<p>For the record, I usually argue for using departmental rankings, especially recent graduate rankings, to determine which undergraduate programs are best (anyone who doesn’t think that the two have a strong correlation needs to consider what makes a graduate program ‘the best’ and how much those factors affect undergrads–the two aren’t as separated as people on CC want to make them seem). But there’s a lot more to consider here, and ultimately, following the departmental ranking will likely harm you here, not help.</p>
<p>^^^^So are you saying it’s better to go to Yale in this case, or in ANY case? If you think Yale is better for all disciplines at the undergraduate level because of your reasoning, then I suppose departmental rankings would be meaningless to you. Btw, I am not necessarily disagreeing with your assessment. It just seems to me that, once again, the assumption here on CC is that HYPSM trump all other major universities for undergraduate education no matter what discipline. If that is the case, than the “prestige whores” should be siding with Yale over Berkeley and not the other way around.</p>
<p>TBH Phantasmagoric has been unable to- like most people have- to argue for why departmental rankings could affect an undergraduate education. I think he should also explain to me how LACs are renowned to train their undergraduates well despite having no departmental reputation at the graduate level. There are only two direct benefits- research and a diversity of graduate level classes which you can likely find at other less known depeartments. </p>
<p>Still waiting for someone to tell me why Berkeley’s undergraduate CS program is even better than that at Yale.</p>
<p>Silence as usual.</p>
<p>Good Lord, let’s just rehash all the rhetoric about these two universities…that’s all this thread has done…Berkeley undergrad sucks, you can’t graduate on time, Yale will teach you better “soft skills”, if this was Berkeley graduate school it would be different, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…</p>
<p>First of all, the OP hasn’t even been accepted to these universities yet.
Second, if the OP is smart enough to get into Yale, he or she will likely have no problems graduating Berkeley EECS in 4 years.
Third, Berkeley engineering requires its undergrads graduate in 4 years…this policy stands despite the hand wringing about budget cuts. Berkeley is very generous with AP credits. [Freshman</a> Admission FAQ — UC Berkeley College of Engineering](<a href=“Prospective freshman FAQs - Berkeley Engineering”>Prospective freshman FAQs - Berkeley Engineering)
Fourth, current Berkeley EECS majors have had seen no impact due budget cuts.
Fifth, Berkeley is expanding enrollment of international and domestic OOS students to help shore up its finances. </p>
<p>The OP will be fine whichever university he or she ultimately decides. </p>
<p>And, for the record, phantasmajoric is a Stanford student. :)</p>
<p>But, like phantasmajoric said:
</p>
<p>
You’re forgetting that a Yale admit at Berkeley will likely be a very strong student and be capable of using Berkeley’s resources to his/her advantage.</p>
<p>Bored down on the Farm? ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, definitely not; this case is special for many reasons, e.g. Berkeley’s funding is in serious jeopardy and it shows; Berkeley has already had many problems before the economic downturn related to classes, like denying students entry to a major, crushing their GPAs in engineering (among other majors) and making it hard to get into grad school, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s because it wasn’t the point of my post, but I’ll gladly explain, though it’s quite simple. First ask, what makes a graduate department a ‘top’ one? The top-ranked graduate departments have more renowned faculty in their field (they tend to be the ones with all the accolades, publications in the most prestigious journals and conferences, etc.); as a result of this, they tend to have the best funding (attracting all the top grants, donors, etc.); as a result of that they tend to have the best facilities; they will attract the best graduate students and will also be the most selective; they will have larger and more diverse course offerings; because of this perception of excellence and because of funding, they’re able to attract (and retain) more top faculty; they tend to be very well staffed, again, because of funding; they tend to have more organizations (centers, institutes, groups, labs) dedicated to their areas of study; and so on.</p>
<p>Each of these areas has a direct influence on the undergraduates there. They’re taught by the same faculty; they have access to the courses; they can work with the graduate students on research, academic activities, etc.; they can work with the faculty members, either in research or independent study; they have access to those top facilities; the department tends to offer the undergraduates more opportunities, like internships, with those faculty, often under the auspices of the organizations (center this or institute that); recruiters tend to come to the department in droves. You get the idea.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s no contradiction–LACs fundamentally have a very different mission and they’re quite good at what they do. Nobody will deny that at universities (the ones in the graduate rankings) will offer a greater diversity of courses, faculty, research, opportunities, etc. than at an LAC, as a mere function of size. That’s not to say that the LAC model of education is inferior, it’s just different: they focus more on small classes, a broader education, liberal arts, mandatory interaction with professors, etc. and less so on research, organizations for scholarly study, a ton of different courses covering every topic in the field, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and diversity of undergraduate courses, and faculty, and library holdings, and facilities, and reading groups, and organizations… not to mention the best undergraduates are going to be attracted to the school for these same reasons. Let’s face it: a student interested in, say, the arts is more likely to choose Yale over Harvard; a student interested in econ will choose UChicago over JHU; and so on. The graduate programs have a strong ‘trickle down’ effect on their undergraduate counterparts. It doesn’t make sense that the two would be separated.</p>
<p>This isn’t to say that a lower-ranked department won’t have those. Rather, top-ranked departments tend to have a greater diversity of those opportunities, and those opportunities tend to be higher-quality overall (for example, going to Princeton for mathematics means you could have the opportunity to work at the Institute for Advanced Study, which is extremely prestigious; going to Stanford for computer science means you could get to work with people at the Palo Alto Research Center, or in SAIL, or at SRI, or at any of the plethora of lesser-known companies that come on campus to recruit undergraduate students for internships).</p>
<p>The fact that the strong relationship between graduate and undergraduate programs is in doubt is rather surprising to me, actually.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would make sense, if it weren’t for the fact that many factors influencing that are out of a student’s control, like unreasonable curves on classes, getting into a class that you want or need, etc. What if the OP wants to change his major? What if the OP wants to have strong recommendations but can’t get involved with a professor long enough?</p>
<p>I’m not saying that all of these things make it impossible for students, because many do just fine. But the difficulty associated with it is just not worth it when you have an option like Yale on the table. (The OP mentioned being in unofficially at both, so I assume he/she got Regents at Berkeley and/or a likely letter at Yale.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hold no ill will toward Berkeley and had long wanted to go there, but being saddled with $20,000 in debt at graduation didn’t seem like much fun in comparison to a full ride at Stanford.</p>
<p>Plus, Stanford’s better. ;)</p>
<p>Really, UCBChemEGrad, it’s admirable to stick up for Berkeley, but there’s no denying that it has significant problems that it’s trying to fix, and that those problems are hindering its ability to educate undergraduate students with the quality of its past or of its peers like HYPS. I don’t believe that EECS hasn’t felt the budget cuts; everyone has. That Berkeley is enrolling more international students makes a tiny impact on the deficit that the school is facing. I’m surprised you didn’t mention that the school recently established a separate company to manage its endowment (which it’s been meaning to do for years). But again, in the meantime, there are a lot of drawbacks to going to Berkeley for undergrad, and they’re simply not worth it when you could go to the decent CS program at Yale.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s kind of insulting to many current Berkeley students to assume that only a “Yale admit” would be competent enough to use the school’s resources to his/her advantages, the implication being that those who are “only” Berkeley admits are incapable. Like I said, there are problematic factors outside of a student’s control, regardless of where he/she was admitted.</p>
<p>
Of course the elite privates can provide more care and feeding to their undergrads. Even in flush times though, Berkeley’s resources to undergrads never came close to those at elite privates. It irritates me that people say this whole budget issue is hurting the undergrad experience at Berkeley…perhaps in some majors this is true. From what I’ve heard, not as much with EECS. If cuts continue, Berkeley will likely cut enrollment since its overenrolled as is with unfunded students. There are numerous levers to pull and Berkeley is working hard to minimize impact. Ironically and sadly, these cuts will most likely affect Berkeley’s public mission more than anything else.</p>
<p>
I mentioned this in response to your observation of “competing with thousands of other students”…sure, Berkeley has numerous smart, and capable students, but usually Ivy admits (and Berkeley Regents scholars) are more academically capable on average…esp when you’re talking about harsh grading curves, etc…</p>
<p>sefago,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unlike LACs, Berkeley is huge and run by different departments. Each of these departments have their own goals, objectives, policies, facilities, faculty and students. They are in ther own world, so to speak. In short, a department at a school like Berkeley is already almost similar to a whole school. Berkeley engineering = Harvey Mudd or Caltech. Berkeley Haas = Williams or Dartmouth. Berkeley L&S = Columbia or Vanderbilt. </p>
<p>The CS at Berkeley is under the college of engineering, particularly EECS. Now, you were asking us how is EECS a superior program than some of the undergraduate programs at Berkeley. From the school set up alone, you can actually tell that is possible. </p>
<p>The College of Engineering at Berkeley has great facilities and laboratories that are much better and more advanced than what they have at Yale. The EECS have more money and they have better facilities than the other colleges within the university. They have money because, aside from the fact they they have budget allocation from the university, they also have private sponsors. And several private philanthropies and companies have tied up with them. As a result, they are not cash strapped like the other colleges within the university are, and they’re able to hire world-class faculty (which now counts almost 300) and able to maintain their facilities on their own. For example, the EECS department has CITRIS. [Headquarters</a> | CITRIS](<a href=“http://citris-uc.org/about/headquarters]Headquarters”>Sutardja Dai Hall - CITRIS and the Banatao Institute) Yale does not have any counterpart of it. As a result, Berkeley CS is more vibrant. Students are more exposed and have access to bigger and well-funded research projects collaborating with the best scientists in the world. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Berkeley CS is better than Yale CS because of the level of exposure that the Berkeley CS students get. That’s one. Two, Berkeley CS faculty are better, and often, are the authority in the area. Three, Berkeley’s CS curriculum is better – it’s geared towards becoming an expert in the field. Yale’s curriculum has mixed of liberal arts / humanities, something that’s not quite relevant to CS, and perhaps, an indication that Yale’s CS lacks breadth and resources. Four, Berkeley has significantly better and bigger alumni in the area, making networking more active and vibrant. Silicon Valley is dominated by Berkeley alumni, apart from Stanford alumni. There are many more companies that visit and recruit graduates at Berkeley than there are at Yale. Berkeley CS grads are paid more – they make an average of 77k a year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Berkeley EECS/CS aren’t that big either. they produce only 88 CS and 282 EECS majors. The department have nearly 300 faculty and over a hundred staff. They have larger facilities, many projects, so the students get more exposures.</p>
<p>
Although I think lesdia meant it in a very different sense, I very much agree with this. Fit is not to be underestimated in terms of college selection…both Yale and Berkeley are great universities, and either would serve a student perfectly well. The difference in academics pales in comparison to other quite important factors.</p>
<p>The bickering over the relative strength of the computer science programs is silly. Yale is perhaps not a world leader in computer science, but it is not chopped liver either. Berkeley has a significant CS presence, to be sure, but it does not have a monopoly, and there is little one can’t do with a Yale degree and a fair amount of effort and networking. Long time posters may remember this individual:
Shockingly, this individual performed well at Vandy, which - GASP - has a CS program ranked well below that of Yale’s (and by extension, Berkeley’s). </p>
<p>So, to the OP…do your own research and ignore the squabbling so popular with certain individuals on CC. Sadly there are several posters (usually on both sides of such debates) so concerned with seizing the opportunity to show how their schools are as good or better than others that they neglect the needs and wants of the student in question. </p>
<p>A more appropriate question, then: Where can you see yourself for four years?</p>
<p>Do you want a smaller school or a fairly large one? A smallish city or a suburb of a large city? Nice weather year-round or distinct seasons? A strongly residential college system or life off campus? A strong or weak athletic tradition? I’m sure you have many other factors to consider.</p>
<p>Berkeley EECS for sure. Yale is not known for CS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Diverse course offerings can be found in less strong departments. They are more likely to be found in top departments but in strong undergraduate programs with less famous graduate departments, the professors would definitely try to accommodate the interests of most students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Top research faculty does not translate to great teaching. This has been argued a billion times. Infact a good researcher would probably be preferred at top departments than a good teacher. You dont become a top department by winning teaching awards do you? The culture in the department would be geared towards hardcore research?</p>
<p>I doubt most undergrad get to use some of these facilities except they engage in undergraduate research. I would also wager that you can use these top facilities in REU programs or summer research programs anyways. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, I have noticed more LAC undergraduates publish at the undergraduate level than even those from major research universities. The LAC model of education though is no different than that from any university in the US anyways. Except maybe less diversity of classes, and research is emphasised in most LACs. The only problem is that you might not have the diversity of research opportunities that you would find in a major university. But the education you would bet in the true sense of the word is no different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True but you could also find these opportunities over the summer. I see kids from all over the place getting research opportunities at universities different from theirs lol. Of course having those facilities close to you would be awesome but most times only a very few percentage take part in that type of research. </p>
<p>Also this is all assuming of course that the student wants to do research which is not always the case. I think PhD aspiring students even in the sciences are not always the majority.</p>
<p>Decent points, but as already shown by warblers quote. You can find this in about any other school way lower than Yale. The OP should choose were he or she wants but should do so with the view that Yale would not limit his or her career or prospects in CS as been suggested by most posters. Even academia where Berkeley should have an edge, I have inquired from a couple of professors non-CS and they repeat that they are more interested in the preparation the student receives (and they believe this preparation can be found at non top departments with rigorous undergraduate curriculums).</p>
<p>I think people are assuming that we are defending Yale because its Yale though. What I want to be convinced is that Yale would honestly hamper the OPs prospect in CS.</p>
<p>sefago wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are spreading rumors. Take a look at this. </p>
<p>**Best Undergraduate Teaching **[Best</a> Undergraduate Teaching | Rankings | Top National Universities | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching)
*
Many colleges have a strong commitment to teaching undergraduates instead of graduate-level research. The schools on these lists are noted by college administrators as paying a particular focus on undergraduate teaching.*</p>
<h1>1 Dartmouth College</h1>
<h1>2 Miami University–Oxford</h1>
<h1>2 Princeton University</h1>
<h1>4 University of Notre Dame</h1>
<h1>5 College of William and Mary</h1>
<h1>6 Brown University</h1>
<p>#6 University of California–Berkeley</p>
<h1>8 University of Michigan–Ann Arbor</h1>
<h1>8 University of Virginia</h1>
<h1>10 Stanford University</h1>
<p>#10 Yale University</p>
<h1>12 Clemson University</h1>
<h1>12 Purdue University–West Lafayette</h1>
<h1>12 University of Maryland–Baltimore County</h1>
<h1>12 University of Vermont</h1>
<h1>12 Wake Forest University</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one here is saying that Yale’s CS would hamper the OP’s prospects. I think everyone here is saying that Yale is amazing for CS especially for undergrad CS education. What some people here are arguing about is – Yale is not the best for CS as there are schools that are better than it for CS, and Berkeley is one of those few schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another subjective survey from “college administrators” but actually:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well its quite intuitive actually- a top researcher could be crappy at teaching</p>
<p>See one good example</p>
<p>[Lars</a> Onsager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Onsager]Lars”>Lars Onsager - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Anyways, I did not say berkeley was bad for teaching. Dont jump the gun. I was wondering how top research faculty necessary meant good teachers- most of the times they dont.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say that they couldn’t. Remember I said, “This isn’t to say that a lower-ranked department won’t have those.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t arguing that though. Side point: you could argue that the top departments are able to attract the best teaching faculty also. But in my experience even the top researchers are great teachers (the only bad teacher I’ve had was actually someone hired to teach for one year–really bad choice on the department’s part, as everyone in the class was ripping their hair out over how bad this guy taught).</p>
<p>In my opinion (not an addition to my argument so don’t take it as such), teaching ability isn’t very important–if a student is in college and still needs someone to get in front of the class and teach in order for them to learn… well, IMO that person has a lot to learn in skills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It will vary by school, probably. I’m speaking mostly from my experience in undergrad, where often these facilities, broadly construed, are used both for education and for research, but most facilities are designed for the latter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no idea–I’ve never gone to a LAC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For clarification, “model of education” to me includes the role of research in addition to the emphasis on lectures vs. seminars, individualized research projects vs. group research projects, and so on. This is where the LAC model of education is very different–well, not to mention its emphasis on liberal arts, often giving a broad education and/or conferring less-specific degrees (e.g. HMC’s general engineering degree).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but depending on how high-achieving you are, you’ll want to spend your summers doing stuff like that in addition to during the year. After all, that’s how you get into top grad schools, which is surprisingly downplayed on CC; for example, 40% of Stanford’s students pursue graduate study directly after undergrad, and another chunk does so down the road, so considering how well a college prepares a student for grad school is an important issue when you consider the students as a whole (obviously it might not be important on an individual basis, but I’d always advise a student to consider these factors, in case they eventually do decide on graduate study).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree–but there’s a reason the top programs are the top programs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah I was afraid I was coming across that way. In this case I’m not so much defending Yale as arguing against Berkeley. And not because I’m a Stanford student but because I watch my (relatively brilliant) friends at Berkeley and other UCs struggling to stay afloat because the schools spread their resources thin over too many students, leading to class waitlist problems, trouble declaring their majors, etc. I think Berkeley would be the preferable option in many other cases, but here it’s different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, true you will find some top research institute in a school, and you might even be lucky to work with some big name in a particular field during the year. But as long as these opportunities can be gotten elsewhere its not really a big deal. I knew kids who did research in labs during the school year in less famous departments and then headed to do work at Cold Spring Harbour or MIT and ended up working for the big names anyway even if it was over the summer. </p>
<p>Most importantly, you dont need to perform research with the most famous researcher to be well prepared for graduate school. What you need is exposure to research. That is what prepares you well for graduate school. This is more of a prestige arguement- i.e working in a top research institute were you might never be doing anything but being lab personnel and have little control over the project( an extremity but still valid) is better than the independent research projects performed by undergraduates at LAC. As long as a school offers excellent research which Yale CS department does, then a Yale student would definitely be on equal footing with a Berkeley student.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LACs do both- you can engage in independent research or in group work. I would not advise anyone to study engineering anyways at a LAC but I am talking of CS which is a bit different from engineering though they do share some topics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That helps a bit. It seems most people are defining before seeing, instead of seeing before defining. LACs and undergraduate-focussed research institutions vigorously encourage their undergraduates to do research. Especially in small departments like Yale. Imagine 20 students having the opportunity to pair up with such a large diversity of professors in a top 20 department. You would likely be able to find a choice without being told that the professor has too many commitments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And also by field . . . I think I might as well leave it to the people who studied CS then. Maybe facilities (They probably seem to do from the little I know in CS) play a megarole in learning in the school.</p>
<p>^^ most of your points, I already admitted, but emphasized that for things like research, nobody will deny that a research university is better than a LAC (why are we discussing this anyway? not very relevant, since Yale is not a LAC and continues to promote itself as a major research university).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So does a research university. Again, it’s about which one is emphasized more that defines the model of education. At LACs it’s the former; at research universities, the latter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Schools like Harvey Mudd are well-respected in preparing engineering students. (Actually, the fact that HMC has been mentioned probably means that a Mudd student will be posting shortly.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t saying that they don’t, but rather, I can’t attest to whether students at LACs publish more than those at major research universities, and it wouldn’t matter whether I could, because anecdotal evidence does not an argument make.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would make sense if departments that had only 20 students in them actually had a large diversity of professors. Faculty size and student body size in a given department go hand-in-hand. The goal is to keep the faculty size up with the growth of student numbers; when you do that, you also get a greater diversity of faculty and you’re more likely to find something that you’re interested in, rather than settle for something related but not exactly what you want. Regardless, I still say Yale is the better option here, for the reasons I already stated.</p>
<p>If it were my decision, I would be hesitant to do undergraduate CS at either institution, and would have no qualms about doing graduate CS work at either. But that is a personal preference, and irrelevant as I made my decisions 30 years ago (undergraduate Indiana; graduate Stanford).</p>
<p>One suggestion that I do have is to go through the requirements for a CS major and through the course listings and put together a possible schedule for the next 4 years. You can then look at the class sizes for these courses, identify the faculty (full, associate, assistant, adjunct) who are currently teaching them, and the teacher ratings for these faculty. What you do with these data will depend on personal preferences, e.g. whether you mind large classes, whether there are courses you think that you might want to take that are offered in one department and not in the other, whether the distributional or major requirements would prevent you from taking all of the courses that you would like to take, etc. The likelihood of your actually following through on taking these courses is probably nil, but it will at least help you identify what is important to you currently, and may lead to a qualitatively correct impression of the differences between the two schools.</p>
<p>Personally I don’t find much of the previous commentary in this thread particularly enlightening - I do know something abut the faculty at both schools, and even with this information I can’t give you any concrete advice. You are going to have to make your own decision, but you may be aided by collecting additional (relevant) data.</p>
<p>Oh… my god. hahah</p>
<p>Thanks to everyone for their insights! After reading the interesting posts on this board, I’ve learned a lot and have some new criteria to consider… It will be a tough choice, but thank you all for providing your input!</p>