<p>Well, because no one can come to "conclusion" about Duke and Cal, let me ask this: What makes Duke and Cal CLEARLY better than U. of Maryland?</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to answer that one with data. If you want to know, go check out statistics about the incoming freshman class, the resources available and endowment, the selectivity and quality of students that you will be surrounded by, and the relatively high perecentage of students at each school that go on to top graduate schools. </p>
<p>I'm not going to find and paste all of the data. Comparing Cal and Duke in such a way is plausible...you're asking too much if you want me to do the same with UMaryland.</p>
<p>Ok then. Couldn't one make the same comparison about Duke and Cal and "clearly" select which one is better (not taking into account student fit/financial reasons)?</p>
<p>Well, we've tried doing that but to me the differences are too small to really matter. We are basically comparing the best public school in the nation to one of the best privates...each has its advantages and so which school is actually "better" depends on the person doing the evaluation. </p>
<p>UMaryland, while a good public school, is not on the same level with regards to numerous "factors," such as those listed in my previous post. Even then, however, one can get a great education at UM and go on to great things, but if financial reasons are not a limitation, one will receive a better education with greater resources from Cal or Duke.</p>
<p>"Well, because no one can come to "conclusion" about Duke and Cal, let me ask this: What makes Duke and Cal CLEARLY better than U. of Maryland?"
Lord help us!!!!</p>
<p>brand_182: Hmm...good point.</p>
<p>pateta00: I posted that for a reason. I wanted to see whether we could use the factors that make Duke and Cal better than U. of Maryland and apply them to this debate to reach an actual conclusion between Duke and Cal, but, as brand_182 mentioned, it's depends on the person. So my "attempt" at an answer failed quite miserably.</p>
<p>Kids at Duke and Cal are just much, much smarter than kids at MD. I mean, there are stats that prove this beyond any doubt. But if you just know people that go to any of the three schools, its clear that MD kids are just not as talented as the ones at Duke and Cal. </p>
<p>I think Duke is better than Cal. But the gap between HYPSM and Duke, and Duke and Cal, are both much smaller than the gap between any of these and UMD. UMD kids are just not talented (academically) to the degree of any other top school. No being PC about it.</p>
<p>Ok. I got it.</p>
<p>That really wasn't a silly answer, bookfreak. One of the most brilliant people I know went to the University of Maryland (not the College Park campus, either) and then earned his PhD in nuclear physics from Los Alamos National Labs at age 24. The difference in quality isn't that large.</p>
<p>But what one person does is not necessarily reflective of the entire school. Just because I know several people that went to UT-Arlington and then went on to be very successful does not mean that the school is on the same level as UT-Austin. It just means a very smart person went there and made the most of its resources.</p>
<p>thethoughtprincess:</p>
<p>"Kids at Duke and Cal are just much, much smarter than kids at MD. I mean, there are stats that prove this beyond any doubt. But if you just know people that go to any of the three schools, its clear that MD kids are just not as talented as the ones at Duke and Cal."</p>
<p>I'm getting really tired of you stating so unequivocally that certain people are smarter than others. Holy ***, when will you get it? The gap isn't that huge! I would say that Duke's and Cal's students *tend to be brighter since the selection is more rigorous and that those universities are probably better (more resources, etc.), but really, you make UofMD students sound like trolls. </p>
<p>And you know, it's not so much what you're saying, but how you're saying it: "oh they're just so much, much smarter -- I mean, really, just look at those numbers! OBVIOUSLY the SATs gauge intelligence perfectly" and the like. The numbers you use to prove your point can state a trend, but they don't prove anything "beyond any doubt." You rely way too much on numbers.</p>
<p>Further, I asked you for a link to the "real" cross-admit stats.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The NY Times chart is based on predictions made from a survey of students at prep schools...real cross admit data released by admissions from Cornell and Duke (the only two I've seen released) show how students actually choose each school. Duke looks 70-80% of cross applicants with HYPSM, is 50/50 with Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Penn, and wins 75% with JHU, NU, and Georgetown. Thats real data, not predictions based on a flawed survey.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, that's not true. The NYTimes is actually a compilation of the RP study by Hoxby et. al., and what was measured is not 'true' cross-admit data, but rather * revealed preference (RP) * data. </p>
<p>The difference between cross-admit data and revealed preference data is that a lot of 'preference' data is washed out from the cross-admit data simply because plenty of students don't apply to both schools of a particular pair. For example, cross-admit data of Duke vs. Harvard would obviously only include those students who applied to both Duke and Harvard. What about those students who dislike Duke so much that they never even apply to Duke at all? What about those students who don't apply to * either * school? The RP study attempts to ascertain what these students would have done if Duke and Harvard were their only 2 choices, regardless of whether they actually applied to those schools. </p>
<p>The full paper is here. It uses techniques that are well within the mainstream in social science. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I would like to see USNews complete its assessments to all undergraduate programs just like it did in the graduate programs. Because as far as I am concern, when you rate a college, you shouldn't miss to factor in the strength of the program. This is something which USNews have FAILED to do when it came out with its ranking of Best universities. This is why great schools like Berkeley, Virginia and Michigan were ranked lower than they should have been. For example, Notre Dame was ranked ahead of Berkeley. Scholars all over America and the world raised eyebrows. It was a big joke. Let?s do a random survey amongst university professors from Florida, Ohio and New York. Let?s ask them which is the better school between Berkeley and Notre Dame and I?m confident that they will tell you it would have to be Berkeley flatly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The major issue with 'strength of program' is that most undergrads simply don't know what they want to major in, and most of them end up switching around majors anyway. This is unlike grad school where your 'major' is set. You can't enter a PhD program in EE and decide that you don't like it and simply decide that you'd rather switch to a PhD program in English. But that sort of thing happens routinely in undergrad.</p>
<p>The other major issue is that, truth be told, you're probably not going to end up working in a field that is related to your undergrad major anyway. After all, how many history majors become professional historians? How many poli-sci majors actually become professional political scientists? It has been estimated that the average American will change careers (not just employers, but entire careers) about 3-5 times in a lifetime. Hence, it is likely that at some point in your life, you are going to end up in a job that has nothing to do with what you majored in. So, frankly, what does it matter whether you graduated from the #1 undergrad program of a certain major, if you don't end up working in a field related to that major anyway? </p>
<p>But don't take my word for it. See for yourself. Look at the kinds of employers and job titles that these Berkeley graduates took. Notice how many people took jobs that have little to do with what they majored in. </p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Hist.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Hist.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/English.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/English.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/PolSci.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/PolSci.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Psych.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Psych.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Soc.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Soc.stm</a></p>
<p>And remember, these are the jobs for people who are just coming out. Later on as you progress in your career, you are more and more likely to end up in a job that has nothing to do with what you majored in. For example, I know plenty of engineers who worked as engineers right after graduation but later on got their MBA's and are now investment bankers. Investment banking has nothing to do with engineering. At their current stage in their career, who really cares about the 'strength' of their undergrad engineering program?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The USNews, an independent ranking body known as an anti-public,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't "know" that USNews is anti-public. Just take a gander at the USNews Graduate ratings. For example, while I greatly respect the MBA program at the Haas School of Business, even I suspect that their #7 ranking is too high. Haas is not an "M7" school. Similarly, 3 public law schools (Berkeley, Michigan, and Virginia) get extremely high placements. Berkeley obtains excellent PhD rankings. </p>
<p>Now, I know what you are going to say. You are going to say that those are USNews graduate ratings, not undergraduate ratings. But that's exactly my point. If USNews were really so "anti-public", wouldn't they be anti-public in ALL of its rankings? Why would it only be anti-public in its undergraduate rankings? That seems to undercut the argument that USNews is supposedly 'anti-public'.</p>
<p>Sorry, I just think UMD kids aren't that bright on average. Especially compared to Duke and Cal kids. Sorry if I don't like to pretend that every school is equal like you obviously do.</p>
<p>Anyways, here's a link to cross-admit data:
<a href="http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/010206/crop2.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/010206/crop2.html</a></p>
<p>"Based on acceptance rates, Duke continues to fall behind a few choice schools in terms of selectivity. Against five of those schools in particular, Duke faces substantial recruiting obstacles. According to matriculation data, Duke is successful in wooing to campus only about 15 percent of those admitted students who are also accepted to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, or Stanford. Against the next group--Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Penn--Duke does better, enrolling about 50 percent. In recruiting battles against the third five--Georgetown, Chicago, Washington University, Northwestern, and Cornell--Duke is successful about 80 percent of the time."</p>
<p>These haven't been contradicted by any of the other schools, and the Duke Dean of Admissions has said this several times (though the numbers have varied slightly from year to year). There are few reliable sources better than an actual Dean of Admissions on the public record. These same numbers were reprinted in the Duke student papers and is verified by an article in the Cornell student newspaper. This is what the Dean says about those numbers:</p>
<p>"Those percentages, Lange and Guttentag say, have not changed much over the years. Guttentag explains that although some of the numbers against individual competitors vary year to year, it is tough to make significant progress because the rest of the schools are all getting better, too. "There are few schools," he says, "that recruit more aggressively than Harvard.""</p>
<p>berkeley if you want to stay in california and get work; duke if you want to go to grad school</p>
<p>srry i just have to say this but...how can ucb even compare w/ duke in most of the opportunities O.o
also...if it is not for financial reasons, anyone accepted to both will most likely choose duke...ucb is mostly composed of students in the top 4% of their schools regardless of their sats while duke takes in students w/ actual potential</p>
<p>darkhope:</p>
<p>"how can ucb even compare w/ duke in most of the opportunities O.o"</p>
<p>It can. It has plenty if not more opportunities. (With a university as large as Cal, yes, there are plenty of opportunities.)</p>
<p>"if it is not for financial reasons, anyone accepted to both will most likely choose duke"</p>
<p>I don't think it's a "most" case, and I don't think that indicates anything about the university itself -- obviously not, since Berkeley is regarded as one of the best universities in various areas, and with reason.</p>
<p>"ucb is mostly composed of students in the top 4% of their schools regardless of their sats"</p>
<p>Dude, no. Look at the middle 50% SAT score range of the students:
SAT Reasoning Verbal: 580 - 710
SAT Reasoning Math: 620 - 740</p>
<p>In addition, this shows how little you know about Berkeley, which doesn't take all students within the top 4% of their schools. If you are a California resident and you are in the top 4%, then you are an ELC student, which means that you are guaranteed a spot at one of the universities in the UC system, but you don't necessarily get to pick. UC Berkeley is one of the most selective universities in California and in the country.</p>
<p>"while duke takes in students w/ actual potential"</p>
<p>So you think that Berkeley students don't have potential? Is that why Berkeley is one of the leading universities in research? Is that why it produces students who go on to do great things, like presidents of Cornell and the University of California, and professors at Harvard, MIT, UChic, Cornell, Duke, Princeton, Caltech, and more? Is that also why it's a leading developer in computer science, engineering, etc.? Come on, I think your comment was one of the most elitist I've seen on these forums.</p>
<p>You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks that Berkeley students don't have potential. </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley#Distinguished_Berkeley_people%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley#Distinguished_Berkeley_people</a></p>
<p>ucb also has a large population making it hard for many undergrads to get those avaliable opportunies...
look at those middle 50% sat range and compare that w/ dukes...i think duke's is higher. I'm saying that ucb students have extremely intelligent people but also has people who r just simply the top 4% of their school =D...i don;t think i ever said ucb students don;t have potential O.o
edit: one of my best friends went to ucb and he owns academically but i also know people who are full jerks and jsut got in because they were top 4%...i'm just saying students in duke are of much more of the same caliber</p>
<p>Apple and Orange. The two schools have little in common besides high academic standards. Not that there's anything wrong with that :)</p>