Aside from UC Berkeley, where else have you been accepted?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
101

<p>
[quote]
I think that Berkeley's shortcomings are not the fatal flaws that they are portrayed here by sakki, or that those flaws really hinder the overall U/G experience to a point where they merit taking Berkeley off the top 20.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, I have never made any mention on this thread about anything regarding the 'top 20'. Nor have I ever used the adjective 'fatal' to describe Berkeley's flaws. </p>

<p>What I am positing is that, given Berkeley's flaws (and they DO exist), do we as a group really think that Berkeley is a top 5 school? In particular, does Berkeley stack up to HYPSM? I'm sure we all wish it did, but does it?</p>

102

<p>
[quote]
Huh? How is it misleading. That is EXACTLY what the statistics state. I invite anybody to do the math themselves

[/quote]

You know very well that I wasn't arguing about the maths. i was arguing about your use of misleading statistics and the basic fault in your model, which tries to obfuscate the similarity in the numbers.</p>

<p>The analogy between the graduation rate with GM's market share in a fragmented marketplace is so completely flawed that it is not worth debating.</p>

<p>Where does Berkeley UG rank in your book? I personally think that the earlier USNWR rankings are valid. Don't use "we", because you don't speak for most Berkeley graduates, or even most posters here. I don't use "we".</p>

<p>You didn't use the word "fatal", but it's obvious that it is the way you consistently paint the experience as such, when you for instance portray the chances of flunking out at Berkeley as much larger than at Cal tech, to use this one example. </p>

<p>You use backhanded compliments and the occasional recommendation as a guise to appear somehow "fair and balanced" when the leitmotiv of your extremely voluminous input is quite disparaging about Berkeley.</p>

103

<p>I went to Berkeley and to a small, elite grad school Back East. One of my brilliant classmates Back East was a Berkeley grad (he was brilliant full-stop, not 'cause he had gone to Cal). He also complained at the quality of grad school professors fairly incessantly, and one day one of his advisors said: "you will not help yourself or this school at all by going around badmouthing this institution, and we ask that you stop." The funny thing is he had complained at Cal a lot, he told me, but realized how brilliant a lot of his Cal professors and the intellectual atmosphere of Cal were when he had another very well-regarded school to which to compare them.</p>

<p>I realized a couple of things: 1) Berkeley people tend to support a culture of complaint, apart from whether it's justified or not; 2) other schools expend effort to try to do what Berkeley could never do: build up a cadre of ambassadors who talk up the strengths. </p>

<p>Now, I wouldn't want a bunch of pollyannish gloss about Cal, but CalX is a welcome voice in this discussion. I am well aware Berkeley's a challenging environment and it's not for everyone. But CalX may be a good, albeit insufficient, antidote to a larger problem.</p>

104

<p>Absolutely, Bedhead. </p>

<p>Contrary to those who have characterized me as jingoistic, I strongly respect and appreciate constructive criticism. As a matter of fact, one of my personal projects down the line is to work with some Haas OB faculty and a group of concerned students to address campuswide issues like the low donor rates and foster a culture of support and high quality of teaching, which exists to a much greater extent within the business school than in the other colleges. I don't believe that this culture actually is in conflict with research excellence, to the contrary.</p>

<p>From my perspective as an older alumnus, the problem with this board is that (1) the motive of constructive criticism doesn't seem to exist among the most active negative posters based on their stance, tone and posting patterns, and (2) the real qualities of Berkeley seem at odds with the current culture and value system within this board, which is heavily skewed towards the private schools and the USNWR rankings. </p>

<p>In such an environment, I have been far more inclined to consistently defend Berkeley and be that one voice you refer to.</p>

105

<p>I was on a post recently where I was accused of being a hater and morally vacant, effectively, because I didn't want to buy into a certain way of parsing a school's elite ranking versus those of others. I think there's a really interesting social psychological study to be done regarding the importance some people attach to these putative pecking orders. I mean, I thought the person was blowing a gasket 'cause I and some others were questioning his sense of order in the world -- and it was related to the perceptions he had of schools that so far as I could tell, he had never gone to. It was a little eery, frankly.</p>

106

<p>
[quote]
ou know very well that I wasn't arguing about the maths. i was arguing about your use of misleading statistics and the basic fault in your model, which tries to obfuscate the similarity in the numbers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The numbers are not similar. A 10% non-graduation rate is indeed significantly smaller than a 13% non-graduation rate. That is how base-rate calculations work. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The analogy between the graduation rate with GM's market share in a fragmented marketplace is so completely flawed that it is not worth debating.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, if it's not worth debating, then why did you bring it up again? </p>

<p>And it is in fact EXACTLY analogous. When base rates are already small, small changes in the base rate correspond to large differences. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You didn't use the word "fatal", but it's obvious that it is the way you consistently paint the experience as such, when you for instance portray the chances of flunking out at Berkeley as much larger than at Cal tech, to use this one example.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But it IS much larger. Do the math yourself. Like I said, a randomly selected Berkeley undergrad is 30% more likely to not graduate than a randomly selected Caltech undergrad. The math doesn't lie. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You use backhanded compliments and the occasional recommendation as a guise to appear somehow "fair and balanced" when the leitmotiv of your extremely voluminous input is quite disparaging about Berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, there you go again, constantly complaining of bias. And what of your bias? If you are so concerned about fairness and balance, then perhaps you ought to take a look at your own posts. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Where does Berkeley UG rank in your book? I personally think that the earlier USNWR rankings are valid. Don't use "we", because you don't speak for most Berkeley graduates, or even most posters here. I don't use "we".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, what does it matter where Berkeley UG ranks in my book? Is that really a topic of discussion? </p>

<p>Furthermore, are you willing to finally willing to identify which school among HYPSM do you think Berkeley is better than for undergrad?</p>

<p>
[quote]
From my perspective as an older alumnus, the problem with this board is that (1) the motive of constructive criticism doesn't seem to exist among the most active negative posters based on their stance, tone and posting patterns, and (2) the real qualities of Berkeley seem at odds with the current culture and value system within this board, which is heavily skewed towards the private schools and the USNWR rankings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you really have a problem with my posts, then don't read them. </p>

<p>But keep in mind, CalX, it is not my job to play by your rules. I, like you, have free speech. You have the right to state your opinions. But so do I.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I went to Berkeley and to a small, elite grad school Back East. One of my brilliant classmates Back East was a Berkeley grad (he was brilliant full-stop, not 'cause he had gone to Cal). He also complained at the quality of grad school professors fairly incessantly, and one day one of his advisors said: "you will not help yourself or this school at all by going around badmouthing this institution, and we ask that you stop." The funny thing is he had complained at Cal a lot, he told me, but realized how brilliant a lot of his Cal professors and the intellectual atmosphere of Cal were when he had another very well-regarded school to which to compare them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, now what's up with that? To me, that's just muzzling free speech. Interesting - and I always thought the ideal of academia was that it was supposed to support the free expression and free exchange of ideas. But what is the moral of your story - that people are not allowed to voice criticism?</p>

107

<p>Ha, Sakky, there's no way anyone could put a muzzle on you -- though some would probably like to do so. : )</p>

<p>Of course, I am not arguing against free speech, if you were suggesting I was in support of that. As I said, Cal would never succeed in what my grad school was suggesting as exemplified by the professor who wanted my buddy to be a better ambassador and wanted to present a certain image to the world (as some schools make active efforts to do and enlist their students).</p>

<p>Limiting speech wasn't my point at all. But, Sakky my friend, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one about what my point really was. I honestly don't think you are so obtuse that you didn't get it the first time or that if you go back to my posting you can't figure out what I was trying to say. And if you can't, I am not sure there's much point in talking.</p>

108

<p>As someone who attended both Berkeley and Stanford, all I can say is this:</p>

<p>I went to Berkeley for a quality education and that's what I got. I went to Stanford for a quality affiliation and that's what I'm getting. </p>

<p>You cannot convince me that you'll get a better undergraduate education at Stanford in comparison to Berkeley, because you WON'T. I know this from first-hand experience.</p>

109

<p>Yayyy for first-hand experience. :P</p>

<p>What can you say for others, though? Are you one of the few who can claim this? Or do you find that, in your experience, many can say the same?</p>

110

<p>abcdefgclass2006,</p>

<p>Did you go to one as an undergrad and the other as a grad? Or both as an undergrad?</p>

111

<p>Berkeley=BS</p>

<p>Stanford =MS</p>

112

<p>kyledavid80, many of us can say the same..... Stanford is over-run with Berkeley (and other UC) alums. Just take a walk through the grad housing parking lots and look at the license plate frames/ bumper stickers. In the last 2 weeks, I had SEVEN guest speakers affiliated with Berkeley (1 PhD, 4 BA or BS...including Nobel Laureate Andrew Fire (BA '78), and 2 faculty) giving lectures in my classes. They might as well re-name Stanford "UC Berkeley Extension". I keep running into people I recognize from Cal on the Stanford campus.</p>

113

<p>abcdefgclass2006,</p>

<p>We're not saying that the experience at Cal isn't, by and large, great. It is. We just want to improve it.</p>

<p>Besides, grad school is so different from undergrad it's ridiculous.</p>

114

<p>Give it up abcdefgclass2006, first-hand knowledge will not be considered relevant by posters on this board. It's the rankings, damnit, the rankings. Nothing else matters! My life is completed by the rankings! And if anybody wants to dispute them, well, get out of my way. I will prove you wrong by systematically determining that you have no basis to say what you are saying. You went to Berkeley as an undergrad?! You have no basis to question the rankings, the tierings.</p>

<p>Of course I exagerrate, but not by enough. Like you, I went on to realize as I looked around at some extremely talented grad school classmate that had gone to Berkeley or professors that had too -- for undergrad and grad alike -- and that real-world experience further fixed in me a sense of its quality as well as a sense of its more important mission. People are challenged by Berkeley because they want it to be one thing or another -- i.e., a HYPSM -- or an admitted impostor in that tier of schools, a GASP public school not as elite as the high heaven of academic undergrad elitism, in a lesser tier. It's in its own category and a lot of Berkeley students do really well going head-to-head at the other places. And this is perennially the case. But more importantly, or just importantly, Berkeley also serves a public mission. And is a premier school at the same time.</p>

115

<p>BedHead,</p>

<p>It's not that I even think the rankings are good (I don't, and I think that Cal is actually underranked). I just think that the Cal fans seem to ignore the fact that finding the bad isn't necessarily a sign of "disliking" Cal. On the contrary: I'd have very much enjoyed Cal if I had chosen it. </p>

<p>We just think there's room to improve.</p>

116

<p>Yes, I agree, there is certainly always room to improve, but never witnessed in these discussions that I've seen is 1) a sense of Cal's different mission; it is not trying to be nor can be Harvard; 2) the fact that people who go to other schools realize there's room for improvement there at those other schools also. There's this underlying notion that "it's just perfect at Harvard."</p>

<p>Case in point: my ex-girlfried who used to moan about Berkeley (going to my point about Berkeley's culture of complaint, see post above). And then she went to Harvard and her conclusion was that she had way underrated Berkeley when she was there.</p>

<p>Don't hold things to the wrong standard is my point, as much as anything. </p>

<p>The other thing is you went to/go to UCLA and UCSD, I gather. There is a question of why any of us bother to be on this board. But if you believe in improving your institution, and if I do, isn't it incumbent upon us to spend time offline doing that? This is food for thought, self-directed as much as anything.</p>

<p>I don't direct it at you but I find it eery the amount of personal investment some people put slicing and dicing rankings and jockeying for position for schools and programs they have never been to. It's just interesting is all.</p>

<p>And by the way, UCLAri, I had a lot of friends who went to IR/PS in its inaugral years and loved it. How are you finding it?</p>

117

<p>
[quote]
1) a sense of Cal's different mission; it is not trying to be nor can be Harvard; 2) the fact that people who go to other schools realize there's room for improvement there at those other schools also. There's this underlying notion that "it's just perfect at Harvard."

[/quote]
</p>

<ol>
<li><p>See, this is the weird thing about the top UCs, though...the grad programs DO try to be top programs (and are). I mean, in-staters don't get any benefit at UC grad programs...so why the push to make them so darned good?</p></li>
<li><p>I don't care nearly as much about Harvard as I do about the UCs. Harvard can take care of itself. I want Berkeley and UCLA to be the institutions they can be. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
The other thing is you went to/go to UCLA and UCSD, I gather. There is a question of why any of us bother to be on this board. But if you believe in improving your institution, and if I do, isn't it incumbent upon us to spend time offline doing that. This is food for thought, self-directed as much as anything?</p>

<p>I don't direct it at you but I find it eery the amount of personal investment some people put slicing and dicing rankings and jockeying for position for schools and programs they have never been to. It's just interesting is all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I spend a lot of time working with UCLA issues, actually...I just don't bring them up as much because it usually draws the "other school" kids to the board, and then it's always a "the other school" vs. UCLA debate. </p>

<p>I also see Berkeley as a trendsetter for the system. Where Cal goes, others follow. This is changing at UCLA (for better or for worse), but it's still important. </p>

<p>Besides, I think that most of us are either UC grads or did go to Cal. In fact, all the biggest "anti-Cal" (relatively speaking, of course) people are Cal grads/students, I think...</p>

<p>IR/PS is great. It's really a special program, and something that the UCs need. I only wish that UCLA or Cal would develop professional IR programs, as they do have the faculty.</p>

118

<p>Actually, UCLAri, the MS from my department (I will not disclose due to privacy reasons) is pretty much like an extra year added to the BS.....most of the graduate courses I took/am taking/ will take are cross-listed with upper-div courses...and quite a few of my classes are upper-div undergrad courses.</p>

<p>I have to give it to you, UCLAri, you're the ultimate winner in this education game: you went to 2 great UCs and paid in-state tuition for them. </p>

<p>People, don't get me wrong, I really like Stanford (minus the administration). I especially like the people: undergrads, grads, and faculty. The undergrads here tend to be really fun to interact with and ridiculously smart, and being a TA at Stanford has been the highlight of my time at Stanford so far. It's just that it's not as hyped up educationally as people make it to be by looking at US News rankings. Small class sizes? Apparently not the classes i'm taking. High faculty to student ratio? Please, 40% of the faculty are in the medical school.....and Stanford has many many masters students that share classes with undergrads. Huge endowment? Yeah, as if they are actually using it on their students.</p>

<p>Seriously, go to a UC school.</p>

119

<p>If I got into both Berkeley and Stanford and the prices were comparable... I think I'd take Stanford for undergrad and Berkeley for grad, just because Berkeley for both may limit my opportunities (connections).</p>

<p>Of course, it all depends on the major as well. Berkeley is wonderful especially for chemistry and EE/CS and I'll bet that most of those students aren't feeling the the education they're getting is inadequate. Or perhaps they do; as BedHead's anecdote shows, the grass is always greener on the other side....</p>

120

<p>while in reality, the Ugrade quality at Cal is probably not up to par with other small privates... I think it goes without saying that Berkeley is, hands down, one of the most recognized and prestigious (as in top3 to top5) institutions on the world scale.</p>

<p>In the US this perception may change. But outside of the US, you'll quite often be hard pressed to find anyone who has even ever heard of Brown, Dartmouth, Upenn, Rice and many other big-name privates we know so well here in the 'States. These names simply do not ring any bells and fade in comparison to more famous institutions. On the other hand, nearly everybody in the world knows about UCBerkeley, Stanford, Harvard, Yale. This may sound far fetched to some Americans but it is a reality. Speak to people from Europe, Oceania, and most especially Asia-- and it becomes quite apparent what the "big universities" are.</p>

<p>This does not make up for Cal's less than stellar Ugrad quality. I AM pointing out that there ARE folks who pick schools based 90% on prestige, and in this category, UC Berkeley has no problem holding its own. Its amongst the most recognized names in the world-- Ugrad or not. That in itself is a huge factor that I think we often overlook.</p>