<p>ubermensch, the problem I have with those statistics is what does an accepted Stanford student mean?
I know 3 students this year that have chosen Berkeley over Stanford. Two were athletes (and very good students). Stanford was persuing them for a long time. They chose Berkeley early this year, before official acceptances were sent out. My guess is Stanford never counted them as accepted students.</p>
<p>Then there are the students who prefer Berkeley and never apply to Stanford in the first place. Something tells me that there are more than 8 of these students in the state. :)</p>
<p>Stanford's statistics overstate the numbers and are misleading.</p>
<p>I don't think it's that big of an accomplishment that Stanford virutally doesn't lose any students to Berkeley. We just lost nearly 50 percent of cross-admits to Harvard and Yale alone! Clearly, our biggest problem is not in our backyard, but on the East Coast.</p>
<p>"Depending on how they round-off, it could be as high as 12...
I wouldn't be suprised by a dozen or so kids turning down Stanford for Berkeley and a dozen or so for UCLA... and then much less at the rest of the Pac-10 (for example, I'd be willing to bet no one turned down Stanford for Oregon State... Clearly, Berkeley is a HECK OF A LOT closer to Stanford than it is to Oregon State.)</p>
<p>But, we don't have the detailed numbers, so there is absolutely no point in speculating any further.</p>
<p>Interesting that CalTech also falls into the no more than 2% category.
That is a little surprising."</p>
<p>It cannot be as high as 12. They said no more than 1 percent chose to attend a pac-10 school. That probably means that no more than 1 percent chose to attend the pac 10s as a whole, and that on average, only one-tenth of a percent choose to go to Berkeley. Anyway, if they meant that one percent attended EACH pac-10 school, then the obvious cap to the number is 8. You cannot exceed 8, and the only thing in question is whether those 8 students represent all of the pac-10 or just each individual school in the pac 10. However, I doubt 80 students chose a pac-10 school, considering that only 65 chose Princeton. </p>
<p>As to your question about why Caltech isn't mentioned. That is because Caltech only has like 200 people in its graduating class. It is too small to make a numerical impact at all. But that's not to say that Caltech is a great school. If a fifth of the entire caltech class chose caltech over Stanford, it wouldn't make a significant blip on the radar screen. </p>
<p>As to rooster's comment:
I was not trying to imply that Berkeley represents a threat to Stanford. Of course it doesn't! Only 3 or 4 and maybe even none of the cross-admits choose Berkeley. But I was trying to inject the only objective, cold hard facts in a thread filled with only anecdotal evidence, hearsay, and emotional appeals.</p>
<p>^ Its a big accomplishment not losing a lot of students to Berkeley considering what Stanfurd was in the 70's and 80s. If Berkeley were to privatize today, the situation would change overnight. But Berkeley should and always will be a public university. </p>
<p>Either way, I believe after THES London Times ranking came out, this situation is already starting to slowly change.</p>
<p>(1) Backtracking? There is no way that less than 1% is for the ENTIRE Pac-10... look at what was written... yes, it was poorly written, but its VERY CLEAR from the context that they are talking about percentages PER INSTITUTION. The article stated: "All other universities that were mentioned did not represent more than 2 percent"... That ONLY makes sense if they are talking about % PER INSTITUTION. Same goes for the Pac-10.</p>
<p>(2) You don't know how they assembled the stats.
If 12 went to Berkeley, that would be 1.46% which could be rounded down to 1%, depending on how many significant figures they used.
Then, if one made a table of of all the Pac-10 schools, and none had more than 1%, then one could say "no more than 1% attended each Pac-10 school"... That would be a correct statement, given statistical uncertainty... </p>
<p>Darn, why do I even bother... this is such an utterly useless dialogue.</p>
<p>^ Actually you can't say that. Some people who were set on Berkeley might not have applied to Stanfurd for financial reasons. </p>
<p>Ubermensch. Did you not get into Berkeley?</p>
<p>Strange to me how someone spends 200 of his 220 posts bashing Berkeley. BTW, ubermensch, are you avoiding me because you are scared of walking away with a frail ego? You are a scardy cat. I sense your weakness already. </p>
<p>"Then there are the students who prefer Berkeley and never apply to Stanford in the first place. Something tells me that there are more than 8 of these students in the state."</p>
<p>There definitely are kids who didn't bother applying to Stanford because they knew they didn't have a realistic chance of getting in, and hence only applied to Berkeley. In fact, Berkeley is probably full of those kids. </p>
<p>As for the people who thought Berkeley was their first choice, what makes you think any of them were qualified enough to get into Stanford? Many of them probably would have been rejected regardless.</p>
<p>^ Wow. I guess you decided to forgo the hard cold facts, and start conjecturing again. 200 out of 220 of your posts are against Berkeley. That is a lot of stamina. </p>
<p>BTW, its not the end of the world to get rejected from Berkeley. You can study hard, work hard and succeed still. Just drop the attitude, cus whats worse than a cocky guy who can back it up, is a cocky guy who got nothing to back it up. Thats wut the girls say anyways...</p>
<p>ubermensch and rooster08, you guys are so pathetic. You guys seriously have nothing better to do than to express your anti-Berkeley sentiments at every opportunity you could find?</p>
<p>student -
ignore them.
uber is a community college student at CCSF who will probably one day be mopping your floor. rooster is from Stanford and some Stanford students have inflated egos because they go to college in a yuppie suburban town where As are given like free candy and think they are better than everyone else. Get over it. Berkeley is a peer of Stanford, its not significantly worse than Stanford.</p>
<p>gattaca - well, the people's republic of berkeley IS another name for Berkeley. some people wear t-shirts that say "People's Republic of Berkeley" on them with the hammer and sickle. Its awesome. Go Bears! = )</p>
<p>
[quote]
uber is a community college student at CCSF who will probably one day be mopping your floor. rooster is from Stanford and some Stanford students have inflated egos because they go to college in a yuppie suburban town where As are given like free candy and think they are better than everyone else. Get over it. Berkeley is a peer of Stanford, its not significantly worse than Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even if Uber is a janitor, and spends the rest of his life hating Berkeley for some reason, I cannot help but feel sorry for him. Maybe he is just the product of a terrible homelife, or he is an orphan because his parents got killed by a car with a Berkeley license plate. Who knows. </p>
<p>Stanfurd may be considered slightly better for undergrad, but there is no denying that students at Berkeley are just as good as Stanfurd. Like that Stanfurd article said, you can switch the students at Berkeley and Stanfurd and see no difference (except Stanfurd students will struggle with the curve at Berkeley). Berkeley's reputation is improving every day. Our academics, strength of students, reputation take us a long way, and can open doors as well as Harvard can open in the real world.</p>
<p>why are you guys on a college forum for a college you're not going to? i mean seriously. you guys are like those people who stalk girls and think the girls like them. get a life people. i'm saying this for your sake. go out, take a walk, go to the mall, hang out with some friends, go to a movie, go to a party, go do ANYTHING but make a statistical analysis on people who chose berkeley over stanford. cuz honestly your opinion doesn't matter. i don't care, and nobody else cares.</p>
<p>oh and those who responded are not a random sampling. take psychology and you'd know</p>
<p>It, of course, IS a random sample. Within ANY survey you take there will be people who refuse to respond. That doesn't undermine the survey's legitimacy.</p>
<p>it is not a random sample because the people who chose to respond are more conscientious than the people who did not choose to respond. you can make it a case that of the people who are more conscientious of the stanford decliners did not choose to go to berkeley but not that nobody chooses berkely over stanford</p>
<p>Ubermensch, you are being too harsh on Berkeley. It does pretty good as a public school, even if it cannot compete with HYPSMC/ ivy leagues. Berkeley stands up pretty well against schools like Duke and other top 25s.</p>