HELP! Cal or Stanford?

College Search & Selection
61

<p>Because the undergraduate attention and research opportunities are consierably better at Stanford, Harvard, and MIT than at Berkeley. For instance, after winter break I have an appointment with the Nobel-prize-winning Osheroff to just chat about the fractional quantum Hall effect. I was curious as to how it's possible that when an electron is added to a type of quantum liquid, it creates a lot of fractionally charged quasi-particles. I'm just a freshman who is thinking about majoring in physics so I don't know as much as I should, but I'm grateful that I have a chance to learn more. I highly doubt you'd get the same opportunities as a freshman at Berkeley where they just herd you into a class with 500 other physics students. Cal is a great research university for grad students, but it is as strong for undergraduate students as Stanford or Harvard? If every student at Berkeley wanted to talk with a Nobel-prize professer, they wouldn't be able to find a professor with nearly enough free time to accomodate them all. The opposite is true of places like Stanford where the supply meets the demand perfectly. </p>

<p>Perhaps I am being too harsh on you guys, and it's probably mean of me to flaunt the overwhelming opportunities I am fortunate enough to enjoy. But that's only because you keep on insisting that Berkeley is the top university that beats out Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Caltech, etc. I just needed to show some concrete proof why that is not so. I'm sure that the best of the best of the best Berkeley undergraduate students can have the same, if not better, access that I can get at Stanford. But most of us aren't the best of the best of the best, and the "sink or swim cause you're on your own" attitude at Berkeley doesn't sit too well for me.</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
Because the undergraduate attention and research opportunities are consierably better at Stanford, Harvard, and MIT than at Berkeley. For instance, after winter break I have an appointment with the Nobel-prize-winning Osheroff to just chat about the fractional quantum Hall effect. I was curious as to how it's possible that when an electron is added to a type of quantum liquid, it creates a lot of fractionally charged quasi-particles. I'm just a freshman who is thinking about majoring in physics so I don't know as much as I should, but I'm grateful that I have a chance to learn more. I highly doubt you'd get the same opportunities as a freshman at Berkeley where they just herd you into a class with 500 other physics students. Cal is a great research university for grad students, but it is as strong for undergraduate students as Stanford or Harvard? If every student at Berkeley wanted to talk with a Nobel-prize professer, they wouldn't be able to find a professor with nearly enough free time to accomodate them all. The opposite is true of places like Stanford where the supply meets the demand perfectly. </p>

<p>Perhaps I am being too harsh on you guys, and it's probably mean of me to flaunt the overwhelming opportunities I am fortunate enough to enjoy. But that's only because you keep on insisting that Berkeley is the top university that beats out Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Caltech, etc. I just needed to show some concrete proof why that is not so. I'm sure that the best of the best of the best Berkeley undergraduate students can have the same, if not better, access that I can get at Stanford. But most of us aren't the best of the best of the best, and the "sink or swim cause you're on your own" attitude at Berkeley doesn't sit too well for me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Berkeley is for people who want to change the world. The alumni I talk to today, are very passionate about poverty, black/minority rights, civil rights, etc...</p>

<p>Its amazing how passionate they are about things that people at Stanfurd will never think about. I rather have the opportunity and the environment to change this world we live in for the better. TA's make up a lot of the attention that Professors can't give you. And frankly the TA's at Berkeley are PhD students at the best PhD programs in the world. So you can go to the professor, and if he's busy, you can meet with the TA for attention as well. TA's are a tremendous help to Berkeley student's and public schools in general. </p>

<p>But the opportunities you get at Berkeley to change the world for the better are unmatched. At Berkeley, you question everything. Speaking with other people from other undergraduates about matters such as analyzing social policy, welfare economics, etc... sometimes I just want to yell at them at how stupid they sound. Yea, its arrogant to say that... so I never SAY THAT SAY THAT, ya know?</p>

63

<p>First of all Rooster, nobody here said that Cal beats out Stanford, Harvard or MIT. In fact, most of us, myself included, clearly pointed out that Stanford has a slight edge. We were merely saying that if the OP has many friends at Cal and prefers Cal's environment, that there isn't that much of a quality difference between the two to pick Stanford over Cal simply for that reason.</p>

<p>Secondly, many of my friends went to Stanford, and none of them worked with Nobel Prize winners. You may have been lucky, but it is not the norm. Let us face it, no university has more than 15 or 20 Nobel Laureates, and most of those do not teach or even entertain undergrads. </p>

<p>Research opportunities do not signifiy great undergraduate education. It is important, but it is not telling. For example, I am not familiar with Cal's research opportunities, but I am with Michigan's. Michigan has more research opportunities for undergrads than MIT, Stanford and Harvard put together. I did not make that up. Statistically speaking, there are more research oppprtunities per undergraduate student at Michigan than at any university in the nation. At any point in time, Michigan has 10,000 undergraduate students working closely with full-time faculty on over 2,000 research projects.</p>

<p>In terms of focus on undergraduate education, again, I am not familiar with Cal, but I compared notes with friends who went to Stanford and their classes were neither smaller, nor was their access to faculty better than mine at Michigan.</p>

64

<p>Well alright if you are content with talking to TA's more power to ya. But, to me, sharing ideas with a Nobel Laureate is a much more valuable experience. It also builds my own confidence in science because when I talk and joke around with a Nobel-prize winner I realize that these people are regular people just like the rest of us. They just happen to be very bright people who made science their life's passion. </p>

<p>I think it's great that Berkeley people are concerned about poverty, civil rights, and all that. In fact, I respect Berkeley's liberalism and I admire Berkeley's protests against the genocidal Vietnam War during the 60s. But I don't think Berkeley has as much fire and radicalism as it once had. It's still a great place for activism though.</p>

<p>Anyway, I care more about physics and chemistry than any of that other stuff so I don't keep track of Stanford's political scene. But I did get a chance to meet Howard Dean when he visited the campus and talked to him very briefly about how Bush is a right-wing nutty turning America into a police state. The talk was only for like 45 seconds though so I won't claim to have be a full-blown political activist. </p>

<p>I won't say that the opportunities at Stanford are better than anywhere else. There are probably tons of other places that offer just as many opportunities. But I will say that the opportunities here are far more accessible to everyone. I consider myself to be an average Stanford student, and just the fact that I have the opportunities to talk to Nobel prize winners and highly regarded political figures as a freshman is a testament to Stanford's unique ability to nuture and satisfy EVERYONE. You don't have to be a top student here to grab the best opportunities. Anyone can have them. Instead of settling for a TA, we can settle for a Nobel Laureate. Instead of talking with a poli-sci grad student, we can talk to Howard Dean. And to me, that makes all the difference.</p>

65

<p>Cool. Well, the other day, I was speaking with the director of the European Studies department (ranked number one) about reunification in Germany and how that model would apply to Korea. Then I spoke with a Economics professor who is head of the economics research on the internet (worked in the White House advising Clinton) about my paper on internet economics. And this was as an alumni 4 years after I graduated. </p>

<p>To me, the fact that I can talk about cutting edge topics, that are affecting the world TODAY, in political, economic, international relations, technology, all these different areas, is what makes me happy. The interdisciplinary strength of Berkeley really helped shape my mind and interests. And the liberal environment helped me think in ways out of the box that I could not have done anywhere else. </p>

<p>To me, that makes all the difference.</p>

66

<p>Alexandre:</p>

<p>Every student here has a chance to talk to Nobel Laureates. They hold office hours that all students can take advantage of, and whenever you go in just to speak to them they are generally happy to see you. They especially like to talk to newbie freshmen like me who are passionate about science.</p>

67

<p>Damn Rooser you are making me jealous. I wish I went to Stanford.</p>

68

<p>Tsk tsk ... ubermensch, no need to be jealous, Osherhoff is one d**n arrogant guy, he LIKES being adored as a Noble laureate, also did he tell you too, rooster, that he was supposed to get all the prize instead of sharing it with other two guys? bah!!</p>

69

<p>You just wish you could had access to Nobel Laureates rtkysg.</p>

70

<p>Rooster, don’t you think you are letting the Stanford and Cal rivalry get in the way of looking at things objectively? You mention Nobel Prize winners as if they are exclusive to Stanford. Last time I checked, Berkeley had more Nobel Prize winners than Stanford. What makes you think Berkeley students don’t have access to them as well? Am I dissing Stanford? No way! I always only speak good things of Stanford. In fact, my favorite Nobel Laureate is a UCLA alum who invented the CAPM (and some of its subsequent improvements) at UCLA. Well, he is a professor at Stanford. </p>

<p>Regarding TA’s, these people are some of the most brilliant young minds in their fields. They are more than intelligent enough to help undergrads with their elementary material. TA’s are a good thing and not bad. Students have access to their professors but they also have access to TA’s. Professors have office hours and so do TA’s. TA’s must also get good marks on their teaching evaluations or else they lose their jobs. </p>

<p>Seriously, Stanford is an excellent school but so is Berkeley. I find it hard to believe that you cant see that.</p>

71

<p>ubermenesch, rtkysq went to Caltech for undergrad and MIT for grad school. He has had more access to Nobel Prize winners than most people can dream of.</p>

72

<p>I think rooster already adressed your argument:</p>

<p>"I won't say that the opportunities at Stanford are better than anywhere else. There are probably tons of other places that offer just as many opportunities. But I will say that the opportunities here are far more accessible to everyone. I consider myself to be an average Stanford student, and just the fact that I have the opportunities to talk to Nobel prize winners and highly regarded political figures as a freshman is a testament to Stanford's unique ability to nuture and satisfy EVERYONE."</p>

<p>Berkeley might have Nobel Laureates but then again school also has 30,000 undergraduates not to mention graduate students. Stanford has like 6000 undergrads. The opportunities for a Stanford student is far greater than the opportunities for a Berkeley student......just by the sheer number of people at Berkeley who must compete for those scare opportunities.</p>

73

<p>"You just wish you could had access to Nobel Laureates rtkysg"</p>

<p>Thx for your compliment Shyboy, Osherhoff (a Caltech alum), as I said Ubermencsh, is an arrogant one (at least much more arrogant than the other 4 Nobel laureates that I've ever met and talk to so far), rooster can verify this if he talked to him long enough :)</p>

<p>Shyboy, I also admire the founder of CAPM (just took a business class :)), he was so cool!!!</p>

74

<p>Osheroff is not an arrogant person. He's mad cool!</p>

75

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley might have Nobel Laureates but then again school also has 30,000 undergraduates not to mention graduate students. Stanford has like 6000 undergrads. The opportunities for a Stanford student is far greater than the opportunities for a Berkeley student......just by the sheer number of people at Berkeley who must compete for those scare opportunities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Berkeley has 18,000 undergrads. Student faculty ratio was calculated as part of most rankings, including the US News, and the THES rankings. </p>

<p>Yeah, seriously though. Los Angeles County is the most populated county in the United States. 11 million people. If a county with 11 million people can't have a school that is respectable, then seriously, LA is in some ****in trouble.</p>

76

<p>You're both wrong. Berkeley has 22,880 undergrads. Source is directly from Berkeley's own website: <a href="http://osr4.berkeley.edu/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://osr4.berkeley.edu/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>You know what I think? Both US News rankings and THES are full of crap. They aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Berkeley students of all people should be against any ranking of colleges. Just look at US News. </p>

<p>You can't pick and choose which rankings to like. When US News shows that Berkeley is second tier, you guys are all up in arms about how college rankings are biased and stupid. Then when some Bristish tabloid says Berkeley is number 2, you guys are like "Praise the lord! This is the college rakings BIBLE! Almighty Jesus!" Stick with one position people. Either hate all rankings or love them all. In the end, every ranking of colleges is a subjective piece of garbage.</p>

77

<p>er, what do you all mean by Cal? CalTech?</p>

78

<p>Instead of hating/loving specific rankings, I think one should look at all rankings and see a range in which schools tend to fall. That is the way to really get a feel of a schools relative standing among various institutions. Also, different rankings say different things. Look at the criteria of each ranking instead of getting mad at the ranking for your school not getting ranked as high as you want it to. Rankings that should carry little if any weight are those that have no basis for their order.</p>

79

<p>I taught ar both schools years ago. Each has distinguished faculty and excellent resources. However, there is no doubt that Stanford, being private and much richer, is able to translate this into much more tangible benefits for students on all levels. I have a child at a UC and one soon to start at an ivy. My ivy daughter will have many fewer hurdles. Both kids will get an excellent education. Shyboy, what have you done with the UC education you obviously treasure?</p>

80

<p>This is not about me but well written.</p>

<p>Excerpt</p>

<p>I went to Stanford as an Undergraduate majoring in one of the engineering departments... </p>

<p>And it wasn't worth it. I view my diploma as a receipt, but nothing more. It's not as marketable as some propagandists would like you to believe. In fact, during this past summer's graduation ceremony, a number of students actually spelled out the word "Unemployed!" with pillows laid down on the football field, visible for all to see. </p>

<p>Let me give you another example. For those of you who don't know, Donald Knuth is known in the academic community as the "Father of Computer Science," and has been at Stanford since the late 1960's. He's well known for writing the "Bible" of computer science, "The Art of Computer Programming". </p>

<p>Yet even though I took over half-a-dozen core courses in Computer Science at Stanford, I never ONCE heard the name Donald Knuth, I never SAW the guy in person (or even in a photograph until I looked on his website many years after I graduated), and I have never read his books. "The Art of Computer Programming" books were never part of the curriculum. </p>

<p>But that's typical of Stanford: Pay a bunch of professors a lot of money to do very little teaching. In fact, professors generally have to teach only one-quarter (10 weeks total) of classes a year, and that's not even a full ten week period, because the lectures last all of 3 hours TOTAL in the week, and usually a couple of office hours placed at the most inconvenient times. This means that students are paying professors to devote 20% of a typical 40-hour work week to undergraduate matters, with the remaining 80% left to their own discretion. And for many professors, this schedule is in effect for only about 20% of the year (10 weeks out of 52 weeks in a year); the remaining 80% of the year is left to their discretion, such as doing research, consulting to other companies, doing lectures at other campuses, or running their own companies. (A rare handful of professors do teach for two quarters.) To add insult to injury, I had professors who skipped out on their office hours. </p>

<p>A Stanford professor named Tom Campbell (Bachelors, Masters, and PhD degrees from the University of Chicago, PhD Harvard) actually served for five full terms in the House of Representatives of the United States Congress while simultaneously receiving his salary from Stanford. He spent so little time on the Stanford campus that some people started to get seriously upset. Critics charged that he was exploiting Stanford's flexibility, while advocates argued that he was increasing the visibility of Stanford and thus enhancing its reputation. After twenty years at Stanford, Campbell recently became the Dean of the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley! Thanks Tom! </p>

<p>Most professors don't grade papers, and leave it to the Teaching Assistants. This is like writing code without a computer in front of you, and never bothering to run the program on ANY computer. How do you know if your program works? How do the professors know if their teaching is any good? How many of Stanford's Nobel Prize winning faculty attended Stanford as an undergraduate? I don't think a single one. </p>

<p>Most of the techie-Teaching Assistants didn't go to Stanford either. I had guys from Purdue, UCLA, Dartmouth, Amherst, U. of Maryland, U. of Texas, and of course, the ubiquitous University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley). Several profs got their undergrad degrees from Berkeley.</p>