lawsuit that Stanford had to fend off for defrauding the Federal govt. occurred because Stanford charged significantly higher overhead charges on its Federal research than others (esp. UC) did. You could argue that UC is a bargain in research, that is was foolish for not charging higher overheads itself, or that it should strive to provide gilded labs for its researchers. I would hope you'd argue the first point.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's more complex than that. The cap as I understand it only pertains to L&S students who were admitted as freshmen. If such students go over 130 units after they have been at Berkeley for more than nine semesters, only then is their registration blocked.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay, so I should clarify that if you're not going to stay past eight semesters, you can take as many units as you want (notwithstanding the units-per-semester cap) but the problem was students were staying for way more than six years, which this policy tries to deal with.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think its worth noting that US News changes their 'decision equations' a little bit every year - sometimes making one factor more or less important than the year before. That said, I think its fair to say that Berkeley Undergrad always sucks in the US News Equations - we've got huge classes and we're taught by GSI's who often have difficulty understanding English.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not always. When US News first came out (in 1983?) Berkeley was ranked #5. As much as I'd like to see Berkeley rise in rankings, I don't think it boasts the 5th best undergrad program in the nation (as least currently). If Berkeley has huge classes and it's getting docked by the "US News equation" for it, then it seems to me that the equation works.</p>

<p>
[quote]
HBS's student population is just 1,700, a far cry from Berkeley's 24k students. Do you think HBS would still be thye same if it would have 24k students?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not a fair comparison. HBS is for graduate students working towards an MBA only. Your 24k is talking about all undergrad students at Berkeley. The two are totally different. If you want to make a fair comparison, we should compare Berkeley's business school (Haas) to Harvard's business school (HBS).</p>

<p>HBS: 1,821
Haas: 1,244</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/directory/dir-mba/brief/glanc_01110_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/directory/dir-mba/brief/glanc_01110_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/directory/dir-mba/brief/stude_01029_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/directory/dir-mba/brief/stude_01029_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Haas's numbers may include its undergrads as well which means the actual number might be even smaller. Yet despite all this HBS consistently outranks Haas in all the rankings I've seen by a considerable margin.</p>

<p>Now, I agree that stopping someone after 6 years is reasonable, perhaps before that. Do you think that the 60% four-year graduation rate (as I think it was, last I checked the CDS) is a) because students want to stay at Berkeley longer, or b) because they weren't able to take the classes they wanted and have to stay longer to finish their degree officially? I've heard b) more often. In fact, I'd always thought that was the root of such a low 4-year graduation rate.</p>