<p>I know rankings don't mean that much, but I recently saw a World University RAnking, and Harvard was #1, and Berkeley was #2.</p>
<p>I mean yeah, Berkeley is definitely a good school, but better than Yale/Princeton etc?</p>
<p>Yes, Berkeley is one of the best research universities in the world, better than Yale and Princeton.</p>
<p>Money, Money, Money, Moooo-Ney!</p>
<p>Harvard's endowment is about 16 billion of which assuming a 10% return on interest (just guessing) is 1.6 billion dollars in revenue a year from endowment alone + Harvard accepts the best and brightest and is known for being the best so there's a lot of alumni giving and other donations too, so harvard has a pretty big fundraising advantage.</p>
<p>Berkeley only has a 2 billion dollar endowment but receives a lot of money from the government, over a billion a year considering all the grants and whatnot it gets. And the university gets a certain percentage of the grant money any faculty gets.</p>
<p>However, having great research doesn't necessarily mean a great undergraduate experience. Places that are less famous like Rice and Duke spend a lot more money on their undergraduate experience wheras Berkeley has to spread it out over lots of people.</p>
<p>So the Berkeley experience can really be terrible if you don't know what you're doing or are unlucky.</p>
<p>Being undergrads, we usually don't hear or know much about graduate schools, but almost all of Berkeley's Ph.D. programs are national top 10. That's saying something, considering we're a public institution, which goes back to the problem of lack of endowment. The Times Higher University Rankings certainly took that into consideration, not just undergrad. But yes, you're right - as far as undergrad goes, there are many schools that offer better ug education environments than Berkeley's.</p>
<p>and of course this what some might call a "hostile climate" for undergrads at Berkeley, is really not that true at all. </p>
<p>the reality of the situation is that the vast majority of undergrads are quite happy at berkeley. this can be proven by the mass hysteria surrounding football games. most undergrads love berkeley, theres no disputing that fact. </p>
<p>however, it is true that what they love about it might not be the most intellectual things. instead they enjoy partying and the knowledge that they're getting taught by the some of the brightest people in the world. for the people who aren't or can't be into the partying scence because of classes or money, berkeley can be a struggle. but these people are in the minority, and the strong among them usually succeed. </p>
<p>now, about the times rankings. those rankings measure how well the faculty is thought of by other faculty at other universites (those ranked.) and yes, it should come as no surprise that berkeley almost tops that list. for some weird reason, the faculty is pretty damn smart - one of the main reasons why professors from the ivys, mit, caltech, etc. encourage their graduating undergrads (those lucky few who make it in despite the 8-10% admission rate for most of Berkeley's grad programs) to choose berkeley for graduate school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard's endowment is about 16 billion
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're off by about 33%.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley only has a 2 billion dollar endowment but receives a lot of money from the government, over a billion a year considering all the grants and whatnot it gets. And the university gets a certain percentage of the grant money any faculty gets.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, $2 billion is not bad. In 2004, Berkeley had the 23rd largest endowment of any school in the US.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112636.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112636.html</a></p>
<p>Moreover, while Berkeley gets lots of grants, so does every other major research university, including Harvard. </p>
<p>
[quote]
the reality of the situation is that the vast majority of undergrads are quite happy at berkeley. this can be proven by the mass hysteria surrounding football games.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I really wouldn't say that Berkeley is a real 'football school'. True football mass hysteria can be seen at places like Michigan, USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, and the like. </p>
<p>And, no, the quality of the team is only part of the issue. Cal actually had a better team than Michigan did last year. Cal finished the year ranked #25, whereas Michigan finished out of the top 25. However, I think most college football observers will agree that the Michigan football scene is far far more intense than the Cal football scene. </p>
<p>
[quote]
the knowledge that they're getting taught by the some of the brightest people in the world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Berkeley faculty is bright, no doubt. But that doesn't always translate into good teaching. Some of the brightest profs I know are either completely incomprehensible or just downright boring, or both. Being a smart person and having strong teaching skills are two entirely different attributes. </p>
<p>And then there are those profs who simply don't want to teach, and especially don't want to teach undergrads. These profs treat their undergrad classes as nothing more than an annoying obligation, and make no secret of the fact that they would rather be in the lab producing more research. </p>
<p>In fairness, I should point out that these problems are not specific to Berkeley, but are problems at ALL research universities. </p>
<p>
[quote]
now, about the times rankings. those rankings measure how well the faculty is thought of by other faculty at other universites (those ranked.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would make one addendum - these rankings seem to be based on how other faculty members think of others when it comes to research. In other words, it's a proxy for the research eminence of the faculty, not the teaching skills of that faculty. </p>
<p>In particular, I have noticed how these rankings always tend to screw over the elite LAC's. The fact is, the LAC's are not major research centers, so they always lose out in a research-focused ranking. But that doesn't make them bad schools. It just means that they don't do the heavy research that the universities do. It also tends to screw over the LAC-ish research universities like Dartmouth and Brown that don't do a lot of research, but enough research to be considered research universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
World University RAnking, and Harvard was #1, and Berkeley was #2.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When it comes to getting your graduate degree, especially your PhD, you could definitely make the case that Berkeley is one of the top 3 schools in the world. </p>
<p>But undergrad is a different story. It's still pretty good, but I have a hard time defending the notion that it is the #2 place to go in the world. </p>
<p>These rankings seem to be heavily heavily weighted towards graduate-school quality. On that scale, I agree that Berkeley is a powerhouse.</p>
<p>Thank you for the posts :).</p>
<p>I agree with most of what Sakky said, but I should add that those rankings are very heavily weighted towards peer assesment (even more so than Usnews). Unless the people were asked specifically about grad programs (which they weren't) then you can't really say that peer assesment is for grad. Its for the view of the school as a whole.</p>
<p>it might be added that sakky's generalization on berkeley's teaching quality is really only relevant to math/science/engineering majors. the rest of the faculty (the majority) is not only smart, but incredibly good at teaching.</p>
<p>ps sakky. i agree, berkeley really isn't a very big football school. but when the big game comes, the vast majority of the student body goes hysterical. this cannot be easily disputed and those students wouldn't do that if they weren't at least somewhat happy with berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
however, it is true that what they love about it might not be the most intellectual things. instead they enjoy partying and the knowledge that they're getting taught by the some of the brightest people in the world. for the people who aren't or can't be into the partying scence because of classes or money, berkeley can be a struggle. but these people are in the minority, and the strong among them usually succeed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This applies to many, but many others do love intellectual things- lectures, performances, not-partying, amongst other things.</p>
<p>Yeah, Harvard has a huge advantage and its been snowballing, I read that 16 billion dollar number while in high school I believe. </p>
<p>But with the way interest works, Berkeley is still competitive because it gets large transfer payments by the federal and state government, because only the interest on the endowment makes it into the income of the school each year.</p>
<p>I think the UC system could use more specialization. Make some of the other campuses larger, churn-out-workers type campuses and turn UCB into a more well-rounded campus in order to turn out real leaders that will contribute harvard-size grants to the university. I don't know how much alumni giving is at Berkeley but I can't imagine it'd be much with some of the horror stories I've heard and experienced.</p>
<p>yes drab, berkeley is quite diverse as far as free time opportunities go</p>
<p>Polite Antagonis, your plan is too elitist for california.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know rankings don't mean that much, but I recently saw a World University RAnking, and Harvard was #1, and Berkeley was #2.</p>
<p>I mean yeah, Berkeley is definitely a good school, but better than Yale/Princeton etc?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well the THES assessment was based off of research and peer rankings. So yeah, Berkeley's research is better than Yale/Princeton's because those focus more on the liberal arts, etc.</p>
<p>Also Berkeley graduate programs are probably second, after Stanford's in the entire nation.</p>
<p>Undergraduate-wise, no Berkeley isn't better, but its research and graduate progrms are.</p>
<p>Not Elitist; smart and better. </p>
<p>I can see how you can be confused with California politics the way it is and liberal doublespeak.</p>
<p>uh, no. i am not confused. i never said it wasn't smart and better. (not that i DO think its "smart and better.") i just said it was elitist. you can't deny that. a system in which some universities are designed to pump out leaders and some universitites are designed to pump out workers is the epitome of elitism. im not saying elitism is a bad thing, mind you, im just saying its elitist. (not that i DO believe elitism is a good thing.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Undergraduate-wise, no Berkeley isn't better, but its research and graduate progrms are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Overhasty generalization. Berkeley undergrad can be just as good OR BETTER (or worse) than Berkeley grad. It all depends on whether or not the student is both able and willing to go the extra step.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the rest of the faculty (the majority) is not only smart, but incredibly good at teaching.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't say that either, although I agree that the teaching in the non-technical courses tends to be better. Still, there are quite a few clunkers in the non-technical courses. </p>
<p>The fact is, Berkeley profs, regardless of department, are hired and promoted mostly based on their research output. Publish or perish. It doesn't really matter how good or how bad your teaching is. Hence, you often times end up with quite indifferent teaching. </p>
<p>Pedro Noguera, former Professor of Education at Berkeley, and now at NYU, once said it best at a Berkeley colloquia when he said if you're a prof at Berkeley who is a bad teacher, it won't really hurt you. </p>
<p>
[quote]
but I should add that those rankings are very heavily weighted towards peer assesment (even more so than Usnews). Unless the people were asked specifically about grad programs (which they weren't) then you can't really say that peer assesment is for grad. Its for the view of the school as a whole.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the implication is that it is for grad. After all, where in these rankings is Williams? Or Amherst? Or Swarthmore? Any respectable ranking that focused on undergrad program quality probably has to include schools like that somewhere around the top. If they are nowhere to be found (heck, not even in the top several hundred), then that is a strong indication that the ranking is weighted towards graduate program quality and/or research. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Make some of the other campuses larger, churn-out-workers type campuses and turn UCB into a more well-rounded campus in order to turn out real leaders that will contribute harvard-size grants to the university. I don't know how much alumni giving is at Berkeley but I can't imagine it'd be much with some of the horror stories I've heard and experienced.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This reminds me of a story. I once ran into a woman who said she was a Berkeley grad, and she raved about the small class sizes, how she was on a first-name profs with lots of her profs, all the personal attention she always got, the tight student culture, all the support and counseling, and how she and her classmates have pledged to donate huge sums of cash if and when they get rich, how all her classmates were extremely smart and there were no lazy students at all, etc. etc. etc. </p>
<p>Me and some of the other people around us looked at each other as if to say, by telepathy "What the hell is she talking about?", until it dawned on us what was going on. She wasn't talking about the Berkeley undergrad program. No. She was recalling her times as an MBA student at the Haas School. Then it all became clear. Yes, the Haas MBA program really is an extremely tight, well-run program with a well-defined culture, lots of personal attention, plenty of opportunities to get to know profs, and lots of student elan. In short, it is everything that I wish the undergrad program could be. </p>
<p>The truth is, Berkeley is really 2 separate schools. There is the excellent graduate school. And then there is the undergrad school. Berkeley focuses most of its resources and attention on the graduate school. The undergrad school, while still pretty good, sadly, pales in comparison to the graduate school. Incidentally, this is why I advocate greater integration between the undergrad and the graduate schools.</p>
<p>"Me and some of the other people around us looked at each other as if to say, by telepathy "What the hell is she talking about?""</p>
<p>So true... you won't get any attention here if you don't go and get it (undergrad).</p>
<p>It's not like you'll get any attention anywhere except a LAC or special Hasslike programs unless you try to get attention....why is this such a big issue? Most college students don't want any personal attention from their professors in the first place.</p>