<p>
[quote]
but UC system emphasizes on scores and such so it's more achievable/realistic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it doesn't. The UCs, more so the top ones, emphasize GPA, rigor of course load, and essays the most; they're listed as "very important" in the CDS, and scores are listed as just "important." In contrast, Stanford, Yale, etc. list scores as "very important."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Too bad they are so lenient towards California residents....talk about geographic-racism
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What? With over ~40,000 in-state applicants, and 8,000-9,000 getting in, Berkeley is hardly "lenient" with in-state residents. Now, I think it could be argued that they're more lenient with URMs and students who've overcome much adversity -- but then again, so are top privates (at least in the case of URMs).</p>
<p>
[quote]
the knowledge of undergrad professors at Berkeley and UCLA is about equal to that of top Ivys
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course they do. It's not as though Ivy professors will somehow know more about the subject -- after all, they do all have PhDs in their respective areas (for the most part).</p>
<p>
[quote]
but you lack the great instruction since classes are humongous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How does the size of a class affect the instruction itself? I've never heard this argued before; the usual argument is that the instruction is fine, but access to professors isn't. And the classes at Berkeley aren't even "humongous." Compare Berkeley's class sizes with Stanford's:</p>
<p>Berkeley:
2-9 - 34%
10-19 - 27%
20-29 - 15%
30-39 - 6%
40-49 - 4%
50-99 - 8%
100+ - 6%</p>
<p>Stanford:
2-9 - 38%
10-19 - 35%
20-29 - 8%
30-39 - 5%
40-49 - 4%
50-99 - 6%
100+ - 4%</p>
<p>Not very different. In fact, the student:faculty ratio for Berkeley is 16.7:1 based on numbers from the new CDS (33,933 students:2,028 faculty), and Stanford's student:faculty ratio is 17:1 based on numbers from the new CDS (17,747 students:1,041 faculty). Stanford and comparable institutions often twist their numbers (saying they have 1,800 faculty when that includes more than just instructional faculty, to claiming a 6.3:1 ratio when that's undergrad students to total faculty, etc.), so comparison with schools like Berkeley can be difficult. That's why you use the CDS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One reason is that Berkeley is bigger--- hence its selectivity is lower de facto.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I agree that Berkeley undergrad isn't as difficult to get into as the top privates (assuming we're talking about in-state admission), I don't think bigger = less selective de facto. Harvard is considerably larger than Princeton, though I wouldn't say it's less selective.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a result of a larger class, the individual attention and resources per student (whatever this really means--- it's more of a quantitative discrimination rather than one that's observable) also tends to go down.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. At a larger school, you'll have more students, but you'll also have more faculty, more resources, etc. See above on class sizes. (I'd also argue that at some larger schools, resources can sometimes be better -- more facilities, more extracurricular activities, etc.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, simply because the Ivies are smaller and thereby more selective, they are able to attract students that have amazing Extracurriculars as well (whereas Berkeley is extremely numbers oriented).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As I said, simply because Berkeley is a public school doesn't necessarily mean that it's "extremely numbers oriented." I would argue that it's considerably less numbers oriented than most publics (if not all), and the only 'numbers' part that's extremely important is GPA; essays are as important. While I agree that many of the Ivies have students with amazing accomplishments, I would argue that so does Berkeley -- it just has many more students who don't have those accomplishments than the Ivies. Think of it this way: Berkeley (usually) admits the really amazing students, the great students, and a few of the not-as-great students. In the case of Ivies and co, the really amazing students are (usually) admitted, and then some of the great students, rarely some of the not-as-great students. Berkeley manages to attract many amazing students, too -- the Ivies don't have a monopoly on that one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hope I don't get flamed for this, but Berkeley seems like a place students with Ivy-League stats but lacking in EC's would go.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not flaming you, but that's blatantly not true. I've seen plenty of people with Ivy-League stats and lacking in ECs get rejected from Berkeley. Just for perspective:</p>
<p>-more than 50% of students with a 4.0 or higher were rejected
-more than 50% of students with an ACT score of 31-36 were rejected
-more than 50% of students with over a 700 on the SAT critical reading were rejected
-about 60% of students with over a 700 on the SAT math were rejected
-more than 50% of students with over a 700 on the SAT writing were rejected</p>
<p>So obviously, there's much more than numbers going on; ECs, honors/awards, and essays are apparently playing a big role.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but at least in the Northeast, the midtier + upper (Dart, Columbia, Penn, Brown + HYP) Ivies are seen as more prestigious than Berkeley (since the OP was asking about prestige).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, yes, regionally, that's how it'll work. There are many places where the Ivies are more prestigious -- in fact, the name "Ivy League" is automatic prestige in the US. But there are also many places where Berkeley (and often UCLA) is more prestigious, e.g. internationally.</p>
<p>To the OP: as you can see, these are many assumptions that people on these boards often make about UCs and top privates.</p>