<p>im with m3ssi: im not a fan of berkeley. There are a lot of graduate students and researchers who I admire who are associated with the university (alumni/professors) but of all the friends I have who are undergrads there, few of them I believe would be on par with northwestern students. </p>
<p>I'll be seeing you both at Northwestern in the fall.</p>
<p>hey the city, arent u majoring in journalism too? =P be seeing u too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but of all the friends I have who are undergrads there, few of them I believe would be on par with northwestern students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>enders, congratulations on your choice. </p>
<p>TheCity, your comment I would definitely not agree with. I can guarantee you that New York investment banks consider Berkeley to be a greater pool of undergraduate talent than Northwestern is.</p>
<p>I've seen the lists of analysts at some BB banks, and I very rarely see any Berkeley graduates in New York.</p>
<p>They have Ibanks on the west coast too you know--and many venture cap firms. Most west coast folks don't move east. Why would you?</p>
<p>^ Yeah you're right. But many third year and associates go out to NY after working several years in SF/Silicon Valley. </p>
<p>When NY investment banks go recruiting, they are also recruiting for their LA/SF/Silicon Valley offices as well. I should have said New York based investment banks. </p>
<p>Many hires get their choices of office locale. Most from Berkeley choose to stay in San Francisco. But the major recruiting schools for ibanking/consulting are Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanfurd, Berkeley, Wharton. UCLA/Michigan/UChicago/Dartmouth are also up there, but in slightly lower recruiting priority. UChicago is highly respected because of their difficult coursework, economics department, and high work ethic of graduates.</p>
<p>wait a minute? you are judging this on banking? oh for crying out loud... who cares what the most respected school is, its still the least respected profession. I would rather my child grew up to be a meter maid. </p>
<p>However, let me back up and qualify my comment a little bit: Of the 15 or so people from my class going to UCB, there is one with above a 1400 SAT (he's an engineer), and probably only one or two others with above a 1350. In all other areas (ECs, GPA, etc.) they lag behind the students I know who have gone to places like Chicago, Northwestern, Columbia, and even USC im some respects.</p>
<p>Berkeley has a good reputation among high school seniors nationwide because, nationwide, it is as dificult to get in to as most ivies... In california, its either a repository for people who couldnt get in to Stanford, or sometimes the place for really really smart californians who dont have a lot of money (of course, the second group I have a lot of respect for, but in my experience, theyre a much rarer animal).</p>
<p>And yes, I will be in Medill.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most west coast folks don't move east. Why would you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because the most prestigious positions are in New York/Boston. And very rarely does a big time venture capital firm recruit out of undergraduate.</p>
<p>Why give up the good life to live in those overcrowded old holes.</p>
<p>TheCity, I would not make this kind of generation "Of the 15 or so people from my class going to UCB, there is one with above a 1400 SAT (he's an engineer), and probably only one or two others with above a 1350. In all other areas (ECs, GPA, etc.) they lag behind the students I know who have gone to places like Chicago, Northwestern, Columbia, and even USC im some respects." Last year there was a story that local kids from d's high school with 1500 SAT got rejected from UCB and had to attend UCSD. However, with that said, I don't think SAT should be used as the sole measure of how selective a college is.</p>
<p>oh certainly, I didnt mean to sound like i was judging these people based on just SAT scores... theyre people Ive known for 4 years... and I wouldnt feel so bad for that kid from your daughters high school, UCSD is in many respects a better school than UCB. What I did mean to say, and forgot to mention, is that of my friends who are going there, most of them were denied at all the other supposed top tier schools they applied to (Stanford, Dartmouth, Cornell, Hopkins, Chicago)... I also know a couple people who were accepted at UCB but denied at UCD, UCSD, UCSB, and UCSC even. </p>
<p>My SAT scores were mediocre by most of these places standards (1420), but I more than made up for that with ECs, so I definitely am not trying to say that SATs should be the determining factor in how good a student is. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it... even coming from a catholic school, georgetown BC and holy cross would be reaches. </p>
<p>Ill say again what ive been saying since march: the UC admission system is total junk, but as a result, theyre is a ridiculous mix of people there who could belong at a Chicago or Harvard or Stanford or whatever, along with those who found themselves in the precarious decision of deciding between UCB and Chico State, because all the decent private schools said no thanks.</p>
<p>TheCity,</p>
<p>I am sure that every high school area is different. As for Berkeley, there are 700-900 students every year that come in with a 1500+ SAT score (using best math+ best verbal method). Personally I chose Berkeley over UPenn and Cornell (I never heard of Northwestern when I applied, but I guess their reputation improved). It had nothing to do with monetary issues. I just wanted to go to a prestigious school in California. And since I didn't get into Harvard, I thought that I can make the most with Berkeley's top ranked faculty and still get a top notch education. </p>
<p>There are a lot of students like me at Berkeley. A lot of rich kids too. But the rich kids tend to be humble and not show it off as much. Anyways, I digress, Berkeley rejected 600 students with a 1500+ SAT score (using one sitting method) and 2600 students with 1400-1500 (using one sitting method) SAT scores. The reasons are as follows: Their GPA was too low, they were out of state, or they were from areas with a lot of good students like Monterey Park, Irvine, San Jose, Palo Alto, etc... This is why there are many 1500+ SAT students at UCLA and UCSD.</p>
<p>I think most of the people who get rejected with 1500+ are applying to be engineers. being accepted to UCB engineering is much more dificult than getting into the Arts and Sciences school. </p>
<p>Yes, berkeley has top-notch faculty.. but unlike places like Harvard and Chicago, they very rarely teach small undergrad classes, if they teach undergrad classes at all. Not that there's anything wrong with this, if you like to be in a large class. In fact, it seems to me that most of the people I know who end up at berkeley like the fact that classes are so huge, because they dont have to show up or speak up very often.</p>
<p>Actually they rarely teach ug at Harvard too.</p>
<p>well, I was just going by what I remembered from USNWR list of student/faculty ratio. harvard is 8:1, UCB is twice that, at 16:1. Of course the best are Chicago 4:1 and Caltech 3:1.
At berkeley, 54% of classes have less than 20 students, and nearly 20% have more than 50. Pretty much everyone I know whos gone there has had their first two years be pretty much all lectures of 100+ students.</p>
<p>harvard is actually the worst for that among the ivies or other top private schools (except Notre Dame, which, for some reason, is abysmal at teacher/student ratio), i just mentioned it flippantly as a random ivy.</p>
<p>I agree with westsidee. In the UK or Europe, Berkeley is absolutely famous -it has had so many great names. Northwestern is fine but it does not have the same impact and whatever field you're in name recognition opens doors..</p>
<p>TheCity, fampus professors seldom teach undergrads in small classes, be it at Harvard, Chicago or Cal.</p>
<p>Seldom, yes. But much more so at private schools than at Big publics like berk. At Chicago, every prof has to teach undergrad classes for two quarters at least every other year, and most do it more often than that. Chicago is mainly the exception though, its more of a Liberal Arts University (LAU ?) than any other top school.
But still, at places I visited such as Northwestern (at least in Medill) the top profs were teaching small sections of undergrads to a much higer extent than what is happening at berkeley. </p>
<p>We can argue over minutia of data and all for ever, but the fact remains that you will not get anywhere near as much personal attention at berkeley as you would at a private school.</p>
<p>^ Like I said before, most graduate students would rather attend a large lecture taught by a world famous professor rather than a small class taught by a TA. Cal just has so many world famous professors, at the top of their field. In every field imaginable. Its really a haven for intellectuals. And yes, even world famous econ professors at Berkeley teach Econ 1.</p>
<p>of course at berk theyd prefer the prof to a TA. but I wouldnt exactly call it "intellectual" to prefer a large class taught by a prof to a small class taught by a prof.
at chicago, something like 17% of common core (General Ed) classes are taught by TAs, at berkeley, im sure that number is much much much higher. </p>
<p>Look, obviously you have some experience at berk of seeing a famous prof and it blew you away and theres nothing i can say to change your mind about that... just keep in mind your experience may be unique, of the several dozen people i know who go to or graduated from berkeley, never once before have i heard them say a word about how great their profs are. When I visited a lot of LACs and Northwestern, practically everybody I met mentioned the professors being helpful, and incredibly renowned and intelligent as one of the main reasons why they like their school.
Everybody I ask about berkeley, (except for you, so far) says that the school is good because the degree will get them a good job. </p>
<p>My seminar class went on a "field trip" to hear David Suzuki speak (he wrote the book on genetics, and is now a famous TV educator and environmentalist)... the seminar class is supposed to be the top students in the school. About 12 of them are going to UCB/UCLA, and every single one of them was sleeping or talking during the lecture. All the people going to LACs (even places like Santa Clara) were paying attention and seemed much more interested.
Thats how i would define an intellectual. </p>
<p>maybe my high school isnt a representative sample, but i have a feeling most other high schools in the bay area that feed to berk are the same way.</p>