<p>Here is my list of advantages that each school has over the other:</p>
<p>Berkeley
- Perhaps a slight edge in prestige, especially internationally (i.e. Asia)
- Generally more prominent faculty. This may be useful if you are gunning for a PhD program and so you want to do lots of undergrad research and have opportunities to publish and you're aggressive enough to battle for a research spot.
- Much more moderate weather than upstate New York
- Vibrant urban area that is also well-connected to other urban areas (i.e. SF), which gives you a wide variety of extracurricular, cultural, and part-time work/internship opportunities. This is especially true if you want to get into the tech business, as the East Bay is a far more prominent intellectual tech/business center than is Ithaca. True, the East Bay isn't like Silicon Valley (not even Cambridge, Mass is like Silicon Valley), but the East Bay is still relatively strong. On a parallel note, Berkeley also probably gives you better overall networking opportunities, because of its location.
- Better local economic opportunities. SF, like I said, is a vibrant economic center and the East Bay isn't doing too shabbily such that it really is quite reasonable to move to Berkeley as a freshman and never move ever again for the rest of your life (i.e. commute to jobs in SF and Oakland). Upstate New York, frankly, is in rough shape economically.<br>
- If you're from California, and you're not getting significant financial aid, Berkeley is the obviously clearly cheaper deal.
- Division 1A sports, if you're into that. </p>
<p>Cornell
- Probably an overall more qualified student body. The published SAT data is inconclusive, but I agree with Aurelius that what tips it for me is the large presence of transfer strudents which, if they had taken the SAT (which they don't), would probably drag the Berkeley SAT score down.<br>
- Beautiful rural environment. If you're into outdoors activities, Cornell probably beats Berkeley. Tahoe is a few hours away from Berkeley.<br>
- Fewer issues with impacted majors. Yes, Cornell has different schools which also serve as de-facto impaction. But I believe the problems of impaction are less acute</p>
<p>In my personal opinion, if you're not getting any financial aid, and you're from California, I would take Cornell if, for nothing else, the good value for the money. If not from California, or you are getting good financial aid, then I would still give a slight edge to Berkeley. But not so much of one that it would trump personal fit.</p>
<p>In my experience, a chunk of recruiting activity at most places has a regional component. You may find Berkeley to be better if you want to stay around that area of the country in the long run. </p>
<p>Within the framework posed previously in this thread, perhaps a Berkeley liberal arts degree will best get you in line for work in the malls around SF, whereas a Cornell liberal arts degree may be just the ticket for a bartending job in the eastern corridor, down to DC.</p>
<p>I myself wanted work around SF after college, was totally shot down. At the time I thought Berkeley grads had an inside track for the jobs I was looking at, but maybe these employers just hated me. After all, I had friends who made it to Tektronix, HP, etc. But I've got to think that a Berkeley grad had more SF-based employers coming to campus to choose from than I had.</p>
<p>I'm sure grads from both places can and do go everywhere; I'm just saying there might be an overall regional emphasis that might be relevant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Within the framework posed previously in this thread, perhaps a Berkeley liberal arts degree will best get you in line for work in the malls around SF, whereas a Cornell liberal arts degree may be just the ticket for a bartending job in the eastern corridor, down to DC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When some Berkeley liberal arts grads end up painting houses, and some Cornell liberal arts grads end up slinging coffee at Starbucks, your above statement contains more painful truth than I would care to admit.</p>
<p>I said it before, I'll say it again. Getting a college degree, even from a prestigious school, does not guarantee you a good job. The truth is, many college grads end up in mediocre jobs that they, frankly, could have gotten right out of high school. This is why I think degree marketability is an important factor.</p>
<p>But hey, don't blame me for it. If you want to find somebody to blame, blame the employers, or more specifically, blame the free market. I'm not the one deciding who gets hired and who doesn't. The market makes that decision.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my personal opinion, if you're not getting any financial aid, and you're from California, I would take Cornell if, for nothing else, the good value for the money. If not from California, or you are getting good financial aid, then I would still give a slight edge to Berkeley. But not so much of one that it would trump personal fit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you got it backwards; unless paying more is a plus for you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cornell is more selective than Berkeley as measured by SATs. Cornell students have higher SAT scores (by 70 points at the 25th percentile). Berkeley does not accept many out of state students, so less geodiversity at Berkeley. Cornell's graduation rate is 5% higher. Cornell has the Ivy prestige going for it. I would give the edge to Cornell.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but you have to consider that Cornell takes the best score of each section from different sittings, while Berkeley takes the best one-sitting score. Still, a good point was made about transfers. That is, if you believe SATs dictate student quality. I would argue that SAT scores are a less valid measure for transfers as it was something they took 2-3 years ago, and they have obviously proven themselves since then by doing very well in community colleges.</p>
<p>Still, overall I would give a slight edge to Cornell in terms of student body.</p>
<p>Like I said in my first post, both are good in engineering (Berkeley is slightly stronger), but engineering at Berkeley is impacted while I think Cornell allows free transfering into the college of engineering. Berkeley's English department is ranked #1, not sure about Cornell. And there is much more focus on fraternities and sororities at Cornell than at Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my personal opinion, if you're not getting any financial aid, and you're from California, I would take Cornell if, for nothing else, the good value for the money. If not from California, or you are getting good financial aid, then I would still give a slight edge to Berkeley. But not so much of one that it would trump personal fit. </p>
<p>I think you got it backwards; unless paying more is a plus for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh yeah. Other way around. You know what I meant to say.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, but you have to consider that Cornell takes the best score of each section from different sittings, while Berkeley takes the best one-sitting score.
[/quote]
That definately sounds like a rumor. Can you back that with actual evidence?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What are UC's current standardized testing requirements for applicants?
UC requires scores from the SAT I (scores from the same sitting) or ACT (composite score), along with scores from three SAT II Subject Tests: Writing, Math (either level), and a third exam in English literature, foreign language, science or social studies.
<p>
[quote]
The admitted students come from a highly capable bunch; last year's admitted students had an average combined SAT score ranging from 1230 to 1420, and over 87% of those admitted were ranked in the top 10% of their high school graduating class.
<p>
[quote]
More statistical criticisms involve the different standards of information used for different universities. For instance, for SAT scores, private schools tend to use best verbal + best math SAT methodology for their reporting metric, while public schools tend to use best one sitting SAT score. For students who generally score above 1300 on the SAT, the difference in the two metrics can be anywhere from 20-50 points in reported score for universities. Also, factors that measure endowment are not uniform, for instance a yearly federal grant can be consistent with a 5% cash flow from an endowment. Criticisms of US News range from political and arbitrary to statistical inaccuracy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Also, feel free to go on the Cornell forum and the UC Berkeley forum and ask the students how the SAT scores are calculated. They'll tell you the same thing.</p>
<p>According to a 1998 study on the College Board website (if I am reading it correctly!!), the highest SAT scorers take the SATs twice. The average gain is 15-30 points per re-take with smaller gains from later re-takes.</p>
<p>It also looks like about 40% get lower scores from re-takes. I think it says that students who take the SATs 5 times wound up with lower scores than students who take it once or twice. It is the low-scorers who tend to re-take more times.</p>
<p>You can read it for yourself. Tell me if I misunderstood.</p>
<p>This refers to score changes due to re-taking from sitting to sitting, which is a little different from taking the highest verbal and math from any sitting.</p>
<p>The hole in those evidence is that they're not specifically about the USNEWS report. USNEWS gathers data in a very direct and specific way from the school. The school school can post one thing on their website and send in another to USNEWS. </p>
<p>Also, the wikipedia articles doesn't cite any sources for that passage.</p>