<p>
[quote]
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>bedhead and UCb,
My hope is you'd agree that the engineering students likely have superior standardized test scores than the entire entering class. That is certainly the case at UCB and likely at Rice as well. </p>
<p>For Rice, the overall entering class (including 29 Californians who constituted 4% of the class) scored at a 25/75 SAT level of 640-750 for CR, 670-780 for Math, or 1310-1530 combined. I should also point out that Rice does not just go for the highest SAT scoring students. More than 50% of those applicants who scored 750-800 on the CR or Math were rejected. </p>
<p>UCB’s entering class scored at at 25/75 level of 590-710 for CR, 620-750 for Math, or 1210-1460 combined. Engineering is a bit stronger at 1270-1490. </p>
<p>Based on these numbers, I would claim that the Rice engineering students are statistically every bit as strong as the UCB engineering students and perhaps better.</p>
<p>As for the placement claims, I am not trying to negate the opportunities and placement of the UCB engineering students. I’m sure they’re wonderful (just as they are for students coming out of UCLA, Rice, JHU, Duke). This reminds me of the stupid I-banking discussions that go on elsewhere that claim that you must go to ABC Ivy in order to have any shot at a good job in the financial industry and if you go to a equally excellent college like Georgetown, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, etc., then you’re just chump change and have no shot. Somehow it’s always the graduates/partisans affiliated with ABC Ivy that peddle this nonsense. </p>
<p>The reality is that there are great students at all of these places, including UCB and Rice, and these students are going to have many opportunities to do many wonderful things post-graduation, including going to top graduate schools and working for highest-tier, most competitive employers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reality is that there are great students at all of these places, including UCB and Rice, and these students are going to have many opportunities to do many wonderful things post-graduation, including going to top graduate schools and working for highest-tier, most competitive employers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. I actually don't have a huge problem with most, or all, the things you've said Hawkette. I simply couldn't imagine choosing Houston over the Bay Area, but I'll admit I've never been to Rice itself.</p>
<p>As cities go, I'm with you on the Bay Area. I love it. But Houston is probably better than you realize and fortunately, the school year keeps you out of town during the very humid summer months. </p>
<p>As far as campuses go, I think you'd be mighty impressed with Rice. I'd rank Duke next in campus beauty and then UCB, UCLA and JHU.</p>
<p>Berkeley is a "sink or swim" environment where Duke is a lot less cutthroat in engineering, so go to Duke. There are plenty of kids who choose not to party at Duke and probably more so than Berkeley, which is a state school.</p>
<p>Kim Jong Il (aka evil<em>asian</em>dictator),</p>
<p>Berkeley is the top "state school" in the world...
I don't think I've ever heard Berkeley described as a party school...however, I've heard Duke described as a "party school" on many occassions. However, the level of partying between the two is probably pretty similar.</p>
<p>Berkeley engineering pwns Duke engineering despite its "cutthroat" environment...</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad is right about Duke being a party school...and I've heard Berkeley is one of the more tamer state schoolsin terms of partying. Course that's like saying it's the shortest giant too.</p>
<p>Hawkette, why do you find UCB to have a nicer campus than UCLA? I've been on both campuses and I find there's something about the hills and trees of UCLA that is just fantastic. 'Chacon a son gout' I suppose, but I would be interested in your perceptions.</p>
<p>dunninLA,
Of the 5 colleges in the title of this thread, I like the campuses of 4. I think that UCLA and the Westwood area is lovely. Nothing against UCLA at all. I only prefer Berkeley because of the setting with the views out to the Bay from some vantage points, eg, top of the Greek theater. And I've always liked the look of the Campanile. And I also find the tree people around the football stadium to be an exotic campus accessory. Only at Berkeley....</p>
<p>Berkeley doesn't have the drinking vibe, it has pot.</p>
<p>And personally I'm not a tree people person. Berkeley campus - Beautiful. Berkeley campus feel - not me. So, I'm probably not the most unbiased observer here, as Berkeley was clearly not the school for me.</p>
<p>....came through (finally!!) with their package: it will only cost me 5K a year....all the rest is scholarship.</p>
<p>Visited Duke: a great school, the Eng. school has great new buildings as well as older more "gothic" structures. It seemed that the EECS program is NOT the top rung Eng program -BME is (Duh). It is indeed a terrific place although I was not too enamoured of the freshman dorms - the food places were great, though. Duke requires three year stay in dorms - uuugggghhhh.....</p>
<p>What now????</p>
<p>Headed to Cal later this week.....</p>
<p>It just seems that if Cal is all that it is being made out to be and the visit is great, we will just have to move there and become an instate starting second year onwards....and end up with the ~35K debt for the first year and not pay the 20K OOS tuition etc. sophomore onwards... Sound like a plan???</p>
<p>I strongly urge you to reconsider Duke's engineering program. I'm in it, and while the social scene at Duke does involve frats and partying, there is a very large population that does not get involved, and I would say that is proportionally larger among engineers. Also, living on campus for three years is NOT a bad thing. You'll learn to love dorms, especially your freshman dorm. I can't imagine college without having lived in a dorm.</p>
<p>I also think Duke's ECE program is on the rise, as well as the engineering school in general, as CIEMAS's completion has generated a lot of more research and interest from prospective faculty. Not to mention Duke's overall reputation is fantastic, and you won't find a place with more school spirit or a better college basketball environment.</p>
<p>I'd go to Duke because its a great college experience, and also because in undergrad you learn the same stuff as any other school. You'd have more access to profs, research, and GRE exam prep than at other schools, which would give you a better resume for applying to grad school.</p>
<p>Or you could become an I-banker like other EE majors. </p>
<p>Also, the party scene ISNT THAT prominent, the same few hundred kids party all the time and the girls are subpar. However, its still an amazing place.</p>
<p>Its better than Columbia in engineering for sure because Columbia is so dominated by Arts and Sciences (Fu isn't bad at all though), which is the only other school on the list which is in the same prestige level. Also, I'd consider Rice and CMU more seriously - both are great private schools with strong engineering.</p>
<p>IndPak wrote: "It just seems that if Cal is all that it is being made out to be and the visit is great, we will just have to move there and become an instate starting second year onwards....and end up with the ~35K debt for the first year and not pay the 20K OOS tuition etc. sophomore onwards... Sound like a plan???"</p>
<p>NOOOO, not a plan. It was a plan my wife took advantage of 30 years ago when she transferred from Cornell to UCLA, sat out a year, then started as an in-state. NO LONGER THE CASE. Read the rules very carefully about in-state qualification. There are a number of hurdles specifically implemented in the past fifteen years (for EXACTLY the scenario you propose) that make it VERY difficult to do in less than three years. If I recall, you can't have been on your parent's income tax for two full years, you have to show you have been fully self-supporting financially for either one or two years, etc.</p>