<p>Don't even try you guys are so biased. it's so eeeasy to get into UCB. Any fool with a good UC gpa and some nice test scores can get in.</p>
<p>It takes a REAL talented individual with amazing E.C.'s as well as flawless stats to get into Harvard (and they even reject them!).</p>
<p>They didn't reject you because you didn't even apply. You knew you weren't good enough for Harvard.</p>
<p>Um, you don't know what you're talking about. Just check out the stats of the rejected kids on the UCLA thread and times that by five. And this belongs on the other thread.</p>
<p>If I didn't have a chance at Harvard, god knows you didn't mr. gentlemanscholarly. I don't want to put you in your place but my school is ranked quite a bit above yours.</p>
<p>Harvard is more prestigious than Berkeley. Easily. </p>
<p>In general, the CC boards are heavily biased against top 20 privates.</p>
<p>well it depends...
Harvard can't beat UCB when it comes to engineering...</p>
<p>when it comes to overall prestige, Harvards beats 'em all!!</p>
<p>yes, the students are smarter at harvard but the actual quality of the academics is much higher at berkeley</p>
<p>greatesteyen how do u measure that?</p>
<p>well, i think berkeley is ranked so much lower than harvard when it comes to undergrad is because berkeley undergrads are, as a whole, not as "smart" as harvard undergrads. (test-scores wise)</p>
<p>on the other hand, berkeley is obviously better than harvard when it comes to graduate education in most fields. yes i know many people claim graduate has nothing to do with undergraduate. but the opposite is true. it has EVERYTHING to do with it. why? well because the undergrads are getting taught by the same professors who teach grads. and that's what grad rankings are-studies of overall faculty intelligence. their intelligence translates into impossible tests. (ive heard numerous stories of graduate students at berkeley who went to harvard FAILING midterms and final exams when they took them at berkeley in order to unsuccessfully "prove" the tests' fairness to undergrads-meaning berkeley's undergrads are held to very very very high standards. higher than harvard, in fact.) so, if undergrads at berkeley aren't very smart when they get here, they definetly will by the time they (hopefully) graduate. they are forced into intellectualism and EXPELLED if they fail. the berkeley movie on <a href="http://www.theu.com%5B/url%5D">www.theu.com</a> is very very very accurate for this reason.</p>
<p>dude that kinda makes no sense. </p>
<p>if berkeley is ranked so high in grad 'cause of faculty, and those same faculty teach ugrad, then.....?</p>
<p>Just 'cause berkeley is good in grad doesn't mean it has a much better faculty. Also why do you say Berkeley grad is better? Harvard has better MBA and Law school.</p>
<p>Wow...have you no knowledge of how undergrad rankings are conducted? They have almost nothing to do with faculty quality. Pretty much only grad rankings even take into consideration the faculty. Since Berkeley comes out on top in those things, it is to be acknowledged that Berkeley's overall faculty is in fact smarter than Harvard's. One of my professors at Berkeley even said he left Harvard because he wasn't happy with the strenght of his peers. He is now very happy at Berkeley. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Just 'cause berkeley is good in grad doesn't mean it has a much better faculty. Also why do you say Berkeley grad is better? Harvard has better MBA and Law school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok...this in no way detracts from my argument or augment yours. I explicitly said that I thought Berkeley had a smarter faculty, in general, than Harvard. MBA and Law are only two fields. In most of everything else (the vast majority) - Berkeley is better.</p>
<p>so how do you explain the schools with bad grad but good undergrad?</p>
<p>Stanford is the best
QED</p>
<p>duke3d4, hahahaha -- just give up. im sorry to say, (but to be completely honest) duke falls off the map/radar completely when it comes to prestige and reputation on the stage of the world. Harvard, Stanford, and UC Berkeley, on the other hand, are far more recognized and respected across the globe.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so how do you explain the schools with bad grad but good undergrad?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, schools with "good" grad and "bad" undergrad tend to be at the forefront of research. The faculty sees themselves as among the smartest people in the world. The grad students see themselves as among the world's smartest people in training. Collectively, they view the undergrads as pests keeping them from research. It should be pretty self-explanatory as to why a faculty member or graduate student whose research is absolubtely essential to the U.S. military, the understanding of World War I, or the nature of space-time should be hostile to young people who know next to nothing (comparatively) in engineering, history, or astrophysics. </p>
<p>Moreover, "good" undergrad is usually all about prestige. How do you get it? With money-lots of it. Age also helps, but it's not as crucial. Since age naturally creates history and people like history, it's not insane that they would want to go to a prestigious college with age and history (a combination which almost always breed lots and lots of money.) I might add that "good" undergrad is usually private undergrad. Public schools are naturally thought of as worse since, in general, they enroll at least 10,000 students. This is of course true to a certain extent, but not necessary as far as ACADEMICS are concerned.</p>
<p>Jhg888, that was uncalled for. Apologize immediately! :p</p>
<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/about/honors/%5B/url%5D">http://www.berkeley.edu/about/honors/</a>
<a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/about/honors/grad/%5B/url%5D">http://www.berkeley.edu/about/honors/grad/</a> :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Actually harvard and berkeley share the same peer score.</p>