Why is UC Berkeley the best university in the world?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
61

<p>Dear All,</p>

<p>I see that people here have been talking about this for years, but I must admit: I am surprised to see what little data have been presented. There are some good points, especially about recognizing variability in programs, but many others allow their perception of brand to confuse the matter. Harvard is no doubt the Gucci of academic institutions, but exactly how well is that Gucci bag made?</p>

<p>The answer is: extremely well, but slightly less well than the Berkeley bag. The original query proposed that Berkeley is much better than Harvard; this is also incorrect. They are quite close, but neither is the best university in the world. The data are below.</p>

<p>Domestically, the National Research Council (NRC) provides subject-by-subect ranks. Here are the data from 2010:</p>

<h1>of Subjects in the TOP 10:</h1>

<p>Berkeley 42
Stanford 36
Michigan 33
Harvard 32
Yale 30
Princeton=Cornell 28
UCLA 26
MIT 25
Columbia=Penn 24
Chicago 23
Duke=Johns Hopkins 17
Caltech 14
Brown 11</p>

<h1>of Subjects in the TOP 5:</h1>

<p>Berkeley 40
Stanford 29
Harvard 27
MIT 22
Princeton 21
Michigan=Yale 19
Cornell 18
Columbia 16
Chicago 15
UCLA 13
Penn 12
Caltech=Hopkins 11
Duke 9
Brown 6</p>

<h1>of Subjects in the TOP 2:</h1>

<p>Berkeley 27
Harvard 23
Stanford 20
Princeton=MIT 14
Columbia 12
Yale 10
Chicago 8
Caltech 8
Cornell=Michigan 7
Johns Hopkins=Penn 6
UCLA 5
Duke 4
Brown 2</p>

<p>Number of #1-Ranked Subjects:
Harvard 16
Berkeley 15
Stanford 11
Princeton=MIT=Yale 7
Chicago=Michigan=Columbia 6
Cornell=Caltech 5
Penn 4
Johns Hopkins 3
Duke 2
UCLA=Brown 0</p>

<p>Note the “1 pt” difference between Harvard and Berkeley in the number of #1-ranked subjects (despite Berkeley’s dominance in every other category). It is important to recognize here that the NRC also evaluates medical programs. If we consider this and treat UCSF as Berkeley’s medical school (given the historical affiliations of both schools and the current affiliations of many profs at both places, this is really not a stretch), then Berkeley/UCSF moves to “16” #1-ranked programs, which is a tie with the Harvard/Harvard Med rank. Despite this, however, Berkeley is clearly stronger <em>all around</em>, relative to any other US institution. CalTech for example may have a better aeronautical engineering program, but why should a few stellar programs outshine (and bias our perceptions of) the <em>overall</em> academic caliber of an institution?</p>

<p>What about the international data? Here are all subject data from the Times Higher Education Supplement, from 2005-2012/13. The point here, similar to above, is that the emergent signal from all subjects will provide the best measure of overall quality. Here are what the data say; the value in each column represents the average of all ranked subjects for that year. Note: there were insufficient data for Columbia in 2011, hence the dash.</p>

<pre><code> 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012/13 OVERALL
</code></pre>

<p>Cambridge 85.9 94.5 87.0 86.5 89.6 90.5 88.6 88.8 88.94
Berkeley 84.7 86.9 94.1 92.4 86.6 87.2 87.0 87.9 88.35
Harvard 89.6 87.5 90.2 91.1 88.6 84.5 85.7 86.0 87.91
Oxford 83.6 91.5 82.0 81.5 83.6 87.1 89.2 88.2 85.83
Stanford 81.4 77.7 82.1 83.3 75.5 90.4 90.7 89.7 83.83
MIT 75.1 76.9 80.3 82.5 76.9 75.1 75.9 82.7 78.18
Princeton 62.2 64.1 72.4 73.1 64.1 84.7 85.3 85.5 73.93
Yale 64.5 67.6 72.1 71.1 64.5 76.9 80.5 81.7 72.37
UCLA 46.5 54.5 64.9 62.5 62.2 78.5 85.2 84.4 67.33
Chicago 51.1 54.7 63.8 63.3 56.9 73.1 80.0 81.6 65.57
Cornell 49.4 56.5 64.6 63.3 54.1 76.7 78.8 79.3 65.31
Columbia 52.0 53.5 63.4 63.0 53.2 73.4 - 83.3 63.12
Caltech 53.4 53.1 61.1 58.3 57.9 61.2 70.5 74.1 61.19
Michigan 41.3 47.2 55.7 55.2 44.9 81.1 81.7 80.3 60.93
Johns Hopkins 47.2 46.0 55.2 58.7 47.3 48.9 62.7 71.8 54.72
Duke 41.4 38.1 50.9 55.8 41.9 62.3 67.4 77.9 54.47
Penn 41.2 42.4 47.5 46.5 41.9 61.5 70.4 80.3 53.97
Brown 38.8 33.9 42.5 40.2 39.4 56.5 62.9 66.2 47.55</p>

<p>No doubt, several schools are statistically indistinguishable, and Cambridge/Berkeley/Harvard are probably in a 3-way tie, but these are the variation in the data. As with the NRC results, Berkeley emerges as the most consistently well-ranked university in the States, though Cambridge tops Berkeley globally. Also from this: I think we can learn that (a) many of the privates are overrated; and (b) other institutions which receive some fraction of public funds (e.g., UCLA in particular, ignoring Cambridge, Oxford, and Berkeley) are <em>under-acknowledged</em> as great schools.</p>

<p>Those are the data. Draw from them what you wish.
Cheers.</p>

62

<p>^
Cool story, bro.</p>

63

<p>Berkeley may have been a great school in the distant past, but lately it has been going on a huge downward slide. Many of my (undergrad) friends there are unhappy and regretting their decision to attend. Personally, I spent less than two months there before dropping out to attend another university. To my knowledge, many of the people who love Berkeley are 1) engineering majors, or 2) those who barely made it in. And you will be surprised at how many low-intellect and high-intellect students there. I have been in the same room with both idiots and geniuses. </p>

<p>To argue that Berkeley is one of the best schools is reasonable, but that is looking at the school as a whole. It is not the best for undergrad. It is far from it. Go somewhere else for undergrad. However, Berkeley is great for grad/PhD.</p>

<p>As for the acceptance rate, remember that Berkeley has a huge undergrad population. So even with a ~20% acceptance rate, combined with low yield, they’re still accepting a large number of students. And, in line with their mission of accessibility, the freshman class size has stubbornly continued to increase thanks to Birgeneau – you are not at a university; you are at a diploma mill. </p>

<p>Also, Berkeley has a huge brand name because…well, it has a lot more graduates.</p>

64

<p>The downward slide idea is an interesting one – it is certainly a thought that people have entertained – but it is not reflected in the data. The NRC data from 1995 and 2010 are basically the same, and the THE ranks from 2012/13 are a ~1/2 a percent off from the average over the last 7 years. Neither of these observations jive with the downward slide hypothesis.</p>

<p>Berkeley underwent administrative restructuring following the economic downturn. Perhaps the symptoms of this are what impacted your friends’ undergraduate experiences. I know grad students whose stipends actually increased during this period, so perhaps the bigger picture is: academic institutions are about fit, and similar to relationships, personality and match are incredibly important. For the introverted and passive who expect their education to be handed to them, I can understand how Berkeley is probably not the best place for undergraduate work. However, for those who reach out for their education and grab it, probably any school in the original list will do. It’s just important to reflect on your interests and personality, and see which institution best matches them. In your case, perhaps that is The University of Chicago. :)</p>

65

<p>If you are a freshman interested in this issue, I would recommend taking the Education 24 seminar taught by the Vice Chancellor – it will expose you to far more complex reasonings behind why Cal is (or isn’t) considered one of the best in the world. </p>

<p>Bobbit, it may be beneficial to look at the soft indicators, such as student satisfaction/happiness. Cal is an excellent school and continues to put out quality work, but are the students happy with what they’re getting? Hard factors such as dropout rate may stay static but really, with so many kids on aid, the rational action is to stay and bear the burdens rather than leave/drop. Plus, the expected results on Prop 30 seems to be unsettlingly close as of now. And Occupy Cal occurred less than a year ago.</p>

<p>I’m actually really aggressive when it comes to getting opportunities, and I can say that it has more to do with frustration at being unable to get what you need – classes, research, ect. This has more to do with the nature of public schools than the person.</p>

66

<p>“They buy Gucci for the status that it conveys.” <- don’t be kidding.
(probably it’s true in china)</p>

67

<p>Soft Indicators: I agree that these are incredibly important. The data above convey the quality of professors (and their research) that frame the departments. No doubt, grads and undergrads work with and learn from the same faculty. However, I agree that it is important to recognize that it may be easier for some students to maximize the potential a university has to offer. This “ease” is probably the most critical part of the discussion.</p>

<p>Hard Indicators: e.g., dropout rate - I am less convinced that this is meaningful. Berkeley’s undergraduate selectivity (as you mention) is ~20%. You combine this with academically rigorous programs and it is not surprising that selectivity and dropout rate correlate (inversely). Moreover, it is also not surprising that data from schools with higher selectivity, grade inflation, etc. artificially bump their ranks in subjectively weighted approaches. I am also not convinced that access to research opportunities splits along public/private lines. Course wait lists and graduation times could be the better consideration. Moreover, there is probably a bit too much focus on selectivity and the automatic translation to educational quality. The data here suggest a weak correlation between selectivity and faculty quality. That is, it is perfectly possible to have a highly selective school with less impressive programs once you get there.</p>

<p>Harvard and Gucci: the analogy did not suggest that people who buy Gucci do so for the quality of the tailoring. One has to acknowledge that most people are driven by brand than by workmanship, but this is the point: to illustrate the disconnect between brand and data. As you mention, the issue is status, which is why it’s important to look at data. Society is full of crackpot ideas and too many people too readily construct their perceptions on the basis of brand, impression, intuition, and face value. The analogy could have just as easily been made with evolution (i.e., what people *think about their ancestry vs. what the data say). I think we agree on everything here, despite the original miscommunication.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

68

<p>I am very surprised by the content of this post. I work with university professors and with people who have maintained tenure at consulting firms such as McKinsey. The McKinsey people are looking for graduates of top tier institutions, and in their eyes, as long as you are in the top tier (i.e., ~any school in the original post), then fit is the more important criterion. Moreover, I have never run into an academic who does not value fit over brand name in any hire (Jr. or Sr.). Personally, I think we should all reflect on whether we would rather have others *think we are more impressive than we are, or if we would rather be honest with ourselves, even if our capes are slightly smaller. Among academics, Harvard, MIT, Cambridge, Berkeley, Stanford, and Oxford are the top university brands (despite what laypeople think). Having been affiliated with three of these schools over the last decade (possibly four, depending on how the next month plays out), I can attest first hand that no one cares about the brand of my academic pedigree. In this context, publications, who I’ve worked with, and other factors are simply much more important. It’s nice to see that at least some people are focused on evidence.</p>