<p>"Not so, like I said, I personally know of 2 people who are both California residents and who had gotten into Harvard, and Berkeley and when they looked at their financial aid packages, found out that Harvard was actually cheaper, because Harvard offered them a true full ride"</p>
<p>My MIT HMC packages where better than UCB and UCLA packages even after Honors scholarship. only by a few grand but still better.</p>
<p>Sakky - Regarding Richard Li, he went to Stanfurd, but didn't end up graduating. He complained of the racism and how it hindered his mental development there at the time way back when. </p>
<p>So he sent his son to Berkeley. Ever wonder why?</p>
<p>2bad4u, your simple answer is wrong, but it is simple.</p>
<p>last time I checked UCB has more students than the private schools and has to accept a certain amount of JC students</p>
<p>Sakky, we all know "some people" who did this or that, but the fact is that most people are good enough to get into harvard and poor enough for a full ride will likewise get a full ride from Cal. Either way, I don't really think it matters. Facts are facts: people are always going to think Harvard is better than Cal. Always. And I don't mind because Harvard is the most well known and prestigious school in the world.</p>
<p>Another issue to consider is whether it's the mission of a state school--even a very good, extremely prestigious one--to be the number one ranked undergraduate school in the country. </p>
<p>(Whether this is an issue for the graduate school is a different issue).</p>
<p>Westsidee, then you have to ask, if Richard Li really hated Stanford so much, then why did he lie about having a Stanford degree? It seems to me that if you really don't like a school, you wouldn't go around saying that you are a graduate from that school, and you certainly wouldn't go around FALSELY saying you are a graduate from that school. Would you? So ask yourself why he did that. Ever wonder why?</p>
<p>And to conor, I ask, what is the definition of a 'full ride'. A "full ride" means different things to different schools. In the case of Harvard, a "full ride" is a true full ride - in the sense that it is all grants. In the case of Berkeley, a "full ride" can easily mean a large dollop of work-study, low-interest loans. expected payments from summer earnings, and so forth. Sure, both are full rides in the sense that none require any parental cash contributions. But we both know that they are quite different in reality. Why go to Berkeley on a work-study/loan/required-summer-employment package when you can go to Harvard and not incur any of those obligations? Would you? </p>
<p>And I would ask - are you saying it is inevitable that people will always think Harvard is better than Cal forever? If so, why? That sounds very defeatist to me. I don't think there is anything inevitable about it. I believe that one day, Cal could be better known than Harvard. At any rate, I think it should at least try.</p>
<p>Why are people going to continue to think Harvard is better than Cal? Because its the oldest and most world renowned. Cal will always be a couple hundred years younger with a whole lot less prestige. I think everone is aware of the fact that a public school will never be seen as better than Harvard. Do I think that's right? No, but read some of these posts and find me people (other than those that went to cal or mich. or UVA) that think publics are as good as privates.</p>
<p>Cal may always be a couple hundred years younger, but Stanford is even younger than Cal, and if there is one school that I can see surpassing Harvard anytime soon, it would be Stanford. The point is that youth is not an excuse. Berkeley was founded in 1868. Stanford was founded in 1891. Yet, which one would you rather go to for undergrad, if money was not an object?</p>
<p>And I am afraid that I refuse to believe that a public school will never be seen as better than Harvard. "Never" is a strong word. I can conceive of a day and age where people see Berkeley as better than Harvard. Not right now, of course, but it could happen. </p>
<p>Look, I'll put it to you this way. In most countries in the world, it is the public universities that are considered to be superior to the private universities. It is true in France, in Germany, in Italy, in Japan, in China, in Australia, etc. Even in the UK, Ox-bridge are basically quasi-public schools (in the sense that the British government heavily subsidizes the tuition of all British citizens to Ox-bridge). The point is, there is nothing inevitable about a public school being worse than a private school.</p>
<p>Stanfurd will never surpass Harvard. At least not in public opinion. And I'm not talking about what is "better," I'm talking about what people believe is better. For me, Cal might be the best fit, which would make it the best school in the world for me. For you, maybe harvard would be best, or stanfurd, or sdsu...who knows? Like it or not, the general public decides what the best school is. For example, look at some of these LACs. In the acedemic world people look at them as some of the best schools out there, but because nobody knows about them they will never be seen as in the same class as Harvard or even Cal for that matter.</p>
<p>Conor, you're right, it's all a matter of public opinion. But the point is that public opinion changes. As I have stated in other threads, it wasn't that long ago (only 2-3 generations) when Stanford was considered to be a backwater school of little consequence. Now it is considered one of the world's premier schools.</p>
<p>I would also look at Harvard. It wasn't always considered to be the best school in the world. Heck, even as late as the world wars, the consensus best school in the eyes of the people of the world would probably have been Oxford, with Cambridge a close second. </p>
<p>The point is, things change. Harvard didn't always rule the world, either in reality or in public opinion.</p>