<p>^ Right. Thanks for that. But I simplified the whole thing and divided the whole country by two -- East and West. I bundled IL and MA since IL is nearer than MA than it is to CA. I could be wrong. I'm sorry. :D </p>
<p>But from my "little" experience, it takes longer to travel from IL to CA than from IL to MA. :D</p>
<p>Nonetheless, NU and H do try to pull from the same market segmentation. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the CDS I linked to, it says that the figure "exclude[s] both faculty and students in stand-alone graduate or professional programs such as medicine, law, veterinary, dentistry, social work, business, or public health in which faculty teach virtually only graduate-level students."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh geez, are we not talking about schools not following CDS's instruction here? You pointed out NU used only undergrad population to fill their CDS and I pointed out Berkeley used the number of all faculty to fill their CDS. Sir, I don't know how to make this more obvious. What you actually need to do is to verify the number of faculty members listed on Berkeley CDS actually excludes those in graduate schools. But to make this easy, I've already done this for you:
<a href="http://metrics.vcbf.berkeley.edu/calstats.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://metrics.vcbf.berkeley.edu/calstats.pdf</a> shows the figure on Berkeley CDS includes faculty in graduate schools. </p>
<p>They both manipulate, just in different ways. One more thing, NU never used undergrad population AND 2500 faculty at the same time to determine its student:faculty, like you seemingly implied because that would otherwise make it 3:1.</p>
<p>You pointed out NU manipulated their data but didn't bother to check Berkeley's figures. When I pointed out Berkeley manipulated their data too, you responded with one of the CDS instructions (lol!). The kind of bias you've shown for Berkeley is astonishing, considering you don't even go there; I apologized for mistaking you as a Berkeley student/grad but you've been acting and writing like one on CC, not just on this thread; I guess it must be your <em>dream</em> school then.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, I don't go to Cal, not yet, and I admit it is my dream school. Is that a bad thing?</p>
<p>not at all. it's a very good school to aim for. but unlike you, kyledavid isn't in HS. so it's a different sort of "dream". ;)</p>
<p>powergrid, I'll illustrate the ignorance of your comment for you:
EO</a> Newsroom: New Images - United States Population Density
<a href="http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images/2k_night.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images/2k_night.jpg</a></p>
<p>Get it now?</p>
<p>^maybe powergrid was thinking northEastern university in Boston. :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
But from my "little" experience, it takes longer to travel from IL to CA than from IL to MA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's true...like 4 hours vs 2 hours.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Northwestern is a great place to be, and to top it off, is also a great school with a strong academic "reputation" too, especially in Chicagoland, for those of you who base your life on it. Yes, so is Berkeley, but it's a whole different place culturally. It really is up to your taste, but you wanted a debate on cultural happening so there you go.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very well put. That's what I was looking for -- and whatever I may have said, I think NU is a superb school. I just think such a picture as you painted -- backed up by an all-important visit to both campuses -- is what someone would need to choose between two top-flight, and exceedingly different, campuses. And for someone from California, particularly Northern California, I would recommend that unless they have a strong preference in the other direction, he/she should pick Northwestern over Berkeley for undergrad for the simple reason that it is different (at a superlative level of quality) and different is good. That was one factor underlying my point to the British guy wanting to come to the States; Berkeley is bound to be a greater difference from Britain than is Northwestern, IMO. There were other factors too, but that was a central one. Certainly that's a debatable point itself.</p>
<p>But comparisons between ave. SAT scores of the classes superscored or not, number of professors, ratios, etc. is in my mind a smallish part of what should go into this decision, especially since one is talking about two great schools where the guy couldn't go wrong academically.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To me, Chicago is actually a more happening place than San Francisco. I lived in SF for 3 years and I was bored sometime because it's really a small city.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For city-like fun, Chicago >>> San Francisco
For beauty, SF >>>> Chicago
For outdoors accessibility and fun, SF Bay Area >>>> Chicago area
For numbers of fun people Chicago >>>> SF
For economic opportunity in engineering/tech/innovation areas, SF Bay Area >>>> Chicago
For the future: SF >>> Chicago
For adventures in unconventional living: SF >>> Chicago</p>
<p>I think all this is fairly irrelevant, though. The comparison should be Berkeley vs. Evanston for general liveability during college and SF Bay Area vs. Chicago Area for economic opps during school and after graduation, IMO. Though of course one could move from one region to another post-graduation or for summertime internships.</p>
<p>Enough.</p>
<p>Sam-Yah, but if you counted by people flown over, NU is a LOT closer to the west coast than to the East ;)</p>
<p>And BedHead- well said!</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the future: SF >>> Chicago
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ouch! Is Chicago in crisis? ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you actually need to do is to verify the number of faculty members listed on Berkeley CDS actually excludes those in graduate schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is so difficult to understand, Sam Lee? What I quoted was directly from the CDS. It states, directly, what is and isn't included -- faculty in stand-alone grad programs (such as business or law, as you said) are not included. Notice that in the ratio, only 1,928 (of the 2,047) are counted; I suspect that the discrepancy is due to the faculty that teach only grad students (e.g. in law/business schools).</p>
<p>
[quote]
NU never used undergrad population AND 2500 faculty at the same time to determine its student:faculty, like you seemingly implied because that would otherwise make it 3:1.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never implied that. What I said is that NU uses all faculty and undergraduate students in its ratio. When it advertises, it claims it has even more faculty (e.g., 2500). Two separate issues, you see.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You pointed out NU manipulated their data but didn't bother to check Berkeley's figures. When I pointed out Berkeley manipulated their data too, you responded with one of the CDS instructions (lol!).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NU's disregard for the instructions is obvious; it has a lot more than 7,000 total students. Whether Berkeley is ignoring the instructions isn't so obvious, because the # faculty in the ratio seems reasonable (i.e. taking out mainly law/business faculty, etc.).</p>
<p>Believe me, I checked Berkeley's figures too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But you've been acting and writing like one on CC, not just on this thread; I guess it must be your <em>dream</em> school then.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I will give credit where credit is due; if someone attempts to say that NU > Berkeley when it obviously isn't true, I'll correct it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but unlike you, kyledavid isn't in HS. so it's a different sort of "dream".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have never said before whether I'm a student of Berkeley, or Stanford, or hell, even NU, or even a HS student.</p>
<p>^you should look up the numbers more carefully before opening your mouth. you just showed you know very little about berkeley. law/business? what about the other gradaute schools? do you know they have those? don't blame you if you don't since you don't go to berkeley. but if you are going be so pro-berkeley, make sure you know it at least better than i do (lol!). at least the pro-NU crowd here actually go/went to NU. if it's not obvious, don't assume and go research it instead.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But comparisons between ave. SAT scores of the classes superscored or not, number of professors, ratios, etc. is in my mind a smallish part of what should go into this decision, especially since one is talking about two great schools where the guy couldn't go wrong academically.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>BedHead, I agree and I am sorry if I seemed to say otherwise. I've been just disputing people's claim that Berkeley test score and faculty:ratio are no different from NU or other top privates if the privates didn't "manipulate" their data (the evil privates vs innocent publics talk..lol).</p>
<p>
[quote]
you should look up the numbers more carefully before opening your mouth. you just showed you know very little about berkeley. law/business? what about the other gradaute schools? do you know they have those?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm very well aware, thanks. Notice that I said: "grad programs (such as [indicating that the following is part of a larger set] business or law" and "e.g. [meaning 'for example'] in law/business schools." I was talking about business/law since you had indicated those. Unfortunately the figures don't go into that much depth in order to make definite conclusions. You seem to like to make it appear as though I'm being ignorant of something, when it really just shows you have difficulty with interpretation here (lol!).</p>
<p>Regardless, faculty:student ratios too don't tell us so much; it'd be better to look at class sizes, but even there, Berkeley doesn't release its subsections info (which are as important as the class sizes), so the comparison isn't so easy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've been just disputing people's claim that Berkeley test score and faculty:ratio are no different from NU or other top privates if the privates didn't "manipulate" their data
[/quote]
</p>
<p>the people on these forums who support berkeley pose some of the most asinine claims i've ever been witness to in my life. it's not just in this thread, it's all the time. there's no use arguing with them, they come out of the woodwork of northern california and live in a world of self-denial. let them have it.</p>
<p>kyledavid80,</p>
<p>let me give you some pointers:
1. berkeley's law school alone has over 120 faculty members. that alone is more than the difference between 2047 and 1928.
2. is 1545 + 483 = 2028 pretty close to 2047?
3. why isn't 1928 equal to 1545 + 483 <em>(1/3)? *manipulation</em>?
4. what would the result be if berkeley manipulates the data differently and in exactly the same way northwestern did? i.e. to exclude all the faculty in prof/graduate schools AND the graduate students. would this end up closing or widening the existing gap? i am fairly confident the result will reflect the latter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the people on these forums who support berkeley pose some of the most asinine claims i've ever been witness to in my life. it's not just in this thread, it's all the time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>maybe partly because some of them don't actually go there? :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
For beauty, SF >>>> Chicago
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bedhead:</p>
<p>I promise, Chicago's beauty is horribly underrated.</p>
<p>Because of the nicknames that have been perpetuated to describe Chicago (i.e. the Windy City or the Second City), people often think of it as just an overgrown, unkempt, and icy city. It is cold, I won't argue with that. But the cold adds to the beauty of the city: an icy blue ocean-like lakefront, Christmas lights on Michigan avenue with snow, and ice-skating right below the Bean in Millennium Park. The city skyline is a perfect symmetry that bows inward; it's hard to imagine how they ended up creating such an organized skyline. And the Chicago River runs through the downtown area giving rise to a bunch of nice riverside cafes and restaurants. The architecture is always amazing whenever I walk from the El stop in the Magnificent Mile (the shopping district) all the way down to the Art Institute of Chicago; it's a very natural mixture of new and old, (Gothic skyscrapers like the Chicago Tribune Building and the Wrigley Building to modern buildings like the Sears tower and Hancock Center). And what's best is seeing the city skyline reflect on the ginormous bean shaped Chicago Cloudegate. Millennium Park is like no other park, Lollapalooza is held in the outdoor stage in the park every year and in the summer, you'll see little kids playing in the crown fountain, with the huge water shooting LCD pillars that projects random faces of Chicago residents on them.</p>
<p>I grew up in San Jose, and my whole extended family lives in the Bay Area so I've seen SF like a native, and it's beautiful. But I'm frankly much more in love with Chicago, and SF personally falls VERY short when it comes to comparison to a city like Chicago. So as someone who's seen it all:</p>
<p>For Beauty, Chicago >>>> SF</p>
<p>For Beauty (wilderness/nature), SF > Chicago
For Beauty (architecture/skyline), Chicago > SF</p>
<p>For economic opportunity in finance/investment banking, Chicago > SF</p>
<p>^ Yes, Chicago has seasons. IMO, it's also one of the cleanest cities I've ever visited. Chicago's architecture trumps San Fran's for skyline comparisons. It's nice that it sits on the water of Lake Michigan...very blue. </p>
<p>But, no comparison to San Francisco can really be made. San Francisco sits in one of the world's most spectacular settings. Bridges across the bay, the hills, fog, Golden Gate Park and Transamerica Pyramid are beautiful.</p>
<p>^ fog comes with the cool air and i hate it when i feel cold in july/august; to be fair, i hate chicago's winter too.</p>
