Why is Berkeley ranked so high in the world rankings???

An0nym0u5 · May 3, 2005, 8:25pm

i worked at princeton over the summer, and the grad student in charge of me was complaining about how the grad program is underfunded.

hoedown · May 4, 2005, 10:26am

Well, not to sound flippant, but making judgments about colleges and universities based on information from one person is risky. A cousin who thinks Berkeley is too crowded, and a graduate student who thinks his or her Princeton department has too little funding, both provide useful information when added to a wider variety of input. But they're hardly the last word on institutional quality or priorities.

jonw222 · May 4, 2005, 10:27am

I'm amazed how much misinformation goes around in these forums. Comparing universities is very difficult based on how many different programs they have. For instance, it's like asking you which fast food restaurant you like best. You might say one because it has the best hamburgers, another has the best fries, another has the best shakes. So it's impossible to say one overall is the best. Because we have an obsession in this country with rankings, we never consider the complexity of this and rely more on tabloid thinking (i.e. Harvard (Ivy League schools) are the best.)

UC Berkeley has some of the best professors for musicology in the country. Definitely the best university for musicology in the country (far better than even Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford etc.) This trickles down to the undergrad program particularly when applying to graduate schools you have a recommendation from one of the best professors in the country.

But even this ignores other factors like student life, extra-curricular activities, and about any other department besides music. The key for colleges is RESEARCH. Find out what's important to you, look around and ask many, many questions.

Jon

An0nym0u5 · May 4, 2005, 7:48pm

true, but those werent single testimonies. ive heard that kind of stuff from other people too, i.e. professor at princeton, etc. it is commonly known that princeton is undergraduate-oriented. they openly tout that to undergrad admits as a reason to go there. (clearly shown by the fact that they have no professional schools)

An0nym0u5 · May 4, 2005, 7:50pm

actually i didnt even apply to cal because i was so caught up in loving stanford when i was applying.

(ironically despite the fact that stanford is widely considered a graduate-oriented institution)

hoedown · May 4, 2005, 11:32pm

I'm glad to hear that you're not just relying on one source, but still I have to wonder how widely you've read up on these schools. Why would you be so incredulous at Berkeley's international reputation? I think it's fairly clear why it's so highly thought of by scholars and academics.

<a href="clearly%20shown%20by%20the%20fact%20that%20they%20have%20no%20professional%20schools">quote</a>

[/quote]

I don't understand why not having professional schools is clear evidence of what you're alleging. Fill me in. FWIW, I agree that Princeton cares deeply about undergraduate education, and it's good at it.

GoBlue81 · May 5, 2005, 2:01am

"nope i heard it from a cousin who lives in cali, near berkeley, and is choosing to go to UCLA because berkeley is overcrowded."

UCB
Undergraduate - 24,196
Total - 32,441

UCLA
Undergraduate - 25,551
Total - 33,421

What kinda logic is that?

zik · May 5, 2005, 2:39am

not to mention ucla is a lot smaller (area wise) than berkeley...

An0nym0u5 · May 5, 2005, 7:13pm

about ucla over ucb, its about class sizes, not population density.

princeton not having professional schools allow them to concentrate their resources more heavily on undergraduate students (and with the second best endowment in the nation, that translates into the most capital devoted to undergrads, with harvard being the best endowed).

back in the fall when i was just applying to colleges, i fell in love with stanford. my cc sn was stanfordwannab3. and with that obsession of stanford, the notion that "cal sucks" was ingrained in my head. so its in my subconscious now, as unfounded as it may be.

GentlemanandScholar · May 5, 2005, 9:07pm

If UCLA has more people in a smaller space, don't you think the class sizes are going to be a tad bigger?

An0nym0u5 · May 5, 2005, 10:21pm

smaller area doesnt mean fewer classes. fewer CLASSES would imply larger class sizes. urban campuses tend to be condensed so that a smaller campus doesnt mean fewer classes.

hoedown · May 5, 2005, 10:32pm

[quote]
princeton not having professional schools allow them to concentrate their resources more heavily on undergraduate students (and with the second best endowment in the nation, that translates into the most capital devoted to undergrads, with harvard being the best endowed).

[/quote]

But many professional schools practically operate as auxiliary units. High tuition is charged, little aid is offered, people come and fork over full freight. At prestigious schools, the professional schools don't draw down university resources in the way that you are implying. Furthermore, it's not like Princeton eschews education beyond the baccalaureate. Princeton does have graduate programs (and at least a few professional programs, like architecture and engineering).

GentlemanandScholar · May 5, 2005, 10:43pm

You're just digging yourself a hole here anonymou5, UCLA does't have any small classes than Cal.