<p>It’s that time of year again, when college acceptees are considering where to attend. Seems not so long ago I was in your dudes’ shoes. Now as a Cal Junior, i’m watching my senior friends ponder which pretigious grad/med schools to go to, or otherwise whine about having to work. Anyway, my take on Cal is this: If you’re a science major, Cal is THE place to be. Contrary to popular folklore among private-school pushers, the profs are very accessible, the students are first-rate (many of my professors and lecturers that used to teach at Harvard/MIT/Stanford have mentioned that Cal science majors, in general, show the same academic performance as their 40,000-dollars-an-year-tuition-counterparts), and getting a research position is a piece of cake. If you’re intended business, i pity you, because you’re 18 years old and already planning on doing middle-management for someone else’s company. If you’re humanities or social sciences, Cal tends to have big classes (at least for popular classes and lower divs) but Cal’s atmosphere is first-rate. If you’re an engineer…then fool, sign that intent-to-register already because Berkeley engineering kicks so much a<strong>, that whoever’s a</strong> i’m talking about everytime i use that phrase must have a seriously sore a** by now. Another thing… be sure to weigh in the social atmosphere (and climate) that you desire VERY SERIOUSLY when choosing which college to attend for 4 years of your life. Because chances are, you’re gonna end up hating academics and concentrating on social life anyway. Like a big proportion of Cal Students and most Ivy League + Stanford kids i’ve met. Arrogant as it may seem, I laugh at those dumb Stanford and Harvard philosophy and psychology majors (i’ve met many) who blow 40,000 dollars an year “learning” random garbage you can pick up in a library when it has been shown that where you go to college has no correlation with starting salary when you get a job; if you’re a brilliant Iowa State-Hickville student, your talent will be discovered sooner or later, whether as a grad student in a prestigious PhD program, successful businessman, well-respected social commentator, or famous artist depends on the talent. The tendency for many people to choose a college simply out of “name-recognition” or “associated prestige” is a sad case of social elitism that’s rampant among many private school-bound kids (esp. non-science majors). Many Ivy Leaguers I’ve met hate their school’s environment, and many transfer to west coast colleges. By the way, i’m not ragging on Stanford with malicious intent (to those that don’t know, it’s Berkeley’s arch-rival)-----it’s a great school…but it’s not worth that much tuition for a non-technical major…or even for a technical major (with the exception of engineering—i’m not an engineer by the way). Actually (shhh, this is supposed to be a secret)…a science degree at a state school is pretty much the same as a science degree at Yale…if you don’t believe me, go to Yale and find out how many of your profs and TAs got their undergrads at state schools…you’ll be surprised. It’s up to you as the student to make the most of your opportunities, and the opportunities are always out there, not matter what college you’re in. I’m getting sleepy so i’m gonna cut this short…no time to proof-read. Peace to all, and I hope you find your special place.</p>
<p>I agree with your general gist that ultimately, your fate lies in your hands, and it is up to you to make the best of your opportunities.</p>
<p>However, I think some balance needs to be added to this discussion.</p>
<p>First off, I certainly wouldn't characterize everybody at Harvard or Stanford as fools blowing 40k a year away. Let's keep in mind that a lot of Harvard and Stanford kids are rich, and to them, 40k a year really isn't that much. If you come from a family of multimillionaires, I don't think that spending 40k a year on college is really a big deal. It's like a rich guy choosing to spend 80k on a brand new Beamer. Sure, he could have gotten a nice serviceable Camry for 25K, but he's rich, so what does he care? </p>
<p>Secondly, if you're out of state, then Berkeley is no bargain at all. Why laugh at those guys who are going to Stanford or Harvard who came from, say, Hawaii? If they came to Berkeley, they'd be blowing 40k a year anyway because of out-of-state tuition. So if they're going to blow 40k a year to get a strong education anyway, it might as well be at an elite private school. 40k for Berkeley, or 40k for Stanford - you tell me which you'd pick. </p>
<p>Thirdly, not everybody at the elite private schools pay full freight. In fact, only a minority do (and most of those people are rich and don't care anyway about having to pay full-freight). Most people at the elite private schools get financial aid packages, and often times these packages can equal or even exceed what state schools like Berkeley can offer. This is profoundly true if you're truly poor - because the elite private schools tend to be far more generous in offering grants (as opposed to loans) than are state schools. I know several Californians who grew up quite poor, got into Berkeley, Stanford and Harvard, and found that it was ACTUALLY CHEAPER to go to Stanford or Harvard than it was to go to Berkeley, once financial aid was factored in. All 3 schools offered them full aid, but Stanford and Harvard offered them aid in the form of full grants, whereas Berkeley offered a package of grants and loans. So the upshot was, go to Berkeley and rack up debt, or go to Stanford or Harvard for free. What would you do? Incidentally, one of them was laughing that he really wanted to go to Berkeley but he couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard.</p>
<p>I would also point out that there's a nonsequitur in your argument. You say that you laugh at those Stanford and Harvard students who are blowing money to learn random garbage that anybody could learn in a library. Well, if you use that logic, then we could just as easily 'laugh' at those Berkeley students who are also blowing money to learn things that could be learned in a library. So to use that logic, why go to Berkeley? If you don't live in the Bay Area, then you could just attend your local Cal State and live at home and save money on rent, in addition to avoiding the exorbitant costs of living in the Bay Area, and saving the difference in tuition between Berkeley and a CalState. I don't think you want to go down this road unless you want to argue that the kids at Fresno State should be laughing at the kids at Berkeley for blowing their money on things that could be easily learned anywhere. </p>
<p>You also mention that a lot of Ivy Leaguers hate their school and transfer out. Well, I would point out that a lot of Berkeley students don't exactly like their school either, and plenty transfer out. Look at the graduation rates. Berkeley graduates 83% of its students in 6 years (and something like 85% will graduate eventually), as opposed to 99% at Harvard, and even 93% at a difficult school like MIT. If people at Harvard REALLY hated their school, then they wouldn't be graduating - they'd just be transferring elsewhere or dropping out completely. They may talk about hating their school, but from the graduation rates, they don't hate it that much. If Berkeley students really like their school so much, then why do only 85% of them ever manage to graduate?</p>
<p>The point is not to bash Berkeley unduly, but to point out that Berkeley is far from a perfect school and there are plenty of reasons to choose another school over Berkeley that has nothing to do with 'associated prestige' or the snob factor. Many elite private schools do things genuinely better than Berkeley does. At elite private schools, you are less likely to be denied a class you need because of lack of seats. At elite private schools, you are less likely to be stuck waiting in a huge line to talk to a bureaucrat. In short, elite private schools tend to offer better resources per capita. This is something that Berkeley needs to work on.</p>
<p>I'll re-phrase: An undergraduate education is not worth 40,000 dollars an year, esp. if it's in the humanities/social sciences. It's like spending 8 dollars on house coffee at a 5 star hotel when a coffee store with the same coffee for half the price is right next door. Walking into the 5 star hotel is matter of arrogance (or stupidity if you're not rich). True, 40,000 dollars an year is nothing to a "millionaire," but most private schools aren't loaded with millionaires. I singled out Stanford and Harvard because they epitomize what "private schools should be like," but i'm actually referring to all private schools in general, hence the title of the thread. There are many criticisms by Ivy League professors and students that express distaste in the fact that their schools are more social clubs for elitists than academic centers. THAT'S what i'm attacking. A simple google search would bring out many pertinent details. Personally, i've never met anyone who attended a private school because UC was too expensive for them. So shoud everyone go to Cal State instead of UC? When I was referring to "state schools," I meant state schools like Michigan, Virginia, Illinois, the UCs, and each state's major state schools: like U of Arizona or Arizona State. Between Cal State and UCs, it's debatabe, because California has many many state schools and the dispartiy in resources between the state schools is much greater than it is in say, Arizona. However, I've met quite a few TA's in sciences at Berkeley who are Cal State grads. That means they spent as much money getting a science PhD from Berkeley (graduate schools in sciences are paid for by fellowships---you research/work/teach for your tuition) as that private school kid spent for 2 years of lower division breadth classes. Hmmmmmm. And finally , yes, i do think Berkeley psych and philosophy majors are wasting their time and money, in general, unless they are pre-law, but they are not blowing nearly as much money as their private school counter-parts.</p>
<p>...and i'm also commenting on the culture among college-bound students and their families to (almost religously) exalt certain private schools and even certain public school. Why? Because of their name. How often do you find a thread on this forum with the title: U of Arizona or Arizona State???? You just don't. A college graduate's success in their chosen field is dependent on their abilities, which are often expressed in the form of graduate or professional schools that they attend. And surprise surprise, graduate/professional school admissions is based on PERFORMANCE, not on where you went to school. That Harvard kid who got into Yale Law would probably have gotten into Yale Law from Arizona State because he/she was bright to begin with. Almost half of the PhD students in Chemistry at Berkeley came from state schools....random places like Kansas state (i've met two from Kansas so far).</p>
<p>It's one thing to feel happy going to a public college. It's another thing to feel morally superior towards people choosing private colleges. Feeling happy about going to Berkeley is a great thing. I'm glad you are happy there. But there is no reason you should feel that those who go to private colleges are fools and dupes who are overpaying for their education and are arrogant bastards.</p>
<p>the name of the school means more for landing a job or gettin into grad school than you make it seem. </p>
<p>i'm from out of state and considering berkeley.
its over 30K to go.. would i be "wasting" away $$ if i decide to enroll? i dont think so.. it'd b a hell of a lot better than some jersey state schools</p>
<p>
[quote]
Personally, i've never met anyone who attended a private school because UC was too expensive for them
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if you'd like to meet some people who chose a private school because UC was too expensive for them, I can put you in touch with them. I know quite a few people who got into Berkeley, UCLA, and other high-UC's, but turned them down for full-rides/merit-scholarships at private schools (elite and non-elite). </p>
<p>Take my brother for instance. He could have gone to Berkeley, but he was awarded the President's Scholarship at Caltech which not only paid for all his tuition, it also gave him a rather substantial stipend that was significantly greater than his living costs. So not only did he not pay a dime to Caltech, Caltech was effectively paying him to go. Honestly, would you choose Berkeley over that? So basically, you could say that one reason my brother chose Caltech over UC was because UC was 'too expensive', once the actual costs were calculated. </p>
<p>The same thing holds at other private schools. I know some people who turned down UC for full-rides+stipends at places like USC, Pepperdine, and several other places. I know of one girl who turned down Berkeley, UCLA, (and Stanford) for a full ride + stipend at Washington Uniersity in St. Louis. Let's face it. A lot of private schools will dangle tremendously attractive merit scholarships to lure strong students to come. And a lot of students don't want to pay a dime for their education and are willing to go to wherever they can get a free ride. UC, relatively speaking, is not that aggressive when it comes to offering merit scholarships. UC rarely offers free rides (generally only to scholarship athletes and to truly poor people, and for poor people, those 'free rides', often times consist of partial-loans). Hence, you could say that these people are, in effect, turning down UC for private school because UC is too expensive. </p>
<p>And again, I would point to the financial aid packages offered to the truly poor. The elite private schools like Harvard and Stanford are extremely aggressive when it comes to financial aid for poor people, far far more aggressive than is UC. Again, I would point to the one guy I know of who turned down Berkeley for Harvard because (among other things), it cost less for him to go to Harvard than Berkeley, once financial aid was factored in. That guy in effect turned down UC for an elite private because UC was too expensive. You may also be aware that Harvard has announced that from now on, they will offer full grants to anybody who comes from a family who makes less than 40k. (They were basically already doing that, but now they are going to codify and standardize it). This is something that UC has so far refused to match. Hence, you could say that for anybody in the country making less than 40k, Harvard is one of the best financial deals out there, and almost certainly financially better than is going to a UC.</p>
<p>The point is, I don't think that we should paint private-school kids with too broad of a brush. I think many of those private school kids know EXACTLY what they are doing from a financial standpoint, and have actually played the game extremely well. Again, take a look at my brother. By going to Caltech under a President's Scholarship, he came out far better financially than he ever would have by going to a UC. He actually MADE money by going to college. So does that mean he should be laughing at all the 'stupid' UC students who are paying to go to school when he was the one who was getting paid to go to school? So to extend your analogy, he could either walk outside the hotel and get a cheap coffee, or he could stay in the hotel, have them not only give him a free coffee, but also have the hotel pay him money for taking their coffee. What would you do? </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I see your basic point, and to some extent, I agree with you. There are some students out there that will choose a private school for simple reasons of prestige, as opposed to academics. However, I would simply say that for some people, that's what they want. I personally wouldn't spend 80k on a Beamer, but I accept the fact that some people will do that, for reasons of prestige and luxury or whatever. I personally would never spend $2000 on a suit, but I accept the fact that some people will do that, again, for reasons of prestige and luxury and whatever. Different people want different things.</p>
<p>I would also extend the discussion to those Berkeley students who are majoring in do-nothing majors. I'm not going to name those majors, but we all know what they are. True, some of those students are truly interested in those majors. But I think we both know that many others are there just because it's easy. They're not really interested in learning or studying, they just want to get an easy Berkeley degree. These students are probably good enough to have gotten full-rides at some private schools, but they choose to go to Berkeley and complete a do-nothing, easy major. Hence, we could say that these students are basically "paying for prestige" - because they could have gone elsewhere for cheaper (i.e. a full ride elsewhere),but opted to pay to go to Berkeley to get an easy degree with the prestigious Berkeley name on it. Hence, it seems like you should be criticizing these people just as much as you criticize people who pay to go to Harvard just for the prestige. Both are paying for prestige.</p>
<p>"But there is no reason you should feel that those who go to private colleges are fools and dupes who are overpaying for their education and are arrogant bastards."........I provided 3 paragraphs of reasoning for the education part (although i don't remember calling them fools---they're not), so i'll elaborate just a bit on the second part. True, many private school kids who go to elite schools are modest, but i've met many many (esp from stanford, because it's close by) that are arrogant. Meet or hear about a few...it can still be considered a stereotype. Meet enough, the stereotype begins to take the form of a statistic.....and i've met or heard of enough. And i don't feel "superior" over any private school kids. I just have a hard time understanding why private school kids often express superiority over state school kids, esp when many profs and TAs at elite private schools are state school graduates.</p>
<p>What about the fact that Berkeley doesn't have a med-school? Will it be harder for me to do volunteer work and internships, than say UCLA, which does have hospital? I can go to SF at a hospital there, since I have a car. I'm currently debating on which one to attend since I've been admitted to both. Any help will be appreciated.</p>
<p>sakky, i didn't say going to a state school is better than going to a private school EVERY SINGLE TIME. I'm trying to show that private schools are OFTEN over-rated, and in reality, many people bust their wallets to send kids to cornell when they could have sent their kids to ucsd (can't we agree that this happens much more often than people like your brother "making money" by not going to a UC?).</p>
<p>lyrical, Berkeley used to have a medical school until sometime in the 40s ..............it was renamed UCSF and split from the mother campus. THe Children's hospital in Oakland, Alta Bates Hospital in berkeley (oakland?), and UCSF are three places that berkeley undergrads do volunteer work/research in. Just like UCLA students have a higher representation in UCLA med school than kids from other UCs, UC berkeley students have a higher rep. in UCSF than kids from other UCs (the stats are somewhere...find them)</p>
<p>Thanks a lot abcdefgclass06. Your advice is really helpful. Are you a junior at Berk? I will most likely be there next year. Thanks.</p>
<p>Abcdefgclass2006, I have always said that I understand your basic point and that some private-school kids are unnecessarily arrogant. I would point again to my brother and say that he has a right to be a bit arrogant considering what he's accomplished, however, I have never disputed that there are some private school kids who are unjustifiably arrogant. </p>
<p>My point is, again, that I think you are painting with too broad or a brush. While obviously some are just going for reasons for prestige (not that that's not a legitimate reason in and of itself), I believe a lot of private school kids are not. Let's face it. There are many legitimate reasons for choosing an elite private school over UC that have nothing to do with prestige. UC's are good schools, but they do have flaws, especially as related to things like student services and per-capita resources. </p>
<p>Now, to lyrical, it may be a bit harder, but not overly so. There are hospitals in the East Bay, you know, and they are BART-able. I think that having a med-school on campus is not the huge advantage that it is sometimes seen as. Princeton doesn't have a med-school, yet their premeds seem to be doing allright.</p>
<p>yay, intellectual debates!!! <em>sits on the bench and watches</em></p>
<p>Well if it makes any difference, I will be choosing Berkeley over Georgetown for next year.</p>
<p>yay go bears!!!</p>
<p>" Personally, i've never met anyone who attended a private school because UC was too expensive for them"</p>
<p>I kind of had that situation. My MIT aid package was better UCB and UCLA after Honor's scholarship but I still wouldnt have gone to UCB or UCLA I think their future is uncertain because of of the budget cuts and the financial crisis that CA experienced confounded with the fact that there endowment is not that big relative to amount of students. Take USC a school which used to be in UCLA's shadow(academically, football doesnt matter) is now competing with UCLA and is bound to become better more prestigious college because it has money fueling its rise. It just not as promising at UC's wih the possibility that when you graduate you might find your school is losing its reputation because it cant afford to keep it.</p>
<p>I might as well add here that Caltech and MIT are extraordinary schools. Although I might seem like a hypocrite, I consider these two schools exceptions (for the most part) when i'm ranting on about the value of private schools.</p>
<p>Nice post. What do you think about the consensus that UCLA is better for pre-med? And you mentioned social life being so important. How is Berkeley's social life compared to LA's? Is there enough stuff to do?</p>
<p>haha i like these abcdefgclass2006 vs sakky debates.<br>
you two should make your own thread.. or website for that matter</p>