Best public University?

Applying to College
101

<p>
[quote]
I simply am implying - due to the OP's long ago point - that for undergraduate education, berkeley is not a better choice than uva.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not talking about the graduate program either. I simply do not agree that at the undergraduate level, UVa is clearly than Berkeley. Maybe it is in some aspects, but overall? I don't think it's clearly better.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>UVA is ranked #23 while Berkeley is ranked #20, so I don't see how it is "one spot lower."</p>

<p>And why is the peer assessment score "bogus"? Berkeley has world-class professors, winners of nobel prizes, pulitzer prizes, and many other awards. Some of these professors do teach at the undergraduate level. Also, the superb graduate programs tend to spill over when you get a brilliant GSI, which is a likely case.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So assume UVa takes 1000 transfer students per 4 years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, UVa takes transfer students every year, not every four years.</p>

<p>
[quote]
so that means, over a 4 year period, cal has amassed nearly 9,400 transfer students - mostly from cc's

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How did you get that figure? Berkeley admits 3000 transfers every year. Many are not from CCs. But let's assume that ALL of them are from CCs. Did you forget that students transferring from CCs start out as a junior? So really, Berkeley would have 3000 junior transfers, and 3000 senior transfers. That's 6000. Now since many transfers are not from a CC, the number of CC transfers is actually significantly less. Maybe 3000 - 4000, compared with 23000+ undergrads.</p>

<p>
[quote]
- you cannot argue the fact that 40% (vs. 7%) of the students at cal couldn't get in the first time around.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not only is your 40% a very inaccurate calculation, but where did you get 7%?</p>

<p>I thought I showed that every year UVa admits, percentage-wise, about half as many transfer students as Berkeley. Considering that many of these are entering sophomores, this would make the number of transfers at UVa even greater. Maybe you would like to go back and reread my post?</p>

<p>Also, you said that these transfer students could not get in the first time around. </p>

<p>First of all, some students were or could have been admitted but decided to save money by going to a CC and then transferring. Some students also were admitted to schools of similar caliber, such as another UC, but had their hearts set on Cal, so decided to go to a CC and then transfer.</p>

<p>Second of all, how many of the transfers at UVa could have gotten in the first time? It seems to me like many of them attended lower-tier universities or state schools in Virginia or Maryland. I don't see many Harvard students transferring to UVa every year, do you? Therefore I could also say that a considerate number of undergraduates at UVA are weaker than those who were admitted as a freshman.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The quality of first year admitted students are roughly equal? The scores may be roughly equal, but once again I point out that UVa uses composite scores which inflate the scores of its admitted students. Also, let's take a look at the percentage of the entering class that were the top 10% of its class hmm?</p>

<p>UVa: 87%
Berkeley: 99%</p>

<p>Pretty big difference, don't you think?</p>

<p>But you know what? Let's say for the sake of argument that the quality of the first year admitted students ARE roughly equal, as you say, then I still believe the top students at Berkeley to be stronger than the top students at UVa. You said that "Berkeley's students don't out perform UVa's students" a few pages back. I'm saying the top students do. Why? You said it yourself, Berkeley can afford to be more selective because of more applications. IF the average students are similar it's only because Berkeley takes in many more students so the bottom 10% are not as strong and drag the average down. The top students at Berkeley are stronger than the top students at UVa, and worst students at Berkeley are worse than the worst students at UVa. So on average they appear roughly equal.</p>

<p>Now, why does it matter that the top students at Berkeley are stronger? Well your argument seems to be
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If it's really a whole lot weaker, then there shouldn't be students at Berkeley that are stronger than any student at UVa right? The SAT scores shouldn't be similar, and the percentage of top 10% of their class should be lower, not significantly higher, right?</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Well I guess I won't be talking to you then, seeing as how you live on the other side of the country. Which lectures at Berkeley have 900 students? The class sizes at Berkeley are actually similar to those at Stanford, an elite PRIVATE school: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=165910&page=2&pp=15%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=165910&page=2&pp=15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Most people who recounted their experiences at Berkeley that I have heard of have said that classes are generally easy to get into. Certainly no one would camp out for days to get in them.</p>

<p>The cut-throad competition at Berkeley is overblown. They only exist in certain areas such as pre-med or engineering. But then again which good pre-med program or engineering program isn't competitive?</p>

<p>heresbreakfast, I don't see why you felt the need to slander Berkeley when you seem to know very little about it, has never attended and isn't even planning on going there, or even UVa for that matter.</p>

<p>
[quote]
UVA > Berkeley for ugrad. Too many people compare Berkeley ugrad with its grad programs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Everything I've said pretty much has to do with the undergraduate program. If we're talking about Berkeley's graduate programs then there wouldn't even be need of a discussion.</p>

<p>Now, I will once again state that I have a lot of respect for UVa and I believe it is arguably the best public undergraduate program in the nation. However, I also think Berkeley is arguably the best public undergraduate program in the nation. I don't think one clearly as a great edge over the other (as shown by the closeness in rankings). There are some problems at Berkeley such as its impersonal administration, poor networking, etc. and in these aspects UVa probably does a better job. However, there are problems at UVa too (that jags have graciously admitted to in his other posts) and there are aspects of the undergrad that Berkeley does better. I don't think it's fair to Berkeley to say that UVa is definitely better for undergrad, or that its undergraduate body is a lot weaker than that of UVa.</p>

102

<p>funny you threw in the "not going to UVA next either" because i am headed there next fall. anyway, again, you losers are going by mere statistics; so what if berkeley has only 7% of classes above 100? that 7 % is most likely made up of the intros to bio, chem, psyche, etc that everyone needs to take. so, large classes are unavoidable and again, data doesn't prove anything.</p>

103

<p>by the way, i may be attending UVA next year, but im not defending it all; i happened to jump in an argument and i wanted to reveal my opinion. the problem for me is not which school is the best, but how how you measure it. i just wish people would stop relying so much on numbers to calculate the value of a school. again, i will reiterate the fact that school is what you make it and the people there can never be quantified by some survey. go to a place, talk to a few people, get some food, attend a class, see whats happening in the lab, check out the night life - that will reveal which school is the best.</p>

104

<p>
[quote]
so what if berkeley has only 7% of classes above 100? that 7 % is most likely made up of the intros to bio, chem, psyche, etc that everyone needs to take. so, large classes are unavoidable and again, data doesn't prove anything.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes but...UVa has large introductory classes too. So do all public universities and most private universities. The point was that a majority of the classes at Berkeley are in fact, not very large, so the whole "900 person lectures" is overblown.</p>

<p>
[quote]
i happened to jump in an argument and i wanted to reveal my opinion. the problem for me is not which school is the best, but how how you measure it. i just wish people would stop relying so much on numbers to calculate the value of a school. again, i will reiterate the fact that school is what you make it and the people there can never be quantified by some survey.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I encourage you to voice your opinion. That's the purpose of these forums.</p>

<p>You're right in saying that numbers don't make a school. It's more about personal fit. This is why I kept saying it's unclear which is better. Some people may like UVa better, and some people may like Berkeley better. They are both among the top public Universities to go for undergrad, and they both have strengths and weaknesses. I wouldn't give a clear edge to either one.</p>

<p>The thing is, in this thread we are debating about which public university is better for undergrad in general. There will be people who have great experiences at both, or not-so-great experiences at both. So while personal experience is very useful for determining which school you personally want to attend, it doesn't hold up very well when judging the schools as a whole because it's subjective, and changes from person to person.</p>

<p>We are using statistics because they help in reflecting the quality of education at both schools. For example: at Yale only 2.8% of the classes have 100+, while a whopping 86% of the classes are below 30. I would say that Yale definitely have smaller class sizes on average than Berkeley, and that this contributes to a more personal and intellectually nourishing environment. In this aspect, based on these numbers, Yale definitely has Berkeley beat.</p>

<p>Again, I agree with you that personal experience is very useful, and I encourage people to visit schools to see which ones fit them best, but this is only in making a PERSONAL decision about which school to attend. When discussing which public university provides the best undergrad education, however, the numbers seem to hold up better as evidence for an argument.</p>

105

<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>

<hr>

<p>This just reminds me of my friend who was at a cc then transferred to Cal. She got into Columbia, NYU, and Boalt for law school. She'll be attending NYU with a huge scholarship.</p>

106

<p>vicissitudes,</p>

<p>my numbers were pretty easily gotten.</p>

<p>UVa's 2005 entering class size was about 3100. so each year there are roughly 3100 entering students which makes 12,400 students over 4 years. But the total undergrad population is 13,400 - so the other 1000 have to be transfers. so 1000/13,400 is about .07 so about 7% of uva's undergraduate student body is transfers. Now if in a 4 year block, there are 1000 transfer students, wouldn't you agree that over a period of 4 years, there are about 1000 transfer students admitted and then attending uva. Obviously you know that i know uva takes transfers every semester...</p>

<p>Berkeley's 2005 entering class was roughly 3600. So if you take each class size to be around 3600, then that makes about 14,400 total first year admitted students over a 4 year period. but berkeleys undergrad population is aroundly 23,400 or 9000 more. The rest must be transfers wouldn't you say? 9000/23,400 is .38 - so we'll say 38% of berkeleys undergrad population are transfer students. (unless there are 1000s of students who arn't graduating on time...)</p>

<p>Like I've said before the 99% in top 10% is just bound to happen - based soley on the fact that berkeley has sheer number of applications. but then again those are 1st year admitted students - it leaves out 38% of the student population (vs. 7% at uva). You'd have to actually look at your transfer students to see how many students were actually in the top 10% of their high school class. I'm not denying that berkeley is hard to get into - just the fact that its student body isn't as strong as its made out to be by its admissions criteria.</p>

<p>Also, when I say berkeley's peer assessment score is "bloated" I don't mean it as a diss on the school. However, it is merely a survey of university presidents who probably 95% of which know very little about berkeley. Berkeley, being a research powerhouse, gets a great peer score because it is well more known. But all research is done on the graduate level. And, your most famous professors most probably don't teach at the undergrad level - not that UVa's necessarily do either. But I'm saying that if both schools ultra premier are off teaching grad students/doing research, and the rest of the professors are doing the norm, how does that make berkely "superior."</p>

<p>Also we leave out the fact that UVa has far more money in general, let alone money per student (although not necessarily research funds...but research like i said doesn't really affect ugrads). </p>

<p>GradStudent,</p>

<p>I'm aware that there are exceptions to everything and I'm sure your friend is a genius and all. But your friend isn't the normal community college student.</p>

107

<p>^ That is so true. Not even the average HARVARD ugrad student gets into NYU Law. Princeton's average LSAT score is 163.</p>

108

<p>BERKELEY, no problem</p>

109

<p>Wow, I'm exhausted just reading that argument. Too bad Michigan is clearly better than both of them.</p>

<p>Just kidding!</p>

<p>But Quincy will tell you Michigan State is.</p>

110

<p>The Berk.</p>

<p>[url=<a href="http://www.tumr.com/view/?id=20&app=college%5DNash%5B/url"&gt;http://www.tumr.com/view/?id=20&app=college]Nash[/url&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p>

111

<p>
[quote]
UVa's 2005 entering class size was about 3100. so each year there are roughly 3100 entering students which makes 12,400 students over 4 years. But the total undergrad population is 13,400 - so the other 1000 have to be transfers. so 1000/13,400 is about .07 so about 7% of uva's undergraduate student body is transfers. Now if in a 4 year block, there are 1000 transfer students, wouldn't you agree that over a period of 4 years, there are about 1000 transfer students admitted and then attending uva. Obviously you know that i know uva takes transfers every semester...</p>

<p>Berkeley's 2005 entering class was roughly 3600. So if you take each class size to be around 3600, then that makes about 14,400 total first year admitted students over a 4 year period. but berkeleys undergrad population is aroundly 23,400 or 9000 more. The rest must be transfers wouldn't you say? 9000/23,400 is .38 - so we'll say 38% of berkeleys undergrad population are transfer students. (unless there are 1000s of students who arn't graduating on time...)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nice try, but you're missing something important, which you ironically addressed sarcastically in your last sentece.</p>

<p>Four year graduation rates.</p>

<p>Berkeley: 61.3%
UVa: 82.6%</p>

<p>You see how this makes your calculation flawed? There are simply many more 5 or 6 year students at Berkeley. Unit 3 is a dorm filled with these students. My tour guide, when I visited there, lived in unit 3 and was a 5th year student.</p>

<p>Berkeley's graduation rates for graduating in 6 years or less is 86.6%, so about 5/8 of those who do not graduate in 4 years will in 5 or 6 years.</p>

<p>So out of those 14,400 first year entering freshmen? About 5,572 of them will not graduate in four years, and about 5/8, or 3,483 of those, are 5 or 6 year students. And the 7+ year students? Obviously rare, so let's just say that around 4,000 are 5+ year students. Sounds like a pretty good estimation to me. Now let's add that to your 14,400, and divide it by 21,700 (number of full-time undergrads...part-time shouldn't really count, am I right?). Hmm that's 85%. So actually the number of transfers at Berkeley is only about 15%. Nice try.</p>

<p>Now of course, this means that UVa's transfer numbers should drop down as well, though not as much because of the better graduation rate...maybe 5%. 15% vs 5%...both a small minority of the campus. I wouldn't say it's something like 40% to 7%.</p>

<p>But let's just say that transfers are a large part of Berkeley's campus...how does this affect the quality of the undergrad? Many people transfer from four-year universities. Those who transferred from a CC maybe got into Cal but wanted to save money, or could have gotten in but didn't apply to save money, or didn't go due to extenuating circumstances, or gave up a similar quality school to go to CC and transfer to Berkeley. The transfers are the very top of the CCs and graduate from Berkeley at about the same rate as first year entering students...so why are they so much worse again? Your argument that they didn't get in the first time doesn't hold up because I've just given you examples of many who did get in, could have gotten in, or almost got in. I agree that the transfer students on average is weaker, bot not substantially weaker, and there are many very qualified transfer students, so I don't think they really drag down the quality of the undergrads on a whole.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Like I've said before the 99% in top 10% is just bound to happen - based soley on the fact that berkeley has sheer number of applications.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you admit the admitted students are stronger?</p>

<p>Now, I'm going to address something I'm sure you're dying to come hit me with, which is...why is Berkeley's graduation rate only 61% compared to 82% of UVa?</p>

<p>Well, I would ascribe this to the difficulty of Berkeley's curriculum. Berkeley is infamous for its tough grading, skewed curves, and weeder classes. For many majors it's "sink or swim." I have admitted that Berkeley has its problems and one of them is the impersonal staff. I have said that UVa is better than Berkeley in SOME aspects and one of them is that it's a tighter undergrad program, and students get more attention/help. There are things that UVa does better than Berkeley, and things that Berkeley does better than UVa (for example, better professors, many of whom YES teach undergrad). This is one thing that UVa does better than Berkeley. Does that mean that UVa is definitely better than Berkeley for undergrads as a whole? No. Does it mean, as you say, that the undergraduates at Berkeley are a lot weaker than the undergrads at UVa? Definitely not.</p>

112

<p>William & Mary is the most selective public US university. Higher SAT scores than Berkeley. Third highest in the South after Duke and Rice.</p>

113

<p>Actually, Emory and Vanderbilt have higher scores than W&M, but its still a good school.</p>

114

<p>See <a href="http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=5758%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=5758&lt;/a> . The Average SAT scores for W&M's 2005 entering class are 1390. Emory and Vanderbilt are somewhere around 1350.</p>

115

<p>Berkeley .</p>

116

<p>According to Common Data Set, Vanderbilt SAT ranges for A&S for class of 2009 were 1300--1470. The SAT scores you posted for William and Mary are for ADMITTED students, not for students who ENROLLED. Those numbers are misleading.</p>

<p>EDIT: According to William and Mary's Common Data the SAT ranges are 1260-1440.</p>

117

<p>hey! what about SUNY Geneseo?</p>

118

<p>UFL, UMich, UNC, UMich for the top.</p>

119

<p>macsuile, why did you revive all these old threads? People generally just create a new one.</p>

120

<p>suny bing is like suny elite
stony is pretty good too</p>