<p>i would definitely go to stanford if i were u..</p>
<p>Alexandre-
what makes u believe cal is much better than nyu?
do u have any grounds for saying that cal is ranked b/w #6and8? out of curiosity..since u seem to rely heavily upon the US News ranking</p>
<p>Int'l_85, very easy.
First, NYU doesn't have stellar/distinguished professors like Cal, hence although it might not help your education, it indeed boosts the reputation of the school. Secondly, you will find better caliber students at Cal more than at NYU. Finally, the curricula/courseworks at Berkeley is no way subpar to those at any school in states, while curricula at NYU, well, generally are weaker.</p>
<p>Sorry Alexandre, intercept your path hehe ...</p>
<p>Actually Int'l, I am not a believer in the USNWR. In fact, I find the USNWR laughable. It is a pathetic ranking. Duke and Penn ranked ahead of MIT and Stanford? Yeah, right! And Washington Universitgy ranked ahead of Cornell, Chicago and Michigan? Cal #21 in the US??? Universities leaping from #25 to #10 in 2 years? The USNWR is extremely flawed. </p>
<p>I am more likely to believe what faculty at top universities and corporate recruiters say. Rtkysg pretty much gave you a very good reason for why Cal is generally considered far superior to NYU.</p>
<p>Int'l_85, CAL is internationally known for it's academic rigor, professors, graduate programs, and even their sports. NYU doesn't hold a candle to CAL. The US News ranking puts an emphasis on alumni contribution and graduation retention rates; at public schools, no one cares if you fail and don't graduate, but at privates...staying until you graduate = more money. So the rankings can easily be bent one way or other. Looking at the London Time's new ranking based on a different formula, CAL comes in #2 in the world. Yeah, that's higher than Stanford, MIT, CIT, Yale, Oxford etc. </p>
<p>With that said, if i got a scholarship to play sports at either CAL or Stanford, I'd probably pick Stanford; the landscape is beautiful and the grades are inflated. Sounds awesome, really.</p>
<p>i really don't get why some ppl regard wash. u. as a not-too-good school
its sat mid-50 range is like 1320-1480.. and 91% of its students were in the top10%of highschool graduating class,faculty-student ratio is 7/1 acceptance rate is around 20%..this school is in on par with all those top schools considering just these stats
isnt it at least better than umich?
i am not too sure what its like in usa..but the quality of the studentbody and acceptance rate are what heavily influence the overall quality of a school in my country</p>
<p>U Dubb is a great school. </p>
<p>To the original poster:</p>
<p>It would probably depend on the sport. </p>
<p>Swimming is definitely Cal. A team oriented sport, may be more important about team chemistry, which I would have to say is an important consideration for a budding athlete. Jason Kidd, Kevin Johnson, Tony Gonzales all went to Berkeley. Their unusual style of play/mix of skill sets could have only been developed here. But then again, top notch facilities are definitely attractive for the serious athlete. </p>
<p>Yea, the grades will be more inflated at Stanfurd, but you'll have more fun at Cal. It may come down to a choice about whether you are serious about your pro career in that sport, or if college for you is about friends and memorable experiences.</p>
<p>Int'l, Washington is excellent, but it is not a top 20 university in the country. Student quality is a constant at that level. With the exception of the 5 or 6 most selective universityes (H,P,Y,M,S and CalTech), the top 50 universities (public or private) and Lacs all have almost identical student bodies. What separates the very best from the rest are a few things:</p>
<p>1) Faculty.
2) Curriculum.
3) Intellectual atmosphere
4) Ties to graduate schools and industry.</p>
<p>Student selectivity is not a measure of a university's excellence. Judging a university by its admission's selectivity is like judging a man by the car her drives...shallow. </p>
<p>I have nothing against Washington, but ranking it among the top 10 in the country, ahead of schools like Cal-Berkeley, Chicago, Cornell, Johns Hopkins and Michigan is misleading. </p>
<p>And yes, to answer your question, Michigan is better than Washington.</p>
<p>nope.. i don't think so.. there's obviously a difference in the student quality b/w the #1 and 25, #25 and 50.. and so on. it still makes a difference however slight it may be. just for an example, ucla (97% in top10%; sat1160-1410) is better than penn state(43% in top10%;sat 1090-1300) in terms of the student quality.. it is a fact that students' scores and such tend to decline as the rank goes down.. i'm relying on the USNWR, for it is the most widely known ranking in the US
as for the selectivity, i believe it is truly important.. since it tells us that the more selective a school is, the more it is trying to accept only the highly qualified students.
isn't it quite evident that the intellectual atmosphere that u value is gonna prevail more widely where there are more academically qualified students? and u obviously wouldn't deny that in general wash u students are better than umich students considering class rank and test scores?</p>
<p>i just suggest that u be a lil more objective when voicing ur opinions.. why can't u just consider some unbiased rankings instead of merely praising ur school as a michigan alum? in fact i know of no current ranking that places michigan higher than wash u</p>
<p>Actually Intl, you did not read my post properly. I said the top 50 universities and LACs. That means the top 25 or 30 universities (PSU does not make the list) and the top 25-30 LACs. With the exception of maybe 5 or 6 universities and 2 or 3 LACs, all of the other universities and LACs have mean SATs in the 1300-1400 range. And no, there isn't a big difference between a 1300 and a 1400. </p>
<p>Secondly, Michigan students are just as good as Washington students. Same class ranks (both have 90% of their students graduating from HS ranked in the top 10% of their class), slightly higher GPAs and slightly lower SATs. </p>
<p>As for your claim that you know of no current ranking that ranks Michigan ahead of Washington. That is actually incorrect. Here are a few rankings you should check out. And let me tell you, it is not pretty:</p>
<p>Barron's:
Michigan: Top 5 university nationally.
Washington: Not listed in among America's best universities.</p>
<p>Fiske:
Michigan: ***** academics
Washington: **** academics</p>
<p>Gourman Report, Undergraduate rankings (affiliated to the Princeton Review):
Michigan: #3 in the nation
Washington: #29 in the nation </p>
<p>Businessweek MBA Rankings:
Michigan: #6
Washington: #23</p>
<p>USNWR academic reputation rank:
Michigan: #9
Washington: #24</p>
<p>USNWR undergraduate Business Schools rankings:
Michigan: #3
Washington: #11</p>
<p>USNWR undergraduate Engineering Rankings:
Michigan: #7
Washington: #39</p>
<p>USNWR LAW Schools:
Michigan: #7
Washington: #20</p>
<p>USNWR MBA programs:
Michigan: #10
Washington: #39</p>
<p>USNWR Medical schools:
Washington: #2
Michigan: #7
(that's the only discipline in which Washington is better than Michigan...and only just).</p>
<p>USNWR Biology Rankings:
Michigan: #14
Washington: #14</p>
<p>USNWR Chemistry:
Michigan #21
Washington: #43</p>
<p>USNWR Computer Science:
Michigan: #14
Washington: #35</p>
<p>USNWR Geology:
Michigan: #5
Washington: #23</p>
<p>USNWR Mathematics:
Michigan: #8
Washington: #37</p>
<p>USNWR Physics:
Michigan: #13
Washington: Unranked</p>
<p>USNWR Economics:
Michigan: #10
Washington: Unranked</p>
<p>USNWR English:
Michigan: #11
Washington: Unranked</p>
<p>USNWR History:
Michigan: #5
Washington: Unranked</p>
<p>USNWR Political Science:
Michigan: #2
Washington: #18</p>
<p>USNWR Psychology:
Michigan: #2
Washington: #39</p>
<p>USNWR Sociology:
Michigan: #3
Washington: Unranked</p>
<p>In short, there is plenty of evidence to support the conjecture that Michigan is a better overall university than Washington.</p>
<p>And by the way Int'l, it's not simply because I went to Michigan that I praise it. Your insinuation is insulting to my character. I happen to be quite neutral when it comes to universities...inculding Michigan.</p>
<p>Sorry Int'l85, but in terms of reputation, faculty strength and research, Wash U is not as good as Michigan. Alexandre pointed out that Wash u's ranking is misleading because the biggest factor that contributes to its ranking is not academic in the nature. Also, although the student body strength of both schools are pretty similar, Michigan has an edge by having a cream group of excellent students which, IMO, will beat WashU's anytime. I heard WashU is rather famous for its biomedical research, however compared to Michigan which is quite dominant in many fields, it pales comparatively.</p>
<p>Cal - if you want a lively, active, and quite loud environment, then Cal is your place. You will meet craploads of people and meet lots of hobos. Random crazy people will give lectures in the park or on campus... and there wiill be more people taking notes on him than on the professor in your Math 53 class. However, if you are going to do engineering at Cal. You are going to run into a wall at a point. engineering at cal is very very tough... as well as PEIS and Haas and some of the physical sciences. </p>
<p>Stanford - much more quiet environment and there definitely isnt the same kind of electricity in the air. However, you will get way more attention as the size of your student body is half (grad+undergrad) but it will still not be nearly as much as at a LAC. Stanford is a research institute and its grad students outnumber the undergrad students by far. Stanford is also very very tough, but it doesnt match with Berkeley since it has inflated grades. </p>
<p>Heres what i think of the ratings: </p>
<p>Campus (cleanliness, etc.) - Stanford
Campus (architecture) - Berkeley... barely (i love berkeley's architecture)
Things to Do - Berkeley (easily)
Environment for studying - Stanford (by far.... Berkeley is LOUD)
Professors - tie. (both have lots fo nobel laureates..... etc etc...)
AVERAGE student - Stanford (remember, i say Average. because if you take the top tier of each school, they will be equal. I know many people who rejected Stanford to go to Berkeley.. and vice-versa... however, there are lots at Berkeley who are in the weaker majors who will not stand up to Stanford's standards.... but there are your fair share of 180 LSAT students (i know some people like this.. perfect on LSAT))
Prestige - Stanford (by a hair.. those of you who think that Stanford is 100000 times better needs to go and look at international rankings of departments and overall rankings.. NOT USNEWS.)
Fun - Berkeley. (as i said, Berkeley is WAY more active and more lively. You will run into people from all walks of lives, even those that have lower SATs, and GPAs. Essentially, it gives a much better cross-section of the population than Stanford does.Also, Berkeley police are much more caught up with South Berkeley / West Berkeley than to mess with the students... they're also really really really nice police... probably cause we have a police watch)
Recruiting - It depends.
Grad School placement - It depends as well. Stanford has a higher percent. But that is because a lot of Berkeley students do not decide to go to Grad school. Berkeley has the highest placement into the Peace Corps and a lot of people there are not about prestige.</p>
<p>Btw. i live in Berkeley and applied Early to Stanford and was deferred. Just some background info.</p>
<p>Cal rocks, but it depends on whether you like big or small. I don't believe there is a difference beyond that, but that is a huge thing.</p>
<p>haha, Int'l, "you got served"</p>
<p>"Stanford is also very very tough, but it doesnt match with Berkeley since it has inflated grades."</p>
<p>Totally untrue. It's funny that all the people who claim that Stanford has grade inflation are the ones who don't actually go there. Trust me, as a Stanford student I can tell you that the grading is HARD. In fact it's hard as hell. In my math class there are like 10 USMAO qualifiers and math olympiad competitors out of a total of 50 students. Wanna guess who sets the mean at 89 percent? I basically need to get a 100 percent on the final in order to get an A, but woe is me I got a 91 percent. Now I have a B in the class. You call that grade inflation? Getting a 91 percent on a final at Berkeley probably means you aced the class. Getting a 91 percent here means you are mediocre compared to the rest of your peers, and your grade reflects that mediocrity. Stanford grading really brings you down to earth because you realize for the first time that you aren't the best of the best of the best anymore and that there are tons of geniuses out there that will own you.</p>
<p>^ Actually Rooster, I took BC and AB in high school, and still had to take a basic Calculus 1A course regardless my first semester. Now so did all CS, EECS, Math, Stat majors. I was just an Econ major at the time. That semester, the professor failed HALF of the students. That means half got a D+ or below. Does this actually register with you? The SAT Math scores of Berkeley's sciences is very very high. And half of the students failed. Thats is what we call " a typical story" in the sciences/math of UC Berkeley.</p>
<p>However, employers want students who are used to working hard, and surviving in a competitive environment. I can proudly say that my Berkeley counterparts in Investment Banking were the best analysts out of all schools.</p>
<p>Yet I have no doubt in my mind that if I went to Berkeley and got a 91 percent on the final I'd get an A in the class. It's all relative. If you sent the Stanford kids to Berkeley they'd probably get better grades than they are getting now.</p>
<p>"Posts: 131 Yet I have no doubt in my mind that if I went to Berkeley and got a 91 percent on the final I'd get an A in the class. It's all relative. If you sent the Stanford kids to Berkeley they'd probably get better grades than they are getting now. "</p>
<p>The problem is: Can you get 91% at Berkeley? Berkeley's profs are known for being unreasonable in giving low grade. Secondly, Stanford's curriculla are somehow easier than Berkeley, so getting a 91% at Stanford is typically easier than at Cal.</p>
<p>I would just like to know how you got into Cal already, UC's send in their decisions at the very earliest by March 1. Even if you are a recruit you don't find out early that you are in, the coaches tell you that you will probably be admited, but that doesn't guarantee it. I doubt a recruited person recieving an offer for an athletic scholarship at these two prestigious athletic/academic schools would be posting on CC.</p>