<p>It's stupid to call any Ivy a safety. They're Ivies for godsakes! A student with 1500+/3.9+ would have a good chance of admission, but it's definitely not guaranteed. </p>
<p>Berkeley, you're in for sure, since it's a public school. Also, don't forget all the community college students that spend last 2 years at Berkeley and walk away with a degree...almost 1/3 of Berkeley students are CC students, so you have to be careful when someone says they're from Berkeley....they may be a CC student first, and a Berkeley transfer second.</p>
<p>msagaski,
I said Cal is only slightly better than USC because it simply is...
You say one school is 'a lot' better when you compare a school where over 90% of applicants get in even with 1000- SATs, and a school like HYPSM.
All the top schools are really pretty much similar in quality.</p>
<p>For that reason, I do not believe even Stanford is 'a lot' better than Cal.</p>
<p>golubb_u,
Just because a school's public doesn't mean it's easy to gain admission.
Sure, for 'in-staters' with 1500+/top 10% a public school will almost be a sure bet.
For out-of-staters, however, some state schools are as hard as any Ivy-league.</p>
<p>Compared to HYPS, Berkeley is mediocre. I don't know why Berkeley students delude themselves into thinking that they are on the same level as HYPS. In reality, Berkeley's peer schools are UCLA, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, UC Davis, UCSB, etc.</p>
<p>why are you guys comparing the sat scores of berkeley and ivies? sat scores have little to do with the quality of education at a certain university, and furthermore, sat scores do not "THE test" that determines how smart someone is. in fact, someone's sat score that they received in high school does not accurately represent the potential of a student or how successful he/she has become NOW. </p>
<p>you may argue that community college transfers have low sat scores, but there are a lot of immigrants in california whose native language isnt english, and with a little help from community college to brush up their english skills, they will be fine and as successful as someone with a much higher sat score, because they possess the skills to do so. </p>
<p>that 1100 student may have the capabilities of the 1350 student, and conversely, that 1480 student may just be a 1350-caliber guy who was prepped up for a higher score. in any case, sat scores can not be the sole factor for determining how smart someone is... and worse yet, you guys use sat scores to determine how good a school is -_-</p>
<p>To me, it seems the people who discount Berkeley as being on a lower level than Ivy's, are arrogant and blind. After about reading 5 posts in, I found this one;</p>
<p>"If there are indeed many people at Berkeley who are ivy-caliber, there must also be MANY MORE people who are really dumb and aren't even college material"</p>
<p>Honestly, that person must be living in an arrogant and stuck up environment. Any student that made it into Cal Berkeley, is clearly, without a doubt college material and is presumably bright. Cal's average GPA was a 4.2. Who are you to say who is college material and who isn't? </p>
<p>Another award winning comment;
"In California, Berkeley takes whatever Stanford and Caltech don't want."</p>
<p>Need I even comment on that? That's so absurd and blinded, if you're trying to make a point of sorts, that comment held no validity nor will it ever.</p>
<p>Another one of College Confidential's never ending debate threads, that is meaningless and provides no decent information.</p>
<p>but golubb_u, regarding CC transfers, I wouldn't be so presumptuous</p>
<p>I transferred from a CC to Michigan. I had a 1410 on my SAT. Why did I transfer?</p>
<p>1) The entire cost of my education is on me. Every dime.
2) Due to financial circumstances in reason #1, clearly it made more sense for me to complete my first two years for FREE at a CC.</p>
<p>I have met several people just like me.</p>
<p>yes, there may be people with low SAT scores... but what difference does it make? If they can manage to graduate, I say all the power to them as their SAT score doesn't accurately reflect their academic ability. In the end, they walk away with the same degree as the 1500 student, perhaps with a similar GPA.</p>
<p>"If there are indeed many people at Berkeley who are ivy-caliber, there must also be MANY MORE people who are really dumb and aren't even college material"</p>
<p>Ummm, statistically speaking if you want to take into account all the geniuses on the far end of the curve, you have to also be willing to consider all the dumb people on the other end of the spectrum. Are you saying that NOBODY dumb gets into Berkeley? That's quite absurd for a school with arguably low admissions standards for in-state students. I mean, Berkeley accepted upwards of 60 people whose SAT score ranged from 600-800. I'd say there is a good chance that if those kids aren't college material. </p>
<p>"In California, Berkeley takes whatever Stanford and Caltech don't want."</p>
<p>Perhaps worded harsly, but the truth is the truth. Are you trying to deny that Stanford and Caltech do not have the first pick when it comes to the best students within California? It's quite obvious that Berkeley does not compete well against those schools. I don't know how many Stanford-Berkeley or Caltech-Berkeley cross admits chose to enroll at Berkeley, but I bet I could count them on the fingers of my hands.</p>
<p>As Berkeley costs less than half what Stanford and Caltech do, many choose it for that reason alone. Haas attracts many top students because the other 2 CA schools do not have undergrad business majors. I would have to agree that Berkeley has a much broader range of abilities than ivies etc., but it has many very top student</p>
<p>I would bet half of the low scoring admits are athletes and other special admits. Just remember Ralph Nader and Bill Bradley--both Princeton grads--did not crack 1000 either. They did ok. The fact that lots of resume building ultra-focused kids go to Stanford/HYP does not mean all that much to me. Some very bright kids just don't want to play that game. And it has become a game. Most Stanford and HYPs alums would have a hard time matching the stats of the current UC admits. All those schools admit they could take a group of their rejects and they would do just as well in school.</p>
<p>Stanford and Caltech have much better financial aid policies than Berkeley. If you are a low income student, Stanford will actually cost less than Berkeley. If you are solidly middle-class, they cost roughly the same and Stanford might be slightly more expensive. The only ones who pay significantly more money for Caltech or Stanford than Berkeley are the upper-middle class and the filthy rich. One could argue that money is a non-issue for those groups anyway.</p>
<p>In the end, a Caltech or Stanford diploma more than makes up for the difference in cost. A Berkeley diploma in the Bay Area is not that special unless it is a PhD.</p>
<p>"Most Stanford and HYPs alums would have a hard time matching the stats of the current UC admits. All those schools admit they could take a group of their rejects and they would do just as well in school."</p>
<p>What evidence do you have of this? I have trouble believing that Stanford alums would have trouble matching the stats of current UC admits.</p>
<p>But for the sake of argument, let's say that you are absolutely correct. Even if Stanford alums didn't match the stats of UC admits, that would not prove that the UC schools are just as good as Stanford. You have to understand that strength and intelligence are relative concepts. One can't be considered smart unless there are people who are dumb. One can't be rich without comparing themselves to the poor. So back in the day when current Stanford alums were students, they were among the brightest students of their time as compared to everyone else. The UC admits of that time were not as strong. Therefore, the Stanford alums were COMPARATIVELY strong for their time. Even if they are not as good according to today's standards, they were the best during their time.</p>
<p>50 years from now, current Stanford admits probably wouldn't match the standards of future admits. That does not diminish their accomplishments in any way. Being the best relative to the population as a whole in a certain frame of time is what is important. I don't think anyone, not even Einstein or Aristotle, can be considered geniuses in all frames of time in human existence. 500 years from now Einsteins idea's might be considered so easy that a 2nd grader could prove it. But that doesn't mean that Einstein is not worthy of admiration for coming up with such groundbreaking ideas in his time.</p>
<p>ubermensch, what you're missing is that CA is chock full of people making too much money to qualify for aid but who can't afford $40K/yr. People here have way more of their income in homes than they do in most other places. This is why the UCs get a lot of kids who could be at ivies,</p>
<p>Well as funny as this may seem, if somebody chooses Berkeley just to save money, they are probably losing out in the end. In our society, money can make a lot of difference. Money is the reason why Bush is President and not a drunken bum. Money is the reason Al Gore went to Harvard and became Vice President. Money is the reason why Kerry went to Yale and almost won the election. Money is the reason those Supreme Court Justices went to Stanford and have such high legal authority. </p>
<p>I doubt many people choose Berkeley over HYPS because of cost. But if they do, that's their loss. American society is based upon capitalism and the power of money. If I choose to save my money and not go to college at all, I'd probably be worse off than if I used that money to further my education. If I tried to save money by going to Berkeley instead of Yale, I'd probably not be as successful.</p>
<p>nobody thats dumb gets into berkeley. that idea is totally absurd. if really dumb people got into berkeley, then it wouldnt be the flagship of the UC system anymore and it wouldnt be recognized as the best public university in the world. im sorry that there are schools who try to help out society, not wealthy individuals. </p>
<p>by the way, i am always tempted to call some of the posters on CC elitists, but i shall refrain from doing that.</p>
<p>Berekely has some very good academic undergrad programs. Its main problem is that it is so big. With tens of thousands of undergrads it is easy to get lost in the enormity of the school. In that sense the Ivy's are better in terms of looking after the individual. However the academics are intense. One of the benefits of having so many valedictorians is that they are all trying to be at the top of their class. I had a friend who went to Berkely and Hahvahd(transfer) he found Berkeley to be more academically intense whereas Hahvahd was more prestigious.</p>
<p>ubermensh proves himself useless by stating that a Berkeley degree is useless in the the Bay Area. A Berkeley degree is one of the most valuable in the world because it has name recognition greater than most of the Ivies. If not for the school, but Berkeley's historical significance. If you travel around the world Berkeley's name is on par with HPYS. My parents always tell me about how clients are amazed when they find out they went to Berkeley. So you are trying to tell me this degree is useless?</p>
<p>And as far as saying that Berkeley accepts kids who are not college material, I have know of numerous kids rejected with over 1500 and top grades. Last year, I knew a guy who was rejected with a 4.2 GPA, 1400+ SAT, all-section in football and track, and several other good ECs. So I take it he is not college material?</p>
<p>"Last year, I knew a guy who was rejected with a 4.2 GPA, 1400+ SAT, all-section in football and track, and several other good ECs. So I take it he is not college material?"</p>
<p>As long as we are using anecdotal evidence here, I know a guy who went to Berkeley with a 750 SAT I score (verbal and math combined....not a subscore!). He majored in American Studies and eventually graduated. He used to work as a one of those people who answer telephone calls from the customers of Delta Airlines, but was fired for being rude and recieving too many compliants. Was he college material? Hard to say. But right now he's on welfare.</p>
<p>Rooster, Barrons' point is widely conceded not just for Stanford/Berkeley, but for most competitive schools these days: many alums did not have the scores/grades/profile required to get into their schools today. First you had more women flooding into college and then now you've got the Baby Boom Echo generation--you guys--competing for essentially a flat number of spots. Higher demand, fixed supply = higher price (academic profile) to get in.</p>