<p>I don't know. But you kinda killed the prediction. =/</p>
<p>5,000 isn't that high. Didn't some poster have over 10,000?</p>
<p>But I digress. How top is tops? Do you really think the Berkeley classics department isn't one of the best in the nation? Same with English? Same with the others I've named?</p>
<p>
[quote]
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ti...tion_Supplement%5B/url%5D%5B/quote%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ti...tion_Supplement
[/quote]
</a></p>
<p>Indeed, the argument may be made that since Berkeley's engineering programs are to God what Harvard's engineering programs are to excrement, and the humanities/social and hard and life sciences of both universities are of relatively equal strenght, Berkeley is, overall, the academically better university (as exemplified by the peer review rankings.)</p>
<p>Uh, ok Berkeley excels in all areas, including those of the social sciences and liberal arts. So whoever said that Berkeley "sucks" so to speak outside the sciences hasn't read the stats.</p>
<p>The only thing that concerns me is its impersonal undergraduate environment and extremely large classes, which may hinder a more "complete" undergraduate experience. And the fact that Berkeley undergrads have to almost try twice as hard, or at least do .2 higher in their GPAs to get into top graduate programs as undergrads from Ivy universities. This is also noting that Berkeley has grade deflation while the Ivies have grade inflation. </p>
<p>Regarding the respects elaborated on in my latter paragraph, rejecting HPS for Berkeley's undergraduate program is concerning. However, Berkeley does excel in all areas, not just the sciences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And the fact that Berkeley undergrads have to almost try twice as hard, or at least do .2 higher in their GPAs to get into top graduate programs as undergrads from Ivy universities. This is also noting that Berkeley has grade deflation while the Ivies have grade inflation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NeedAdvice, like so many belittling comments on this forum about Berkeley's "impersonal environment," your contribution fails to account for the diversity of student opinion. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The only thing that concerns me is its impersonal undergraduate environment and extremely large classes,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>CERTAIN aspects of the Berkeley UG experience are impersonal. Many others are hugely personal. Ever taken a seminar in the humanities? I'll be stereotypical and assume that you have not since countless posters on this forum seem to believe that Berkeley only offers science courses. Well let me tell you that those classes are NOT impersonal. And neither are many upper-div humanities classes which feature, among other great things, professor-led discussions. Not all classes are large. In fact, there are departments whose every class is limited to 20 UG students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
which may hinder a more "complete" undergraduate experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Survery have repeatedly shown the he majority of Berkeley undergraduates feel that they are getting a "complete" undergraduate experience. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And the fact that Berkeley undergrads have to almost try twice as hard, or at least do .2 higher in their GPAs to get into top graduate programs as undergrads from Ivy universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really depends on who you talk to. I can guarantee you that you don't have to "try twice as hard" in say, psychology to make it into a top graduate program in psychology.</p>
<p>I don't know about the humanities, but as far as engineering or hard science are concerned. Berkeley is arguably has the 3rd hardest programs in the US. After MIT & CIT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, but my opinion is still my opinion. And it's true that many classes at Berkeley are 200+, even upper divs, and that you rarely get the chance to know your professors because they could care less about the students. Well many non-liberal arts professors could care less anyway. They focus on research</p>
<p>
CERTAIN aspects of the Berkeley UG experience are impersonal. Many others are hugely personal. Ever taken a seminar in the humanities? I'll be stereotypical and assume that you have not since countless posters on this forum seem to believe that Berkeley only offers science courses. Well let me tell you that those classes are NOT impersonal. And neither are many upper-div humanities classes which feature, among other great things, professor-led discussions. Not all classes are large. In fact, there are departments whose every class is limited to 20 UG students.
</p>
<p>Actually I have never taken a seminar, because I have to cram double major requirements into my schedule, however I can say that the departments whose classes are limited to 20 students probably include drama, or Scandinavian studies, which basically has 3 students majoring in it anyway.</p>
<p>
<p>Let's be honest. I'm a Cal student, but the undergraduate program at Stanford is probably better than the one here, and probably more 'complete.' You also get smaller classes and it's easier to get into graduate school for Physics, I reckon, from Stanford than it is from Berkeley. (I don't think Harvard or Princeton has a really good physics program though, so i won't compare them.) </p>
<p> [quote=greatestyen] Really depends on who you talk to. I can guarantee you that you don't have to "try twice as hard" in say, psychology to make it into a top graduate program in psychology.
</p>
<p>It's not really who you talk to; it depends on the major. For law school the career center posted some very useful stats showing just how much harder Berkeley students have to try to get into top graduate programs, and yes for some of the top ones, by as much as .2 in the GPA.</p>
<p>when i talked to a law school counselor at Berkeley (just the other day) they told me that those stats should not be taken seriously as many students do not inform the career center about their decisions. I love Berkeley and clearly I don't think you have taken full advantage of its resources because you sound unhappy with your experience.</p>
<p>Lo1603...Well I'm already 2 years into it-going into my junior year, and I can say that I am apathetic. Not really unhappy, just indifferent. Just because I'm not utterly passionate about everything at Cal doesn't mean I am unhappy.</p>
<p>Patriotism does not equal reality. I am just being honest about the undergraduate experience, in my view. I realize it has top notch programs in all departments, but many of the non-liberal arts professors could care less about teaching, and the class sizes are ridiculous.</p>
<p>fair enough im two years into it too... i guess people just have different experiences and i respect your opinion.</p>
<p>Are you a Physics major?</p>
<p>Kudos on that, if you are. It's the hardest major at Berkeley.</p>
<p>What a nice ending. :)</p>
<p>was physics then changed to MCB</p>
<p>Ah, pre-med?</p>
<p>I just read the other thread on adderall. And since you are pre-med, would you say it's okay to take it during midterms and finals? (Slightly off-topic, but still...)</p>
<p>
[quote]
many non-liberal arts professors could care less anyway. They focus on research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a legitimate complain. The vast majority of Berkeley professors in the non-social sciences do not appear to care very much about teaching undergraduates. However, it must also be stressed the situation is not Berkeley-specific. Rather, the vast majority of non-social science professors at other major research universities (Ivys, Stanford, MIT, and CalTech) do not care about teaching undergradutes, either. If you want all your classes to be taught by professors who "care," you should go to a LAC. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's be honest. I'm a Cal student, but the undergraduate program at Stanford is probably better than the one here, and probably more 'complete.'
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, that is your opinion and you are entitled to you opinion. But, in reality, your opinion is very far from the view of the majority and I think the view of the majority should be expressed above all else. The truth is that more than half of Berkeley undergrads are enrolled in "cream-puff" majors which feature VERY "complete" undergraduate experiences. These are:: all the "studies" majors, all the language majors, history, philosophy, english, and others. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You also get smaller classes and it's easier to get into graduate school for Physics, I reckon, from Stanford than it is from Berkeley. (I don't think Harvard or Princeton has a really good physics program though, so i won't compare them.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let me share a Berkeley physics story with you. I have a friend who was a Berkeley freshman last year. He went to Berkeley with the intention of studying physics because he knew that was his passion. When he got there, he found that what you are saying is true-large lecture sizes limit professor-student interation. Being an ambitious student, he decided to go to the office hours of his physics professor at least once a week. As he tells it, nobody else showed up. He got help and advice on grad school from that professor. After that class was over, he took other physics classes and visited those professors in office hours. They were friendly and helpful both with coursework and career advice. Since he has basically now talked to every single physics professor at Berkeley and come back to me with a pretty positive review on the vast majority of them, I am inclined to think that if a physics major complains about the lack of personal attention, the fault lies more with the student's relative failure to seek out attention than with the professor. Sure, Stanford, a private school, gives its physics undergrads this personal attention by default. If Berkeley were a private school, that would probably also be the case. But the reality is much different and you've got to learn to work with what you've got.</p>
<p>
[quote]
*im_blue *
Senior Member</p>
<p>I completely agree. How can you claim to choose Berkeley over Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford on the basis of prestige and quality? All 4 have top notch graduate physics programs, but Berkeley's undergrad quality and overall prestige are below the other 3.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, I posted this question in this (Berkeley) forum because I was expecting comments from Berkeley students and alumni. Had I wanted an opinion from Stanford students/alumni, or from YOU, I would have posted my question in the Stanford Forum. So, please do not argue with me if I do not see things exactly the way you do. </p>
<p>Second of all, I do not easily get persuaded by ranking games. US News may say Stanford is ranked higher than Berkeley BUT, do you necessarily have to believe that??? Come on, US News' criteria are not exactly applicable to ALL peoples needs/wants/perception that is why they warned their readers to take the ranking results more carefully. There were years when CalTech did rank number 1 in the USA. Did you really believe that??? Then in their latest ranking, a number of virtually unknown universities in Asia/Europe have ranked higher than Berkeley. Another thing, Emory, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Rice, Washington, Dartmouth, Georgetown and Brown are ranked higher than Berkeley??????? Come on. Do you honestly believe that??? Or youre just saying yes because US News says so. Man, if youll go to Japan, China, France, UK, Philippines, Singapore or Australia, people there would think youre crazy. </p>
<p>US News is not a well circulated material in Asia/Europe. So this probably explain why I am not an avid supporter of that magazine. The Times of London did publish a ranking of the best universities in the World. On their first publication, Harvard did come out number one -- as expected -- and Berkeley did come next -- again, as we have expected HERE IN ASIA. </p>
<p>Third of all, do not tell me I'm a joke just because I did not conform to your personal perception or to that of US News' results because, really, I did also find you as much a big JOKE when you said those words to me. I am for real and I do not have to prove that just because you're insecure and jealous that I can afford to turn down your beloved school for what I believe is a more prestigious and famous than your beloved school. Leave this thread if you're annoyed because as so far as your posts done -- you're just bigotry here. Good bye.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Flippy
Member</p>
<p>Not only was the OP rejected from Cambride, but other UK universities.</p>
<p>"I did also consider going to UK unis like Cambridge but I was rejected."</p>
<p>He said "unis like Cambridge", meaning he got rejected at other UK universities. Rejected at both Cambridge and Oxford but accepted to HPS?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was rejected at Cambridge and for some weird reason at Edinburgh too. I did NOT apply to Oxford. I did however made it to Imperial College, Manchester, Warwick, Nottingham and Bristol. </p>
<p>If there's anything wrong with that outcome, I do not know why. It's up to you to analyze if you want to bother doing that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
*Mr Payne *</p>
<p>As far as the "asian cultural bias" towards Berkeley over other schools - I've definitely witnessed it. However, accompanying Berkeley is usually Stanford & MIT. The triumvirate of American Engineering/Technical power.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps this is another observation, so I wouldn't say it's wrong. But in engineering -- it's MIT and Berkeley. Stanford does come into play if it's MBA. Other than that, Berkeley is still a much preferred choice. Again, this is my orientation. Thank you for your post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
**
ttgiang15 **
Member</p>
<p>The Original Poster doesn't give a damn about formal college rankings that are supposed to be measures (some here would argue the definition) of prestige or quality. There is not a hierarchy of which schools are "1, 2, 3," because that is all dependent on where you are coming from and what you are intending to make of your degree. Like the OP said, he is considering moving back to Japan, or somewhere else in East Asia, it seems. He has strictly used the language of comparison with regards to his personal experiences. In doing so, he is able to effectively gauge the ethos of that situation which is most pertinent to his understanding of what he wants out of his degree. His conclusions, based on where he's from, is irrefutable, unless any one of you have empirical evidence that suggests other schools would be more beneficial for him to pursue given his circumstances. Are you simply doing a public service by irrelevantly pointing out to him silly college rankings and coming up with summations like "And Berkeley is not more prestigious. Look up the rankings. Ask the Berkeley professors. Ask the Berkeley students. Ask anyone living in the Bay Area which one is more prestigious"? That's not going to get any argument far. The OP mentioned several reasons on how he came to the conclusion that Berkeley was right for him; prestige was but only a factor. Stambliark41 unfairly labels the OP as shallow, saying "I find it hard to believe that anyone would be shallow enough to base their decision entirely on prestige and then be ignorant enough to choose the least prestigious school among the ones they were considering." If this were not a joke thread, would you, perhaps, reconsider the word "entirely" (unfounded and damaging)? It seems as though whenever someone merely suggests that Berkeley is actually better than another school, someone from the hallowed halls of Private University swarms this thread and considers it a slight against their school. This is invariably followed by a high school student lapping closely at the former's tails, a wanna-be Stanfurd apprentice, who regurgitates the same rankings over and over while looking sharp (so his mother tells him) in his Lacoste shirt with popped collar and "dashing" trims. Come on. Is it even allowable to suggest that Berkeley is a good school? Worse yet, is it utterly wrong to even suggest that Berkeley's undergraduate program is excellent? I'm sure someone's going to come along and say "prove it," expecting me to fire back with more rankings on top of rankings. Well, baby, that ain't happening, because I know what I know, and from where I'm standing, Berkeley is looking mighty fine.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for explaining the point. </p>
<p>It's just appalling that you get a reply from an outsider telling you -- you're a joke because I do not conform to his ranking and/or his personal perception. He even said, "Ask the Berkeley Profs..." duh! I did check out a site which I cannot trace it anymore but I did see it that Berkeley has more famous scientists than Stanford, only Harvard has more BUT only by a few numbers. And, several text books which we used here in school are authored by Berkeley people. So all these things -- when you add them altogether -- you can't really avoid but not to think Berkeley as a god in sciences and technology. </p>
<p>But anyhow, I already made my decision and that's final. I don't want all of us to be arguing here -- this is far from what my intention for creating this thread. My decision is final. But I did wonder at the back of my mind what other strong factors would support what I did, so I opened this thread. </p>
<p>Again, thank you to those level minded posters who have nothing but sensible contributions here. To those whiners and teasers good luck to your Stanford degree! Let's see how far your Stanford degree will open doors for you when you're pit against the mightier Berkeley alums especially if the playing field is in Europe/Asia. You might be eating your words.</p>