<p>I would say UPenn. For those of you who said that UPenn is not known or not prestigious as Cal, I would say you guys are gravely mistaken. UPenn is a ivy league and is ranked 6th as the best national universities in the nation by US News and World Report while Cal is ranked 21st. But UPenn is a private so is more expensive. So, if money is a problem, go to Cal (which is cheaper - even if you’re OOS). But if money is not a problem, and you want to go to a place in where you can learn more, I would say UPenn.</p>
<p>
Ditto. Overall, Berkeley’s programs (ALL ACROSS THE BOARD) are ranked higher. besides like business and nursing (what’s nursing?)
But yeah if money’s not a problem…and Penn being a private school is really important…then go for it.</p>
<p>Check out both. I assume you can.</p>
<p>I went to Penn and minored in IR and would have double majored in IR had I stayed a fourth year. All my best friends from Penn today are those I ran Model UN with as a student. Many of those friends majored in IR.</p>
<p>Here’s my Pro-Penn (vs Berkeley) and Anti-Penn arguments. I can’t comment on Berkeley not knowing their department too well.</p>
<p>Pro-Penn
- General ranking higher as an overall university (and Ivy distinction) - well-chronicled here.
- Slightly smaller classes but don’t kid yourself, IR is mostly PoliSci classes and those are huge in a school of any size. Penn probably has somewhat smaller classes at the upper levels.
- If you are going to do IR, the proximity to Washington and New York is not just a convenience for your own hands-on experience but affects the culture of the program. I have to believe Berkeley’s distance 1900 miles from any national capital (and that being Mexico City) hurts the international feel of the program.
- Penn is a VERY international university- a low-mid teens percentage of the student body is from a foreign country, the most among the Ivies, and Google tells me it’s only 8% for Berkeley. There is a clear foreign tinge in the feel of the campus.</p>
<p>Anti-Penn
- While there is an IR major, it’s just a conglomeration of classes from the Political Science, History, Economics, and Statistics departments + a thesis. There is no IR 101 introductory or IR 352 upper-level course; there is no IR Department, just a program. This is important because:
- Penn Political Science is not that great. It’s maybe mid-teens in the Gourman Rankings and there was a general recognition when I was a student that while the proximity to power centers helped get some influential people on faculty, the overall girth of the program was lacking. Berkeley is top 5 in PoliSci and I remember one up-and-coming asst. prof moving from Penn to Berkeley when I was there.</p>
<p>Oddly, Penn is listed as top 5 in IR in those Gourman Rankings. I just think this is because there are few such IR programs around the country. </p>
<p>Given what I know and the information you provided, this is a tough call. A lot depends on what you plan to do afterwards (if you can even be sure of it)- any academic endeavor I would say go to Berkeley esp if you any desire to have a west coast tie long-term. Diplomacy/foreign service- not sure it matters. If you plan to work outside of IR in general business, go to Penn.</p>
<p>Yeah I agree about the EECS. I wish my decision were that easy to make. </p>
<p>oh no! you guys are all assuming I’m this uber rich kid…No, actually, I need financial aid, and both schools are covering the same amount for me (and I’m actually in state) so the cost is essentially the same, give and take a couple thousand dollars. </p>
<p>Hunterbender: The decision is subjective, therefore not so obvious. You would call me the world’s biggest idiot if if I tell you that I got accepted to Princeton as well but is not even really considering it, wouldn’t you? ;)</p>
<p>Thank you, crescent. Your imputs were really valuable. If I tell you that I want to do Diplomacy, focusing on primarily on eastern asian countries, where would you say would be the best for me? Also, let me throw in that Princeton factor. I understand that they have the number one IR school (Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs–that is if I get in of course). now would that be stupid of me not to go there? I know that I said besides academics I really don’t care but that only applies to Berk and Penn. I don’t mildly dislike Princeton, I kinda almost hate it haha 
(the general studemt population, the crappy, middle of nowhere city its in, and the grimy atmosphere). But will it ultimately be best for my intended major if I go there? </p>
<p>However, from what you told me in your post, I’m leaning heavily toward Penn 'cuz I really think hands on experiences/internship etc is the most important learning experience in diplomacy (though I might be wrong). </p>
<p>You are right; this is a tough choice to make. I really hope that I wouldn’t regret my choices.</p>
<p>As far as education and connections for especially IR, I think Penn is a definite winner, at least for me.
But I’ve heard stories that make Penn life out to be quite depressing, coming from one of my friends at Wharton. Supposedly the school has very little spirit compared to other big name schools. Take my words as a grain of salt, though. I have no evidence of this other than the experience of the school from my friend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for the information, DougK. </p>
<p>The point I was trying to make was that, other than Engineering, Computer Science, Haas and those Professional programs, any Ivy league school, in general, would be a better option, if the cost would come out the same. Of course, that was a general statement. Comparison should also be made between program and program. </p>
<p>
Yes, but amongst the lower Ivies, only Penn has an undergrad business program and only Cornell has an Architecture. </p>
<p>To simply what I’m saying:</p>
<p>Berkeley engineering > Columbia, UPenn, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Yale
Berkeley engineering = Princeton
Berkeley EECS > all the ivies (any engineering program)
Berkeley CS > all the ivies but equal to H and P
Berkeley Haas < Wharton, D, H & Y (in general), = Columbia, UPenn, but > Cornell (except engineering) and B.
Berkeley social sciences < all Ivies
Berkeley physical science < HYP = all the rest of the Ivies</p>
<p>
As an incoming student of College of Chemistry
Berkeley chemistry>ALL(maybe except H)</p>
<p>I didn’t even bother applying to many colleges because of this. Sorry guys I just needed some esteem boost lol</p>
<p>But RML, I would put Cornell Eng equal to Berkeley with the exception of ChemE and EECS</p>
<p>^ Oh, sorry about that. Yeah, Berkeley’s Chem is the most prestigious in the world. However, I think you should also need to factor in other “exterior forces and influences” when you assess undergrad education. </p>
<p>For the quality of Berkeley’s Chem, it should be on par with HYPSM, but many students, in general, try to look at other factors when looking/rating for universities. And, for that --at the undergrad level-- HYP’s Chemistry has still more prestige than Cal’s. However, for Chemical Engineering, I would say it’s at least on par-- to --a little bit better. </p>
<p>And, yes, Cornell is excellent for eng’g. But I would not rate it as excellent as Berkeley for engineering, in general. It’s in notch just below Cal’s, in my personal opinion.</p>
1 Like
<p>I’m afraid I have to disagree with much of the premise of this entire thread. </p>
<p>I see a swath of comparison being made about whether Cal is better or worse in certain disciplines compared to other schools. The presumption within that logic, however, is that an incoming high school student actually knows what he wants to major in. But how many actually know that? More to the point, how many people came into undergrad thinking that they were going to major in one subject and then wound up majoring in something else? I think all of us who have actually been to college can think of numerous people that we know that have done precisely that.</p>
<p>Perhaps even more importantly, many (probably most) undergrads will not actually embark upon careers that are directly related to whatever they majored in anyway. This is particularly true in the liberal arts. Let’s face it. Most history majors will not become professional historians. Most poli-sci majors will not become professional political scientists. Most students within Berkeley’s International & Area Studies suites of majors - which is probably the closest thing to the OP’s desired International Relations major - will not actually become ‘international/area’ professionals (if that makes sense). </p>
<p>The obvious truth of the matter is that the vast majority of liberal arts college graduates at any school will end up taking business-type positions, despite the fact that business majors represent only a tiny fraction of the undergraduate population at any school, if business is even offered as a major at all. The most desirable business jobs for such undergrads are usually the ones in strategy/management consulting, investment banking, and - if you can get them - venture capital, hedge funds, or private equity. All of these professions draw from a wide range of undergraduate majors. Another large fraction of students will enter professional graduate schools such as law or medical schools that are of a rather generic nature and hence too will draw from a wide range of majors. What matters to most students is therefore not whether one school is supposedly ‘stronger’ in a particular major compared to another school, but whether that school is stronger in obtaining for you the type of career goal that you are aiming to pursue, regardless of what your major may have been. </p>
<p>But don’t take my word for it. You can see for yourself the types of jobs that the IAS graduates take. While some did take positions that could arguably be said to have been related to their major, many (probably most) did not. For example, I see a PEIS graduate who joined Lehman Brothers (oops), and another who joined AIG (double oops), and still others who joined Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, UBS, and other financial firms that haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory in the last few months. {Then again, maybe they made pocketed huge pay packets during the run-up and then left the taxpayers holding the bag at the end, which would then mean that their career choice was nothing short of brilliant. After all, they got theirs, and if the rest of the country has to clean up the mess, hey, that’s not their problem, right?} In any case, it’s a bit of a stretch to see what these banking jobs really have to do with the PEIS major specifically. Nor is it easy to see what the Peace and Conflicts Studies major has to do with working at Wells Fargo. </p>
<p>[Overview</a> | IAS](<a href=“http://www.ias.berkeley.edu/degree_programs]Overview”>http://www.ias.berkeley.edu/degree_programs)
[Career</a> Center - What Can I Do With a Major In…?](<a href=“http://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/PEIS.stm]Career”>http://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/PEIS.stm)
[Career</a> Center - What Can I Do With a Major In…?](<a href=“http://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/PeaceConf.stm]Career”>http://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/PeaceConf.stm)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In my case, I won’t go as far as to disagree with the premise, but rather would say the premise has been too open-ended. When it comes to advising a student where to go, I think the only way to do it is to hear his/her personal situation.</p>
<p>Most students have absolutely no clue what they want to do, even if they say they do, to be perfectly honest. Nevertheless, I’d ask the OP of this thread about goals/hopes for the future, both career-wise and intellectually. It may be logical for the OP to choose entirely based on strength of a very narrow program of Cal or UPenn, and yet it might not be.</p>
<p>Statements like “Cal engineering is unparalleled by most” are true, but definitely their relevance is questionable until we know more about the OP.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would like to think that the vast majority of college students know what they want to major in college, as students usually start “dreaming” for their goals and ambitions at a very early age. </p>
<p>When you were still a kid, you’d often be asked by your parents or relatives what you want to become when you grow up. Many kids would say, “I want to become a doctor.” Or, some would say, “I want to be a pilot.” And, some would say, “I want to become a lawyer, just like my dad is.” And, so one and so forth. </p>
<p>In most countries around the world, particularly in the United Kingdom, Singapore, Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Italy, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia, high school students enter college with already a whole picture of what they would like to become or to major in. They apply to college with a firm interest of their desired major. In fact, most colleges would interview the applicants before they’re admitted. During the interview, students often are equipped with sufficient knowledge and ideas of what kind of major they are trying to get onto. I was interviewed at the University of Cambridge before they gave me an offer. </p>
<p>So, clearly, most students have already an idea on which program they would like to major in. As to whether or not most of these students do have the preparedness to pursue their majors/dreams is another story altogether.</p>
<p>Engineering (across all fields), computer science and physical science subjects such as chemistry, physics, geology, biology, zoology, botany, etc… are specialized subject fields/programs. Most, if not all, students that apply to any of these programs are well aware of the type of program they are trying to embark on. From studies conducted in the UK (which I can’t find the link to it right now), it says parents’ careers have a huge influence to their children’s desired future careers. In other words, when a father is a physician, there is a big chance that his children or one of his children will follow his dad’s footstep. Most engineers’ children, according to the study, attend engineering schools too because they already have knowledge of the kind of work they would have once they finished the program. As to whether or not the actual academic study of the program is doable to the students intellectual capacity and preparedness is another kind of story. So, in other words, many, many students enter college with already in mind what they would want to major in. That is precisely the reason why there are boxes in the application papers that you need to tick as the program you’d like to study once accepted by the university. If the vast majority of entering college are clueless of what to major in college, then I guess those boxes would not have appeared on the application forms. But, again, as to whether the students are prepared to study their desired program once they’ve started college studies or not is another story altogether. the point is, most students have already in mind what they would want to major in. If they found out later on that they’re not prepared to finished the program…is another story altogether.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think I have to agree with this one too. </p>
<p>The obvious truth is, money is plenty and abundant in business-type of careers, that is why most students, for practical reason (as success is often measured by monetary value), are enticed to enter into such type of careers. That is also the main motivation of some physician-wanabes or lawyer-wanabes. The people, in general, would be attracted to hold a position where they feel they have importance. And, since the people, in general, look up to rich/affluent, high-earner people, the vast majority of people would also want to become rich and affluent. Money is the driving force of these people to leave their true passion in exchange for money. </p>
<p>But Berkeley is strong in engineering, luckily. And, luckily, engineers are get paid handsomely as well. That is why many Berkeley engineering grads thrive in the their careers now. This is also the reason why, in my opinion, Berkeley grads are some of the highest earners in the whole United States of America. According to Forbes magazine, Berkeley grads are the 12th highest paid grads in the whole country, beating grads of Brown, Cornell and Columbia. So, clearly Berkeley is grads can compete with grads of any best school there is. </p>
<p>[Top</a> State Universities By Salary Potential](<a href=“2024 College Rankings by Salary Potential | Payscale”>2024 College Rankings by Salary Potential | Payscale)
[Best</a> Ivy League Schools By Salary Potential](<a href=“2024 College Rankings by Salary Potential | Payscale”>2024 College Rankings by Salary Potential | Payscale)</p>
<p>Berkeley engineering > Columbia, UPenn, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Yale
Berkeley engineering = Princeton
— Not true, I’m sure you know this</p>
<p>Berkeley EECS > all the ivies (any engineering program)
Berkeley CS > all the ivies but equal to H and P
Berkeley Haas < Wharton, D, H & Y (in general), = Columbia, UPenn, but > Cornell (except engineering) and B.</p>
<p>Berkeley social sciences < all Ivies
–This may be true if your goal is to get an inflated gpa for law school admissions. Berkeley social science is actually some of the best in the world.</p>
<p>Social Sciences
1 HARVARD University United States 100.0
2 University of California, BERKELEY United States 91.6
3 STANFORD University United States 82.6
4 LONDON School of Economics and Political… United Kingdom 82.1
5 University of CAMBRIDGE United Kingdom 81.8
6 University of OXFORD United Kingdom 80.8
7 YALE University United States 80.5
8 University of CHICAGO United States 79.2
9 PRINCETON University United States 76.8
10 MASSACHUSETTS Institute of Technology (M… United States 76.1
Arts and Humanities
1 HARVARD University United States 100.0
2 University of California, BERKELEY United States 93.1
3 University of OXFORD United Kingdom 91.3
4 University of CAMBRIDGE United Kingdom 89.1
5 YALE University United States 86.2
6 PRINCETON University United States 81.8
7 COLUMBIA University United States 81.7
8 STANFORD University United States 80.3
9 University of CHICAGO United States 79.3
10 University of CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles (U… United States 77.3 </p>
<p>Berkeley physical science < HYP = all the rest of the Ivies
That’s not true at all simply because you included Yale. It’s basically tied with Harvard and Princeton and pwns Yale at every physical science without question. The rest of the ivies don’t even pretend to do physical science terribly seriously and thus have much more limited upper division classes.
NAtural sciences rankings
1 MASSACHUSETTS Institute of Technology (M… United States 100.0
2 University of California, BERKELEY United States 99.5
3 University of CAMBRIDGE United Kingdom 98.3
4 HARVARD University United States 96.1
5 University of OXFORD United Kingdom 92.3
6 PRINCETON University United States 91.1
7 CALIFORNIA Institute of Technology (Calt… United States 90.7
8 STANFORD University United States 88.0
9 University of TORONTO Canada 79.2
10 University of TOKYO Japan 77.2</p>
<p>[QS</a> Top Universities: University rankings in the Natural Sciences](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/results/2008/subject_rankings/natural_sciences/]QS”>http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/results/2008/subject_rankings/natural_sciences/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I too would like to think that the vast majority of college students know what they want to do. Yet the fact of the matter is that they don’t. That’s why (most US) schools allow undergrads the opportunity to try on different majors before picking one, and/or allowing you to switch from one major to another. </p>
<p>Again, I think back to my graduating class in which relatively few students actually came in with an intended major, and then actually completed that major. Many found out that they didn’t actually enjoy their intended major as much as they had thought - or found that it was simply too difficult for them - and hence switched to something else. Many others came in with no intended major at all and found their major after a few years. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here you’ve conflated two entirely separate concepts, and your point actually supports my position. I am not talking about what one might do as a profession. I am simply talking about what you will pursue as a college major. That is an entirely different issue, because you can major in anything and be a doctor, lawyer, or pilot. What therefore matters is that, even if you are sure about your intended profession, that you attend a school that will help you attain that profession, regardless of whatever individual disciplinary strengths the school may have. To use a non-Berkeley example, Caltech has top ranked biology and chemistry departments, but I think even Caltech students would probably agree that the school is not an optimal place for premeds, as the med-school admissions process is mostly a numerical game in which Caltech students do not fare well. </p>
<p>And besides, this all presumes that kids have professional goals that are actually reasonable. You ask boys today what they want to be, and surely many of them will say that they want to be professional athletes. The girls want to be movie actresses or singers. Let’s face it. No kid dreams of becoming a middle manager. No kid dreams of becoming a bureaucrat. The boys want to be LeBron James or Tom Brady. The girls want to be Hannah Montana. Those are the faces that grace their lunchboxes, T-shirts, and the posters on their bedroom walls. No kid is wearing a T-shirt that depicts a middle manager. But of course only a tiny fraction of kids will get to be LeBron James or Tom Brady and Hannah Montana is just a fictional character. Heck, when I was a kid, I wanted to be Batman. </p>
<p>This reminds me of the movie City Slickers where Mitch (Billy Crystal) encounters great difficulty in explaining to his son’s class exactly what he does for a living and why it matters. His son declares that his father is a cool submarine captain, and he has to explain that, no, unfortunately, he is not. He explains that he works for a radio station, and the teacher asks whether he decides which songs are played on the radio, and he says he does not, rather he tries to explain that he “sells time” between the songs to advertisers to hawk their products, eliciting the comedic effect of the glazed eyes and shocked expressions of the kids. Let’s face it. While being an advertising sales rep for a radio station is an important job, let’s face it, no kid wants that job. No kid thinks that job is cool. Even Mitch’s son doesn’t think that job is cool, which is why he claimed that his father is a submarine captain. Heck, even Mitch himself doesn’t think the job is cool, as he later despairingly declares that his job is basically to annoy people by selling the time for the ads that nobody wants to hear when they turn on the radio, hence he’s basically a ‘professional irritator’. But of course you’re far more likely to become a radio station ad rep than to become LeBron James. </p>
<p>What therefore matters is that a college provides you access to jobs that are actually realistically attainable, since most of us will never be professional athletes or entertainers (or superheroes, obviously) that kids may want. Most people won’t get to be whatever they wanted to be when they were a kid. I certainly didn’t become Batman. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, no, I must diaagree. If the vast majority of entering (US) college students knew what they wanted to major in, then I guess colleges wouldn’t need to allow people to switch majors. Berkeley should simply declare that everybody pick a major in their application form, with no opportunity to switch. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is precisely why I think the US educational model is a better system, in that it (usually) allows you to delay your choice of major and gather more information before you finally decide what you want to do. I think there is little dispute that, whatever the rest of the problems of the country may be, the US has the best higher education system in the world. Certainly the notion that the US should emulate the systems of other countries would be a nonstarter to most people here, including me. This is also precisely why I strongly criticize the practices run by Berkeley’s College of Engineering, which does attempt to lock in its admittees into specific majors with only limited opportunities to switch later. The Stanford model - in which students are allowed to freely switch into any major they want without restriction- is a better system. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to fundamentally disagree with this point also. Let’s face it. How many high schools actually offered engineering? I know mine certainly didn’t, and my high school was actually an above-average school. Hence, how many high school seniors really know what it means to study engineering? Note - not work as an engineer, which is a different issue (and which perhaps can be gleaned from having a parent who is an engineer), but just to study engineering? I am quite certain that most practicing engineers would agree that working as an engineer is quite different from studying engineering. </p>
<p>Nor, again, do you even need to major in a particular field in order to work in that field. Most jobs don’t even have corresponding majors. Again, you can’t “major” in radio ad sales, but there are a lot of people like City Slickers Mitch around.<br>
You can’t “major” in consulting. You can’t “major” in venture capital. You can’t “major” in private equity. Heck, to even work as an engineer doesn’t always mean that you have to major in engineering. I know many computer engineers who never actually majored in engineering or CS. {Heck, some of them didn’t even graduate from college at all, and a few didn’t even graduate from high school.} </p>
<p>The US has the most flexible and innovative economy in the world because it employs “dynamic-typing”, meaning that your college major does not determine your job, which is a tremendous advantage in a turbulent market economy when entire industries are being created and destroyed all the time. 15 years ago, practically nobody outside of academia had ever even heard of the Internet. By the time today’s incoming college students hit middle age, they may hold jobs that don’t exist today, in an entirely new industry that doesn’t exist today. At the same time, the profession that he thought he had wanted when he was a college kid may no longer exist. {For example, as unmanned flight technology become better and better, there really may be no need for pilots sometime in the future.} What therefore matters is that you attend a school that prepares you with extensive opportunities and tools so that you will be prepared for whatever change is coming.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid I don’t see the relevance of that response for multiple reasons. </p>
<p>First off, sure, we all agree that Berkeley is a top engineering school. So what? The OP was not admitted to the College of Engineering. Now does the OP, or anybody else at Berkeley, have a guaranteed opportunity to switch into the CoE later. All of the CoE majors are impacted, and every year, multitudes of people try to switch into the CoE and are denied. What does it matter to you whether Berkeley has strong engineering programs if you can’t get into them? From your perspective, they might as well not even exist at all. </p>
<p>Secondly, many of the nation’s top engineering students, ironically, don’t actually want to be engineers, instead preferring higher paying fare. I think we can all agree that MIT is arguably the best engineering school in the world, yet the fact is, over 40% of all of MIT’s undergrads who enter the workforce take jobs in banking or consulting. {True, not all of MIT’s undergrads are engineers, but a majority are, and more importantly, all of them could be, as MIT allows students to switch majors without restriction.} For the best students, engineering is, frankly, seen as a lower-level job fit for those who just aren’t good enough to find something better: something of a ‘waste’ of a premier brand-name degree. Consider the lamentations of MIT alum Nicholas Pearce said in Time Magazine:</p>
<p>Even at M.I.T., the U.S.'s premier engineering school, the traditional career path has lost its appeal for some students. Says junior Nicholas Pearce, a chemical-engineering major from Chicago: “It’s marketed as–I don’t want to say dead end but sort of ‘O.K., here’s your role, here’s your lab, here’s what you’re going to be working on.’ Even if it’s a really cool product, you’re locked into it.” Like Gao, Pearce is leaning toward consulting. "If you’re an M.I.T. grad and you’re going to get paid $50,000 to work in a cubicle all day–as opposed to $60,000 in a team setting, plus a bonus, plus this, plus that–it seems like a no-brainer</p>
<p>[Are</a> We Losing Our Edge?| EECS at UC Berkeley](<a href=“http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Highlights/06.2-time.shtml]Are”>http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Highlights/06.2-time.shtml) </p>
<p>On another thread, somebody mentioned Ankur Luthra, Berkeley’s 2003 Rhodes Scholarship winner and an EECS superstar back in his day, graduating with a 3.96 GPA and earning 16 A+'s all in 3.5 years. It’s 6 years later, and what’s he doing now? Working as an engineer? Heck no - he’s working for a wealth management fund. Think about that. Only a few years ago, he was one of the very best engineering undergrads that Berkeley has ever produced…yet now he’s no longer in the engineering industry. That just shows that engineering simply does not provide the types of opportunities that other industries, such as finance, can provide that some of the very best people are looking for. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a rather large caveat. The Forbes study attempted to measure those graduates * who then never earned graduate degrees*. Yet that’s precisely the issue at hand: a high percentage of Brown, Columbia, and Cornell students will later earn graduate degrees. Heck, the OP himself indicated that he wants to go to graduate school. We can debate about whether the OP really will do that or not, but the point is, Forbes survey examines only a self-selected group of students who didn’t want to go to graduate school, or who couldn’t get in.</p>
<p>So, sure, I can agree that those Berkeley students who never obtain graduate degrees will probably outearn their Brown counterparts. But what about those Brown students who do obtain graduate degrees? Law school in particular seems extremely likely, especially considering the notoriously puffy grade inflation at Brown which is a great boon in terms of law school admissions. I suspect that those Brown alumni do quite well for themselves.</p>
<p>^^ I agree with the spirit of the point that most students have very little idea what it’s like to study certain subjects (distinguishing “study” from “practice” in particular), but frankly the way I would advise is to give a concise summary of the issues they might face because of uncertainty/ignorance. </p>
<p>The best advice that can be given, in my opinion, is to do one’s homework on what engineering coursework is like. I strongly believe it is possible to obtain a good idea of it if one tries. Having said that, I would advise students to come to Berkeley if they plan on doing engineering, because the department is great. Frankly, someone who’s at least semi informed can get the grades necessary to transfer out of engineering if the worst case scenario comes, because there’re so many students who’ll have no idea what they’re doing, and will constitute the bottom part of the curve.</p>
<p>And Berkeley has so many wonderful departments (arguably one of the best places for someone who’d like to turn left, turn right, and just see top notch departments everywhere) that switching out of engineering isn’t really an issue, because when you figure out what you’re interested in, chances are that department will be highly regarded, and in fact, <em>severely</em> well regarded.</p>
<p>EDIT: Notice, this is somewhat different from the advice I would give to a student considering Harvey Mudd, Caltech, or some such technical school. If you’re unsure of yourself, even if you’re smart, you’re kind of stuck with a technical school! Academic fit is important in some schools. I think Berkeley is so diversely a good school that academic fit isn’t an issue, and all one has to do is be informed. I think the premise of this thread, i.e. advising students based on the caliber of departments here, is actually very good, and just requires some prodding of the students to be informed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I still have to disagree with this premise also: that students really care about the strength of the departments. Let’s be perfectly honest. Most undergrads don’t really care. The overwhelming majority of undergrads do not care about the quality of research in their field, yet that’s what a ‘high ranking’ of a particular department entails. Instead, most undergrads care about matters far more mundane, such as simply getting a good job, or getting into an unrelated graduate school, such as law or medical school. What does it matter if you studied at the #1 Poli-sci department in the country if you’re not going to become a professional political scientist but rather are just going to end up in law school, as many poli-sci students do? </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is, most people will end up taking jobs or attending grad school programs that are at best only mildly related to whatever it is they majored in, for we live in a world where, if you want to have a decent career, you basically need a degree. It doesn’t really matter what the degree is in. You just need a degree in something, for most decent employers nowadays won’t even grant you an interview if you don’t have a degree. </p>
<p>But don’t take my word for it. Peruse the Berkeley career survey data yourself and note the vast multitudes of graduates who took jobs that had little if anything to do with their major, such as the English grad who ended up working as a barista at Starbucks. Or the math major who ended up as a waiter at Kells. {One would hope that he’s blazingly fast at calculating tips.} </p>
<p>[Career</a> Center - What Can I Do With a Major In…?](<a href=“http://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/Major.stm]Career”>http://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/Major.stm)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the thing is that most students may not care, but if you got into Berkeley, you may begin to care at some point in your college career, and I’d say to go to the school that gives you those educational opportunities if desired. Now granted, someone could get through Berkeley by taking easy classes forever, and job-wise, another student from a school with not even comparable departments might get an equivalently good job. So? Why go to a lesser school? </p>
<p>Now if you’re making a choice between two perfectly good schools, and you have no idea whatsoever what you want to do, then you probably shouldn’t make the decision based on deparments…BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA. But if a student professes to have interest in a department, why not advise based on what that department offers? </p>
<p>The one and only case in which I would caution students is when they believe they may want to do engineering, but are not accepted into the COE. That’s a highly specific case, and I would mention that as a side note, but aside from that, I would still advise based on departments. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do you know that the student wouldn’t enjoy immensely attending, say, such a political science department? I think you yourself have made the point before in threads much before this one that someone who went to a great Ph.D. program in, say the sciences, who eventually is forced to do something different, say in the financial market (and does well for himself in this way) should hardly be complaining! If you got to study at a great school and later are in a pretty lucrative career, there’s not much to be said. Friends of mine in EECS are generally not going to EECS grad school. Some of them will pick up business degrees, others won’t even do that. But these guys nevertheless load their schedules full scale, and work really hard, MUCH MUCH MUCH harder than they need to in order to get the jobs they plan to get, I imagine. Taking 4-5 EECS classes a semester, including the toughies, hardly seems necessary. Nevertheless, this is to say that the fact that they’re in a wonderfully top class department is a benefit to them regardless, and when spending 4 years of your life studying, it’s nice to have top notch departments at your disposal <em>in the event you’ll choose to make use of them</em>. </p>
<p>In the event you won’t, well to avoid what you always say, which is to say getting screwed by engineering, I would advise them on how to be well-informed about the engineering department, so they won’t run into trouble later.</p>
<p>EDIT: Another nice example – a friend who’s going on to law school, but studying Chem-E at Berkeley. Arguably unsurpassed in terms of difficulty. I believe students should try out what they’re passionate about, and if they see it’s hindering their career plans, switch out of the undesirable major. As I have said, most importantly this student must be <em>informed</em> as to the consequences of not performing up to speed, plus informed to a relative degree about what engineering is like to study in college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because I would instead advise based on the school’s overall graduation outcomes, which is a far more salient characteristic for most undergrads. Like I said, most undergrads just want to get a decent job, or get admitted to a top professional grad school through which to get a decent job. They don’t really care about the strength of the department. They just want to pick up their bachelor’s degree and move on with their lives. Come on, you know it’s true. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I am saying is that prospective undergrads should prioritize what will help them in their likely career, and the fact is, only a small minority of undergrads are going to become academic researchers. Most are going to head to industry, perhaps with professional grad school as an intermediary waypoint. It therefore behooves the students to choose a school that is well-connected with top recruiters and top jobs and/or provides a glide-path to the top professional graduate schools. That matters far more than whether your individual department happens to be highly ranked or not. </p>
<p>To give you a case in point, the University of Wisconsin is actually ranked (slightly) higher than Harvard when it comes to CS. But, let’s be honest, how many high school seniors are really going to prefer Wisconsin to Harvard, even if they’re going to major in CS? The fact of the matter is that a Harvard CS graduate is probably going to get a primo patrician job at a quant hedge fund, venture capital firm, investment bank or tech consultancy. Or he’s going to launch his own tech startup, the way that Zuckerberg et al did by launching Facebook in their Harvard dorm rooms, by virtue of the fact that Boston is one of the premier centers of tech entrepreneurship and venture funding in the world, second only to Silicon Valley. Those are the kinds of jobs that students really want to get. The Wisconsin CS grad will surely get a decent software job, but not the kinds of jobs available to the Harvard guy. </p>
<p>This entire discussion all boils down to a basic point: whether we like it or not, for most people, the college degree has become the social conduit through which to obtain decent jobs, and the undergraduate major is therefore, frankly speaking, a sideshow that you endure for 4 years before you move on with your life. The real value of the college experience is therefore its ability to match you with desirable jobs, or desirable professional grad schools which will then later match you with desirable jobs. That a school matches you with top employers is far more important than whether it happens to match you with top departments.</p>
<p>Now, obviously if you can have it all, then take it all. If your choice is between Berkeley and Cal State East Bay, then I don’t think that’s a serious dilemma in the least. But if your choice is between a school with top departments but relatively weaker job placement vs. a school with weaker departments but stronger job placement, then you should probably prioritize the latter. Again, I don’t think too many of us would want to graduate from college only to end up working at Starbucks or as head cashier at Barnes & Nobles.</p>
<p>
Wasn’t he a double major - engineering and business? </p>
<p>What did he study at Oxford?
Having a technical background helps with a lot of jobs in this increasing technological world</p>
<p>Yes, engineering is sometimes not lucrative enough. Granted I enjoy the greater free time and less stress. Tradeoffs…always tradeoffs.</p>