<p>Whoever says Stanfurd kids don't care about the rivalry needs to read some of Rooster's posts. The kid spends all day on the Cal board or talking about Cal on some other board. Nothing wrong with that, because, as has been my experience, Stanfurd kids care just as much about the rivalry as Cal students. That is, nobody really cares except for a week or two out of every year, but there is an obligation to keep the 100+ year tradition going. It doesn't matter if you think one school is better then the other, trying to do a way with the rivalry takes away from some amazing history and ruins it for future generations.</p>
<p>"Obviously the statistics don't lie"--sure they can. It depends on what the person(s) publishing the "statistics" want to prove or defend. "It's either you or your friends" or Stanford administration.</p>
<p>I retract that comment.</p>
<p>najmsh has it exactly right -- Ubermensch is making inferences from a sample that is not random. When political polsters call your home, great care is taken to make sure that the people selected for the sample are random, but when one relies on respondants replying to a questionaire, then you have introduced classic sample selection bias. So, infering that the 1% who stated they are attending a Pac-10 school is representative of the entire 31% who went elsewhere is incorrect. The truth is we can't know with any certainty how many chose to go to Berkeley based on that data.</p>
<p>Berkeley is a great school that offers a very similar education for a fraction of the price, so it is not at all surprising that someone would choose to go there over Stanford. I don't find the argument of financial aid convincing considering that a huge proportion of those accepted to Stanford are from upper-middle class families and do not qualifiy for need based aid.</p>
<p>West Sidee, I think you're right. For EE, I worked with 2 Stanford undergrades so far and they are not exceptional in any way, one got laid off and the other one is better talker. However, that is a small sample. MS and Phd from Stanford are different, they do have very good EE but so is MS and Phd from EE.</p>
<p>I know a Berkeley guy who couldn't get any chicks and ended up living in the dumpster. He was not exceptional in any way either. I think he called himself RayRay22 or something.</p>
<p>rooster08, depends on the major. EE from Berkeley is very good, IMHO</p>
<p>Whatever, we all saw what happened to Aaron Rodgers last week.</p>
<p>^ Yea it sucks. The entire Bay Area is still mad about that. The NASDAQ is seems to be the only real bright spot in the economy...</p>
<p>How come sakky isn't here debating?! This is blasphemy! Anyway, I like what he wrote in previous thread so I'm just going to cut and paste:</p>
<p>"i will say that berkeley is a fine institution for graduate studies. That is, of course, granted and obvious. But clearly, the undergraduates can improve by a lot. For example, the class sizes at Berkeley are just gargantuan, the resources for student support are minimal, budget cuts have definitely affected the quality of education, and Berkeley's dependence on GSIs (graduate student instructors) is also detrimental to the quality of education here. </p>
<p>The Berkeley undergraduate experience is basically similar to the undergraduate experience at virtually every other top-tier public university. Yes, the faculty at Berkeley is phenomenal, but you'll have limited interaction with them in office hours. Even in upper division courses have 200+ people in them. </p>
<p>CAL is a weaker school in terms of resource such as the lack of lab-space and times. The lectures themselves are somewhat open. The trick is getting into an open lab time, which you must agree are space-limited. Due to scheduling conflicts, either with other classes, or with work-study, or whatever, it is not uncommon to only have certain times available in your schedule for lab, and if all those lab-spots are taken, you're screwed. But what do you know? You're a MassCom major. </p>
<p>Think of it this way. Let's say your particular Physics 7A lab section has capacity for 30 students, and 100 show up. You know and I know that that situation is untenable. Some of those students will have to be turned away from that lab section. But what if the time of that section is the only time that some of those students can take the lab? Yep - you guessed it, the student is forced to drop the class and take it some other semester. And that's where it starts.</p>
<p>Want to know why it takes most CAL students more than 4 years to graduate? Scheduling conflicts. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/webex/higrad_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/webex/higrad_brief.php</a>
Berkeley's rate of students who graduate in four years is less than 80%.</p>
<p>Let's talk about graduation rates to see how poor of a school CAL is. Stanford's 6-year graduation rate is, according to USNews, 92%. Berkeley's 6-year graduation rate is 85%. Again, the real way to look at it is 8% noncompletion vs. 15% noncompletion, or an almost-doubling. That's the law of percentages fooling with you. Like I've said before many times, you don't just go to college just to go to college. You go to college in order to get a degree. And the simple fact is, a given Berkeley students is significantly more likely to never get a degree than a given Stanford student. </p>
<p>To those of you who already go to Cal, didn't your run-ins with those dumb, lazy, incompetents who never lift a finger make you wonder if Berkeley is actually a university and not some glorified night school? Whether or not you choose you answer those questions, I think it is positively undeniable that there are countless aspects of Berkleley that make you think twice about calling it a first-class school."</p>
<p>"To those of you who already go to Cal, didn't your run-ins with those dumb, lazy, incompetents who never lift a finger make you wonder if Berkeley is actually a university and not some glorified night school? Whether or not you choose you answer those questions, I think it is positively undeniable that there are countless aspects of Berkleley that make you think twice about calling it a first-class school."</p>
<p>I'm sure those people exist everywhere; maybe Berkeley may have a lot of them, but I'm sure they will be weeded out before they reach upper division.</p>
<p>Sakky is an idiot if he said that.</p>
<p>If schools were like SAT scores:</p>
<p>Harvard: 1600
Stanford:1590
Princeton:1590
Yale:1590
MIT: 1580
Caltech: 1580
Columbia: 1500
Dartmouth: 1500
Brown: 1500
Upenn: 1500
Cornell: 1450
U of Chicago: 1420
Johns Hopkins: 1410
Northwestern: 1400
WUSTL: 1340
Berkeley: 1320
UCLA: 1320</p>
<p>Difference between Stanford and Berkeley is about 270 points.</p>
<p>Oh I forgot about Duke. Let's give Duke about a 1460.</p>
<p>add CCSF: 800</p>
<p>Why so bitter? I ranked Harvard #1. Aren't you going there? </p>
<p>Harvard>>>>>>>Berkeley</p>
<p>for god sake be quiet unprestigiousmensch</p>
<p>have fun at UCI</p>
<p>btw, sakky and soliloquy should SOOOO be chancellors of Berkeley</p>
<p>i mean, cmon, theyre OBVIOUSLY more qualified than an internationally-renowned physicist/dean of science at MIT/president of toronto</p>
<p>they could lead like arnold...open up the books, and all good things will come true</p>
<p>I had fun with Margareta last night. Whatcha gonna do now Faust?</p>
<p>Jesus, this thread is still going? </p>
<p>Why do people feel the need to put down other schools?</p>
<p>If you go to a great school, you go to a great school. Does it make your school better if you insult Berkeley or UCLA or UMich? Does it make you more intelligent?</p>
<p>Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but what the hell is wrong with you people?</p>