<p>Go Berkeley. The tuition is free for you.</p>
<p>There are recruits that are already told they are into the school.</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>Getting a 91 percent on a Stanford test is considerably harder than getting a 91 on a Berkeley test. You have to understand that everyone at Stanford was at the top of his or her class. The reason that Berkeley profs fail half the class is because there are so many people at Berkeley who are just not smart at all. The lax admissions policies allows underqualified people to attend a school that they just can't handle. Most people don't flunk out of Stanford because they understand the material very well. Even the lowest scorer understands the concepts clearly. You probably can't say the same for Berkeley.</p>
<p>i agree w/ u, rooster
it is b/c the quality of the student body @ stanford is pretty homogeneous..
berkeley it isn't</p>
<p>Depends on your sport.</p>
<p>Football Cal
B-Ball CAl
Water Polo S
Tennis Cal
S S
Baseball S</p>
<p>Yes, some of the less mathematically inclined Berkeley students gravitate towards some easier liberal arts majors.</p>
<p>But the math and science courses are all taken by students who have just as good if not better credentials than math and science students at Stanfurd.</p>
<p>99% of Berkeley students were in the top10% in HS. Trust me, the math courses are harder at Berkeley. Why don't u take a summer school course here and find out. If you dare.</p>
<p>Of course, you won't dare to, cus Stanfurd students are lazier. But thats not what I said...thats what the investment banks say.</p>
<p>omg stop this BS both Stanford and Berkeley are great schools. You should choose the school by analyzing your PERSONAL preferances...for example: do you like a huge school or small school? do you like real city experience or palm drive experience?? are you willing to pay extra for stanford (if u are instate for berk) etc... NOT on whether a 91 at Berkeley is easier or harder than a 91 at stanford!!</p>
<p>But Stanford is like "WOW WOW WOW!!!"</p>
<p>Berkeley is like "oh cool."</p>
<p>^ Yea, years of biased US News rankings will do that to a school. But lets face it, there are dumb people at Stanfurd all over the place. Also if you go to Asia and Europe, the wow factor for Berkeley will be just as great if not greater (sometimes) than Stanfurd. </p>
<p>BTW, what school do u go to ubermensch? stanfurd I assume? Great, Im glad you didn't go to berkeley. Your attitude should stay away from Berkeley. You might contaminate us.</p>
<p>This is hilarious, the whole bantering over which school is better. I'll admit, the wow factor for stanford is huge; there's a general thought amongst most californians that berkeley is the school for stanford rejects. Seriously though, lots of it is because of the US news rankings. I have relatives from all over the place who say berkeley is held at a very high place amongst stanford and the ivies, graduate and undergraduate schools alike. A cousin in med school recently said that "people are still impressed when i tell them i attended berkeley for undergrad". Of course i'm biased, though, because CAL's what i'm applying to, and not stanford lol.</p>
<p>I'd go with Stanford.</p>
<p>"Getting a 91 percent on a Stanford test is considerably harder than getting a 91 on a Berkeley test. You have to understand that everyone at Stanford was at the top of his or her class. The reason that Berkeley profs fail half the class is because there are so many people at Berkeley who are just not smart at all."</p>
<p>No, no, that's not what I mean, to get an absolute number of 91% is more difficult at Berkeley than at Stanford, Mind you that I'm not referring to which one is harder to get A, because then, it may be graded using the bell-curve. But absolute score of 91%? It is a totally different matter. And for example if a professor is harsh enough to say that 90% is the cutoff point for A, then there's a possibility only one or two students at Cal can reach 'A'. Unfortunately, I believe Cal professors sometimes do this to their students.</p>
<p>"there's a general thought amongst most californians that berkeley is the school for stanford rejects". Might be true for some Californians, but not all. I tend to think that there is a faction of hard-core tech-math -science types that would go to Berkeley or Cal Tech , rather than Stanford. At least , I have gotten this impression from some...</p>
<p>The best math/science types go to Stanford, Caltech or MIT. The lower quality ones who have no lives go to Berkeley because they can't get into the said schools.</p>
<p>Ubermensch, you are quite wrong. Cal's math and chemistry departments are generally considered without peer, so they attract the best students. </p>
<p>You also made a comment that Cal, Michigan and the lower Ivies are somehow regional? That is not entirely accurate. Obviously, the "Big 5" have a more widespread reputation, but Cal, Michigan and the Lower Ivies are well known in most professional and academic circles, not just in the US, but around the World. </p>
<p>Take Michigan for instance. Michigan has over 60,000 living alums in the state of NY and over 30,000 living alums in the state of California. Another 30,000 live in Europe and another 30,000 live in Asia. That many alums living in so many major areas pretty much means that Michigan has a reputation in those areas. </p>
<p>I have lived in Germany, France, the UK, the UAE and Lebanon, and in the places I have lived, when they ask me where I studied and I say the University of Michigan, the natives usually say "Ann Arbor?". The same goes for Cal and some of the lower Ivies.</p>
<p>Cal's GRADUATE math and chem departments attract good students, but they are not peerless at all. Stanford, Harvard, and especially Princeton have excellent chem and math programs. Have you forgotten about John Nash and Princeton's peerless math programs?</p>
<p>Nash, the Economist and Mathematician who always said his top two schools were Princeton and Michigan? He is brilliant indeed! hehe</p>
<p>One concept I never understand though is how can a university be excellent in a field at the graduate level but not equally as good in that field at the undergraduate level? I can undestand how a university can have a great undergraduate program in a field but not have a good graduate program because the university simply does not pour its resources into research. But I cannot understand how the other way around can be true. Cal is #1 in Chemistry and #2 in Mathematics according to most rankings...both undergraduate and graduate. In Chemistry, they are without peer. And they are not far behind in Physics and Engineering. Not just at the graduate level, but also at the UNDERGRADUATE level.</p>
<p>At Berkeley the graduate students get all the attention. They get all the research projects while the undergraduates get the short end of the stick. Berkeley has great graduate programs but unfortunately that does not carry over to the undergraduate programs. </p>
<p>A school definitely can have great grad programs but comparatively bad undergraduate programs. This is because Berkeley admits mediocre students for its undergrad classes but only admits good students for its graduate classes. Also, the grad classes are a lot smaller. Therefore, there is such a large disparity between Berkeley's grad programs and its undergraduate programs. </p>
<p>Berkeley is a great graduate school. I'm even considering going for a Phd at Berkeley if I don't get into Harvard or Stanford's chemistry programs. I'd be extremely happy going to Berkeley for graduate school, but I am definitely glad I am not going there for my undergraduate years.</p>
<p>Rooster, Cal is no different from MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Chicago or any other university that focuses on research. I don't know why you single our Cal.</p>