We’re That Damn Good - UC Berkeley Retains Prominent Rank Across The Board
A new US News & World report has ranked some of the top doctoral departments nationwide. Interestingly, UC Berkeley was the only school to rank in the top 5 in all categories, with Stanfurd being just one short of the same feat. With three #1 rankings, we received the third most top spots in the survey. Interesting to see that despite the recent budget problems, UC Berkeley is managing to retain its academic greatness & reputation. Although, one has to wonder how high the rankings were before this decade’s education budget cuts began…
Berkeley arguably has the best academic departments in the world. It’s really astonishing.
That being the case, it’s hard to believe that undergraduate education is not given the same priority. Why are we content to be top 3 at the graduate level but only top 25 at the undergrad level?
It’s a schizophrenic institution.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 25, 2005 @ 10:57 am
Another issue in the possible decline of Berkeley as a top-ranked institution is the tuition policy directed toward international students. I’m not sure how it is in all programs, but at least in the biosciences it costs a professor almost as much to hire a international phd student as it does to hire a postdoc and therefore many labs are not taking international students. Unless this policy changes, we might see an end to UCB as a international university at the graduate level (or at least a substantial decline).
As far as rankings at the undergrad level, you will note that UCB is the #1 public university in the nation, but #21 overall (excluding all liberal arts colleges). Basically you just can’t compete in the calculus of the rankings if you are a public school it seems. This might be due to a biasing of the way they calculate the ranking, but I’m not sure.
Comment by Josh — July 25, 2005 @ 11:34 am
something interesting from the US News stats, that might have something to do with why berkeley’s ranked so low:
Top Graduation Rates:
Harvard University (MA) 98%
Princeton University (NJ) 97%
Brown University (RI) 96%
Yale University (CT) 96%
Cal wasnt listed, but last I heard, 4yr grad rate was around 50%, 6yr grad rate was a lot higher (70-80%). anyone have any idea?
Comment by thomas — July 25, 2005 @ 12:02 pm
(Disclaimer: I’m currently a web intern at US News)
Graduation rates are a factor in the undergraduate rankings, but a number of other factors push us down to 21st. Namely, we don’t have a lot of classes with under 20 people, a lot of classes with over 50 people, and our alumni donation rates are very poor.
I find it weird Newscenter only published this now. The grad rankings have been out since early spring so they could have looked at this anytime, and undergrad rankings are coming in mid-August. It is a good press release in that rather than taking existing information, they managed to spin it to make themselves better (i.e. it’s not “Berkeley ranks high in all these categories” but “Berkeley ranks this highly compared to other schools in so many programs”)
Comment by Allen L. — July 25, 2005 @ 12:27 pm
why should graduation rates be an indicator of quality? It just means students at Cal dont get the luxury of inflated grades (Stanford) and a trip to the counselors office for milk and cookies when the professor yells at us.
Sink or swim, baby. Thats quality of education you cant find anywhere else.
Comment by food for thought — July 25, 2005 @ 2:15 pm
It’s unfair that graduation rate means something in college rankings. It just means those ivy league schools aren’t as challenging and don’t fail people. At Brown University you literally cannot get a grade lower than a C otherwise they strike it from your record.
Then again there’s Harvard’s Harvey C. Mansfield who attests there is rampant grade inflation at Harvard.
http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i30/30b02401.htm
And Stanford, the average student had a 3.6. Not very many of those students fail out, do they? They couldn’t fail out if they tried to.
Berkeley’s GPA’s are also rising, but not nearly at the rate of ivy league colleges and their “counterparts”. A 3.21 is modest as an average GPA but compared to other institutions we still grade pretty rigidly.
Comment by Sensible Liberal — July 25, 2005 @ 2:18 pm
I don’t think it’s true that the Ivy League schools are “less challenging” than Berkeley and therefore graduation rates are higher. Certainly there is grade inflation, but there is just a different depth of students at the Ivy league schools. That’s not to say that the top undergrads at Cal are any less brilliant than at Harvard, because they aren’t. Sure you’re average student at Brown deserves lower than a B+, but they aren’t passing students that should otherwise be failing out of college.
It comes down to the fact that at a large state university, the rules aren’t as flexible, there are more non-traditional students who take time off during college or don’t take a full course load, etc, etc. When you’re paying $40k a year to go to a private school, you don’t screw around thinking you can stay on another year if things don’t work out.
Let’s not start this whining about rank and how fair the system is. Having gone to a small liberal arts college undergrad and having constantly heard the whining that went on between the Amherst, Swarthmore, Williams crowd, I’m sick of it.
The US News rankings aren’t stamped on your diploma and any sensible person realizes that they are just a number and generally classify schools. The top-tier schools are all pretty much equivalent.
Comment by Josh — July 25, 2005 @ 2:25 pm
Berkeley 4 year grad rate is just over 50%; 6 year is about 85%.
As far as the US News rankings being skewed, I don’t know. Rankings aside, the university gets a lot of heat from a number of critics for its undergraduate commitment–from counseling to housing to career services, a lot is lacking compared to the “top privates” that this news release compares us to. There is more to undergraduate education than simply the eminence of the faculty.
You’d think with our vastly superior academic rankings we’d be able to attract an undergraduate student body that isn’t just marginally better than UCLA’s. The fact that our gap with UCLA has narrowed over the past decade means that Berkeley hasn’t sold itself well at all.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 25, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
Josh,
If students at Stanford realize that a vast majority of students there will receive an A or a B, wouldn’t it make sense that they wouldn’t have to try as hard as a school like Cal where, like food for thought says, it’s sink or swim?
When I found out how easy high school was to get an A, I didn’t exactly try very hard to earn my As. That’s just how life works. When I came to Cal I realized the importance of working my ass off for the grades I earned.
So wouldn’t it make sense that at Stanford, students know that they don’t have to work as hard, their expectations for work are lower so they become lazy? Common sense. People don’t work any harder than they have to.
Like one of my friends said, maybe Stanford is a better school after all. Instead of having to spend time studying for classes and tests, they can do something interesting with their lives like learn how to play the piano. My quality of life at Stanford or an ivy league would have probably been better. But at the end of the day would I feel proud of my academic achievements?
Comment by Sensible Liberal — July 25, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
Sensible Lib, what you’re saying is true. Berkeley kids needs to spend less time studying and more time actually developing social skills and interacting with classmates. For the vast majority, those will come in more handy than anything you get from finishing the 17th problem on your problem set.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 25, 2005 @ 3:39 pm
I rather prefer the undergrad approach here, which amounts, more or less, to “deal.” It’s better we learn it in college than in the real world.
Comment by Beetle — July 25, 2005 @ 4:24 pm
SensLib, you may have a point about grades, but I’m not sure that you can apply that theory uniformly for an entire institution. One thing to consider is that people in positions of hiring often can see through the grad inflation. I’ve say on admission committees for grad school and know people who have for med school (and I’m sure this applies to other fields as well), and people know generally what grades from a school mean. Trust me when I say this, but grades are not everything. Letters of recommendation (especially if they are non-generic) and research/professional experience go much further than a GPA. You can’t ride on the name of your school forever. Every person makes or breaks their career by what they do and their personal accomplishments. The proving ground is not necessarily in the classroom.
Comment by Josh — July 25, 2005 @ 4:24 pm
The amount of resources the school spends on the average undergrad is roughly equal to the fees we pay (within 5%). This school is geared to research and publishing first, and instruction second. This baises resources towards graduate students who are involved in research and publishing, and away from undergrads, which is why there’s such a huge disparity.
For the hard numbers, look at Professor Charles Swartz’s website on the UC budget and expenses.
Comment by Anonymous — July 25, 2005 @ 4:51 pm
Anon, I’m not sure that an evaluation purely by fiscal means will give a true indication of campus priorities. The budgets of other major research institutions may be similar to Berkeley, but I’m not certain of this. I agree that undergrad spending should increase.
Beetle, you’ll have the rest of your life to live in the “real world”. While I strongly support a rigorous education, I think that receiving a little coddling (especially straight out of high school) is a good thing.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 25, 2005 @ 5:04 pm
Its true that at Stanford or Harvard, students can “develop social skills” (whatever that means, Bhanu) and play their violins and attend their high society galas - but that doesnt mean that because Berkeley is public that students cant do the same. No matter what upper-echelon university you look at, some students will always manage to get good grades without studying 24/7.
Ill point to my own personal development as an example. My first year I was a wreck…studying upwards of 35 hours a week for good grades. I probably do half of that now and my grades havent been impacted.
Private schools dont do that. Personal experience does. The fact that Berkeley takes (intentionally or not - probably not) the tough love approach makes every Berkeley student that much stronger.
In short, we have an acute sense of what weve sacrificed to get here. It wasnt daddy’s donation to the library fund, it wasnt legacy admissions (affirmative action for white folks)… it was us.
Comment by food for thought — July 25, 2005 @ 5:25 pm
Food for Thought: point well taken. Let’s assume you’re right.
If Berkeley grads are made so much stronger by the incredible education we received, shouldn’t we be more grateful to the university? Why do the Harvards continue to give back to their alma maters, while our giving rates remain so low?
Something to consider.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 25, 2005 @ 5:32 pm
Food4thought, I agreed with you up until you launched in the usual BS of the struggling public school student vs the privelaged private school kid who has had everything handed to them. I know plenty of Berkeley students who are from the richest enclaves of Orange County, Beverly Hills, Marin, etc who have the silver spoon dangling from their mouths and I also know kids at Harvard who struggled financially to get there. No need to bolster an inferiority complex with ridiculous portraits of your own school or other’s.
Comment by Josh — July 25, 2005 @ 5:36 pm
Tough love is responded to with tough love.
Comment by Beetle — July 25, 2005 @ 5:36 pm
Beetle, exactly. And I personally don’t believe either side benefits.
The university should wake up and realize (as the privates long have) that students are an investment. Treat them well now, they’ll respond in kind later.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 25, 2005 @ 5:45 pm
Food for thought,
The ivy leagues and Stanford, etc. all have affirmative action for non-white, non-Asian people more than “affirmative action for white people”. In fact the only school that doesn’t that’s of high rank is Berkeley. Thank God.
Comment by Anonymous — July 25, 2005 @ 6:02 pm
I can’t remember where I read it, but I’m sure you could find the report again with Google. Anyway, there was something fairly recent about GPA’s here at Berkeley. In the College of Letters and Science, at least, the average GPA is 3.4. Sounds a bit like grade inflation to me (more A’s and A-’s than any other grade).
There are some rough spots of course still. I’m sure the average in the College of Engineering is lower. At least with EECS courses, are lower-divs are curved to a B- (2.7) and all upper-divs to a B (3.0). Or that’s what the standard is, whether they always do it or not isn’t something I can easily find out.
Comment by brendan — July 25, 2005 @ 7:25 pm
Bhanu-
Why arent we more grateful? I dont think that has anything to do with the education we receive, but more with the fee increases weve been handed.
Plus, our football team was shit. Youll see alumni generosity grow.
Sad, but true.
Comment by food for thought — July 25, 2005 @ 7:42 pm
Stanford letters and science (if the average is a 3.6 overall) must be like a 3.9. Ouch.
Comment by Anonymous — July 25, 2005 @ 10:10 pm
FFT, I personally believe the vast majority of students/alums don’t give a shit about how our football team does. This is Berkeley, not the University of Miami.
If our alumni donations depend on our football record–which would be pretty abysmal for such an academic school–then we’re in worse shape than I thought.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 25, 2005 @ 11:33 pm
UCSD’s mean undergraduate GPA is 3.1. Does that make it tougher than Berkeley? GPA’s not necessarily an indicator of how hard you have to work in the school.
Incidentally, Berkeley’s alumni giving rate is, I believe, loads higher than UCSD’s. UCB’s Division I sports program adds to the school’s prestige. If you look at how the US News rankings are calculated, they take into account a lot of things that don’t impact the quality of the education students would receive: “prestige,” “alumni giving,” 4-year graduation rates, etc. Hell, I just added a fifth year, not because I couldn’t graduate in four, but because I decided to get a double major at the last minute. People like me skew the statistics and bring down the school’s rankings.
Comment by Daniel Watts — July 25, 2005 @ 11:48 pm
yeah daniel, thanks a lot bro.
Comment by thomas — July 26, 2005 @ 8:53 am
Alumni do give a shit about sports, actually. Its hard not to, seeing that once you graduate attending Division I sports and seeing Cal on the TV is one of the few remaining connections many alums have to Berkeley after they leave for wherever in the world they go.
And this isnt something unique to Berkeley. Who wants to make a bet that UCLA alumni had a field day in the ’80’s when their b-ball team was still good?
Im not saying this is the only motivator to donate - at Berkeley we have many (and for publics Berkeley actually ranks pretty high). But it is certainly a factor.
A good football team certainly wouldnt hurt donations, would it?
Comment by food for thought — July 26, 2005 @ 9:07 am
FFT, not at all. I think a good football team can certainly help donations.
I just think that most alums should want to see the University’s academic pre-eminence maintained. The fact that alumni donations have remained low, even through the budget crisis when quality really was threatened, is not a good sign.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 26, 2005 @ 9:57 am
the Daily Cal took an interesting spin on the recent professional fee hikes approved at the last regents meeting, stating that the rift between the university and the students has widened.
I dont want to sound extreme and say that the fees are the only factor at fault for the alumni’s famously low giving rate, but they most certainly have a psychological effect on students who later become alumni. If i see the regents pass a fee hike without even flinching, i have every right to be scared and a little disillusioned.
This transfers over to years after we graduate. Its hard to forgive such a thing…
Comment by food for thought — July 26, 2005 @ 2:15 pm
Well, yeah. If we paid for our education, we don’t owe anything when we leave.
Comment by Beetle — July 26, 2005 @ 2:41 pm
Uh, so why is it that private school kids–who pay about eight times as much as Cal students in tuition–end up giving on a much more frequent basis?
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 26, 2005 @ 2:44 pm
I went to one of those expensive private schools for undergrad (although now it’s about $10k more than when I started in 1997), and I give a paltry sum of money every year to their fundraising campgain. Why?
I credit my college with some of the best times and educational opportunities that I’ve had, and saw my education there as part of a tradition and community. I want to see that community continue to flourish even after I graduate so I donate money to them. Perhaps when you are at a larger school (mine was only 1100 students), you don’t see it as much as a community. How you viewed your experience colors how you deal with the university after you graduate.
The somewhat more dubious reason is whether I donate $1 or $1 million dollars that donation is counted toward “alumni giving rates”, so it is a easy way to manipulate the statistics for rankings and you continue to attract top rated students who might initially look at rankings to get an idea about where to look at schools (but then realizes later on they mean very little).
Comment by Josh — July 26, 2005 @ 3:29 pm
Well, there you go. I was going to say that private school kids are pansies and think of their college as an extension of their parents, so they have to pay for its retirement home, but I think Josh’s explanation makes more sense.
Comment by Beetle — July 26, 2005 @ 3:49 pm
Well, Beetle, since you love your tough love Berkeley education so much, and feel that you’re so much stronger for it as you go out into the real world–and since you’ve only paid a fraction for it relative to most private schools–you’re expected to give back after you graduate. After all, it makes sense to you that Josh gives back because he felt he got a lot from his college. Haven’t you gotten a lot from yours?
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 26, 2005 @ 3:56 pm
private schools operate on the high-tuition, high-financial aid model.
When you take a public school, jack up the price and lower the financial aid, youre better off at a private school where there are smaller classes and more aid.
Thats partially why they donate more, plus they statistically make more than public school kids(not necessarily true for Berkeley and other top publics). At the private level, you expect high tuition and lotsa scholarships. Here, higher tuition is less excusable because we are a public institution that should remain affordable and accessible, according to the state constitution.
Comment by food for thought — July 26, 2005 @ 4:00 pm
All of these arguments would make more sense if Berkeley’s alumni giving rates were higher in the past, well before all these fee hikes and when tuition was dirt cheap. Rather, the giving rates are higher now than ever before.
I almost feel that one values one’s education more when one has to sacrifice for it. Someone investing $100K in their college education might naturally feel more connected/invested in that college than someone who pays only $10K, for instance.
I think that giving has a lot more to do with one’s experience and satisfaction–as Josh pointed out–than simply tuition and fees (of course, tuition can negatively impact one’s perspective of the school, but it’s only one factor).
I also think Berkeley should adopt more of a higher tuition, higher financial aid award model. The rich effectively subsidize the poor in such a model, which exists at all top private institutions.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 26, 2005 @ 4:09 pm
that sounds like a great way to single handedly wipe out the middle class and reverse the role of a PUBLIC institution.
You go, Bhanu. You go.
Comment by food for thought — July 26, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
Don’t get me wrong–I’m not advocating huge tuition increases.
What I do think is:
1) There is a huge gulf between current public and private tuition (a factor of something like 4 or 5), so a little adjustment upward is not impractical for a premier public like Berkeley.
2) A good chunk of the fee increases would be channeled back into financial aid. I don’t see the middle class getting left out here.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 26, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
I agree that Berkeley needs to remain premiere, and doing so means some fee increases to offset high faculty wages and recruitment, research, etc.
You have to understand, however, that financial aid is not given to just everyone, and that the middle class students are in the difficult situation of not qualifying for fin. aid and at the same time not being able to finance a full education independently.
At the end of the day, you have to evaluate whether mainting a quality public education means that it has to imitate the private model. I say that it doesnt, and shouldnt, since all qualified California residents - no matter what class - need to have some access to UC.
The regents think otherwise, and tend to get starry-eyed by schools like Harvard and Stanford. We are public for a reason.
Comment by food for thought — July 26, 2005 @ 4:59 pm
First, I didn’t advocate the fully private model (nearly $40 K in annual tuition). I merely pointed out that there’s a huge (and growing) middle ground in tuition between publics and privates.
Cal is not public anymore; the state has more or less abandoned the school. It needs a new financial model to cope with the new era of limited support.
Another thing to mention: the top privates are wealthy because they manage their wealth well. Berkeley does not manage its endowment with the same skill, but it should. Good investment returns could give a huge boost to financial aid, among other worthy programs.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 26, 2005 @ 5:20 pm
To solve this whole problem of the deficit we’re in with public education, why not just let in more out of state students? We are a very sought after University for out of state students, yet we let in a lot of underqualified California resident students (get rid of the ELC). Out of state acceptance rates are a lot lower than in-state acceptance rates. If we’re one of the world’s top universities, we should serve the students of the world and country, not just California.
To counter probably a host of posts about how we should primarily serve the students of California, there are 8 other UC campuses to choose from, including a strong second choice, UCLA. The lower schools should serve the students of California, but Berkeley must maintain its national and global reputation. This will make raising tuition irrelevant, and raising tuition does not serve the residents of California.
Comment by Anonymous — July 26, 2005 @ 8:24 pm
Anonymous, I couldn’t agree with you more.
The role of UC as a system is one thing, but the Berkeley campus is special. There is a huge demand to come here, and more out of state students not only brings in a lot more tuition dollars, it increases diversity and boosts student quality.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 26, 2005 @ 8:33 pm
That suggestion is fundamentally identical to the privatization suggestion. Perhaps another is to consider the idea of a federal university.
Comment by Beetle — July 26, 2005 @ 9:21 pm
Well, not exactly. If you look at Universities of Michigan and Virginia, those schools have much larger out of state percentages than Berkeley (about 35% compared to 10% at Cal). And there are eight other campuses in CA to shoulder the load here…
The federal idea is a good one. Most of the world’s other great universities are federally funded.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 26, 2005 @ 9:54 pm
No, I say it’s identical to privatization because the point of admitting out-of-state students is that they fund their own education. That is, we want to have our government subsidize less education, which is the idea behind adopting the private model.
Not that such an approach is the wrong one. If the government refuses to further subsidize education, there isn’t really any choice but to get students to fund their own.
Comment by Beetle — July 26, 2005 @ 10:12 pm
Well, it’s not like the students “fund their own education” at the top privates either. These schools have massive endowments which subsidize quite a bit. I think that’s a pretty strong model, personally.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 26, 2005 @ 10:41 pm
How does this sound: The University of the United States of America at Berkeley, California?
Comment by citizen — July 27, 2005 @ 10:16 am
UUSABC — Go BEARS!
The only problem is the federal government seems to only want to fund military schools and military budgets.
Comment by citizen — July 27, 2005 @ 10:19 am
Ill be the asshole and say that California has the best students anyway. Who needs michigan? I bet California has a lot to do with UMich’s 35% out of state stats.
Comment by Anonymous — July 27, 2005 @ 11:45 am
And being the #1 public (with UCLA at what - #4) clearly indicates that were doin’ just fine without out of state kids.
Comment by Anonymous — July 27, 2005 @ 11:46 am
citizen…
could that be because all other schools are state funded or privately funded that the feds only fund military schools? SHOCKED!
Comment by Anonymous2 — July 27, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
Anonymous2, wow, thanks for pointing that out. I didn’t realize that schools that aren’t federally funded have to get money from somewhere else. Also, just in case you didn’t know, roads that aren’t federally funded happen to be state funded or privately funded. SHOCKED!
Comment by citizen — July 27, 2005 @ 2:15 pm
Anonymous, we’re the #1 public mainly because of the graduate (reputation) rankings. It’s not something we should just sit back on.
Attracting more out of state kids would make us the #1 public without question.
Comment by another anon — July 27, 2005 @ 2:18 pm
without question? There is no question now. Berkeley is solid #1 and has been for a while (correct me if im wrong, Allen L.)
We dont have conditions to our ranking.
Comment by Anonymous — July 27, 2005 @ 3:22 pm
More out of state students (and less students in general… transfer them to newly formed UC merced) would make us damn close to #1 in the country, regardless of public or private. Unless we stop admitting mediocre students in state (too many people from my high school who didn’t deserve to come to Cal were accepted), we will stay where we’re at, period.
Comment by Conservative baron — July 27, 2005 @ 3:41 pm
Baron, that’s right on.
A slightly smaller, more geographically diverse admit class would be the best thing for the school.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 27, 2005 @ 4:19 pm
“There is no question now”
Anon, if you talk to some UMich and UVa kids (and now, more recently, UCLA people, for crying out loud), you’ll see that there are many who are nipping at our heels or even consider themselves on par with Cal. Certainly with respect to UCLA, Berkeley has let things slip.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 27, 2005 @ 4:44 pm
less bahnu-style wieners would be the best thing for the school.
Comment by mano — July 27, 2005 @ 5:12 pm
Mano, your consistent misspelling of “Bhanu” indicates to me that your vision science program isn’t so hot. Learn how to read.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 27, 2005 @ 10:16 pm
bahnu, i read just fine.
Comment by mano — July 27, 2005 @ 11:10 pm
Bhanu-
Of course they think theyre on par with us, thats the job of #2 and #3 and #4.
Perhaps I am a bit naive and too proud of Berkeley, and the competition is stiff, for sure. But c’mon…you will see that the rankings (particularly PhD and grad, but undergrad as well) have us at a very distinct advantage.
Have we slipped lately? Perhaps. But I wouldnt underestimate the Berkeley administration’s love affair with the rankings and their willingness to sidestep students’ best financial interests to make sure we end up on top, as seen by the recent hike in professional fees after Boalt dean Chris Edley pleaded the regents to give him more funding to “beat out Harvard and Stanford” (whether thats a good or bad thing is completely up to you).
Comment by food for thought — July 28, 2005 @ 9:22 am
FFT,
I personally think that what Edley is doing is a good thing. My complaint is that the priority of retaining such excellence appears to exist only when it comes to grad school. Before the Regents last week, Birgeneau pleaded for more fee hikes, saying he didn’t come from Canada to “serve a second rate institution.” I have never heard him argue with that type of passion to preserve the quality of the undergraduate program. For example, the size of the freshman admit class this year was the largest in Cal history. Cramming more students onto an already overstrained campus is not exactly in the interest of quality.
Also keep in mind that Edley and Birgeneau have different outlooks when it comes to funding. Edley is fully aware, coming from Harvard, how much of a disadvantage Berkeley is at. Birgeneau remains a Canadian socialist at heart–waiting patiently for state funds while the privates get ever-wealthier.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 28, 2005 @ 10:13 am
But why, oh why must we slip at all in rank? Why are we not getting better instead of worse?
Comment by Republicrat — July 28, 2005 @ 1:02 pm
Republicrat, because the top private schools have been on a tear in the last decade. And heaven forbid we should emulate the (shudder) private schools.
Comment by another anon — July 28, 2005 @ 3:31 pm
Exactly. We should be as selective as a private school, without all the affirmative action bullshit (including wealthy alumni affirmative action), and ONLY take the very top students, the cream of the crop, of this great nation and world. Only then will we be the best University ever.
If you people want mediocrity, serve the “people of California”.
Comment by Republicrat — July 28, 2005 @ 4:09 pm
Repub–yeah, that’s basically right.
Unfortunately, anything that interferes with the all-powerful Diversity Agenda on campus is simply unacceptable.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 28, 2005 @ 4:45 pm
Is there any hard evidence that suggests that “diversity” helps society at all? At least more than meritocracy?
Comment by Republicrat — July 28, 2005 @ 8:56 pm
Republicrat. Quit fooling yourself and take the “crat” out of your name. Youre shaming all of us.
Comment by anonymous — July 28, 2005 @ 9:42 pm
“Food4thought, I agreed with you up until you launched in the usual BS of the struggling public school student vs the privelaged private school kid who has had everything handed to them…No need to bolster an inferiority complex with ridiculous portraits of your own school or other’s.”
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. According to USNews, ~35% of Cal students receive Pell Grants. At Harvard/Stanford, it’s 10-15% (if I remember correctly). At Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore I think it’s less than 10%. The idea that private school kids are rich exists because it’s TRUE (esp at LACs!).
Comment by Anonymous — July 28, 2005 @ 10:45 pm
What, so now Republicans are against multiculturalism and Democrats are for it? I know a lot of Republicans that are for multiculturalism (Billy Wang) and Democrats that are against it (David Duke).
Comment by Republicrat — July 28, 2005 @ 11:38 pm
Oh and another thing: asking questions about proof that multiculturalism makes me a Republican? Does questioning my country’s motives make me unpatriotic? What you’re doing is telling me to blindly accept the “fact” that multiculturalism is a good thing without showing me any proof.
Comment by Republicrat — July 28, 2005 @ 11:49 pm
I think it’s accepted that diversity in general is a good thing. This includes not only ethnic diversity, but geographic diversity, socioeconomic diversity, diversity of opinions/thoughts, etc. In a campus setting, I don’t believe anyone should be willing to compromise a threshold level of academic achievement just to fill a quota.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 29, 2005 @ 9:00 am
Republicrat: “Is there any hard evidence that suggests that “diversity” helps society at all?”
I just felt it should be reiterated with all of its awesome (and frightening) single-mindedness.
Comment by anonymous — July 29, 2005 @ 9:11 am
I think AA should be brought back. Standards were higher then.
Today, the bar has been lowered for everyone. The admissions office wants to get a certain number of URMs–and to do that it has to admit a high number of low-scoring whites and Asians to show there’s no racial discrimination at play.
It’s really pretty bad. Just look at Boalt’s LSAT ranges compared to comparable schools (and they want to be on par with Harvard/Stanford?)…..the school is shooting itself in the foot.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — July 29, 2005 @ 11:09 am
anonymous: what’s so frightening and single-minded about asking questions? All of a sudden the “truth” is that diversity is important without even defining it? Diversity of what? How about Asian students who are screwed over in the name of ethnic (racial) diversity?
Comment by Republicrat — July 29, 2005 @ 1:04 pm