<p>College of William and Mary is so underrated</p>
<p>WM is ridiculously underrated</p>
<p>Great analysis Jag</p>
<p>
[quote]
College of William and Mary is so underrated
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well NYU is overrated. >=)</p>
<p>vicissitudes,</p>
<p>while you can point out the SAT calculation methods for UVa and berkeley are different, and which is valid, you also then leave out the fact that berkeley admits tons of transfer students from cc's, uva does doesn't. If you were to include the 1000s of transfer students, (over 7000), vast majority from cc's, high school scores/grades, berkeley's overall sat's/top 10% would drop significantly.</p>
<p>Your top students reference doesn't mean anything. As I just showed, nearly 1/3 of berkeley's 23,000 undergrads are transfers, mostly from cc's. Obviously these kids were not top students in high school. As it is shown, even when just looking at Berkeley's strongest class, the freshman class, it only outperforms UVa with regards to top 10%, which is easily done by the sheer number of applicants berkely gets. If Berkeley got many more top students than UVa, then Berkeley would have higher scores than UVa, regardless of how many times people sat for the SATs. Berkeley's students don't out perform UVa's students. It just substantiates my argument that california's top students are on a whole weaker than virginia's top students - and berkeleys undergraduate body on a whole is weaker than uva's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well NYU is overrated. >=)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well that's your opinion.</p>
<p>Miami (OH)</p>
<p>vicissitudes (or HAO!)</p>
<p>stop hating on my school, yo</p>
<p>I'm sorry but back to that public ivies list that was expanded in 2001...no WAY that uga should be on there. I mean, their honors program is good, but not much else is.</p>
<p>Definitely Berkeley & UCLA for the UCs, followed by UVA and William&Mary, followed by UMich Ann Arbor. I haven't really heard about any of the other state schools, but I totally agree with another poster on this: NYU is overrated ;)</p>
<p>NYU is private</p>
<p>UCSD!!!!! gotta add my school in here again since i'll have to go there for four years.</p>
<p>
you also then leave out the fact that berkeley admits tons of transfer students from cc's, uva does doesn't
</p>
<p>I took a quick look at both schools on collegeboard.com (so sue me, it's fast and easy) and stats for the most recently reported year:</p>
<p>Berkeley accepted 3,020 transfers, out of 10,439
UVA accepted 849 transfers, out of 2,102</p>
<p>Number of undergraduates at Berkeley: 23,447
Number of undergarduates at UVA: 13,387</p>
<p>Percentage of accepted transfers in one year / undergraduates:</p>
<p>Berkeley: 12.9%
UVA: 6.3%</p>
<p>Now I realize that the number admitted in one year does not reflect the number of transfers overall, but since this statistic was much easier to find, I felt it was a pretty accurate representation of the relative numbers of transfers between the two universities.</p>
<p>I admit that UVA accepts fewer transfers, but I think you were exaggerating in your post. If Berkeley accepts "tons" of transfers then UVA has about half of that "tons". I wouldn't say that Berkeley is filled with under-achieveing transfers while UVA has none.</p>
<p>I also concede that many transfers to Berkeley are from CCs, while few transfers to UVA are from CCs. However, in order to transfer to Berkeley you must be from a very good CC and among the best. Some were accepted into lowers UCs like UCSD or UCI and decided to save money by attending a CC and then transfer to Cal or UCLA. I would hesitate before giving so little credit to transfers. Statistics have shown that transfers at Berkeley graduate at about the same rate as those who entered as freshmen. Besides, if we were to look at the admission rates for transfers:</p>
<p>Berkeley: 28.9%
UVA: 40.4%</p>
<p>So I could argue that Berkeley is more selective in its transfer process, thus making the quality of transfers higher.</p>
<p>Sorry, but I am not convinced that the quality of Berkeley's undergraduates are severly hindered by transfer students, nor that UVA is completely free from such a problem. Maybe the quality of transfers at UVA is higher than those at Berkeley. Maybe. I wouldn't say that Berkeely undergraduates are of less quality than UVA undergraduates because of poor-quality transfer students, though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Berkeley got many more top students than UVa, then Berkeley would have higher scores than UVa, regardless of how many times people sat for the SATs. Berkeley's students don't out perform UVa's students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, it has been shown that composite scores are on average 40-50 points higher than one-sitting scores. You can't deny that taking the composite SAT score gives UVA an edge. Maybe you think that Berkeley students should somehow be able to compensate for this anyway (I don't see why; their one-sitting scores could very well be 10-20 points lower than UVA students' composites, but their composite could be 10-20 points higher than UVA students' composites).</p>
<p>You're right in saying that Berkeley receives many more applications because the state of California is more populous, but you're missing a few key factors.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The size of Berkeley is significantly larger than the size of UVA. Berkeley houses almost twice as many undergraduates as UVA does, so while its top students are better than UVA, it's bottom students are also worse than UVA, which would bring down the average in scores. I would say that this is due to the size of the school, and Berkeley's attempt to provide an excellent education to as many California residents as possible, and does not speak much about the quality of the school.</p></li>
<li><p>You may argue that since California has so many applicants, Berkeley should get many more top applicants right? Well, not really. Keep in mind that many of those top applicants are also applying to some elite private schools, aka HYPSM and the like, and they only use the top UCs as safeties. I have many many friend who did this.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Therefore, I would not agree with</p>
<p>
[quote]
It just substantiates my argument that california's top students are on a whole weaker than virginia's top students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Rather, I would say that Berkeley's students are comparable to UVA's students. The top 10% may be stronger, and the bottom 10% may be weaker, which is largely due to the school's larger undergraduate population.</p>
<p>You refer to US News rankings to say that Berkeley marginally beats out UVA, and this is because the rankings are skewed. Well, let's take a look at some other rankings:</p>
<p>THES Rankings:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard University</li>
<li>MIT
...</li>
<li>University of California - Berkeley</li>
</ol>
<p>I don't see UVA in the top 20...hmm...</p>
<p>Let's take Academic Ranking of World Universities published by Shanghai Jiao Tong University:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
</ol>
<p>I don't see UVA in the top 100...hmm.</p>
<p>Now, these are just two rankings that have been cited here on CC. I realize that they place too much of an importance on graduate programs, research, the sciences, etc. But I have never seen a college ranking that placed UVA above Berkeley. (actually, didn't US News do that a few years back?) So, I don't agree that US News is skewed to make UVA look bad. In fact, looking at the other rankings, US News may even be skewed to make UVA look good in comparison to Berkeley.</p>
<p>My personal opinion about Berkeley vs. UVA: I can't say which is definitely better. They are, in my opinion, the two top public schools to go for undergrad in the U.S. Berkeley has better staff, research, resources, etc. The University of Virginia has a tighter-knit undergrad program, better networking, etc. Both have their strengths and I can't really say which is definitely better. However, in you posts you seemed to imply that UVA is definitely better and Berkeley was only ranked marginally better due to two major factors that were skewed to Berkeley's favor. This is the part with which I did not agree.</p>
<p>Berkeley fo' shoo.</p>
<p>I really don't trust rankings that put Berkeley higher than Brown/Columbia/Penn. I also don't trust rankings that put Berkeley over Yale/Princeton (as much as I hate princeton).</p>
<p>Berkeley's definitely overrated. It's in a crappy location, it has a crappy curve, and its notorious for being overly competitive. On top of that, Asian americans outnumber every other ethnicity. I really can't have that.</p>
<p>vicissitudes,</p>
<p>First I would just like to point out that I'm not saying UVa is a better university than berkeley. I simply am implying - due to the OP's long ago point - that for undergraduate education, berkeley is not a better choice than uva. graduate programs berkeley by far trumps any school, let alone uva. But we're not talking about graduate programs. </p>
<p>Looking at USNEWS rankigns, the only thing that keeps uva 1 spot lower (yes it is 1 spot lower...their composite score is...shock 1 point different) is this bogus selectivity score that berkeley has, and an inflated peer assesment score. For an undergraduate education, i whole heartedly argue that uva is better choice than berkeley.</p>
<p>look at the numbers you give. UVa's total population is about 13,400. UVa has about 3100 freshman enroll every year. so that makes 12,400. So assume UVa takes 1000 transfer students per 4 years. Of the 1000 transfer students, the vast majority do not come from community colleges. cals undergrad population is 10,000 more than uva's at 23,400. Its freshman class size is roughly 3,500 - or 14,000 if u multiply by 4. so that means, over a 4 year period, cal has amassed nearly 9,400 transfer students - mostly from cc's. Even if you take out people who just decided to transfer to cal because they didn't like their current school - you cannot argue the fact that 40% (vs. 7%) of the students at cal couldn't get in the first time around. That would drastically change any sort of selectivity profile berkeley has. </p>
<p>2ndly, you are the one who argued that berkeley has many more top students than uva because of the sheer volume of applications, but now you're saying that top students arn't going to berkeley. </p>
<p>Your top 10%, bottem 10% has no relevance. You are simply pulling numbers out of the air to substantiate your argument. If the quality of first year admitted students are roughly equal - which if you look at sat scores - they are, then the overall quality of cal students must be lower simply due to the fact that 40% of its student body couldn't get in on its freshman standards vs. 7% at uva.</p>
<p>Also, I know uva doesn't rank well. The Shanghai rankings are based on 1, how many nobel prizes your faculty has won and 2, how published your professors are. Neither of which has anything to do with the quality of teaching especially at the undergrad level. Also, the THES focuses more on international view points - which surprised will be because of famous research. None of those rankings have anything to do with undergraduate.</p>
<p>You know nothing of the quality of the JC transfers to UCB. Many people are not as focused in high school as they might need to be and do better later. Many also just like to start close to home in a small cheaper school--it's very common in California. Both of my friends from grad school that graduated UCLA ug started at JC's. And both have done well since.</p>
<p>barrons,</p>
<p>yes, that is very true, i do not know anything about the transfers from community colleges to berkeley. What i do know is that a lot of people who go to cc's didn't do well in high school. Therefore I think its safe to say that the majority of people who transfer to berkeley from cc's wouldn't have gotten into berkeley as freshman. If you completely discount the quality of student argument, then you must look at the fact that berkeley's selectivity is skewed - which is what gives it the minute edge in the usnews rankings.</p>
<p>these debates are stupid. numbers don't mean anything. as twain said, "there are lies damn lies and there are statistics." you can make some data say anything you want. shouldnt the real superiority be based on what the college experience is like and the people that make it up? so what berkley has good numbers, talk to someone who has gone and hear about the horror stories of 900 person lectures, classmates who sabotage others, camping out for days to get into a required class, and not being able to get enough credits to graduate in four years. who ever considers that stuff?</p>
<p>UVA > Berkeley for ugrad. Too many people compare Berkeley ugrad with its grad programs.</p>