<p>oops. you are correct superwizard. Stanford beats several Ivies in Revealed Preference. Quite true.</p>
<p>collegehelp I don't really think you can measure educational quality based on student preferences. It's true that they are in part based on educational quality but I also believe that prestige plays an extremely important role in determining cross admits. Just to quote the study itself:
[QUOTE]
We close by reminding readers that measures of revealed preference
are just that: measures of desirability based on students and families making college choices.
They do not necessarily correspond to educational quality.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>A large component of educational quality is the quality of the student body. If a school is perceived to be "better", it will attract a higher quality student body.</p>
<p>^Agreed however it would be pretty hard to prove that the students at Harvard are on average 'better' than those at say Stanford which is ranked fifth.</p>
<p>That's why I have "better" in quotes.</p>
<p>Superwizard, where do you think prestige comes from? It primarily originates from real quality and then can become somewhat self-fulfilling but only if quality is sustained over time. Prestige generally originates from fact.</p>
<p>I wish the authors of Revealed Preference had not issued that gratuitous disclaimer about "educational quality" because revealed preference does, in fact, generally reflect "educational quality". The key words in their disclaimer are "not necessarily". </p>
<p>Of course, it is POSSIBLE that a particular student consumer might prefer a school of lower educational quality because college choice is an optimization problem that weighs many factors in addition to educational quality such as price, distance, size, and so on. Furthermore, students make mistakes. Hence the number of students who transfer to a different school. This is why, for example, lower-quality, low-priced schools (publics) are sometimes selected over higher-cost, higher-quality schools (privates). (Yes, some publics are fantastic schools.) But educational quality is the only common denominator basis for rating the universe of schools. </p>
<p>Self-interest is the most fundamental basis for consumer behavior. Individuals can err but, collectively, consumers are almost always right. </p>
<p>It isn't a matter, however, of where the most students go to school. There is a lot of self-selection; students apply to schools that "fit". It is a matter of head-to-head competition between cross-admits. This is what revealed preference measures.</p>
<p>sakky:</p>
<p>"Really? Perhaps you'd like to come to the Berkeley section of CC and tell the people there that. In particular, I get the feeling that posters like vicissitudes, who actually lives in a Berkeley dorm and dislikes it, would like to know why you think they are 'fine'."</p>
<p>That's one person's opinion. Speak to other Berkeley students, and you'd find that it's not as bad as people make it seem.</p>
<p>"But that's not the point. We're not talking about what the infrastructure of the 'greater environment' has. We're talking strictly about what infrastructure the university has."</p>
<p>I was clarifying your assertion that it's difficult to find housing for grads.</p>
<p>"Berkeley and Cambridge have roughly the same population (both around 100k). Yet Harvard provides more housing to its students. For example, Harvard guarantees 4 years of housing to all undergrads, despite the fact that Cambridge has plenty of outside housing available for rent to undergrads. Berkeley only guarantees 2 years of undergrad housing (and up to a few years ago, only guaranteed 1 year)."</p>
<p>I'm aware, but Harvard has much fewer students, which goes back to the idea that it prepares fewer students.</p>
<p>"That doesn't matter. You contended that Berkeley had 'more teachers'. I think we have now established that that is false."</p>
<p>Indeed, but I clarified it with the student-to-faculty ratio.</p>
<p>"Furthermore, I would like to understand your assertion that Berkeley is "prepared" for a higher student-faculty ratio."</p>
<p>Er, perhaps it's that Berkeley is more willing to take on more students?</p>
<p>"If that was so, then you would think that there would be no wait-lists for any undergrad classes, and undergrads would never be denied a seat in the classes that they want."</p>
<p>They have to draw the line somewhere. Eventually, though, people take the classes they need, if they pursue it.</p>
<p>"Tell that to the guys who can't get into the major that they want. Yeah, it's easy to say that they "aren't that bad", when you don't have to put up with it yourself. That's like a rich person telling a poor person that poverty "isn't that bad""</p>
<p>That's completely wrong. I can say impacted majors aren't that bad simply because people <em>can</em> get into them. A person can get into the major; he/she must work hard.</p>
<p>"Work is the key, is it? Perhaps you'd like to tell that to a guy I know who got around a 3.3 GPA in engineering prereqs, which is quite a decent GPA for engineering, and STILL couldn't get into engineering, and so ended up having to major in something he didn't really want."</p>
<p>It's a tough university, no? Perhaps a 3.3 isn't good enough.</p>
<p>"The most painful part of the process is that he actually WORKED HARDER than a lot of existing engineering students. For example, there are plenty of engineering students who get less than a 3.0, including some who get less than a 2.5. Yet because they are existing engineering students, they were allowed to stay in engineering. Yet this guy, who actually got a HIGHER GPA than they did, was not allowed to enter engineering. That's sad."</p>
<p>Consider that those with a 2.5 had higher than a 3.3 to get into engineering. Let's say that guy with the 3.3 did get into the program, and then his GPA drops to a 2.5. That's technically not the point of having a GPA limit (if it's high, then they assume you're gonna maintain it, etc.). At any rate, your analogy is all "what-if."</p>
<p>"By the same token, one could ask why Berkeley's graduate programs are so small. Why doesn't Berkeley expand those too? After all, Berkeley actually has about HALF of the graduate students that Harvard does."</p>
<p>Again, you're assuming that Berkeley simply doesn't want to expand them. Perhaps it's because not as many want to pursue a grad education. There are many reasons why they have fewer.</p>
<p>"Who do you think wins the undergrad cross-admit battle, Harvard or Berkeley? I think we can all agree that it's the former. So if that's the case, then why are so many people choosing a school that is supposedly is 'the best thing for America'? Are these people being stupid?"</p>
<p>I'm beginning to wonder whether you've read anything I've asserted. Again: it is the prestige. And go ahead and look around CC and you'd find that many choose colleges based on prestige. Getting into Harvard and not going is simply crazy to many. Not even taking into consideration that many teens' parents make them go to Harvard if accepted, or distance, etc.</p>
<p>"I agree that Berkeley undergrad is one of the best. But the question is, if you have a choice between #1 and #31, why wouldn't you pick the best?"</p>
<p>Er, perhaps price? Perhaps distance? Perhaps fit?</p>
<p>"If there is no difference in quality, then there is no reason for Berkeley to improve. The Berkeley administrators can just say "Oh, we are #31 (or whatever it is), and that's good enough, so there is no reason to get better". Is that what you want?"</p>
<p>For the record, I have no idea why you're making such leaping assumptions. Berkeley and many other universities don't feel the need to please US News. Other universities do, like U of Florida (increasing tuition to have more teachers, thus bringing down the student-to-faculty ratio and jumping--hopefully--in rankings).</p>
<p>"If nothing else, these rankings spur schools to continually improve their programs."</p>
<p>Of course they do. But they improve based on what <em>they</em> think will help the program, rather than what would please US News.</p>
<p>"Oh, I could. Again, whether we like it or not, Harvard is far and away the biggest brand name in education. Go to a village in some foreign country, and if the people there have heard of any one university (other than a home-country university), it will most likely be Harvard."</p>
<p>That's being rather liberal with my statement. I'll rephrase: try finding someone who's informed of the facts of those universities and ask him/her whether he/she finds Harvard to be <em>much</em> (by a large margin) more prestigious, not some random person in a foreign country who has heard of some American college or another.</p>
<p>"Look, I'm not saying that this is 'right'. I'm not defending the situation. I am simply stating the reality of the situation. Like it or not, Harvard is Harvard."</p>
<p>Throughout this discussion, you seemed bent on making Harvard seem better than Berkeley. Again, the whole point I'm trying to make is that Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Brown, Duke, Northwester, UMich, UVa, etc. are all going to give you the same quality education. It all depends on what you do with it.</p>
<p>"What matters is not how we would like the world to be, what matters is how the world is."</p>
<p>I disagree. Perhaps if we think of how we'd like the world to be, then we'd strive to be better. =)</p>
<p>"Really? If that is really true, then why does Berkeley get trounced by Harvard in the cross-admit battle? Are these students who seem to strongly preferentially choose Harvard just being stupid, if there is really no difference?"</p>
<p>Didn't we just go over this? They choose Harvard most likely because of brand name. Simply because they choose Harvard doesn't make Berkeley inferior in quality; they're going with the brand name.</p>
<p>"Disdain for Berkeley, eh? Perhaps you'd like to ask me just how I know so much about Berkeley anyway? Hmm, which one of us knows Berkeley better? I wonder."</p>
<p>Hmm, which one of us is unnecessarily condescending? I wonder.</p>
<p>"I think even most Berkeley studetns would concede that, from a quality standpoint, the average quality of undergrad student at Berkeley is not as good as that at Harvard."</p>
<p>That isn't valid till you've asked them. I'll concede here and now that many don't think that. At any rate, both of those assertions are invalid, even with statistics, because what they think has no bearing on realitiy. (Notice that I said it would be difficult to find someone who thinks Berkeley students are "so-so," without comparison to Harvard -- but again, what one thinks has no bearing on reality.)</p>
<p>"Whether you want to call that 'so-so' or 'second-rate' is all just a matter of semantics."</p>
<p>Those "silly little semantic differences" that people use to quell certain matters are oftentimes clear enough to make a definite assertion. In this case "so-so" has easily discerned meanings: "okay" or "mediocre."</p>
<p>"Another added note. Part of Harvard is indeed in Boston."</p>
<p>I'm aware, but its main residence is Cambridge. Not that this matters a whole lot...</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's one person's opinion. Speak to other Berkeley students, and you'd find that it's not as bad as people make it seem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said it was 'that bad'. Certainly, I can agree that Berkeley's dorms are better than the dorms of certain other schools. But that's not the point. This is a comparative analysis. Which dorms are better, Harvard's or Berkeley's? I think most neutral observers would have to agree that Harvard's are better. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I was clarifying your assertion that it's difficult to find housing for grads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I was clarifying your assertion that UCBerkeley as a school supposedly has better 'infrastructure'. Both cities have roughly the same infrastructure. But Harvard as a school has better infrastructure than UCBerkeley does. Again, this is a comparative analysis. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm aware, but Harvard has much fewer students, which goes back to the idea that it prepares fewer students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But we're not talking about that. We're talking about who has more infrastructure. We have already established that Harvard has more endowment, more teachers, more annual budget, better dorms, and better physical plant. </p>
<p>Besides, look at it this way. Ohio State has almost 52k students, which is almost double that of Berkeley. Does that mean that Ohio State is now somehow a 'better' school than Berkeley is? Or that it 'prepares' more students? Should people turn down Berkeley to go to Ohio State? </p>
<p>
[quote]
ndeed, but I clarified it with the student-to-faculty ratio.
[/quote</p>
<p>Uh, yes, Berkeley clearly has a higher student-to-faculty ratio. But why is that a good thing? Isn't that a bad thing? Aren't most schools trying to REDUCE their student-faculty ratio? Why are they reducing it, if a high ratio is actually good? Are they being dumb? </p>
<p>[quote]
Er, perhaps it's that Berkeley is more willing to take on more students?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, what does that have to do with anything? Like I said, Ohio State has even more students than Berkeley does. Does that make Ohio State a better school? </p>
<p>
[quote]
They have to draw the line somewhere. Eventually, though, people take the classes they need, if they pursue it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Either that, or they don't graduate on time, or don't even graduate at all. Compare the 4-year graduation rates at Berkeley and Harvard. When you can't get the classes you need when you need them, your graduation tends to get delayed. Why is that a good thing? </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's a tough university, no? Perhaps a 3.3 isn't good enough.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet it's apparently good enough for those people who had already gotten into engineering to be allowed to stay.</p>
<p>But let me put it to you this way. MIT is a tough school too, arguably tougher than Berkeley. Yet MIT lets you major in anything you want. They're not going to tell you that you can't major in something. If you pass the classes in a particular major, you will graduate in that major. MIT doesn't go around saying that its students who don't get good grades in engineering aren't "good enough" and therefore aren't allowed to major in engineering. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Consider that those with a 2.5 had higher than a 3.3 to get into engineering. Let's say that guy with the 3.3 did get into the program, and then his GPA drops to a 2.5. That's technically not the point of having a GPA limit (if it's high, then they assume you're gonna maintain it, etc.). At any rate, your analogy is all "what-if."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your understanding of the way that Berkeley actually runs engineering is poor. The guy with the 2.5 was "never" higher than 3.3 in order to get into engineering. He got into engineering * as a freshman *. Hence, he had no college GPA to speak of. Yet, in engineering, he did poorly enough to get a 2.5. But the fact that he was already in engineering means that he was allowed to stay. But the guy who was * trying to switch * into engineering from another major was not allowed. Why? </p>
<p>What should have happened is that the guy who got a 3.3 but didn't get into engineering never applied to engineering as a freshman, and he should have. But hey, that's a silly mistake that 17-year old kids make. How is a 17-year old kid supposed to know what he wants to major in, without having even tried any of the classes? But that's what Berkeley forces you to do. Those guys who declared engineering on their application and who are admitted are allowed to stay in engineering, even if their performance is poor. Yet those people who didn't and later on find out that they want engineering have to undergo the hurdle of switching into the major. </p>
<p>Furthermore, it's hardly a 'what-if'. This was pulled from a real-life scenario. I know the guy who got the 3.3 and couldn't get into engineering. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, you're assuming that Berkeley simply doesn't want to expand them. Perhaps it's because not as many want to pursue a grad education. There are many reasons why they have fewer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? And why does Harvard has so many grad students - about double that of Berkeley? Apparently some people seem to want graduate education. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm beginning to wonder whether you've read anything I've asserted. Again: it is the prestige. And go ahead and look around CC and you'd find that many choose colleges based on prestige. Getting into Harvard and not going is simply crazy to many. Not even taking into consideration that many teens' parents make them go to Harvard if accepted, or distance, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I am beginning to wonder whether YOU have read anything that I have read. Is it all about the prestige? Really? Don't you think some people want to avoid some of the problems of Berkeley. For example, do you think people really like impaction? Do you think they like wait-listed classes? Or dorms that are not as good as Harvard's? Or 4-year graduation rates that are lower than Harvard's? Or a painful bureaucracy? Or packed classes with high student-faculty ratios? Do you think they like this? You think this has nothing to do with 'quality'? </p>
<p>Why put up with these problems if you don't have to? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Er, perhaps price? Perhaps distance? Perhaps fit?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure. Yet who is to say that Berkeley has a monopoly on these attributes? </p>
<p>Let's take price. I remember 2 people, who were California state residents, who got into both Berkeley and Harvard, and found out that Harvard was actually going to be * cheaper * once financial aid was factored in. Harvard was offering them full rides because they came from poor families, whereas Berkeley wanted them to take out loans. I will always remember one of them mordantly saying that he always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so now he has 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. </p>
<p>Let's talk about fit and location. You don't think that Harvard has a fit and location that is highly appealing to many people? Boston/Cambridge is one of the most dynamic college environments in the world. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I think all I have to do is point to the cross-admit data and the yield data and show that obviously a lot of people seem to prefer Harvard over Berkeley. Harvard yields over 75% of its admittees for undergrad. Berkeley? About 40%. The majority of people who are admitted to Berkeley choose to go somewhere else. Why is that? </p>
<p>
[quote]
For the record, I have no idea why you're making such leaping assumptions. Berkeley and many other universities don't feel the need to please US News. Other universities do, like U of Florida (increasing tuition to have more teachers, thus bringing down the student-to-faculty ratio and jumping--hopefully--in rankings).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, there it is again. You keep talking about a school hiring teachers as somehow a 'bad thing'. I would say that that is actually a good thing. Heck, I wish Berkeley would hire more teachers. </p>
<p>The question is whether increases in tuition are worth it. But again, plenty of students don't pay full tuition anyway. Again, like I said, take those 2 guys who went to Harvard for free. What do they care what the tuition at Harvard is, if they're going for free? </p>
<p>But besides, this discussion isn't about 'cost-effectiveness'. You were simply talking about educational quality. Cost-effectiveness does not enter the equation. We were never talking about which school has the best quality for the price. We were simply talking about which school had the best quality. Period. </p>
<p>If all you care about is cost-effectiveness, then the answer is simple. Go to the best school you can that is going to give you a full ride. By definition, that is the most cost-effective thing you can do. By this logic, going to some no-name school on a full ride is better than going to Berkeley and having to pay. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Throughout this discussion, you seemed bent on making Harvard seem better than Berkeley. Again, the whole point I'm trying to make is that Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Brown, Duke, Northwester, UMich, UVa, etc. are all going to give you the same quality education. It all depends on what you do with it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I disagree. They are not the same. Berkeley has problems with impaction. Berkeley has problems with a high student-faculty ratio. Other schools that you listed don't have these problems. I know people at Berkeley who couldn't graduate on time because they couldn't get a course they needed (which meant that later courses for which the first course was a prereq also got delayed). Why put up with that if you don't have to? How is that good for 'quality'? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Didn't we just go over this? They choose Harvard most likely because of brand name. Simply because they choose Harvard doesn't make Berkeley inferior in quality; they're going with the brand name.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See above. Plenty of people are trying to avoid Berkeley's problems. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Hmm, which one of us is unnecessarily condescending? I wonder.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, you started it, pal. You are the one trying to tell me about Berkeley. How condescending is that? I am quite certain that people here who know my biography would find that ridiculous. </p>
<p>
[quote]
That isn't valid till you've asked them. I'll concede here and now that many don't think that. At any rate, both of those assertions are invalid, even with statistics, because what they think has no bearing on realitiy. (Notice that I said it would be difficult to find someone who thinks Berkeley students are "so-so," without comparison to Harvard -- but again, what one thinks has no bearing on reality.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would like you to name some people who really think there is no difference between the average quality of undergrad at Harvard and Berkeley.</p>
<p>The truth of the matter is that far more people got into Berkeley, but not Harvard, then vice versa. What does that tell you about quality? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Those "silly little semantic differences" that people use to quell certain matters are oftentimes clear enough to make a definite assertion. In this case "so-so" has easily discerned meanings: "okay" or "mediocre."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's all relative. Are the Oakland Raiders a 'mediocre' football team? Clearly the Raiders could destroy most college football teams, or teams from the Arena Football League, or NFL Europe, or any of the other international football teams out there. However, compared to other NFL teams, the Raiders are certainly mediocre. It's all relative.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does the chart in the Revealed Preference study say that, of the cross-admits to Berkeley and Cornell, 98% choose Cornell? I am not sure if I am reading the chart correctly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, that is not what it says. This is not a study in just cross-admits, because to be a cross-admit, you obviously have to apply to both schools in the first place (and then get in). Rather, revealed preferences is a model that determines what people are likely to prefer, regardless of whether they actually applied there or not, or whether they would have got in or not. </p>
<p>As somebody else here said, a lot of 'preference' is revealed in the simple act of applying or not applying to a certain school in the first place. But even choosing not to apply to a school may not truly reveal preference, because you may prefer a school and not apply there just because you don't think you can get in. Let's face it. If you have a terrible academic record, you're not going to waste your time in applying to Harvard, because you know you won't get in, so why waste time and money in trying? If they could magically get admitted, they would take it, but since they know they can't get in, they're not going to try. Hence, they are not 'cross-admits' to Harvard because they never apply to Harvard at all. </p>
<p>A proper RP study models all of that behavior to come up with an aggregate whole. That's what the Hoxby study does, using mainstream RP techniques that social scientists have been using for years. </p>
<p>So it's not the case that 98% (or whatever the number is) of cross-admits to Berkeley and Cornell choose Cornell. Rather, it's that if given the choice between Cornell or Berkeley, the majority of those people would choose Cornell.</p>
<p>"I think most neutral observers would have to agree that Harvard's are better."</p>
<p>Indeed; that's for sure, but you're also paying quite a bit more each year. =)</p>
<p>"Both cities have roughly the same infrastructure. But Harvard as a school has better infrastructure than UCBerkeley does. Again, this is a comparative analysis. "</p>
<p>Try to understand that sometimes points in a debate deviate from the main topic. You were, again, asserting that grad students have much difficulty getting housing; I asserted otherwise, saying that most choose other forms of housing. This slight digression isn't a "comparative" thing; it's simply to say that although many could get housing at Berkeley, they choose not to.</p>
<p>"Ohio State has almost 52k students, which is almost double that of Berkeley. Does that mean that Ohio State is now somehow a 'better' school than Berkeley is? Or that it 'prepares' more students? Should people turn down Berkeley to go to Ohio State?"</p>
<p>You didn't understand what I've been saying. Harvard: prepares about 20,000 students with an excellent education. Berkeley: prepares about 30,000+ students with as good an education. Ohio State: prepares 52,000 or so students with not as good an education. The pivotal point is that both Harvard and Berkeley offer the same quality education. Of course, you disagree.</p>
<p>"Uh, yes, Berkeley clearly has a higher student-to-faculty ratio. But why is that a good thing? Isn't that a bad thing? Aren't most schools trying to REDUCE their student-faculty ratio? Why are they reducing it, if a high ratio is actually good? Are they being dumb?"</p>
<p>It's a misconception that it's a bad thing. Schools are trying to lower it because US News, etc. considers it a bad thing. The thing about Berkeley: it has a somewhat-high student-faculty ratio, yet it gives an excellent education.</p>
<p>"Again, what does that have to do with anything? Like I said, Ohio State has even more students than Berkeley does. Does that make Ohio State a better school?"</p>
<p>See above.</p>
<p>"Compare the 4-year graduation rates at Berkeley and Harvard. When you can't get the classes you need when you need them, your graduation tends to get delayed. Why is that a good thing?"</p>
<p>This is an "if-then" case. Perhaps real statistics and correlations between needed classes and graduation rates are necessary.</p>
<p>"But let me put it to you this way. MIT is a tough school too, arguably tougher than Berkeley. Yet MIT lets you major in anything you want. They're not going to tell you that you can't major in something. If you pass the classes in a particular major, you will graduate in that major. MIT doesn't go around saying that its students who don't get good grades in engineering aren't "good enough" and therefore aren't allowed to major in engineering."</p>
<p>My main point is: it's not a huge problem that majors are restricted. Sure, at other universities, it's easier. But you weren't able to get into MIT, and so you must work hard to get into Berkeley's program. That's simply how the world is. (Despite our discussion being mainly on comparison of quality, it's dependent on whether or not you can get into the school. What is the good of saying that MIT is better if you can't get in? Then again, if you did get into both, you'd have to find the pros and cons of both and see which fits you best.)</p>
<p>"Your understanding of the way that Berkeley actually runs engineering is poor."</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>"Yet those people who didn't and later on find out that they want engineering have to undergo the hurdle of switching into the major."</p>
<p>They'd just have to work harder, then. It's a hurdle, yes, but not an insuperable one.</p>
<p>"Furthermore, it's hardly a 'what-if'. This was pulled from a real-life scenario. I know the guy who got the 3.3 and couldn't get into engineering."</p>
<p>Indeed, but it's considered "what-if" not in that it's unreal but in that it doesn't occur with overwhelming regularity.</p>
<p>"Oh? And why does Harvard has so many grad students - about double that of Berkeley? Apparently some people seem to want graduate education."</p>
<p>That's an issue that can't be delved into without seeking students' intentions. Making a conclusion of why there are more grad students in one than in the other would be a bit ambitious.</p>
<p>"Do you think they like this? You think this has nothing to do with 'quality'?"</p>
<p>Thing is, you're quick to point out all the shortcomings of Berkeley. Harvard has its shortcomings, too. =)</p>
<p>"Why put up with these problems if you don't have to?"</p>
<p>Price? Location? Fit? ETC.?</p>
<p>"Sure. Yet who is to say that Berkeley has a monopoly on these attributes?"</p>
<p>All elaboration after that is null. The few I named were simply examples of why one might choose #31 over #1, but it works the same way if one were to choose #1 over #31.</p>
<p>"I will always remember one of them mordantly saying that he always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so now he has 'no choice' but to go to Harvard."</p>
<p>So was that you in the other thread saying that? I remember reading it.</p>
<p>"Let's talk about fit and location. You don't think that Harvard has a fit and location that is highly appealing to many people? Boston/Cambridge is one of the most dynamic college environments in the world."</p>
<p>Conversely, Berkeley has a fit/location that is highly appealing to many people, too.</p>
<p>"Nevertheless, I think all I have to do is point to the cross-admit data and the yield data and show that obviously a lot of people seem to prefer Harvard over Berkeley. Harvard yields over 75% of its admittees for undergrad. Berkeley? About 40%. The majority of people who are admitted to Berkeley choose to go somewhere else. Why is that?"</p>
<p>This, again, is one of those situations in which you'd have to find out from those admitted. And, again, making a conclusion about what the yield rates mean would be ambitious to the point of stupidity. It could be any number of factors: location, fit, pressure, prestige, etc.</p>
<p>"See, there it is again. You keep talking about a school hiring teachers as somehow a 'bad thing'. I would say that that is actually a good thing. Heck, I wish Berkeley would hire more teachers."</p>
<p>You're reading too much into what I'm saying. My point was: Berkeley hasn't "given up" on trying to improve; it's simply improving in ways that don't happen to appeal to US News. But U of F? Intentionally boosting numbers that would affect their US News ranking.</p>
<p>"We were simply talking about which school had the best quality. Period."</p>
<p><em>Again</em>, you're reading too much into what I'm saying. I cited U of F's increase in tuition because I was demonstrating how certain universities are trying to improve numbers so that they can make a better ranking, which was in response to: ""If there is no difference in quality, then there is no reason for Berkeley to improve. The Berkeley administrators can just say "Oh, we are #31 (or whatever it is), and that's good enough, so there is no reason to get better". Is that what you want?"" Do try to keep up.</p>
<p>"They are not the same. Berkeley has problems with impaction. Berkeley has problems with a high student-faculty ratio. Other schools that you listed don't have these problems. I know people at Berkeley who couldn't graduate on time because they couldn't get a course they needed (which meant that later courses for which the first course was a prereq also got delayed). Why put up with that if you don't have to? How is that good for 'quality'?"</p>
<p>And here's where the discussion boils down to the real issues. 1) I find that the universities are the same quality; it simply depends on what you do with it. 2) If you are afraid to work hard to get into an impacted major, then perhaps you shouldn't've been admitted in the first place. 3) If a high student-faculty ratio scares you, then you are a wimp. Why put up with all that? Because Berkeley is a great school. Not to mention the many other factors that one might choose Berkeley for, like cost (quite a few people who chose Berkeley over Stanford for price) or location (I know of people who find Stanford to be too "flat") or fit (some people don't like Harvard's feel) or more. Similarly, these are issues that may make people want Harvard instead. Why go to Harvard, where it's extremely expensive and you don't have the resources and Harvard isn't offering a whole lot, given your financial position? Why? Because Harvard is a great school. There are pros and cons of every university; I find that Berkeley's pros outweigh the cons.</p>
<p>"Hey, you started it, pal. You are the one trying to tell me about Berkeley. How condescending is that? I am quite certain that people here who know my biography would find that ridiculous."</p>
<p>Er, this is a discussion. You replied. What, am I not supposed to reply, simply because you are/were a Berkeley student? I was discussing; you were condescending ("I know more about Berkeley hahahaha!" etc.).</p>
<p>"I would like you to name some people who really think there is no difference between the average quality of undergrad at Harvard and Berkeley."</p>
<p>If you'd like to see, peruse the ucberkeley livejournal. Better yet, check CC; I've seen numerous discussions comparing them, and many people find they are of the same quality.</p>
<p>"The truth of the matter is that far more people got into Berkeley, but not Harvard, then vice versa. What does that tell you about quality?"</p>
<p>Nothing.</p>
<p>"It's all relative. Are the Oakland Raiders a 'mediocre' football team? Clearly the Raiders could destroy most college football teams, or teams from the Arena Football League, or NFL Europe, or any of the other international football teams out there. However, compared to other NFL teams, the Raiders are certainly mediocre. It's all relative."</p>
<p>I'm aware. But I still disagree that Berkeley students are mediocre to Harvard. =)</p>
<p>In the end, I disagree with most of what you have to say about the comparison of the two schools, despite your being more "qualified" to speak for Berkeley. There's really no point in trying to change my mind, either, because you have simply reaffirmed my knowledge and not changed my attitude.</p>
<p>As an added note: if I were given a full ride to Harvard--all expenses paid, down to travel even--and lots of financial aid to Berkeley (but not a full ride), I would choose Berkeley. Stupid? To some. But I myself don't find that Harvard has everything I want; i.e. for me, Berkeley is a much better school. =)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Indeed; that's for sure, but you're also paying quite a bit more each year. =)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you? That depends. Like I said, I know people who are California residents who ended up paying LESS to go to Harvard than to Berkeley. It depends on your financial aid. Harvard is extremely aggressive when it comes to offering aid, far more so than Berkeley is.</p>
<p>Secondly, what you are talking about generally applies only to in-state people. What if you are not a California resident, which most Harvard applicants obviously are? Then you would end up paying the same either way, if you don't get any aid. So it's a wash. </p>
<p>
[quote]
\Try to understand that sometimes points in a debate deviate from the main topic. You were, again, asserting that grad students have much difficulty getting housing; I asserted otherwise, saying that most choose other forms of housing. This slight digression isn't a "comparative" thing; it's simply to say that although many could get housing at Berkeley, they choose not to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did I say "much difficulty". Please point to the quote where I specifically said that grad students have "much difficulty". Can't do it, can you? That's because I never said it.</p>
<p>I am simply pointing out that your assertion that Berkeley has more school housing infrastructure than Harvard does is questionable at best. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You didn't understand what I've been saying. Harvard: prepares about 20,000 students with an excellent education. Berkeley: prepares about 30,000+ students with as good an education. Ohio State: prepares 52,000 or so students with not as good an education. The pivotal point is that both Harvard and Berkeley offer the same quality education. Of course, you disagree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"As good" of an education? Really? So Harvard undergrads also have to put up with impacted majors? They also have to put up with wait-lists? Is that right? </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's a misconception that it's a bad thing. Schools are trying to lower it because US News, etc. considers it a bad thing. The thing about Berkeley: it has a somewhat-high student-faculty ratio, yet it gives an excellent education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only USNews considers it a bad thing? I seem to recall how Governors Davis and Schwarzenegger both had to handle political demands for lower class sizes in K-12 from their consituencies. So it seems to me that the politicians in Sacramento, and by extension, the voters, also seem to think that high student-faculty ratios are undesirable. I don't see too many politicians trying to win votes on a promise to increase student-faculty ratios. Why not? </p>
<p>
[quote]
See above.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See above. </p>
<p>
[quote]
This is an "if-then" case. Perhaps real statistics and correlations between needed classes and graduation rates are necessary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you attempting to argue that wait-lists and graduation rates have no correlation? </p>
<p>You know, you keep asking me for "real statistics and correlations", but where are yours? You have asserted that Berkeley and Harvard offer equal educations. But where are your "real statistics and correlations" that support that assertion? You consistently ask for higher standards of proof from others than you are willing to offer yourself. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My main point is: it's not a huge problem that majors are restricted. Sure, at other universities, it's easier. But you weren't able to get into MIT, and so you must work hard to get into Berkeley's program. That's simply how the world is. (Despite our discussion being mainly on comparison of quality, it's dependent on whether or not you can get into the school. What is the good of saying that MIT is better if you can't get in? Then again, if you did get into both, you'd have to find the pros and cons of both and see which fits you best.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not a huge problem that majors are restricted? Again, tell that to the guy who did decently in engineering (i.e. a 3.3) and yet still didn't get in. Go ahead, tell him that it's not a 'huge problem'. In particular, I would like to see you justify why he should not be allowed to get into engineering, but the guys who got in as freshman and then screwed up (i.e. a GPA of 2.5) are allowed to stay in there. How are you going to justify that to him? </p>
<p>
[quote]
"Your understanding of the way that Berkeley actually runs engineering is poor."</p>
<p>No.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, yes it is. The fact that you didn't understand that most engineering students are admitted as freshman demonstrates that you don't understand how Berkeley engineering works. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Indeed, but it's considered "what-if" not in that it's unreal but in that it doesn't occur with overwhelming regularity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, crime doesn't happen with "overwhelming regularity" either, even in the worst of neighborhoods. But that doesn't mean that crime isn't a problem. </p>
<p>
[quote]
That's an issue that can't be delved into without seeking students' intentions. Making a conclusion of why there are more grad students in one than in the other would be a bit ambitious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then why did YOU make the same conclusion regarding undergrad? Did you "seek intentions" regarding undergrad before making your assertions regarding how Berkeley is equal to Harvard? No, you did not. Again, stop asking other people for higher standards of proof than you are willing to offer yourself. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Conversely, Berkeley has a fit/location that is highly appealing to many people, too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No doubt. But that's not the point. The point is, both places have factors that are appealing to some people. So it's a wash. So why bring up the issue? Again, Berkeley does not have a monopoly on fit or location. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You're reading too much into what I'm saying. My point was: Berkeley hasn't "given up" on trying to improve; it's simply improving in ways that don't happen to appeal to US News. But U of F? Intentionally boosting numbers that would affect their US News ranking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And is that bad? Again, I would argue that having a lower student-teacher ratio is a good thing. If UF is doing it because it is trying to improve its rankings, who cares, as long as the ratio goes down. That's a positive for students.</p>
<p>I think what you mean to say is that some schools go out and GAME the system by manipulating the numbers to make themselves look good to USNews, but that has no actual benefit for students. Now I agree that that happens, but I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion. I am not aware of any situation where Harvard is attempting to game the system in a manner in which Berkeley is not, and we are talking about Harvard vs. Berkeley here. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And here's where the discussion boils down to the real issues. 1) I find that the universities are the same quality; it simply depends on what you do with it. 2) If you are afraid to work hard to get into an impacted major, then perhaps you shouldn't've been admitted in the first place. 3) If a high student-faculty ratio scares you, then you are a wimp. Why put up with all that? Because Berkeley is a great school. Not to mention the many other factors that one might choose Berkeley for, like cost (quite a few people who chose Berkeley over Stanford for price) or location (I know of people who find Stanford to be too "flat") or fit (some people don't like Harvard's feel) or more. Similarly, these are issues that may make people want Harvard instead. Why go to Harvard, where it's extremely expensive and you don't have the resources and Harvard isn't offering a whole lot, given your financial position? Why? Because Harvard is a great school. There are pros and cons of every university; I find that Berkeley's pros outweigh the cons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's take each point in turn:</p>
<h1>1) Does Berkeley offer the same quality of education as Harvard? No, for reasons I will get into below.l</h1>
<h1>2) That doesn't answer the question of why people who were admitted * as freshmen * into impacted majors are allowed to stay even if they do poorly. I would argue that if anybody should not have been admitted in the first place, it is those people.</h1>
<p>But in any case, either way, you are conceding that some people at Berkeley should not have been admitted. And that is something that I have been saying for years now. The question is, WHO should not be admitted? I would argue that those students who go to easy, creampuff, non-impacted majors, and just lolly-gag around - these students should be at the top of the list of people who should never have been admitted in the first place. Why don't you come down to frat-house row during the middle of the regular semester, and you will find students who, frankly, haven't been to class and haven't studied anything for weeks. They major in easy subjects in which they can get passing grades for doing very little work. If anybody ought to not have been admitted, it is these guys. At least the guy who got the 3.3 in engineering prereqs (but still didn't get into engineering), at least he is studying fairly hard. Those other Berkeley students barely study at all. </p>
<h1>3) Now that is just harsh. That's the attitude of much of Berkeley's administration - that you shouldn't complain about problems, because that just means that you're "not tough enough". But who wants to put up with problems if they don't have to? Why do it? Sure, many Berkeley students can put up with the problems. But why should they? In particular, that just tends to drive people away from Berkeley. After all, nobody wants to put up with problems if they don't have to.</h1>
<p>If Berkeley wants to be a more desirable school, then Berkeley needs to reduce its problems. Otherwise, Berkeley's yield will always be stuck at 40%. Hence, the majority of admittees will continue to choose other schools. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Er, this is a discussion. You replied. What, am I not supposed to reply, simply because you are/were a Berkeley student? I was discussing; you were condescending ("I know more about Berkeley hahahaha!" etc.).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, you are the one who asserted that I didn't know Berkeley, when you knew nothing about me. I would say that THAT is condescending. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you'd like to see, peruse the ucberkeley livejournal. Better yet, check CC; I've seen numerous discussions comparing them, and many people find they are of the same quality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have checked CC (I'm not a member of livejournal). I have not seen any serious discussions where anybody says (except perhaps in a facetious manner) that the average student quality really is the same. If you know of a serious CC discussion to this effect, please link to it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"The truth of the matter is that far more people got into Berkeley, but not Harvard, then vice versa. What does that tell you about quality?"</p>
<p>Nothing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It tells you everything. It's the same reasoning that dictates that Berkeley is better than, say, UCDavis. After all, using your logic, you can't even conclude that Berkeley is better than Davis. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm aware. But I still disagree that Berkeley students are mediocre to Harvard. =)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It seems that your problem is just with the word "mediocre". Yet the fact is, Berkeley students are not as good as Harvard students (just like Davis students are not as good as Berkeley students). Whether you want to call that 'mediocre' or not is just a matter of semantics. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As an added note: if I were given a full ride to Harvard--all expenses paid, down to travel even--and lots of financial aid to Berkeley (but not a full ride), I would choose Berkeley. Stupid? To some. But I myself don't find that Harvard has everything I want; i.e. for me, Berkeley is a much better school. =)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At least you recognize the fact that you are a member of a very very small minority. </p>
<p>Look. I think we can at least agree that Berkeley is better than Ohio State. But why? Because Berkeley has greater revealed preference than Ohio State does. Because the student quality is higher, as evidenced by standardized tests and high school performance. Because of a better brand name, which tends to draw better students. For a variety of other reasons. Most people who are admitted to Berkeley and Ohio State choose Berkeley. Obviously not all, but most. By the same token, if we can agree that Berkeley is better than OSU for those reasons, then why is it so hard to believe that Harvard is better than Berkeley for the same reasons?</p>
<p>lBut in any case, have it your way. By all means, please come up with a reasonable logical framework by which you can conclude that Berkeley is better than Ohio State, but Harvard is not better than Berkeley.</p>
<p>You know why this argument is absurd?</p>
<p>Because neither side can produce any conclusive evidence that shows that a student will learn more in a classroom at Harvard than they will at a classroom in Berkeley... or visa-versa. </p>
<p>It just can't be done.</p>
<p>Maybe y'all would be better off accepting that some people will get a better education at Harvard, some people will get a better education at Berkeley and hell, some people will get a better education at Ohio State.</p>
<p>"It depends on your financial aid. Harvard is extremely aggressive when it comes to offering aid, far more so than Berkeley is."</p>
<p>Why are you pointing out such insipid issues? The fact of the matter is: Harvard's dorms are better, and you have to pay a lot more (where that comes from is irrelevant).</p>
<p>"Did I say "much difficulty". Please point to the quote where I specifically said that grad students have "much difficulty". Can't do it, can you? That's because I never said it."</p>
<p>You didn't say those exact words, but the human minds works on concepts, not words. You said, "Furthermore, Harvard has extensive housing available to graduate students, whereas Berkeley offers very little housing to graduate students." The implication is that it is difficult for a grad to find housing at the university.</p>
<p>""As good" of an education? Really? So Harvard undergrads also have to put up with impacted majors? They also have to put up with wait-lists? Is that right?"</p>
<p>Your logic is flawed. Simply because there are impact majors and waitlists does not mean that the education is shoddy.</p>
<p>"Only USNews considers it a bad thing? I seem to recall how Governors Davis and Schwarzenegger both had to handle political demands for lower class sizes in K-12 from their consituencies. So it seems to me that the politicians in Sacramento, and by extension, the voters, also seem to think that high student-faculty ratios are undesirable. I don't see too many politicians trying to win votes on a promise to increase student-faculty ratios. Why not?"</p>
<ol>
<li>That's not college, now is it?</li>
<li>That's an ad populum fallacy.</li>
</ol>
<p>"You know, you keep asking me for "real statistics and correlations", but where are yours? You have asserted that Berkeley and Harvard offer equal educations. But where are your "real statistics and correlations" that support that assertion? You consistently ask for higher standards of proof from others than you are willing to offer yourself."</p>
<p>Are you serious? Come ON. I would like to ask you to read the full thread carefully. My whole POINT is that you cannot quantify quality. ALL that US News and other rankings use is statistical proxies that may or may not indicate quality of education. I made no assertion that waitlists and graduation rates have a negative correlation; I said I don't think they have any correlation whatsoever. You do. Thus you need to support the claim.</p>
<p>"It's not a huge problem that majors are restricted? Again, tell that to the guy who did decently in engineering (i.e. a 3.3) and yet still didn't get in. Go ahead, tell him that it's not a 'huge problem'. In particular, I would like to see you justify why he should not be allowed to get into engineering, but the guys who got in as freshman and then screwed up (i.e. a GPA of 2.5) are allowed to stay in there. How are you going to justify that to him?"</p>
<p>I would tell that to him. Work hard, no? That they have a 2.5 is sad, and they shouldn't have been admitted to the engineering major (or at least kicked out of it). But I would guess that many Harvard students have a 2.5 or so and would have trouble getting what they want (this is but a guess).</p>
<p>"Hey, crime doesn't happen with "overwhelming regularity" either, even in the worst of neighborhoods. But that doesn't mean that crime isn't a problem. "</p>
<p>Indeed, but I don't find that such an event occurs so much that it would diminish the overall quality of the university.</p>
<p>"Then why did YOU make the same conclusion regarding undergrad?"</p>
<p>Because grad and undergrad are very different, perhaps? For grad school, we're questioning why there are more going to one than to the other. For undergrad, we'd have to ask the same question: why are more going to one than to the other? Why, because Berkeley's standards aren't as high. For grad, it's different, and you'd have to ask why they're choosing grad school / why they're choosing what they are. </p>
<p>"Did you "seek intentions" regarding undergrad before making your assertions regarding how Berkeley is equal to Harvard?"</p>
<p>I don't understand how intentions concern the quality of the two universities. We'd be seeking intentions to find out why there are more at Harvard's grad programs than at Berkeley's; we wouldn't be seeking intentions to find out quality, but quantity. (Here is a prime example of a digression, if you couldn't tell.)</p>
<p>"No doubt. But that's not the point. The point is, both places have factors that are appealing to some people. So it's a wash. So why bring up the issue? Again, Berkeley does not have a monopoly on fit or location."</p>
<p>... what? Why are you looking so far into this point? I wasn't saying that Berkeley has the monopoly. You asked why one might choose a lower-ranked institution over a higher-ranked one. I offered a few reasons (fit, location, etc.). Later, I pointed out that it works the same way for Harvard (that one might choose a higher-ranked institution over a lower-ranked one because the higher-ranked one fit better).</p>
<p>"I am not aware of any situation where Harvard is attempting to game the system in a manner in which Berkeley is not, and we are talking about Harvard vs. Berkeley here."</p>
<p>I'm expecting you to make the leap, but I suppose that was a rather high expectation. 1) You asked why Berkeley doesn't just say, "Oh, we are #31 (or whatever it is), and that's good enough, so there is no reason to get better." 2) I said that they do improve their programs, just not in ways that would boost their US News rankings. 3) I cited U of F as a contrast, as it does "improve" its numbers to help its rankings. 4) #1-3 invalidate your assertion that "if there is no difference in quality, then there is no reason for Berkeley to improve"; i.e. that there is no difference in quality, but there is reason for Berkeley to improve, just as there is reason for Harvard to improve, but to improve the quality of the university, NOT the ranking, which, sadly, doesn't actually measure quality (although they try to).</p>
<p>"Why don't you come down to frat-house row during the middle of the regular semester, and you will find students who, frankly, haven't been to class and haven't studied anything for weeks..."</p>
<p>There are those who just suck and shouldn't've been admitted. Despite their presence, there is a great number of students who are brilliant and who make the university wonderful. As an added thought, and this isn't part of the discussion: if the top 6,000 students of Berkeley, in all undergrad, were to be considered--the very best--would they be comparable if not equal to Harvard's entire undergrad student body (about 6,000)? Just a thought.</p>
<p>"you shouldn't complain about problems, because that just means that you're "not tough enough"."</p>
<p>I think that it works to an extent--that you should just try your hardest and aim to get in. If not, perhaps you weren't tough enough. But I think everyone has the potential to get there. (Added note [I seem to have a lot of these]: I want to get into an impacted major.)</p>
<p>"After all, nobody wants to put up with problems if they don't have to."</p>
<p>Keyword: "if." Many don't have a choice. But that's beside the point.</p>
<p>"If Berkeley wants to be a more desirable school, then Berkeley needs to reduce its problems. Otherwise, Berkeley's yield will always be stuck at 40%. Hence, the majority of admittees will continue to choose other schools."</p>
<p>I agree. (Don't take that as meaning that I don't think that many of Berkeley's students are brilliant.)</p>
<p>"Uh, no, you are the one who asserted that I didn't know Berkeley, when you knew nothing about me. I would say that THAT is condescending."</p>
<p>Er, just curious, but where did I assert that? I said you have a disdain for Berkeley.</p>
<p>"Yet the fact is, Berkeley students are not as good as Harvard students"</p>
<p>I disagree. Perhaps some aren't, but I'd say many are.</p>
<p>"(just like Davis students are not as good as Berkeley students)."</p>
<p>Same case as above.</p>
<p>"But why? Because Berkeley has greater revealed preference than Ohio State does."</p>
<p>No. Preference has nothing to do with the quality of the university, does it? I wish people would stop using statistical proxies, because they oftentimes don't work.</p>
<p>"At least you recognize the fact that you are a member of a very very small minority."</p>
<p>I didn't state that, but okay. (Though I probably am of a very small minority, partly because I don't go by prestige alone, I think.)</p>
<p>"By the same token, if we can agree that Berkeley is better than OSU for those reasons, then why is it so hard to believe that Harvard is better than Berkeley for the same reasons?"</p>
<p>When you get into the top universities, it's difficult to discern who's better. When you get further away from the top ones--and I don't mean to say the top 10 or top 20 or top 30 or 40, but going quite far back in US News rankings--it's easier. The only good thing about US News is that it plops all the best universities in America together. Thing is, once they're together, it's hard discerning which is better than which.</p>
<p>Just_Browsing:</p>
<p>"Because neither side can produce any conclusive evidence that shows that a student will learn more in a classroom at Harvard than they will at a classroom in Berkeley... or visa-versa. </p>
<p>It just can't be done."</p>
<p>I agree. That's what I've been trying to say.</p>
<p>"Maybe y'all would be better off accepting that some people will get a better education at Harvard, some people will get a better education at Berkeley and hell, some people will get a better education at Ohio State."</p>
<p>My sentiments precisely.</p>
<p>Thing is, this discussion has focused more on certain parts of each university; it's when they're compared that discrepency arises (especially considering our views on certain issues are considerably different).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why are you pointing out such insipid issues? The fact of the matter is: Harvard's dorms are better, and you have to pay a lot more (where that comes from is irrelevant).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is this "insipid"? First off, who says that you have to pay a lot more? That depends mostly on your individual circumstances. The world does not revolve around California, you know. California only represents about 11% of the US population. Hence, most Americans won't get in-state tuition at Berkeley anyway. So to them, the sticker price for each school is basically the same. Couple that with the fact that Harvard is more aggressive when it comes to financial aid, and I would contend that for most US high school seniors, there is little difference in cost between the 2 schools. In particular, most applicants to Harvard are not from California. </p>
<p>So if you're going to have to pay the same amount to go to Berkeley or Harvard, as most Americans would have to, why wouldn't you want to go to the one that has the better infrastructure? </p>
<p>
[quote]
You didn't say those exact words, but the human minds works on concepts, not words. You said, "Furthermore, Harvard has extensive housing available to graduate students, whereas Berkeley offers very little housing to graduate students." The implication is that it is difficult for a grad to find housing at the university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So now you're putting words in my mouth? Trust me, if I meant something, I would have said it. </p>
<p>My 'implication' is that your assertion that Berkeley has more infrastructure than Harvard does is without foundation. Why don't you just concede this point so we can move on? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Your logic is flawed. Simply because there are impact majors and waitlists does not mean that the education is shoddy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It certainly is not a mark of pride that a school has impacted majors and waitlists. </p>
<p>But more to the point, these are just SYMPTOMS of a potential problem. Sure, sneezing, runny nose, and a headache do not always mean that you have a cold. But they are indications that you might have one. </p>
<p>
[quote]
1. That's not college, now is it?
2. That's an ad populum fallacy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is it a fallacy? Well, if so, it is surely a popular one.</p>
<p>And besides, do you really think that the rules of college and high school are tremendously different such that one might be affected by low student-faculty ratios, but the other isn't? We'll let the readers decide that one. </p>
<p>Besides, I seem to recall reading some Daily Cal articles back in the old days about how Berkeley was going to take steps to reduce its student-faculty ratio in order to improve quality. It never happened (because California went into recession), but the Berkeley administrators were talking about wanting to do it. Are you saying that these administrators were working under a fallacy too? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you serious? Come ON. I would like to ask you to read the full thread carefully. My whole POINT is that you cannot quantify quality. ALL that US News and other rankings use is statistical proxies that may or may not indicate quality of education. I made no assertion that waitlists and graduation rates have a negative correlation; I said I don't think they have any correlation whatsoever. You do. Thus you need to support the claim.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would like YOU to read the thread carefully, and pick out your own consistencies. So now you say that you cannot quantify quality. But then you asserted (and I agreed) that Berkeley was better than Ohio State. But how do you know that, if you can't quantity quality? Maybe Ohio State is actually BETTER than Berkeley. After all, if you really can't quantify quality, then we have no idea whether Berkeley is a good school or not. </p>
<p>If you can't defend your assertions statistically, then don't ask others to do the same. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I would tell that to him. Work hard, no? That they have a 2.5 is sad, and they shouldn't have been admitted to the engineering major (or at least kicked out of it). But I would guess that many Harvard students have a 2.5 or so and would have trouble getting what they want (this is but a guess).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All I take from that is that a person is better off going to Harvard. You admitted it yourself - a guy can have poor grades at Harvard and STILL get to major in whatever he wants. At Berkeley, not so. So isn't that just another reason for somebody to choose Harvard over Berkeley? Why go to Berkeley and run the risk that you won't get to major in what you want, if you can go to Harvard and not have to run that risk? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Indeed, but I don't find that such an event occurs so much that it would diminish the overall quality of the university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, maybe you should talk to some people that couldn't get into the major they wanted. I am quite sure they would tell you that impaction is a serious problem. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Because grad and undergrad are very different, perhaps? For grad school, we're questioning why there are more going to one than to the other. For undergrad, we'd have to ask the same question: why are more going to one than to the other? Why, because Berkeley's standards aren't as high. For grad, it's different, and you'd have to ask why they're choosing grad school / why they're choosing what they are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. So you agree that Berkeley's standards for undergrad are not as high. </p>
<p>
[quote]
... what? Why are you looking so far into this point? I wasn't saying that Berkeley has the monopoly. You asked why one might choose a lower-ranked institution over a higher-ranked one. I offered a few reasons (fit, location, etc.). Later, I pointed out that it works the same way for Harvard (that one might choose a higher-ranked institution over a lower-ranked one because the higher-ranked one fit better).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I asked you to explain why Harvard yields much higher than Berkeley does. The gambit of fit and location is just that - a gambit, because at the end of the day, it's a wash. Hence, it is not an overall explanatory variable. So we are still left with the question of why Harvard is more preferred to Berkeley for undergrad. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm expecting you to make the leap, but I suppose that was a rather high expectation. 1) You asked why Berkeley doesn't just say, "Oh, we are #31 (or whatever it is), and that's good enough, so there is no reason to get better." 2) I said that they do improve their programs, just not in ways that would boost their US News rankings. 3) I cited U of F as a contrast, as it does "improve" its numbers to help its rankings. 4) #1-3 invalidate your assertion that "if there is no difference in quality, then there is no reason for Berkeley to improve"; i.e. that there is no difference in quality, but there is reason for Berkeley to improve, just as there is reason for Harvard to improve, but to improve the quality of the university, NOT the ranking, which, sadly, doesn't actually measure quality (although they try to).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, no ranking is ever perfect. But I think USNews is pretty decent. After all, what other ranking is better? Obviously USNews doesn't perfectly measure quality. But you can't say that they don't measure quality * at all *. Let's face it. There is a strong measure of quality in USNews. Things like peer assessment, student selectivity, faculty resources, and the like are somewhat correlated with quality. Not perfectly so, but there is a correlation. After all, a school that ranks highly in all of USNews's categories is probably a pretty good school. A school that ranks poorly in all categories is probably a mediocre school. </p>
<p>Hence, USNews does in fact measure quality to some extent. </p>
<p>
[quote]
There are those who just suck and shouldn't've been admitted. Despite their presence, there is a great number of students who are brilliant and who make the university wonderful. As an added thought, and this isn't part of the discussion: if the top 6,000 students of Berkeley, in all undergrad, were to be considered--the very best--would they be comparable if not equal to Harvard's entire undergrad student body (about 6,000)? Just a thought.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Aha, so you concede that the other 17,000 Berkeley students who are not in the top 6000 are not as good as Harvard students. So, by extension, it must mean that the average quality of Berkeley students is not as good as Harvard students. QED. </p>
<p>But furthermore, it's interesting that you would raise this point, because it has been raised by others. Let's say it was really true that the top 6000 Berkeley students really were as good as Harvard students. Then, by extension, you would expect Berkeley to be winning just as many of the top international scholarship awards (i.e. Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, etc.) as Harvard would. After all, those top 6000 Berkeley students are just as good as the students at Harvard, right, so these guys ought to be winning awards at the same rate. Yet consider the fact that Berkeley hasn't won a Rhodes Scholarship since 2002. This academic year alone, Harvard won 7 Rhodes Scholarships. That's right - SEVEN. In fact, I don't think there has been a year in history where Berkeley won more Rhodes Scholarships than Harvard did. You will also find that the numbers for the other majors scholarships are also lopsided in Harvard's favor. What do you think that means for Berkeley? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that it works to an extent--that you should just try your hardest and aim to get in. If not, perhaps you weren't tough enough. But I think everyone has the potential to get there. (Added note [I seem to have a lot of these]: I want to get into an impacted major.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How about another idea - remove impaction entirely. Why not? As I have discussed in other threads, the impacted majors are not the largest majors on campus. Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) is the largest major on campus, conferring about 500 bachelor's degrees a year. Yet MCB is not impacted. EECS, on the other hand, confers only about 300 bachelor's degrees a year, or only about 60% of the rate of MCB. Yet EECS is impacted. Why? Why should a smaller major be impacted? You would think that impaction would be used only for those majors that have so many students that capacity is being strained. Yet MCB somehow has managed to figure out how to handle many more students than EECS does without needing to resort to the use of impaction. </p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MCB.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MCB.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EECS.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EECS.stm</a></p>
<p>I personally think that Berkeley can reform itself to greatly reduce the need for impaction, and perhaps one day, eliminate it entirely. I believe Berkeley would be a better school if impaction didn't exist, such that students are free to choose whatever major they want. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Er, just curious, but where did I assert that? I said you have a disdain for Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There it is again. You don't know anything about me, yet you insist on attributing personal characteristics to me. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree. Perhaps some aren't, but I'd say many are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just implied it above - that Berkeley is less selective than Harvard and that students who are not in the top 6000 don't really match up to students at Harvard. So that must mean that overall, the student quality is not as high as that at Harvard. QED. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't state that, but okay. (Though I probably am of a very small minority, partly because I don't go by prestige alone, I think.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? Then why are you going to Berkeley at all? The truth is, you can probably get a much better PURE education at a small LAC. </p>
<p>Look, the reality of the situation is this. A lot of students who are going to Harvard do so for the brand name. But a lot of students who go to Berkeley do so for the brand name too, as Berkeley was the most prestigious school they got into. I know plenty of people who just mechanistically applied to a bunch of UC's, with the 'algorithm' of attending the most prestigious one they got into. If they got into Berkeley, they would go. IF not, but they got into UCLA, they would go there. Then UCSD, etc. They wouldn't even bother to visit the school or learn anything about them. They just go to whichever school they could get into with the best brand name. </p>
<p>I say that because you keep decrying the fact that Harvard draws people because of the prestige, yet we have to recognize that Berkeley does the same thing. A lot of Berkeley students are just there for the name. </p>
<p>
[quote]
When you get into the top universities, it's difficult to discern who's better. When you get further away from the top ones--and I don't mean to say the top 10 or top 20 or top 30 or 40, but going quite far back in US News rankings--it's easier. The only good thing about US News is that it plops all the best universities in America together. Thing is, once they're together, it's hard discerning which is better than which.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, what is Ohio State's USNews ranking? Something like 60? The difference between Harvard's USNews ranking and Berkeley's is between #2 and #21, or a difference of 19 spots. The difference between Berkeley and Ohio State is 41 spots. Therefore, the "delta of deltas" is not that big. </p>
<p>But if you want to use another example, let's use UCDavis. I think you would agree with me that Berkeley is better than UCDavis. But what's Davis's ranking, something in the 40's? Hence, the 'drop' in USNews ranking from Harvard to Berkeley is the same in the 'drop' from Berkeley to Davis. Yet if we can agree that Berkeley is better than Davis, then we should also be able to agree that Harvard is better than Berkeley.</p>
<p>Note, when I say 'better', I don't mean better for every single person. I am talking about on an overall level, after aggregating over an entire population. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Just_Browsing:</p>
<p>"Because neither side can produce any conclusive evidence that shows that a student will learn more in a classroom at Harvard than they will at a classroom in Berkeley... or visa-versa. </p>
<p>It just can't be done."</p>
<p>I agree. That's what I've been trying to say.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's precisely what I disagree with. Because the logical conclusion of this is that we can't even assert that Berkeley is better than, say, CalState East Bay After all, if we can't show any conclusive evidence, then we can't conclude that either school is better. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"Maybe y'all would be better off accepting that some people will get a better education at Harvard, some people will get a better education at Berkeley and hell, some people will get a better education at Ohio State."</p>
<p>My sentiments precisely.</p>
<p>Thing is, this discussion has focused more on certain parts of each university; it's when they're compared that discrepency arises (especially considering our views on certain issues are considerably different).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I accept that some people would get a better education at CalState East Bay than at Berkeley, but that hardly means that CalState East Bay is comparable to Berkeley.</p>
<p>I still don't get exactly what makes Berkeley "better" than CalState East Bay. </p>
<p>Berkeley is a more useful school to some kinds of people perhaps.... but the same could be said about CalState East Bay.</p>
<p>You have already accepted that some people will get a better education at Calstate East Bay than at Berkeley, so what is the point of continuing to argue that there is some inherent quality issue built into each school. </p>
<p>How dare you say that one school is better than another when you know, and have already accepted, that is only true for some people?</p>
<p>I just want to know...do you actually expect to make people more impressed at Harvard than they already are in this discussion? I mean, most people think Harvard is like the Taj Mahal compared to 3000 cardboard boxes, so it's kind of silly to see someone who wants to "defend" Harvard.</p>
<p>^^^ I'd argue that those people who argue that those 3000 cardboard boxes (no matter how they are stacked) are somehow equal to or better than the Taj Mahal are sillier.</p>
<p>So you are saying that stanford and duke are indeed cardboard boxes? It was supposed to be an anology of how stupid people think Harvard is soo awesome. And if you seriously think that princeton, yale, stanford, mit, and the rest of academia combined don't outweigh harvard alone, then...wow. Good for you.</p>
<p>when in the world did i equate the 3000 boxes to Stanford or Duke?</p>