Berkeley vs. Private College

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
61

<p>IMO, HMC will be more personalized, Berkeley will probably allow you to be much more individualistic in your learning. I'd say Cal will be tougher, but the degree, especially from their engineering program, is also more highly regarded nationally and internationally. HMC is a great school too of course, but Cal is a little more founded, if you know what I mean. Outside of the classroom, I'd give Berkeley the definite edge, as they have a ton of school spirit, big-time concerts, etc. Plus, the town of Berkeley offers more than the area around HMC. </p>

<p>Good luck, they're both great schools!</p>

62

<p>I don't know what makes you say Berkeley would be tougher -- doesn't seem to be true. I think actually the average caliber of students here is much lower than that at HMC, and judging by how hard even those talented students find it at HMC, it's probably a good bet the curriculum is very tough. </p>

<p>As for international name recognition, I don't think that matters very much for undergraduates, honestly!</p>

63

<p>" I think actually the average caliber of students here is much lower than that at HMC"</p>

<p>HIGHLY doubtful.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
I find it especially notable that Berkeley has senior faculty teaching 16AB, which is basically a watered-down version of calculus for people who don't really need to know why it works. Clearly none of those students are going to be heading to math grad school. Heck, you can't even major in math via those courses. Hence, I doubt that they really benefit much from being taught by top researchers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So, are you saying that that is such a bad thing???</p>

65

<p>mathboy98, </p>

<p>you're comparing apples to oranges. Harvey Mudd College is, by and large, a science and engineering school. Thus, if you want to compare the whole Mudd's student body to Berkeley's just so you can tell which one is superior than the other, do so by ignoring the students outside of science, math, computer science and engineering. I think you would have a better comparison if you'd do that.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
you're comparing apples to oranges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This remark actually doesn't apply at all to me, it applies to the poster I was responding to, who was saying "Berkeley is tougher" [without specifying departments] which is false as a general statement, and also false, I am quite certain, in the realm of math, science and engineering. In fact, it's most certainly false because you can choose even in Berkeley EECS to take a somewhat easier schedule if you so choose. Of course there are tough courses, but it doesn't seem on any level to be true that our program is "harder" -- in terms of difficulty of material or difficulty of grading.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, are you saying that that is such a bad thing???

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, in the sense that at a school like HMC, I gather the professors are selected very much on their ability to work with undergraduates. The researchers need not have any interest in making their courses good for undergraduates, and frankly the ones that do are benevolent souls. Our lower division math courses have never impressed me much, and I maintain strongly that it becomes top caliber only when you get to the big stuff. Only a few kind souls, as I said, make the effort to make these classes worth going to. </p>

<p>I think HMC is selective enough to guarantee a high caliber student body, and may be on average stronger than Berkeley's math/science/engineering student body....I am just being realistic. I do, however, acknowledge that the best students at Berkeley tend to be very, very, especially outstanding.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]

I think HMC is selective enough to guarantee a high caliber student body, and may be on average stronger than Berkeley's math/science/engineering student body....I am just being realistic. I do, however, acknowledge that the best students at Berkeley tend to be very, very, especially outstanding.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you have any data to support this? </p>

<p>I've known several comsci and engineering students at Berkeley who turned down one of the HYPSM. I particularly know of this guy who turned down MIT for Berkeley EECS.
Did this happen at Mudd in several occasions? </p>

<p>I know Mudd is a great school for undergrad; I just don't think it's computer science and engineering are better than Berkeley's. I also don't think it has a superior student body than Berkeley's computer science and engineering students. I could be wrong on this that's why I need to see the data. so, if you have the numbers, please post them here.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
So, are you saying that that is such a bad thing???

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes. Because you're wasting the talent. The profs who teach 16AB are senior faculty and are therefore some of the most distinguished mathematicians in the world. But like I said, students taking 16AB don't need that. They don't really care. They're never going to major in math. Those profs should instead be teaching upper division courses that actually have students who want to major in math and would therefore appreciate their abilities. </p>

<p>As a case in point, of the 6 lecture sections (not a discussion section, but the lecture section) of Math 104 - the gateway course to the math major - that are currently being taught, 5 of them are being taught by assistant and/or visiting profs, with one of them being a visiting asst prof. I mean, come on. If you're a prospective math major - especially one who is seriously contemplating grad school - then your profs should all be viable opportunities to find potential research collaborations, which means that you have to find somebody who is actually going to be around. Many postdocs won't stay for long, many Berkeley assistant profs won't get tenure, and many visiting profs won't be around for very long, and of course a visiting asst prof is highly unlikely to stick around for long. Similarly, at least one of the lecture sections of Math 110 is being taught by a post-doc. </p>

<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I am sure that these are all sharp guys. But many of them won't be quite sharp enough to actually earn tenure. The visitors may not be around for longer than the current semester. Either way, your chances as a math major of forming a healthy research partnership may be impaired. Coursework are a highly efficient way for you to ascertain whether you want to work with a faculty member - as, if nothing else, the course will serve as a 'guaranteed office hour' with him, but that obviously works optimally only when the faculty members are prominent.</p>

<p>On the other hand, maybe you want to ascertain whether you want to work with Hugh Woodin. But you can't, because he's off teaching Math 16A, a class that you (as a math major) would never take.</p>

<p>It would be no problem if all of the upper division courses were covered by senior faculty such that all math majors have ample opportunity to 'try them on' and see which ones may fit as far as a research partnership goes. But they're not all covered. Many of the upper division courses are taught by junior faculty or postdocs.</p>

69

<p>OP, your title is Berkeley vs Private college, but then your focus is exclusively on hmc. There will be a whole bunch of comparable private colleges in engg where you might thrive better than Berkeley, tho' Berkeley is an incredible place. However, hmc engg and Berkeley engg is no comparison. First, hmc is not an engg college. They offer a degree in CS, but nothing in engg other than a general engg degree. Berkeley Sciences and hmc Sciences are worth discussing. Second, hmc is hugely gpa deflated without the name recognition in commercial world. So while your gpa goes down, you don't get sympathy for it when applying for a job after Bachelor's. HMC does have good name recognition if you are sure to go to grad school after your undergrad. But again, hmc engg is too generic.</p>

70

<p>
[quote]
Many postdocs won't stay for long, many Berkeley assistant profs won't get tenure, and many visiting profs won't be around for very long, and of course a visiting asst prof is highly unlikely to stick around for long. Similarly, at least one of the lecture sections of Math 110 is being taught by a post-doc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is actually a highly, highly good point, and I almost think seals this discussion for good. I'm going to apply to graduate school one day, and definitely this factor has affected how many tenured, famous faculty I meet. I can't say the postdocs do half bad a job, or that tenured faculty necessarily do a better job, but all the same, meeting famous mathematicians who'll stick around is definitely a good thing for people who're hoping to make it into grad school, and this fact does make it hard.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know Mudd is a great school for undergrad; I just don't think it's computer science and engineering are better than Berkeley's.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I go to Berkeley, and was originally going to major in the CS part of EECS -- I know exactly how good the department is, and what kind of world class CS theory people there are here. So I'd never say its departments are going to be beaten in this regard.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Do you have any data to support this?</p>

<p>I've known several comsci and engineering students at Berkeley who turned down one of the HYPSM. I particularly know of this guy who turned down MIT for Berkeley EECS.
Did this happen at Mudd in several occasions?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't claim anything outlandish or explicit, just that I find it likely, given Mudd's selective process, that definitely only the hardest to get into majors at Berkeley are likely as selective. I guarantee you that their average math major is much more qualified than our average math major (stars will be stars at any school) -- it's very, very easy on average for an in-state student to get into our math program. Maybe if you want to compare EECS or ChemE at Berkeley with engineering students at Mudd, then we're talking. This is, however, very overly specific. After all, Mudd is known for math, science and engineering...not just EECS and ChemE. </p>

<p>Anyway, this has been beaten to death :) trust me, I understand what is strong about each school. I was responding to a poster who literally said in as many words that Berkeley is a tougher school, and I absolutely don't buy that -- look at Mudd's degree requirements, and the course descriptions, and it's pretty clear.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
First, hmc is not an engg college. They offer a degree in CS, but nothing in engg other than a general engg degree

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The fact that HMC offers just a 'general' engineering degree seems irrelevant to me. After all, Caltech too offers only a 'general' engineering degree in most disciplines also. With the exception of EE, ChemE, and (recently) ME, any engineering degree at Caltech is strictly speaking an "Engineering and Applied Sciences", which is basically a general engineering degree. </p>

<p>The real proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the fact is, HMS engineers seem to earn starting salaries that are just as high as Berkeley engineers do, and possibly even higher. For example, in 2005, the average starting salary for HMC engineers was $58k, which exceeds that of every engineering discipline at Berkeley except for EECS.</p>

<p>Career</a> Center - Career Destination Survey Reports 2005
Engineers</a> After Graducation — HMC Engineering</p>

72

<p>Not to mention that even if one's goal isn't salary -- the Ph.D. placement at HMC is very high. I really think it's up to the individual to choose between these two different schools, and as of now see no reason to buy that one school has an edge over the other -- those who've been giving the edge to Berkeley seem to be biased, and/or comparing an apple school with an orange school, really.</p>

73

<p>"I've known several comsci and engineering students at Berkeley who turned down one of the HYPSM. I particularly know of this guy who turned down MIT for Berkeley EECS.
Did this happen at Mudd in several occasions?" </p>

<p>Yes. A lot.</p>

<p>"I know Mudd is a great school for undergrad; I just don't think it's computer science and engineering are better than Berkeley's. I also don't think it has a superior student body than Berkeley's computer science and engineering students. I could be wrong on this that's why I need to see the data. so, if you have the numbers, please post them here."</p>

<p>I can't make comments about CS because it is not my field. However, it appears to me that you know little about HMC and engineering. What major/year are you?</p>