Berkeley vs University of Pennsylvania...can't decide!!!

[mathboy98]

<p>Sure Sakky, part of why I’ve supported your statements about flexibility of majors, etc, is that I (whom I consider to be the kind of student who knows what he wants pretty well) have first-hand seen what it’s like to switch.</p>

<p>

So, again, I’m basing my statements on what people actually want, as demonstrated by their revealed preferences. Whether we like it or not, the fact is, only a minority of undergrads students at even the top schools will ever go to academia, or even think they want to. The vast majority of them just want a decent job.

</p>

<p>I agree most students just want a decent job. The thing is, by definition, super-selective jobs are super-selective. Rather tautological. Not everyone is going to make it into them, and few good students will make it into them.</p>

<p>You have to understand that the <em>only</em> students who care about the departments need not be the ones headed to academia. It’s hard to tell who cares. I think it’s an important consideration to put out when throwing stuff out there on a forum like this – i.e. <em>this is a strength of Berkeley</em>. Some may not care, but whoever cares will listen. </p>

<p>Frankly, if anything Sakky, the better students at Berkeley in particular seem like they’d care quite a bit – you look at some of my roommates, and they’re engineers; not out to go to academia, not out to prove they can get into the best grad schools. But as I mentioned earlier, they care tons about the level of the classes they take, even if their eventual goal is a good job, and nothing academic in nature. I find a lot of the better students at Berkeley really got in for their academic qualification; they didn’t do clubs out of school, didn’t do this and that – were just good students; plenty of those guys who complain they had perfect scores and grades but got rejected from the HYP type schools end up at Berkeley, to my experience. A fair number of these would really care about the educational experience, and it’s important to cater to them. They may not form the <em>majority</em> of Berkeley (or HYPSM), but there’re enough of them that I’m not talking ot the top 30 undergraduates in their majors or something!</p>

<p>If you think basic job prospects are more important to discuss than specialized major rankings, I am all with you. But for instance, if we’re talking about who got this amazingly intellectually stimulating job at Google that some top-notch computer scientist got, I think you’ve probably narrowed down the population which can realistically benefit from your advice more than even I have. </p>

<p>Oh and academia a brand-name-focused machine? Certainly, I am with you on that.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I agree most students just want a decent job. The thing is, by definition, super-selective jobs are super-selective. Rather tautological. Not everyone is going to make it into them, and few good students will make it into them.

</p>

<p>I think it’s not quite as tautological as you guys seem to make it out to be. Again, Berkeley is within the top 1% of all schools in the country. Hence, Berkeley students have already surpassed one of the most selective admissions processes in the world, and have access to one of the most powerful educational brand names in the world. {For example, I would say that Berkeley easily has the best brand name of any public school in the country, and there are hundreds upon hundreds of public schools in the country}. Many of the most desirable and desired recruiters, such as McKinsey and Goldman Sachs, do come to visit Berkeley. Somebody who goes to Southeast Missouri State can’t even dream of getting hired at McKinsey right out of undergrad, but somebody at Berkeley can. </p>

<p>But the comparison on the table is not Berkeley vs. some average school such as Southeast Missouri State. That’s not a close call. The comparison is between Berkeley vs. the other elite schools that also have comparable and arguably better job opportunities. I think that’s a far more difficult case to make. </p>

<p>

If you think basic job prospects are more important to discuss than specialized major rankings, I am all with you. If you think basic job prospects are more important to discuss than specialized major rankings, I am all with you. But for instance, if we’re talking about who got this amazingly intellectually stimulating job at Google that some top-notch computer scientist got, I think you’ve probably narrowed down the population which can realistically benefit from your advice more than even I have.

</p>

<p>I think that high-end job offers are now common enough within the top schools that they can be considered to be “basic” job prospects, at least according to those students. Again, about half of all undergrads at the top private schools who enter the workforce will enter consulting or banking. If you were to then add in the high-end, highly desired jobs in regular (non-consulting/banking) industries - i.e. engineering jobs at Google, Facebook, Apple, or their own startup, research jobs at top national labs, or jobs at top NGO’s or elite government agencies - the total percentage would then be well over 50%. Hence, I think it’s safe to say that these supposedly ‘super-selective’ jobs are actually common enough to be considered rather normal at those schools. Obviously they would be considered to be completely out of reach for the students at most schools. But we’re not talking about what happens at most schools, we’re talking about what happens at the very best schools. </p>

<p>

But as I mentioned earlier, they care tons about the level of the classes they take, even if their eventual goal is a good job, and nothing academic in nature. I find a lot of the better students at Berkeley really got in for their academic qualification; they didn’t do clubs out of school, didn’t do this and that – were just good students; plenty of those guys who complain they had perfect scores and grades but got rejected from the HYP type schools end up at Berkeley, to my experience.

</p>

<p>You guys keep raising this point, and I still fail to see its relevance. Sure, many Berkeley students didn’t rack up the list of extracurriculars that are necessary to be competitive for admissions at the top private schools. So? I don’t see how that matters in terms of what these students actually want to do after college. Just because somebody didn’t join clubs in high school means that he’s disproportionately less likely to care about getting a good job after college compared to somebody who did join clubs in high school? I don’t buy the correlation. I think it is more likely that everybody wants a good job, whether they were active in high school EC’s or not.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

So? I don’t see how that matters in terms of what these students actually want to do after college. Just because somebody didn’t join clubs in high school means that he’s disproportionately less likely to care about getting a good job after college compared to somebody who did join clubs in high school? I don’t buy the correlation. I think it is more likely that everybody wants a good job, whether they were active in high school EC’s or not.

</p>

<p>Of course they want good jobs. It’s a huge part of what my roommates want, including the EECS majors. Sakky, from my high school, several of the top-ranked students were accepted to HYPS. I can say with confidence that only one guy who went to Harvard, along with several of the Berkeley-bound students doing math/science type majors ended up being the kinds who had a simple approach to both high school and college. They wanted to attend a good university + get good, solid coursework in high school, and in college, they wanted to attend a program with particularly good curricula, plus get a pretty good job afterwords. </p>

<p>Basically Sakky, the people who went to Berkeley from my high school and other high schools fell into two different categories: A) the decently good students who got admission into noncompetitive majors, but are clearly not HYP material, and B) the ones who were definitely up to that level intellectually, but didn’t play the game. The latter category is what I tend to appeal to, because I know less about how to appeal to the former category. To the latter category, I think your points and my points are truly both equally important. To the former, your points are more important. Nevertheless, the latter variety makes a fair presence, as I’ve seen in several good schools. Sure, there are fewer good schools than decent schools, but enough good schools that I think both messages need to be thrown out there.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

the total percentage would then be well over 50%. Hence, I think it’s safe to say that these supposedly ‘super-selective’ jobs are actually common enough to be considered rather normal at those schools. Obviously they would be considered to be completely out of reach for the students at most schools. But we’re not talking about what happens at most schools, we’re talking about what happens at the very best schools.

</p>

<p>This is fair, then under this definition of “super-selective,” I will definitely agree that the number of students desiring and realistically aiming for these jobs is profound enough to warrant serious advising.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I can say with confidence that only one guy who went to Harvard, along with several of the Berkeley-bound students doing math/science type majors ended up being the kinds who had a simple approach to both high school and college. They wanted to attend a good university + get good, solid coursework in high school, and in college, they wanted to attend a program with particularly good curricula, plus get a pretty good job afterwords.

</p>

<p>Right, and I think you would then also agree that if that same person could trade that ‘pretty good’ job for a true superstar job - i.e. an offer at a top strategy consulting or banking firm - he would almost assuredly take it. I highly doubt that such a person would turn that offer down because he’s satisfied with his ‘pretty good’ job. Just like if Jessica Alba asked me out on a date tonight, I’m quite certain that I would not turn her down because I’m satisfied to stay home on Friday night and watch Prison Break. That’s not exactly a hard choice to make. </p>

<p>Just because you can’t get something doesn’t mean that you don’t want it. I know I can’t get a date w/Jessica, so I don’t waste my time trying. But I still want it. Similarly, a lot of Berkeley students know realistically that they can’t get a top consulting or banking job offer. Without saying more, I think we both know the type. But I reckon that they still want it.</p>

[blueducky]

<p>Are the opportunities offered by other elites truly that much more/better than those offered by Berkeley?</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

Right, and I think you would then also agree that if that same person could trade that ‘pretty good’ job for a true superstar job - i.e. an offer at a top strategy consulting or banking firm - he would almost assuredly take it. I highly doubt that such a person would turn that offer down because he’s satisfied with his ‘pretty good’ job.

</p>

<p>Sure, of course. I’ll take this as a very noncontroversial point.</p>

[SDTB]

<p>

@KitKatz

SDTB: I have no means to go visit so I can’t say. I have been to Cal but not to Penn. Personally, I like Cal. But I can’t say for Penn. But to be honest, I don’t really mind either way social wise or geography wise. Both places has its pros and cons (diversity and rich culture in the east coast or nice weather, friendly people minus the bums and SF at berk). and as for social life, both schools are large, and therefore, widely varied in social groups (though Berkeley is not as diverse in student body as I would like). I will find my perfect niche at either school.

I’m sure you could find your niche; most people can in a big school as long as they try. However, don’t underestimate the importance of a visit. If this truly is a hair-splitting situation, wouldn’t it be safer to go with what you know then what you don’t know? You know for sure how you feel about Cal’s atmosphere. It sounds like that there’s a high probability that you’ll be fine at Penn, but you still don’t know for sure.</p>

<p>

@sakky

Are we talking about all of society, or are we specifically talking about the undergrad population at Berkeley? I think the latter population is far more relevant to the topic at hand.

My post was a clarification of your posting intentions. I didn’t mean to start anything beyond that.</p>

<p>

@sakky

I don’t see any reason to believe that the desires of Berkeley students are significantly different from that of those of students at HYPSM. Heck, many Berkeley students applied to at least one of HYPSM. What is different is therefore not their desires but rather their qualifications: they just weren’t good enough to get in.

If your talking about jobs and all else being equal (money/location/family/etc.), you’re probably right.</p>

<p>

@sakky

Well, I think the latter would be very hard to do, don’t you think? Take the field of Chemistry. I think every respectable chemist would know that, say, (Nobel laureate in Chemistry) Elias James Corey is at Harvard.

@sakky

The point is, it is hard to separate out famous names from where they work, as those two are a known and linked dyad. You have to use unknown names from low-prestige schools. I agree with you that that still leaves open the question about whether the dominant variable is the author name or the university name.

This is my exact point, so I think we agree here. Although the study sounds nice, it can’t answer the more interesting questions because that type of study is not really feasible. The question I am arguing for is that name > institution name in academics. I could be completely wrong, though.</p>

<p>To be honest, although these types of prizes are more coveted by the academic elite, it is interesting that I can’t say I memorized every Nobel Laureate’s name in my field or my subfield, right now. It’s much easier to memorize a few schools. So there’s something to be said for that.</p>

<p>However, I definitely tend to respect a Nobel Laureate more.

@sakky

However, many people strongly suspect that the fact that Banting and MacLeod came from the relatively highly prestigious University of Toronto as opposed to Paulescu who worked at the relatively obscure University of Bucharest (in Romania) had something to do with his snubbing.

That may be true, but I can also come up with another story, as well. The 2007 Nobel Laureate in chemistry is Gerhard Ertl, no one else. Many people believe Gabor Somorjai, a Berkeley chemist, was snubbed. Both chemists have shared every major award including the Wolf Prize. The only award they don’t share is the Nobel. Even Gerhard admits that he wished he could share the prize with Somorjai. I don’t think Berkeley chemistry is lacking in the name department.</p>

<p>These types of anecdotes won’t get us too far. I’m sure there are some cases that support your argument, but there are also cases that argue against it.

@sakky

However, the fact that we’ve established that academics place their old alma maters prominently on the first page of their CV’s - and that other academics eagerly seek out the CV’s of their colleagues - all strongly indicate that university branding seems to have great value within the world of academia. People will judge you on the supposed prestige of your department.

I think there’s some truth to it, but I also think it’s also a little bit of formality. Also, I forgot to mention that it is sometimes common for people to put the PI they worked for along with the school name at the top of the CV. Again, it’s difficult to differentiate which is more important. I tend to think PI name is more important, but I’m also an “outsider looking in” because I don’t hire faculty. </p>

<p>My impression of CV’s is that schools are the easiest to identify with, which is why they are at the top. In my opinion, it works kind of like a funnel: it starts very general and then gets more specific. So, going off your logic, the listing of the school is like the topic sentence or the attention grabber, but it isn’t the thesis statement. That’s my interpretation of it.

@sakky

You don’t have a long CV’s worth of research publications, and whatever publications you may have probably haven’t (yet) been highly cited. Now you have to rely on every advantage you can get, and your university branding can be one of them.

I don’t disagree that the name of an institution can help. However, one of the biggest reasons it takes time to get tenure is because the asst. prof. needs to build up quality publications.

@sakky

So you think I’m on the outside looking in, eh? Is that what you think? </p>

<p>I don’t want to get into my biography, but trust me, I know the process quite well. And since you seem to also, I think you would agree that academia is something of a game.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend you. I don’t know the process that well. I’m just assuming that we are both people that don’t participate in faculty hiring/judging at elite institutions – hence we are outsiders looking in. </p>

<p>I also thought that you have a professional degree, most likely business, based on your posts/knowledge, but I could be completely wrong.</p>

<p>I do agree with you that academia is something of a game.</p>

<p>

@mathboy98

Basically Sakky, the people who went to Berkeley from my high school and other high schools fell into two different categories: A) the decently good students who got admission into noncompetitive majors, but are clearly not HYP material, and B) the ones who were definitely up to that level intellectually, but didn’t play the game.

</p>

<p>More-or-less this.</p>

[brassring]

<p>Didn’t think I’d see anyone describe Princeton in the terms OP just did: “I understand what you said about Princeton but that school is just gruesome…absolutely horrific.”</p>

<p>Not very diplomatic, but that will probably make you a good diplomat.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Are the opportunities offered by other elites truly that much more/better than those offered by Berkeley?

</p>

<p>I would characterize Berkeley as that you have to fight harder for those opportunities, and probably unnecessarily so. That is because, while the opportunities for the more desirable jobs do exist at Berkeley (except for the most selective ones such as the top VC/PE firms), there is far more competition for those jobs from the other students. Again, I seem to recall that the high-end consulting and banking firms that would show up at the recruiting fairs would result in queues of interested students that snaked around the entire auditorium, and sometimes even spilled into the adjoining hallway (and I think in one case, actually overflowed the hallway and into the street). I know many students who wanted to work at such firms who couldn’t even get an interview slot through the Career Office’s recruiting system because all of them had been taken by other interested students. In contrast, while this is an anecdote, I have never heard of a single student at those other schools who wanted a job at a top consulting firm and who couldn’t get an interview with at least one of them. {That’s not to say that they got the offer, but at least they could get the interview.}</p>

<p>Although I don’t know the exact figure, I am quite confident in saying that the percentage of Berkeley undergrads who enter the workforce who take jobs in consulting or banking is nowhere near the 40-50% that occurs at other schools. It’s probably no more than 10-20%. Again, it’s not because they don’t want those jobs, but rather that they just can’t get them. </p>

<p>One way to break through the logjam is to become a Haas student, not only because Haas serves as an additional screen that prevents the weaker Berkeley students from even being admitted to the program, but also because Haas does an excellent job of properly preparing its students on the mechanics and art of interviewing and public speaking. Interviewing is truly one of the most valuable life skills you will ever have. I wish I was better at it. Frankly speaking, it’s more important than studying hard, as a mediocre student can still get a killer job if he has sensational interview skills, and a star student may get stuck with mediocre jobs if his interviewing skills are poor. </p>

<p>But of course the problem is that most Berkeley students can’t get into Haas. Then the next best step is to try to build those career skills on your own time.</p>

[KitKatz]

<p>STB: that is true.</p>

<p>Can anyone tell me about the research opportunities and internship available at both schools?</p>

<p>Right after looking at the faculty at Berkeley for poli sci, I’ve found a few interesting professors. Would Regents help me get started on possible research opportunities with them?</p>

[middsmith]

<p>aren’t you the guy who pointed out the law of large number?</p>

<p>

@sakky

the high-end consulting and banking firms that would show up at the recruiting fairs would result in queues of interested students that snaked around the entire auditorium, and sometimes even spilled into the adjoining hallway
I have never heard of a single student at those other schools who wanted a job at a top consulting firm and who couldn’t get an interview with at least one of them.
Although I don’t know the exact figure, I am quite confident in saying that the percentage of Berkeley undergrads who enter the workforce who take jobs in consulting or banking is nowhere near the 40-50% that occurs at other schools. It’s probably no more than 10-20%. Again, it’s not because they don’t want those jobs, but rather that they just can’t get them.

</p>

<p>

@KitKatz

Right after looking at the faculty at Berkeley for poli sci, I’ve found a few interesting professors. Would Regents help me get started on possible research opportunities with them?

No. But you can sign up for their classes, impress them and they’d take you on.</p>

[KitKatz]

<br>

@""

<p>Brassring:</p>

<br>

<p>"Didn’t think I’d see anyone describe Princeton in the terms OP just did: “I understand what you said about Princeton but that school is just gruesome…absolutely horrific.”</p>

<p>Not very diplomatic, but that will probably make you a good diplomat."</p>

<p>lol</p>

<p>I dont know if you’ve ever visited Princeton, talked to the students there or what kind of person you are. A lot of them are really stuck up, sullen and arrogant and I am a down to earth, quirky and perky person. </p>

<p>It might be a great school, but its atmosphere is just deadly.</p>

<br>

@""

<p>middsmith: okay, that’s what I though. Thanks :)</p>

<br>

[sakky]

<p>

aren’t you the guy who pointed out the law of large number?

</p>

<p>The law of large numbers is precisely what is hurting you here: as a Berkeley undergrad, you have to wade through the hordes of other Berkeley students to get to the top jobs, combined with the fact that those top jobs don’t want to recruit as high of a percentage of students from Berkeley as from those other schools.</p>

<p>Let me put it to you this way. Berkeley has about 23k undergrads. If HYPSM were a combined school, it would have about 27k undergrads. Shouldn’t the law of large numbers apply to them? Yet the fact remains that 40-50% of HYPSM undergrads who enter the workforce will take jobs in the highly desired consulting/banking industries, whereas no such comparable percentage is true of Berkeley.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>^^ So you’d say the reason is that there is too much competition within Berkeley? Or what would you say is the reason?</p>

[middsmith]

<p>If HYPSM were a combined school, the law of large number will apply to them. There will be hordes of students waiting in line to get an interview. Only a few will get them. Only 40% of H enters the banking industry. Of those 40%, I highly doubt 50% of them get into “highly desired” jobs. As for YPSM, the number is lower.<br>
If you put them together, those that would have made it into the banking sector might not anymore because of heavy competition.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

If HYPSM were a combined school, the law of large number will apply to them. There will be hordes of students waiting in line to get an interview. Only a few will get them

</p>

<p>I would dispute that, but even if that’s true, then that’s only yet another reason to prefer HYPSM over Berkeley, right? Why suffer from the Law of Large Numbers if you don’t have to? </p>

<p>

Only 40% of H enters the banking industry. Of those 40%, I highly doubt 50% of them get into “highly desired” jobs. As for YPSM, the number is lower.

</p>

<p>I’m not talking about just the banking industry. I’m talking about the banking and consulting industries, combined. </p>

<p>

Of those 40%, I highly doubt 50% of them get into “highly desired” jobs.

</p>

<p>Even a less desirable banking (or consulting) job is, frankly, still a lot better than most of the regular jobs out there, including the ones that the majority of Berkeley grads unfortunately end up taking. Such as being a barista at Starbucks or head cashier at Barnes & Nobles, as reported by the Berkeley career reports. </p>

<p>[Career</a> Center - What Can I Do With a Major In…?](<a href=“http://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/English.stm]Career”>http://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/English.stm)</p>

[Maharba1147]

<p>[Harvard</a> OTR: Fresno Resident Graduates From Harvard With a 4.0 GPA, Now Works at Blockbuster](<a href=“CollegeOTR.com – College On The Record”>CollegeOTR.com – College On The Record)</p>

[middsmith]

<p>

I would dispute that, but even if that’s true, then that’s only yet another reason to prefer HYPSM over Berkeley, right? Why suffer from the Law of Large Numbers if you don’t have to?

In absolute number, Berkeley send as many students to these professions as HYPSM. Harvard isn’t a transformer. It cannot get a banking job for a mediocre student.
The same student would still be able to get into the same job had he gone to Berkeley. So the law of large number wouldn’t apply to him at all.</p>

[areucool1234]

<p>if money is not a problem then just go to Penn…Berkeley is unreasonably difficult, dirty, and bad!</p>