<p>"That is markable difference. how many would fall into that case? "</p>
<p>I see what you mean now. No, I wasn't saying that they'd all increase 50 points. Think of it like this:</p>
<p>first try: CR 730, M 690, W 690 - total: 2110
second try: CR 620, M 720, W 720 - total: 2060</p>
<p>As you can see, the difference between the two is actually a 50-point decrease. But taking the highest scores of each will give you a total of 2170, which is well above both of the scores. So while the average increase is more like 20-30 points, a person can take it a few times and increase each section 20-30 points, which would come out to a substantial difference. (This is highly mechanical -- just an example.)</p>
<p>"I doubt UC Berkeley has more diverse flora."</p>
<p>I can't believe you're actually trying to argue against me on this. I don't know how Berkeley's and USC's flora stand -- that was the point: that it doesn't matter. I could've used number of pigeons or other mundane statistics. The point was, flora, like geographic diversity within the US, does not make a significant difference. Or at least that's what I see. </p>
<p>"You're showing a severe lack of logic when discounting geography."</p>
<p>A severe lack of logic would be to make a non sequitur when presented with information. In this case, I wasn't presented with information (i.e. how geographic diversity within the US makes a difference), so I wasn't able to make a non sequitur and show my obvious ineptitude in logic and reasoning.</p>
<p>"There are cliques based on geography...."</p>
<p>I'm glad you finally followed up with examples. However, as an added note, I don't find geographic diversity to be of utmost importance (even with your examples in mind), but USC clearly has the advantage. But you also have to consider that Berkeley is a state university, so its job is to serve the people of California, not the country (this is not an excuse for its lack of diversity but rather a reason for it). At any rate, considering the size of California, that's enough geographic diversity. =p</p>
<p>"how does UC B have over 300 degree programs for its undergrads?"</p>
<p>I never specified whether it was for undergrads or not; I simply said, Berkeley offers 300 degree programs.</p>
<p>"If USC offers a similiar number of majors and minors, how would UC B have more degree programs."</p>
<p>I never said that, either. I'm simply saying: I do not think USC is more diverse in major choice than Berkeley. They are, at best, equals. You are free to reject and clarify this observation.</p>
<p>"USC offers the same or even more majors."</p>
<p>I'm going to doubt you. Again, 156 is A LOT -- more than Harvard, obviously superior to USC, has. This is an argument from incredulity, obviously, but only because I honestly don't think that USC would have that many majors, but rather that many *degrees<a href="there%20is%20a%20difference">/I</a>.</p>
<p>"and USC does offer over 156 majors."</p>
<p>Source? A link would be preferable.</p>
<p>"Harvard and Stanford are smaller schools so of course it will offer less majors. "
This is an assumption. Smaller schools do tend to have fewer majors, but in the case of the elite universities, it simply means that there are fewer people in each major, not that there are fewer majors.</p>
<p>"the endowment numbers are not important."</p>
<p>Then why have qualms over numbers?</p>
<p>"I wondered how UC B was better at this especially since USC has a bigger endowment."</p>
<p>Although I can't give you specifics on opportunities in respect to the schools, I can tell you this: such a difference in endowment--not a hugely significant endowment difference, like that between Berkeley and Stanford for instance--will not somehow allow USC to offer many more opportunities than Berkeley.</p>