<p>
[quote]
And btw, Stanford has 20k UG + Grad. Harvard too -- Approx. Where the hell is the magic number?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Both have much bigger endowments and much more resources than Columbia.</p>
<p>And the same can be said when comparing Dartmouth and Columbia to Berkeley -- especially per capita.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here we go with these terms, UG and Grad focused -- this is turning into another "correlation/causality" phrase -- What does that imply? Would you consider schools like Stanford and Harvard to be "Grad focused?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't you think Columbia's grad programs are far better known than it's ugrad program? Columbia business school, Columbia Law, are a few that come to mind. If a school's graduate programs are reputed better than it's ugrad programs, it's probably safe to say it's a grad focused school.</p>
<p>It's the comparison... If that's the case, why on earth do I care about Berkeley Undergrad?</p>
<p>If you want, I shall replace Columbia.</p>
<p>Yes, that is what I was getting at lol.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course it's anecdotal. I'm being a bit presumptuous by asserting the common "large public school" stereotypes... I still think most would agree with me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you admit that it's anecdotal, say you're being presumptuous, and then resort to an ad populum argument? Nice. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
probably because the tiers would be a bit larger than the ones that would exist at the top privates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Too hard to say, IMO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^^ That would appear to imply that you semi-agree with me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never disagreed re: hand-holding.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And btw, Stanford has 20k UG + Grad. Harvard too -- Approx. Where the hell is the magic number?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll add it's the same for Cornell and Penn.</p>
<p>Lol, Nvm. I was saying that Berk Grad is more "oppressive" than Columbia Grad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you admit that it's anecdotal, say you're being presumptuous, and then resort to an ad populum argument? Nice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course. While I'm sure you've never made an assertion without having a comprehensive factual understanding of the situation to support your views... I have. Educated guesses. I make them all the time -- in subjective matters where the prevalent opinion is prevalent for a reason...</p>
<p>No one is doubting Berkeley's excellence -- I'm just curious as to why you saw fit to equate the amount of resources per capita to a top Private -- i.e Dartmouth. And since you've so humbly agreed that neither of is well equipped to make a call like that...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Educated guesses. I make them all the time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's a difference between "educated" and "presumptuous." Or "susceptible to common stereotypes and misconceptions." ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
to why you saw fit to equate the amount of resources per capita to a top Private -- i.e Dartmouth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I used Dartmouth as an extreme example. Dartmouth is very much like an LAC (without actually being grouped with LACs), so I found it fitting to use that for contrast.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's a difference between "educated" and "presumptuous." Or "susceptible to common stereotypes and misconceptions."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So shall we always assume nothing until it can be proved through factual means? Especially topics like these where it's rather difficult to quantify "opportunities/resources available"? Or shall we make an "educated" guess based on a number of factors -- Large public, decent endowment(Compared to top privates)... -- and the "common stereotypes" that trail -- in this specific case -- Berkeley.</p>
<p>I'm sure you have an opinion. I'm also just as sure your opinion is based on your own anecdotal gatherings. Because you choose not to share it is no less noble than what I've done.</p>
<p>I'm not talking about anecdotal evidence alone. I'm talking about your use of an ad populum argument to justify your anecdotal evidence and presumptuous claims (both of which you admitted to committing).</p>
<p>No no, I've never once said my agreement with popular opinion made me or anyone who shares said opinion right. </p>
<p>You also admitted your claims were anecdotal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I still think most would agree with me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That seems to advocate popular opinion... the way you said it, as well, seemed like a follow-up to your previous claims, as though you were using it as support. I don't see why else you'd include it.</p>
<p>I simply stated something. Nothing to read into at all.</p>
<p>And btw -- since you're on a witchhunt -- Ad populum arguments while generally fallacious, aren't always completely useless. I'm by no means advocating usage, but in the rare cases of completely subjective subjects, it is not always fallacy to rely on a prevalent opinion in hopes of showing a similar paradigm of thinking.</p>
<p>^ ooooh...two 'furd students bickering...</p>
<p><em>gets popcorn</em></p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>ok, i think that its common for people to take what comes easy for granted. yes, cal is much easier to get into than HYPSM. that's a given. therefore, the avg. sat's will be lower because more diverse (academically) people get in. but berkeley shouldn't be criticized for giving more students a chance to study at an internationally-recognized school. sure harvard is harvard, that'll continue for a long time to come. but harvard is also like 200-300 years older than berkeley, harvard has more opportunities for grads because of the amazing contacts an undergrad can get. give cal a break. as for trashing cal, calling it a school for losers or whatever it was, that's just pretty lame. i mean if those are the type of people who go to the so-called "elite schools" then i'm happy with my decision to go to cal. you'd be surprised to learn about some of the students that go there and their potential, i was. there are some amazing people that go to cal, people that are comparable to ivy-leaguers. its just that cal has more people than just these "ivy-leaguers". as for being in-state, i consider myself lucky for having such a solid public university system. even though i had the choice of going to some other, more "prestigious" institutions (for a whole lot more $$), i didn't just rule out cal because it was cheaper or it was easy for me to get in. is that such a bad thing? i wouldn't say so. </p>
<p>as for not getting as much in donations as these other school, none of the uc's give such a noticeable preference to legacies as other schools (where you can have upto 2x a better chance of getting in). wow, well thanks cal for giving me a fair shot</p>
<p>i think the other thing is that at cal, you have to work really, really hard for something you want unlike harvard or other privates that will spoonfeed you the whole way (i concur with butchokoy). i would think that it prepares you better for whatever you might choose to pursue because the best students have to be truly amazing to be the best. academically, i would think that Harvard and Cal are comparable, but i can't say that for sure since i haven't attended both institutions. Cal's atmosphere weeds a whole lot of people out (such as the people who didn't get in anywhere more selective than Berkeley) and i think that whole experience is an education in itself</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ad populum arguments while generally fallacious, aren't always completely useless. I'm by no means advocating usage, but in the rare cases of completely subjective subjects, it is not always fallacy to rely on a prevalent opinion in hopes of showing a similar paradigm of thinking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. There are some cases where it's acceptable, if not necessary--deciding what is acceptable in standard language, for example.</p>
<p>This is not one of them. ;)</p>
<p>At any rate, I see what you're getting at, etc.</p>
<p>
You keep on alleging that Berkeley lacks on this area or severely lacks on that department, etc, but you have not studied at Berkeley. Therefore, everything you offer to the table is just mere rumors. And rumors are inadmissible.
</p>
<p>Hmm interesting, you need to study at a school to effectively judge it.</p>
<p>
<p>First, the top academics across America (and even the world) don't believe on your claim that Berkeley education is inferior to Duke. Now, we have data that the top employers don’t seem to believe on your claim too. Then you go back to your old and rotten argument that Duke has got better advising, lesser faculty to student ratio, higher graduation rate, etc. Who cares if I get the best advising from my school but only to go out to the real world and get paid less!
</p>
<p>Thus by your own logic, your whole point is irrelevant because you can't judge duke's education, because you never studied there? May I just ask one question in that case, where do you get this info that Berkeley grads earn more than Duke grads? How do you know what employers think, since by your own logic if you haven't "worked there then you can't really judge it". Its all rumor, and rumor is not admissible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually most people would say USNWR top 15 are better than Berkeley. I bet that would be the general consensus of the educated/wealthy/employers ect. Thats where we differ, you want to cut it off after HYPSM, and I and I think most people would say not even school from there to number 25 is equally good.</p>