<p>
[quote]
oh dear, 7:1 vs 15.5:1 means double the ratio. NU has 14k students while berkeley has over 33k students. of course nu doesn't have 4,000 professors cos that would make the ratio become 3.5:1 and nobody was saying that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When I said "I highly, highly doubt that NU has 4,000 professors," it was in response to what elsijfdl said in parenthesis: "yes, northwestern has more than double the professors." Berkeley has just over 2,000 faculty. Thus, NU would need more than 4,000 faculty to have 2x+ what Berkeley does. I doubted that NU has 4,000+ faculty; I was right.</p>
<p>(I'm well aware of how ratios work, thanks.)</p>
<p>I assure you students at both Northwestern and Cal are too busy living their lives to the fullest to give a crap about a debate about this, so stop wasting your time. In fact, never once have I heard these two schools compared, and I'm pretty sure neither school considers each other a peer in anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
powergrid1990:</p>
<p>it is a dumping ground for Harvard rejects
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well I wouldn't say the 91% (EDIT: that is, about 20680 students) of top students who don't get into Harvard go into college thinking their trash to be dumped at schools like Duke, Northwestern, Cornell or Johns Hopkins. In fact, most of us excel in what we pursue, and none of these institutions fall short to meet our needs. So while I believe you are entitled to your enthusiasm for Cal, there's no need in degrading someone else's alma mater like that. Have a little decency.</p>
<p>Honestly, though, I'm very sorry that your cousin is being fed opinion as biased as yours. It's a shame.</p>
<p>"Cal cannot be said to be the same because Cal has its own clientele/market and very few Cal aspirants have applied to Harvard or have really considered of going to Harvard."</p>
<p>I could have not said it better. Most of the kids at Cal do not think their stats could get them into Harvard let alone a place like JHU or Cornell.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cal cannot be said to be the same because Cal has its own clientele/market and very few Cal aspirants have applied to Harvard or have really considered of going to Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd disagree on that. Many of the students at Cal applied to other top schools (some accepted, some rejected) -- UCLA, Stanford, Caltech, etc. and also non-CA schools like U Chicago, Penn, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the kids at Cal do not think their stats could get them into Harvard let alone a place like JHU or Cornell.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You seem to be implying that JHU and Cornell are more selective than Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I assure you students at both Northwestern and Cal are too busy living their lives to the fullest to give a crap about a debate about this, so stop wasting your time. In fact, never once have I heard these two schools compared, and I'm pretty sure neither school considers each other a peer in anyway
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the most important point on this whole bloody thread. How many people seriously have these two schools next to one another on their short lists? Northwestern is a great school. Berkeley is a great school. I prefer Berkeley for some subjective reasons I said above, and I was hoping that someone who preferred NW would debate my subjective assertions that Berkeley is a much more happening place.</p>
<p>The point is fit is key -- and these are not typically close at all to being "perfect substitutes", to use the economic term.</p>
<p>I find it silly that this thread devolves into a debate about ranking the attractiveness of the schools on the basis of average scores of undergrad matriculants. What a stupid, boring, uninformative discussion about schools in the echelon of NU and Berkeley. Not one of these types of posts capture the huge differences between these schools -- outside of the classroom. They are just a ranking ****ing contest.</p>
<p>How do you know Berkeley is a much more happening place when you haven't even spent more than a week at NU (or have you even been there before?)?</p>
<p>I am actually not clear what you meant by "happening". If you meant larger number of people and therefore larger number of clubs/events, then Berkeley is more happening than NU, which is then more happening than places like Princeton. I guess you don't need to spend anytime at NU to know that. ;)</p>
<p>If you are talking about research activity, then I don't know how you can even tell the difference without sorting through all the diffferent projects each school is conducting, let alone conclude one is "much more" happening. I bet you were looking at either the graduate ranking or NSF research expenditure and in that sense, aren't you looking at ranking also? </p>
<p>Just so you know, NU faculty has been pretty active in winning prestigious awards in recent years. You mentioned MacArthur Fellowship winners and NU had winners in 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007 but before 2003, they had a winner in 1996 and another one in 1980s or something so you are right that they didn't have the tradition but they are definitely one of the rising stars. In 2005, they had 6 winners for Sloan Fellowships. Two years ago, two faculty members received National Medal of Science. In 2004, 10 faculty members were elected to Academy of Arts and Sciences and NU was ranked second in the number of fellows elected that year. NU also has one of the top-10 nanotech research centers and the chemistry department jumped from 14th in 2000 or so to 9th in the latest ranking. These examples seem to indicate NU has been rapidly improving in getting many leading experts and researchers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How do you know Berkeley is a much more happening place when you haven't even spent more than a week in NU (or have you even been there before?)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Been there three times, not totaling a week though.</p>
<p>Cool. Northwestern is a damned good school and clearly very productive. It's just incredibly different from Berkeley. I think the conversation has really spent itself.</p>
<p>you mentioned how the privates "illegally" count the number of faculty. just so you know, the number of faculty in NU's CDS EXCLUDE those in law, med, and business schools. on the other hand, i think berkeley's number includes law AND business schools though you can argue they have an undergrad business program; but i am not sure how many of them actually teach undergrad classes. in addition, the ratio of instructional faculty that are part-time is 1 in 4 at berkeley whereas at nu, it's 1 in 6.</p>
<p>Berkeley also has graduate schools of education, information, journalism, optometry, public health, public policy, and social welfare. wow..that's SEVEN schools and together with the law school, how many faculty members are we counting there? it's interesting how you seem to be so good at picking the alleged manipulation of privates while seemingly clueless about this huge one for berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was hoping that someone who preferred NW would debate my subjective assertions that Berkeley is a much more happening place
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, for what it's worth, I'm one of the many Californian kids here at Northwestern who chose NU over Berkeley, personally for it's location and what it has to offer. And so far, I haven't had a moment of regret except for the first day it got ridiculously cold outside.
Academically I'm not going to say something as far-fetched as "NU is world-renowned university, Cal is just one of our nation's finest." As a matter of fact, I think they're both great schools to spend four years of the best time of your life studying hard and enjoying a great environment. You put it like the adjective "happening" is exclusive to Berkeley, California, but I assure you, you can't know until you've been here.
The location of this campus has a lot to offer. In past years, we've had famous artists and bands play ON campus (i.e. Kanye West, Lupe Fiasco, Cake), and in the ONE quarter I've been here so far, we've also had bands like OK Go and Lifehouse on campus. Sure Northwestern is somewhat lacking in activism which is what Berkeley is known for, but also in the past quarter, I've seen students outside almost every night guarding our famous Rock so that they can paint it to promote various causes. And Stephen Colbert has been known to stir things up a bit when he visits. Downtown Evanston IS also called the "Dining Capital of the North Shore" for all of the little bistros and restaurants just across the street from the South Campus dorms. People come from Chicago to eat here. If you ever do, I'd visit Tapas Barcelona when they have live music and dance.</p>
<p>On top of it all, the Second City is a free-shuttle ride away on weekdays and a 2-buck EL train ride on the weekends. You say it's hard to get to, but in the past quarter I've been to Chicago, at the very least, twice a month. As a matter of fact, in the past week, I've been to an exhibition at the Chicago Art Museum and gone ice skating in Millennium Park with a group of friends. The city skyline reflected across the Chicago Bean right above the ice rink is pretty mind-blowing, I've gotta say.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. It only becomes bigger when you count the whole bay area but I don't really feel that many people think San Mateo, Oakland, or even Berkeley make SF itself more happening. I went to Berkeley sometime but when I told my friends I went there, they would be like "what's there?". I do prefer SF's mild weather though. There are a lot of beautiful areas surrounding SF if you are into outdoors (you need a car though) but if you are more into urban stuff, SF can be kinda small.</p>
<p>
[quote]
just so you know, the number of faculty in NU's CDS EXCLUDE those in law, med, and business schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know. NU often advertises figures including them -- some 2,500 faculty, on literature they send out, etc. They then use total faculty in determining undergraduate student:faculty ratio. It's deceptive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
on the other hand, i think berkeley's number includes law AND business schools though you can argue they have an undergrad business program
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You think. Why not just look it up? 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."</p>
<p>
[quote]
in addition, the ratio of instructional faculty that are part-time is 1 in 4 at berkeley whereas at nu, it's 1 in 6.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's why you adjust for it with 1/3 of the part time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
lol, you would have a hard time even making the case that cal is better than usc, let alone northwestern
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That one's pretty easy, and your flagrant bashing of Berkeley on the other thread is transparent.</p>
<p>"Cal cannot be said to be the same because Cal has its own clientele/market and very few Cal aspirants have applied to Harvard or have really considered of going to Harvard."</p>
<p>I could have not said it better. Most of the kids at Cal do not think their stats could get them into Harvard let alone a place like JHU or Cornell.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>WRONG. </p>
<p>The reason being is demographic. Harvard and NU attract the same market segmentation. Both schools are located in the same hemisphere (East Coast). Both schools are vying to be number one (although it's clear that H is unbeatable.) But we can also observe that NU is doing it can to grab top-notched students but often end up getting the rejects. </p>
<p>Cal, on the other hand, does not compete with the same market, IN GENERAL. To some extent, it does, but only to a lesser extent. Cal's number one market is the Californian residents -- the best of best of California. So, even if the best students in other states don't apply to Cal, Cal's strong student body would remain intact and its reputation is still upheld. </p>
<p>Let me give you an example. Let's use South Korea to better illustrate to you my point. </p>
<p>I know not too many bright Korean students (in Korea) don't get into Harvard. But that's because not too many bright Korean students apply to Harvard too. Most of them go to Seoul National University -- the "Harvard' of Korea. These talented students do NOT apply to Harvard because they think it's not the place for them to be. SOME of them do actually have the stats to get into HYPSM+Berkeley&Caltech (or as bright as those Harvard students), but they just don't apply to HYPSM+Berkeley&Caltech for several reasons -- distance, comfort, orientation, culture, environment, and most importantly, COST. However, that is not to say that those top Korean students are less competitive academically than those HYPSM+Berkeley&Caltech students. Not at all. But as to which school is more prestigious? Of course, the HYPSM+Berkeley&Caltech are the more prestigious schools.</p>