<p>^ Agreed...OOS and international applicants to Cal would be much more self-selecting, IMO.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, </p>
<p>Why won't Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Caltech and the like just ask their applicants to submit their SATs scores and rank them from the highest down to their cut-off slot number? In other words, if Harvard can accommodate 1,650 freshmen every year, why won't Harvard just rank the applicant's SATs scores from the highest SAT scorer down to the 1650th scorer? Wouldn't that be an easier (and a cheaper) process for Harvard to do?</p>
<p>powergrid1990,</p>
<p>i think there have been few things being discussed here and we need to distinguish which points we are talking about.</p>
<p>my illustration was to dispute the claim that berkeley's SAT is lower because they reject disportionally large number of high scoring students when in fact the opposite happens. the real reason is the percentage of high scoring applicants is less. the top privates may put more weight on SAT <em>with respect to GPA</em> but not overall. overall, top privates seem to put less emphasis on numbers, be it GPA or SAT. however, because high percentage of applicants have high test scores anyway, the top privates end up with a student body with high test scores in spite of, not because of, their less emphasis on numbers. whether test score is a better measure than GPA is irrelevant and is a separate issue.</p>
<p>I am going to take a stab at this from another direction. One can argue all one wants about the relative strength of undergraduate student bodies and the selectivity that went into the process of choosing them. That is a consuming passion of folks on CC I have noticed. But at the level of NU and Berkeley, it is not really going to matter all that much, IMO. I know for a fact that Berkeley and Northwestern is full of extremely intelligent undergrads. Certainly Berkeley's faculty is absolutely world-class in the areas mentioned, and NU's must be solid, so for an undergrad not interested in post-baccalaureate study, I imagine these differences of selectivity and student body aren't going to matter a lot no matter which way they play.</p>
<p>I would look at cultural issues. NU has always seemed fairly bland to me, plain vanilla. It's close a great city, Chicago, to be sure. But as I understand it, NU is outside of Chicago. It's its own place. And from what I know, it seems pretty dull. That's not to say it's not a good school. It has never resonated with me in terms of its culture.</p>
<p>Berkeley, on the other hand, is a vastly more interesting place, IMO. First of all, in terms of reputation, it's a more intellectual place and definitely overall more of an intellectual center. I don't think I've ever heard NU and intellectualism in the same breath. Berkeley has its "hippy-dippy"ness, but it's also just an incredibly beautiful campus, particularly if one avoids the south of campus, which is the main entrance that people always see and often conclude represents the totality of the campus. Don't confuse the city Berkeley with the university there. The beauty of the Berkeley campus on a warm Fall or Spring day/evening is nearly unparalleled by any university I have seen. And I know, there are going to be a lot of people who saw Lower Sproul plaza and Telegraph avenue and determined the campus was ugly. Go look at the North of campus and the East of campus and the West as well as the South. </p>
<p>Berkeley is distant enough from San Francisco that one can't really claim there is any direct milieu or overlap, but San Francisco is a beautiful city, no doubt. Personally, I prefer overall Chicago attitude, but San Francisco has a beauty that is amazing and it is one of the US' really special cities. Chicago's gorgeous qualities which are manifold aren't really on the same level as San Francisco's, as any guide to the world's beautiful and/or most liveable cities would tell you.</p>
<p>Though CC and people on the East Coast often don't know it or wouldn't tell you -- they live in a parochial world often though they think they represent the whole world -- the Bay Area is one of the most amazingly vibrant urban areas in the country and frankly outpaces that of Chicago which has seen its economic zenith long since -- and really outpaces large swaths of the East Coast. For the person coming out of college with an undergrad degree, if one wants to experience what puts the Bay Area at the cutting edge, go to Berkeley. Otherwise, if you are insistent on being in Illinois, go to UIUC, which at the very least has done quite well in sending folks to Silicon Valley to be successful.</p>
<p>Berkeley is an intellectual mecca in all fields and particularly in engineering. British Petroleum gave Berkeley $500 million to help foster biofuels refinement and creation after a competition that included rivals MIT, Cambridge U. in the UK, and other universities. Lots of interesting internship possibilities there.</p>
<p>Berkeley is one of the world's great universities -- while NU is one of the nation's very competent higher ed. institutions. There are amazing things happening at this university, and frankly, while that can be said to some extent of NU, NU doesn't have the tradition of Nobel Laureates, MacArthur Prize winners, National Academy of Science Winners, etc. that put Berkeley's overall faculty on a par or above with MIT, Stanford, etc. in engineering and sciences and with Stanford, Harvard, Yale in the Arts.</p>
<p>Now these are about cultural issues and broad reputational issues. But those are important and ultimately, I think what matter. </p>
<p>What must be concluded is that I have a pro-Berkeley bias. I put that right out there. And I have made statements which I expect others will criticize or mock and they should do that -- or at least can do that. But if they do it, they should offer better reasons than median SAT scores in my opinion. </p>
<p>NU: dullsville. Plain vanilla. Bland. Boring. You want to see an America that is manifestly something quite different than Britain and interesting and not just a suburban school that churns out nice, well-rounded people? Go to Berkeley.</p>
<p>And definitely go to visit both and decide for yourself.</p>
<p>Oh, and NU being a private school, is likely to provide more of a service mentality in your day-to-day dealings with the university. If this is really important to you and the other things are less important, go to NU.</p>
<p>^ I guess that makes Stanford/Palo Alto dull and vanilla as well.</p>
<p>^ You said it, not me. But whether or not this is true, Stanford is certainly a great world university.</p>
<p>^ No one is disputing that. </p>
<p>But (according to you), it's a great world university that's dull and vanilla.</p>
<p>"Berkeley is one of the world's great universities -- while NU is one of the nation's very competent higher ed. institutions."</p>
<p>That is a pretty ridiculous statement. According to that logic, all of those Californians at Northwestern must have been rejected at Cal. I highly doubt that is the case.</p>
<p>Calling Northwestern a highly competent school and calling Cal some magnificent world-class institution for some reason just seems to oppose conventional wisdom. If Cal was such an amazing UNDERGRAD university, then why is its pre-med rate into medical school and law school for that matter much lower than some of its private peers. Its endowment pales in comparison to some of the privates and even to other publics, such as Michigan. I think people are equating graduate program strength with undergraduate strength. I think a PhD from Cal is much more "prestigious" than simply a BA.</p>
<p>BedHead,</p>
<p>Thanks for making this thread even more opinionated. Campus beauty, San Francisco, culture (wow.. you know so much about Chicago to judge it)...any other subjective comparison you want to bring? What you said about intellectualism IS GRADUATE RANKING. If Berkeley undergrad is so intellectual, then I don't know why their football/basketball athletes consistently have some of the lowest graduation rate and nobody said anything about it. A really intellectual institution would have done what UChicago did long time ago. Also if it's so much more intellectual, why don't higher percenrtage of undergrads win prestigious fellowships? Engineering and business, the most frequently discussed programs when it comes to Berkeley, are more preprofessional rather than "intellectual", imo. </p>
<p>
[quote]
British Petroleum gave Berkeley $500 million to help foster biofuels refinement and creation after a competition that included rivals MIT, Cambridge U. in the UK, and other universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So did Princeton win any large research award lately? It's graduate ranking in engineering isn't really all that different from Northwestern's. So does that make it less intellectual? Maybe you should transfer to Berkeley. I guess schools like Duke and Dartmouth must all be just "very competent higher ed institutions".</p>
<p>
[quote]
But (according to you), it's a great world university that's dull and vanilla.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't confuse the issue. I wasn't talking about Stanford. I was talking about NU. NU does not equal Stanford. </p>
<p>
[quote]
That is a pretty ridiculous statement. According to that logic, all of those Californians at Northwestern must have been rejected at Cal. I highly doubt that is the case.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you're not really reading what I said. I would never make the statement that you said about Californians at Northwestern and imputing such a statement to me is pretty ridiculous. My point is that both schools have a lot of really smart people on the undergrad level. I wouldn't make this a huge point of comparison or relative value.</p>
<p>I would look at broad cultural, taste, and reputational issues.</p>
<p>Sure, Berkeley's endowment isn't that great, particularly if you count it on a per-capita basis. It's what -- a mere $4 billion or something like that? I know, I know Stanford has 4 or 5 times that. Uh, FYI, $4 billion makes Berkeley and the bottom of a pretty stratospheric echelon and, by the way, doesn't include a medical school. If you added UCSF into the mix -- which is effectively Berkeley's med school -- it is substantially higher and med schools do skew results.</p>
<p>I think all this is really beside the point. The PhD from Cal is certainly more prestigious than a BA, but a PhD from Northwestern is certainly less prestigious than one from Berkeley in just about any subject. Again, all this is really beside the point. The engineering degree from one or math degree from the other will be quite substantial; educationally, the guy will be fine with either one.</p>
<p>The point is: what does the guy want and like? IMO -- which is my opinion -- Berkeley just has a lot more going on. This may defy conventional wisdom and various readings of US News rankings, but it is the most likely set of issues to ultimately matter to the poster. Berkeley's simply cooler and more happening.</p>
<p>And if people have more interesting things to counter my opinion with, they should put them out there.</p>
<p>Again, though, most importantly: the OP's cousin should get on the road and see which one he likes better. One man's cooler and more happening is another man's way too liberal for me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
any other subjective comparison you want to bring?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sam, I'm glad you understand what I was doing. There is not a formula for this guy. It's about fit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess schools like Duke and Dartmouth must all be just "very competent higher ed institutions".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, don't confuse the issue. I didn't bring up Duke and Dartmouth. Or Princeton for that matter.</p>
<p>One more thing, if Berkeley undergrad is so intellectual, why don't higher percerntage of them go to grad schools. Actually why would they even have a undergrad business program to begin with anyway. Your opinion has no basis.</p>
<p>Hehe. Pretty much the consensus on CC is that where you go to graduate school is more important than where you go for undergrad. So, since Cal is the top graduate school in the world, with respect to its breadth of programs, Cal is a better school...look at the "PEER ASSESSMENT" score...Cal is 4.8 and Northwestern is 4.3.</p>
<p>In an academic's view, Cal's peers are:
Harvard (4.9)
Princeton (4.9)
Stanford (4.9)
MIT (4.9)
Yale (4.8)
Berkeley (4.8)
Caltech (4.7)</p>
<p>Northwestern's peers are:
U Penn (4.5)
Michigan (4.5)
Duke (4.4)
Brown (4.4)
Northwestern (4.3)
Dartmouth (4.3)
U Virginia (4.3)</p>
<p>Cal is on the HYPSM level, while Northwestern is associated with the lower Ivies and other top publics...;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, don't confuse the issue. I didn't bring up Duke and Dartmouth. Or Princeton for that matter
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL! The only reason that I could confuse the issue is because your points about Northwestern vs Berkeley apply well to other schools. For example:
[quote]
The PhD from Cal is certainly more prestigious than a BA, but a PhD from Northwestern (Duke, Dartmouth, and Brown...etc) is certainly less prestigious than one from Berkeley in just about any subject.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>BedHead,</p>
<p>But thanks for successfully diverting attention to other highly subjective areas instead of the discussion about admission. Well, at least some of the myth about Berkeley admission was OBJECTIVELY exposed and I could see how you didn't like this thread would end this way.</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad,</p>
<p>Damn graduate programs! ;)</p>
<p>Sam, Northwestern is a great school. College decisions are always subjective.
It's analogous to why there are different types of cars...different strokes for different folks.</p>
<p>But, just another subjective jab...I was looking at another thread on university images.<br>
Which looks better?</p>
<p>Northwestern Arch: <a href="http://www.mstp.northwestern.edu/images/NU_arch_autumn.gif%5B/url%5D">http://www.mstp.northwestern.edu/images/NU_arch_autumn.gif</a></p>
<p>Berkeley's Sather Gate:
<a href="http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/f/fe/Sather-Gate.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/f/fe/Sather-Gate.jpg</a></p>
<p>Northwestern Rock:
Picasa</a> Web Albums - Sean - Northwestern</p>
<p>Berkeley Founder's Rock:
<a href="http://berkeleyheritage.com/berkeley_landmarks/images/UC_campus/Founders_Rock.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://berkeleyheritage.com/berkeley_landmarks/images/UC_campus/Founders_Rock.jpg</a></p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>I am sorry but in my opinion, around 80-90 percent of students outside of CA and Michigan would choose to go to Northwestern or CAL or UMichigan respectively. For undergraduate education, I do not even think the schools see themselves as being superior to some of the top privates, i.e. Duke or Northwestern.</p>
<p>^ucbchemEgrad,</p>
<p>of course i agree with that. but that doesn't make saying things like berkeley (undergrad) is more intellectual is correct. it's like me saying northwestern is more intellectual than uchicago. lol! </p>
<p>i like northwestern's arch but berkeley's rock better. ;) what about you?</p>
<p>oh by the way, if you live in san francisco, you'd better not be the kind of intellectuals that despise pursuit of money. why? if you don't make 6 figures, good luck in finding a place to RENT without living paycheck by paycheck! bedhead, before you use the word "liveable", make sure you take the cost of living into consideration.</p>
<p>
[quote]
like northwestern's arch but berkeley's rock better. what about you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sather Gate >>> Northwestern Arch
Northwestern Rock = Founders Rock</p>
<p>how many coats of paint are on that thing?</p>