<p>A school with an active party scene is indulging in buffoonery?</p>
<p>Lmao ok</p>
<p>A school with an active party scene is indulging in buffoonery?</p>
<p>Lmao ok</p>
<p>To the OP: You've gotten into some tremendous schools. I'd focus on two things: 1) What is the graduate school placement record of the schools that are now on your final shortlist? 2) How do you feel Berkeley vs. Duke?</p>
<p>I've heard Duke's campus is really nice. The fact is Berkeley's is too, but if you enter via Sproul Plaza from southside, you might not see that so much. Go to North Side. Find the engineering buildings. Look at the newly refurbished Hearst Mining Circle. If you're not into the party scene, living on North Side can be incredible. Check that out (though for the first year, I'd live in the dorms).</p>
<p>You sound bright enough to do very well at Berkeley and get yourself moved on quite well towards a good grad school.</p>
<p>I'd pick CMU if they give you better FA than Berkeley. CMU is just as prestigious in CS and they even have an extension/satellite campus in Silicon Valley if I am not mistaken (I recall seeing the sign while driving up the 101 from Los Angeles).</p>
<p>Majayi: The quotes around the term buffoonery are mine and are designed to suggest that I, me, myself, all three of us consider frat/party/alcohol exactly that. The quotes imply that the descriptor is questionable - just as you did. You are welcome to enjoy whatever it is you consider enjoyable as am I. Perhaps you and I are different???</p>
<p>BedHead: I see a lot of statistics that show Cal's record in graduate placement (amazing). I will try and locate the other school's...thank you.</p>
<p>BedHead -- I submit your first point is irrelevant. If the OP is in the 30th% of students at School A, with a high placement rate into schools on the shortlist, and is in the 70% of students at School B, with an average placement rate into schools on the shortlist, what then?</p>
<p>Placement rate is totally irrelevant to a given student applying to a given graduate program.... totally irrelevant. You are not an "average student", nor are the placement rates of "average students". It is a nonsensical concept.</p>
<p>I just thought of a way to determine which program (between two) is better for grad school placement -- you need a pair of identical twins. They split to go the the two instituitions, and you track their success.</p>
<p>Short of that, I don't know how one could ever separate the qualities a student brings into an undergraduate program from the qualities developed or nurtured there. I suspect the pre-developed qualites correlate close to 95% with successful placement, and the undergraduate institution does nothing more than "not screw it up".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Majayi: The quotes around the term buffoonery are mine and are designed to suggest that I, me, myself, all three of us consider frat/party/alcohol exactly that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That much was clear in your first post.</p>
<p>What needs to be pointed out is that parties and alcohol are going to be at any university regardless of academic reputation...given this you will find it "icky" that many of the schools you like "allow all of that 'buffoonery'"</p>
<p>
[quote]
CMU is just as prestigious in CS and they even have an extension/satellite campus in Silicon Valley if I am not mistaken (I recall seeing the sign while driving up the 101 from Los Angeles).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They are folding it, if they haven't already. It flopped. But is was for business.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Placement rate is totally irrelevant to a given student applying to a given graduate program.... totally irrelevant. You are not an "average student", nor are the placement rates of "average students". It is a nonsensical concept.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Firstly, I qualified my statement by mentioning that he would probably be a superior Berkeley student. Looking at placement can indicate what general echelon of school a superior student might end up at. If he studied at the University of Akron and one discovered that 1 or 2 students graduated to go to PhD's in top 20 programs and the rest lagged significantly, would this be considered irrelevant? Yes, he might be one of the top 2, but overall he might discover that being in the top 20% at Berkeley would get him better placement looked at generally. I think this investigation supplies an impression that is not irrelevant, even if it's not specific enough to be anything close to deserve a consideration as a sole criterion. The fact is certain schools are better platforms from which to apply to top graduate schools than others.</p>
<p>Go to Duke b/c I wanted to go there really badly and I got rejected.........jk, but seriously, l love that place, and if they're throwing money at you, GO! :)</p>
<p>Bedhead wrote: "The fact is certain schools are better platforms from which to apply to top graduate schools than others."</p>
<p>Not true. The fact that students from certain schools have better success gaining admission to graduate schools only means they were better students <em>before</em> they got to certain schools, and are therefore still better students when finishing college.</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks Berkeley will have less drinking than Duke is fooling himself. College kids will always party; you don't have to take part, but at any normal school it's going to happen.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not true. The fact that students from certain schools have better success gaining admission to graduate schools only means they were better students <em>before</em> they got to certain schools, and are therefore still better students when finishing college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Categorically ridiculous. The fact is that professors defer to other reputable professors when they weigh recommendations. They like to accept people that their peers respect. This may not occur with great levels of differentiation among the schools named here, but you don't know graduate school admissions in the top tier if you think that no-name professors from no-name schools supply recommendations that carry the same weight as famous professors of reputable schools. And these recommendations matter considerably in the better programs.</p>
<p>Bedhead- And considering 'better' students go to those schools, your point becomes moot.</p>
<p>Some schools are better at offering the resources that top students want and need, and therefore attract top students, and then these top students go to top grad schools after making whatever resume they can.</p>
<p>Could a school be better at sending kids to x than another school? Yes. At sending people to good/top grad schools? That largely depends on the students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bedhead- And considering 'better' students go to those schools, your point becomes moot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is true only if you are considering averages. I very clearly qualified and said that I thought the OP could do very well at Berkeley. Berkeley has a larger student body, and quality spread, than some of the top privates. But it has stellar faculty whose recommendations, for the top students, are crucial. It may be moot for the range of colleges cited, though.</p>
<p>As I posted earlier, the differences in strength (in engineering or otherwise) between these institutions is relatively small. Great students attend all and go on to highly desired positions in top graduate schools and excellent positions in private industry. I would disagree if anyone really thinks that there is a decisive institutional benefit from attending any of these colleges over the others. </p>
<p>There has not been much discussion herein about Rice, but I think that you might want to look more closely at this college. A main differentiator between Rice and a larger college like UCB is the level of attention and opportunity that you will receive there as an undergraduate student. This can be a significant difference and has potentially important implications in things like graduation rate. For example, 4-year grad rates at Rice are 79% while at UCB, they are 61%. Furthermore, the average student quality is exceptionally high at Rice (would be 2nd only to that at Duke among this group of colleges).</p>
<p>As for Houston, as much as I think Rice has a wonderful campus (and it does), nothing has the beauty of the SF Bay Area and I would put this into UCB's favor. But I think you worry needlessly about postgraduate employment opportunities. UCB may physically be closer to Silicon Valley, but undoubtedly there is greater competition among UCB students for these interview and hiring spots. Employers like to diversify their hiring sources and so one coming from Rice potentially enjoys an advantage in this respect. Finally, don't discount the importance of the technology industry in Texas. There are many excellent tech companies located there with aggressive and innovative managements and growth-oriented strategic plans. Rice is certainly well-positioned to place you into those companies while still having the strength of national reputation to open doors for you elsewhere.</p>
<p>Hawkette, the OP is interested in EECS. Berkeley will have a lot more tech companies coming to campus for recruiting due to its location than Rice.</p>
<p>If you graduate from Rice, you'll get a job, but you might have to do more leg work in your job search - since Rice/Houston isn't an EECS hotbed. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, the average student quality is exceptionally high at Rice (would be 2nd only to that at Duke among this group of colleges).
[/quote]
Yes, for total student population on average...but if you look at Berkeley EECS majors they will have higher stats than Rice and Duke students on average.</p>
<p>This is the listing of companies represented at an EECS career fair at Berkeley on September 26, 2007:
Career</a> Center - Fair Directory</p>
<p>I doubt Rice would have this kind of company turnout.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A main differentiator between Rice and a larger college like UCB is the level of attention and opportunity that you will receive there as an undergraduate student. This can be a significant difference and has potentially important implications in things like graduation rate. For example, 4-year grad rates at Rice are 79% while at UCB, they are 61%.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The key here is "potentially important." This is not a clear causality at all. I would hold that delayed graduation rates may be related to a slew of other things, only one of which is this factor. For one thing, UCB has a fair number of CC transfers. Certainly there is less hand-holding generally at Cal. For the poster, I doubt this will be a problem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would disagree if anyone really thinks that there is a decisive institutional benefit from attending any of these colleges over the others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this, notwithstanding the academic point I made above, except with relation to recruiting by companies. Since the poster wants to go into academe, this is not that relevant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCB may physically be closer to Silicon Valley, but undoubtedly there is greater competition among UCB students for these interview and hiring spots.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But they hire more UCB graduates in many cases, and there are a lot of firms that will only look at UCB graduates for reasons of convenience and proxmity. Just as I am sure is the case in Houston.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, the average student quality is exceptionally high at Rice (would be 2nd only to that at Duke among this group of colleges).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For Berkeley, I would make a distinction between average across the board and average among engineering students. There, the average is higher and I would wager fairly equal to Rice and Duke if not surpassing, though I am sure you'll supply the stats to prove or disprove it (note invitation to supply stats, Hawkette. ;))</p>
<p>are really just GREAT. I thank you...again. My respects to you all.</p>
<p>Mayaji: Yup there is drinking et al everywhere, however, some more than elsewhere perhaps? My clumsy reference did not include my perception that Duke "seemed" to have more of the party rep then Berkeley - IF TRUE, then it would be easier to stay away from at UCB then at Duke, eh???</p>