<p>I know that Berkeley is one of the best graduate schools in the world. Its international reputation is amazing. What about the undergraduate program? Here on CC I have read that Berkeley is only good for graduate, but undergraduate does not compare to HYP. Is that true?
Let's make a realistic example. Let's say I want to study computer science. Berkeley's CS program is top. In how far should I consider this fact for my choice for college? Can I profit from this in my undergraduate program?</p>
<p>Same profs, same TAs as graduate students (often times, grad students who TAed lower-div classes will TA for upper-div/graduate classes later on). Also, grad students are over-rated at Berkeley (and I'm sure everywhere too). I've met many many grad students at Berkeley who simply aren't as bright as you expect them to be.</p>
<p>Actually I've found very little correlation between undergrad institution and <em>perceived</em> intelligence/aptitude. I've had two grad student TAs who were Cal State graduates and they weren't that knowledgable/helpful in teaching.........then again, I've had two grad student TAs who were CALTECH graduates and they weren't that knowledgable/helpful either. </p>
<p>Getting into a top graduate school is only mildly dependent on GPA/GREs (on the contrary, getting into med school is VERY dependent on your GPA/MCATs)........it HEAVILY weighs in research experience/ work history, demonstrated aptitude in doing research (having publications, etc), and letters of rec. </p>
<p>As a result, the grad students at many top schools aren't as "elite" as many would perceive them to be by looking at US News Rankings. I know quite a few people (I can think of 9 at the moment) who got their BA/BS at Berkeley and then went on to graduate school at Berkeley....and belive me, they are bright but they were not the cream of the crop.</p>
<p>If you guys are talking about bio, just say bio- no need to generalize all of the graduate students here because of those in the bio deparment/ maybe chem department?</p>
<p>I've found the GSIs in certain departments to be veru bright, and all of them I've seen to be at least fairly bright on the whole.</p>
<p>9 times out of 10 your GSI will be really, really smart, but that doesn't mean they're good at leading discussions or grading papers or even explaining what they know. I've had some truely excellent GSIs and and some mediocre ones. I've never had a bad one, but I've had bad readers/graders, which is different.</p>
<p>For CS, either Berkeley or Stanford would be better than HYP, because that major is better represented on campus and because the two schools are better balanced than the techs (MIT, CalTech, CMU, HMudd,...)</p>
<p>CalX, would CS @Berkeley even be better than @HYP for undergraduate? I know that Cal is top in graduate program. I heard, however, that the differences between the colleges for undergraduate aren't that big, so I can't really profit from Cal's top graduate program.
Is that true?</p>
<p>I would say the title of graduating from an Ivy League school is superior in the minds of the general public, even if another university had a superior program. Ok I'm probably going to get attacked for saying this.</p>
<p>It could and it actually is. For starts, look at the number and breadth of CS classes offered at Cal vs HYP. If you want to specialize in say, artificial intelligence, you'll have access to many classes taught by the world leaders in that field. That's one key aspect of superior "resources".</p>
<p>unlimitedX: for most people, graduating from Berkeley is superior to graduating from the majority of Ivy league schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For CS, either Berkeley or Stanford would be better than HYP, because that major is better represented on campus and because the two schools are better balanced than the techs (MIT, CalTech, CMU, HMudd,...)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I continue to maintain that a lot of people who want to study CS are not very interested in having a balanced environment. That is why Berkeley loses the cross-admit battle with MIT and probably with Caltech. Let's face it. A lot of people LOVE the environment that the tech's have to offer, and for them it is actually a broad school like Berkeley that is the poor fit. </p>
<p>As a simple example, a lot of tech students truly want to surround themselves with other tech people so that they can 'talk shop' whenever they want, with the assurance that all of the other students around them have the technical knowhow to keep up. You don't have that assurance at a 'broad' school where there will be plenty of students who do not have strong technical knowledge. While some people may see that as a strength of a broad school, others will actually see that as a weakness.</p>
<p>The major issue for me regarding the Berkeley BA CS program is that you might not get into it, because the major is impacted. Meaning that you will come to Berkeley, do all of the CS lower-division prereqs, and then find out that you can't get into the major and hence either have to study something else, or transfer to another school. In contrast, every student at HYPSMC is completely free to choose computer science whenever they want. Berkeley EECS is better in the sense that if you get admitted to that program as a freshman, then your spot in EECS is assured. However, as I have explained in previous posts, you then run the risk of finding yourself trapped in that major. You may find that you don't really like EECS and want to get out but find that you cannot because, for various bureaucratic reasons, no other major at Berkeley will take you. In short, the danger of coming to Berkeley for CS/EECS is that you end up having to major in something you don't really want to major in.</p>
<p>It's a bit inconsistent of an argument, if you want to be totally immersed into EE/CS, you're not likely to want to change your major...</p>
<p>Besides, if you want to be totally immersed into EE/CS or any technical field, you can definitely do that at Berkeley. But for many students like me, having a more balanced campus experience is a necessity. For others, it's just a nice bonus. And for others still, it's unimportant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's a bit inconsistent of an argument, if you want to be totally immersed into EE/CS, you're not likely to want to change your major...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not inconsistent at all. What if you are doing badly in the major? That that would definitely make you want out. After all, as a former engineer yourself, surely you know fully well that a lot of engineering students are doing badly. We both know about the engineering grade curves, particularly in the weeders, and so we both know that plenty of engineering students are getting bad grades. I know that if I was pulling a 2.5 GPA or less, and especially if I was being threatened with expulsion, I'd certainly want to change majors to something easier. There are a lot of engineering students with GPA's of less than 2.5.</p>
<p>In those other schools, if you are doing poorly as an engineering student, you can simply switch to some other major. At Berkeley, it's not that easy. Some engineering students do indeed find themselves trapped in engineering. They're doing poorly, so they want out, but because they are doing poorly, no other major wants to take them.</p>
<p>What Drab just said is exactly right - that's the other thing about Harvard. By going to Harvard, you get, through cross-reg, access to the entire MIT course catalog. Basically, as a Harvard CS student, you can choose to spend a significant amount of your time at MIT, getting what is in effect a quasi-MIT degree. </p>
<p>Nor do I see this as a particular burden. Like I said, Harvard and MIT are extremely tightly linked through mass transit. Molliebatmit is going to Harvard for her PhD but has decided to live in MIT graduate housing (in the Westgate) with her boyfriend. She can do that because the CT2 cross-town bus will take her from the MIT Westgate to Harvard in about 10 minutes. You can also use the subway (the T). Going from Harvard Square to the MIT Stata Center (where the MIT EECS department is located) is a 10-minute subway ride followed by a 5 minute walk. This compares extremely favorably with the commutes that many Berkeley students face. For example, plenty of Berkeley students don't live in Berkeley, but rather live relatively far away and commute in by BART or ACTransit, either because they prefer to live away from campus or because they can't find anything cheap nearby (Harvard guarantees campus housing for all 4 years, whereas Berkeley does not). </p>
<p>
[quote]
for most people, graduating from Berkeley is superior to graduating from the majority of Ivy league schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet at the end of the day, Berkeley loses the cross-admit battles to the majority of the Ivy League schools (HYP, Brown and Columbia for sure, I don't know about the others, but I suspect Berkeley loses those battles too). Perhaps all those students who are turning down Berkeley for those other schools are being stupid?</p>
<p>I just want to hear the explanation that if Cal is so good, then why is it that so many people turn down Cal for other schools? If we can assume that these people are not stupid (probably a safe assumption), then what could the explanation be? </p>
<p>Quality is inherently a fungible concept and has to do with the particular person in question. Some people strongly prefer a huge brand name (and there is nothing wrong with that). Some people want a small, intimate and personal style of education. Some people want to immerse themselves in a highly quirky, deeply technical environment. Some people simply want to freedom to choose any major they like. Some people can't get a good aid package and therefore want to use in-state public subsidies. All of these can be considered part of 'quality' from a fungibility standpoint. </p>
<p>However, the point remaisn that at the end of the day, Cal has only about a 40% yield rate, meaning that the majority of people admitted choose to go elsewhere. That seems to me that other schools are apparently able to offer something to the majority of Cal admittees that Cal itself cannot offer. It would be good to identify these things and then have Cal be able to offer them.</p>
<p>"Yet at the end of the day, Berkeley loses the cross-admit battles to the majority of the Ivy League schools (HYP, Brown and Columbia for sure, I don't know about the others, but I suspect Berkeley loses those battles too). Perhaps all those students who are turning down Berkeley for those other schools are being stupid?"</p>
<p>Those schools (and throw in Stanford and MIT) have so much prestige that its hard to turn them down. And they are all GREAT schools, so its not stupid to turn Cal down for one of those schools, nor is it stupid to turn down Harvard for Yale or even Cal. Cal's lower yield just shows how strong that applicants are. THe people that apply to Cal are also applying (and getting in) to schools like HYPS. I don't think loosing cross admit battles with HYPS is anything to be ashamed of, as those are arguably the four best schools in the world.</p>
<p>Cal is heavily underrated by the USNWR rankings and in other sources too. Look at the StudentReview site. Under "reputation", Cal doesn't even crack the top 50, with schools like Indiana and Minnesota ahead. Same with the "most beautiful campus". Which is total BS... Cal doesn't fare well in these rankings because its students are far pickier than those from provincial colleges. Those who were satisfied take it for granted and don't bother to post here, while th tiny minority who weren't satisfied become anti-Cal crusaders...</p>
<p>There is also the new stigma of being a public school. Today's culture is much more materialistic than a decade or two ago. That's the main reason the gap between Cal and second-rate private schools like USC or WUSTL has narrowed.</p>
<p>sakky: why do you constantly dismiss the fact that the great majority of Cal students are satified with their choice of majors according to the student surveys? You keep using this as one of your main knocks on Cal. the other one being the story of the poor FedEx employee who couldn't hack it in EECS and couldn't transfer out. That is such a limited slice of the campus experience, it's a bit absurd to resort to this to constantly discredit the school.</p>
<p>What it boils down for you sakky, is that you're not Cal material to start with. You should have gone elsewhere.</p>
<p>
[quote]
for most people, graduating from Berkeley is superior to graduating from the majority of Ivy league schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think this is particularly true outside the Northeast. Certainly internationally and here in the west, Berkeley has more name-recognition and prestige than Cornell, Penn, Columbia, and Brown, especially outside academia.</p>