God I hate Berkeley.

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Los Angeles
41

<p>Gutrade: "In fact, you cannot even use the argument that some kids chose a UC because of affordibility reasons. HYPS give full rides to people who are low income, whereas the UC's do not. So suck on that."</p>

<p>Low income people aren't the only people that can't afford Ivy, you arrogant piece of misinformed youth. I hate California and have chosen UCs because my family can't afford out-of-state tuition. The only two schools I applied to out-of-state are ones that we won't have to pay for. You don't have to be "low income" to not be able to afford high-end, overly-priced institutions of higher learning that have separated themselves from the masses becasue at some point their uppity, elitist board of directors decided "We have a name everyone recognizes, let's increase tuition because our students will obviously go far (please note that not all ivy grads do go far, it does take character and attitude, as efg stated) and we deserve a part of that." </p>

<p>"we don't accept just any loser on the street. Plus you will all work for us. So that makes me better than you right?"</p>

<p>Hahahahahahahahahaha. You're right, they don't just accept any loser off the street, but let's assume that by loser you mean someone not on your level of academic ability. Now let's assume that not all of these non-loserish people can afford an education from the oh-so-fabulous(but pricey) Yale. So, now you've got a student body of maybe a few non-losers who managed to get themselves some outside help for tuition(be it grants, scholarships, whatever), and a bunch of rich non-losers. Now, let's assume that not all "non-losers" are people of good character, moral value, integrity, ambition, intuition, or even common sense. So, these non-losers that don't possess at least a few of these qualities, have turned themselves into losers that got a very good, but very expensive education.<br>
Now, let's be honest with ourselves. There are a lot more idiots in the human race than there are people who will turn their lives into complete success all on their own abilities. Some of these spectacular people can afford a high-priced education, but I'm going to bet that most of them can't simply because there are more middle- to low-income people out there than there are wealthy people. </p>

<p>So, I'm going to determine, based soley on what you have said on this board(that means I don't care if you are low-income or disdvantaged in any way, shape, or form) that you are one of the losers, as you feel you must justify your own abilities and prowess by debasing others. You do not yet know the value of treating those you feel are "insuperior" to you with respect, a key quality in those who will indeed have us all working for them one day. As I have determined this, I have also decided that one day, we may all work for you, but that will probably be for our summer jobs at a restaraunt where you're the manager for the swing shift.<br>
P.S.Not all managers are good managers.</p>

42

<p>"You do not yet know the value of treating those you feel are "insuperior" to you with respect, a key quality in those who will indeed have us all working for them one day.."</p>

<p>Well said Littleol'me.</p>

43

<p>People and institutions can be different without one being better than the other... men and women are different and one group is not better than the other....</p>

<p>Competition has it's place...trying to run faster, be more effective; but petty rivalries trivialize complex systems and muddy the water so honest comparisons cannot occur. I have not seen convincing evidence that you could measurably predict the academic or career outcome of a student based upon which of these colleges they attend. (possible exceptions based on department major selection.)</p>

<p>That is, if you randomly selected 20 students all within the same range of test scores and GPA and put two in each of the top three UCs, Stanford, and the rest in the Ivy's and other top colleges, next fall......I don't think you would be able to predict which students would be most successful academically, socially, financially or politically at the end of twenty years. I think if a similar sized group was picked from the freshman class they might do a little better, (because of fit, but I'm not sure.)</p>

<p>A third group worth studying would be selected from lower achieving students....lower GPA lower SAT and randomly place them in the same schools.....I don't think college board would fund that study.</p>

44

<p>Wow, Gutrade is a loser. That's the thing I like about Stanford admissions. Even if your stats are high enough, they make the final decision based on what kind of person you come across as.</p>

45

<p>YEAH! Go Stanford! </p>

<p>Gutrade, HYPS might have lower acceptance rates than the UCs and their students might have higher stats that UC students, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about their character. Stats are merely stats. There are a lot of screwed up ppl at HYPS (not as S so much) who're full of themselves just because they attend those schools. Just take a look at the HYP boards, and you'll see what i'm talking about. </p>

<p>And, btw, this is coming from a Stanford early admit.</p>

46

<p>how many posts til im a junior member???</p>

47

<p>Okay, that was off topic, off the hand, completely and insanely out of nowhere question.</p>

<p>I think 50.</p>

48

<p>I think what you study is a much more important indicator of your future financial success than the college you attend. In grad school, I had an acquaintance that had studied religious studies during college at Stanford. He was extremely bright, no doubt, but after graduating he had difficulties finding good work.</p>

<p>I have discussed the issue with others with whom I attended grad school (Columbia)and most of us agree that a certain school does not make the student so much as the students make the school. That is, the people that attend name schools would succeed regardless of where they studied. The quality of education is not that much better if it is better at all, and in some instances it can even be worse because: a)no matter how good or bad the program, people will continue to bang on door to attend simply because of the perceived benefit of the brand name, and b)the students are bright and will succeed even if the quality of teaching is poor. I still remember auditing an undergraduate math class at Columbia and how surprised I was to learn that it was taught by a grad student -- he was really awful (isn't that the critique we so often hear of the UC's). I can say that some of my graduate courses were equally bad. It seems that people on this board often equate being taught by famous professors with receiving quality education. Oh, if that were only true. I took a course with Robert Mundell (1999 nobel laureate in economics, so-called father of the Euro) -- his brilliance was unquestionable but his teaching left a LOT to be desired. Everyone was there because he was a nobel laureate. Some of the best instruction is often from the lesser known faculty at a university. </p>

<p>Getting the name brand on your diploma (and let's be clear, ivies and the like are brands, just like Gucci, Mercedes, Ben & Jerry's, etc) is simply a way to signal to employers that you're a high achieving individual. That is what you pay $30,000+, to signal to others that you're bright. It gets you an interview (and perhaps a good alumni network) but once you start working, no one cares where you went to school. Your employer and colleagues will evaluate you by what you accomplish at work and by your character.</p>

49

<p>dude maybe when i go to berkeley I'll play some random sport! LOL like tennis or something i hope i make it on the team</p>

<p>maybe volleyball i dunno</p>

50

<p>UCB and UCLA are no where near each other in the sciences/engineering. Cal is rated 3rd in the country while UCLA is in the top 20th ratings. GO CAL!!!!!!!</p>

51

<p>another thing....rooster is correct on what he said about students trying to bash other "superior" students because of inferior complexity. UCLA is inferior to Cal students and therefore ends in bashing. You will never see Cal students bashing UCLA students because there is no reason to do it. </p>

<p>on the other hand, the same can be said about berkeley bashing stanford. I really don't know why but berkeley students seems to be "inferior" to stanford students and as a result, bashing starts. The opposite never happens. </p>

<p>bashing is a natural human action due to inferior complexity.</p>

52

<p>interesting, mosharma, but way off...</p>

53

<p>I think mosharma134 is perhaps more correct than most UCLA students are comfortable with. UCLA, in terms of academics, despite the remarkable growth of the school, is still behind Berkeley in a majority of fields. Also, UCLA is the "little sibling" school (see the mascot and colors) of Cal, and those of us with siblings know what that's all about.</p>

<p>And for the Berkeley/Stanford inferiority complex? Well, it's obviously tough for me to admit, but Stanford does have a cleaner, more upper-class feel to it, and you can't deny that Stanford's academics are pretty darn good. And correct or not, Stanford usually gets a better rep than Cal, which leads to the inferiority complex, which leads to the bashing, as mosharma134 postulated.</p>

54

<p>Don't justify Stanford's UG education. It is way overrated.</p>

55

<p>Wow Mosh...just when I thought I had read all the lame comments in this thread you go and add a new one.</p>

<p>This thread needs to die I think.</p>

56

<p>Exilo: You started this thread remember? Now be like Shiva (or Siva) and destroy it by dancing.</p>

57

<p>I'm dancing, I'm dancing!!!</p>

<p>Nuthin. :(</p>

58

<p>In terms of common admit battles, Stanford competes most directly with Harvard, MIT, and Yale. In terms of athletics, Stanford competes with UC Berkeley and to a certain extent UCLA. In terms of academics, all colleges comepte against each other.</p>

59

<p>"In terms of common admit battles, Stanford competes most directly with Harvard, MIT, and Yale. In terms of athletics, Stanford competes with UC Berkeley and to a certain extent UCLA. In terms of academics, all colleges comepte against each other."</p>

<p>good summary rooster. </p>

<p>i'd like to add that i think stanford competes more with UCLA than UC berkeley for athletes, especially for the non-money generating sports. stanford and ucla boast some of the best athletic teams outside of football and basketball in the nation, not just the pac-10.</p>

60

<p>academics (meaning faculty, classmates, the works) AND campus looks
Stanford > Berkeley > UCLA</p>