<p>Put it this way.</p>
<p>Medicine: H, JHU
Law : Y H S
Business: Wharton-H-S-Sloan-Kellogg-Chicago-Columbia-
-Hass
Engineering: MIT/Berkeley-Stanford</p>
<p>You see this? It is engineering that gives Berkeley so much fame and recognition !!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, if you are going to invoke THES, then the least you can do is use the most recent one. Otherwise, I should be allowed to use the USNews ranking of 1996, when Berkeley had dropped out of the top 25 completely. After all, what's fair is fair. If you are allowed to invoke old rankings, then so can anybody else.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, in that list of disciplines I posted, I did not include the THES. I only included NRC and USNews 2007. So, those rankings are current. Second, we're talking about grad rankings here---so don't invoke 1996 COLLEGE rankings. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And by the same token, you missed every single medical subcategory, which obviously Harvard beats Berkeley on for the simple fact that Berkeley doesn't even have a medical school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think this is a legitimate claim since medical subcategories are just that-subcategories. Many of the items I listed::</p>
<p>
[quote]
South East Asia Studies, East Asian Studies, African-American Studies, Chicano Studies, Native American Studies, European Studies, Latin American Studies, Queer Studies, and Women's Studies, and Folklore.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>have become fields of their own. Most notably....East Asian, African-American, Chicano, Native, Queer, and Women's Studies. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I would like to see the evidence that demonstrates that Harvard loses to Berkeley in grad cross-admit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have no "evidence" other than that that is what Harvard College grad students at Berkeley have told me. (I already said this.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can tell you right now that Harvard clearly wins in 2 categories - business and law. Cross-admits clearly prefer Harvard Business School to Haas, and clearly prefer HLS to Boalt. I strongly suspect they also prefer the Harvard Graduate School of Education to the Berkeley GSE and the Kennedy School of Government to the Goldman School of Public Policy
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've already explained this but I guess you want to me repeat what I said. When I speak of Berkeley winning grad cross-admits, I mean winning as far as PhD education is concerned. The simple breakdown is::</p>
<p>Graduate school = you go there to get a Ph.D</p>
<p>Professional schools:
Law school = you go to there to get a JD
Medical school = you go to there to get an MD
Business school = you go there to get an MBA</p>
<p>Now, you can get other degrees other than the ones listed from professional schools, but most people go there for the degrees I have listed. And that includes Harvard undergrads. And I do admit, Harvard undergrads disproportionally choose Harvard professional schools over Berkeley professional schools. But one again, professional school is not the same thing as graduate school. </p>
<p>As far as Education and Public Policy are concerned, I never said Berkeley was better or that it won in the cross-admit battle. Indeed, I listed Harvard's Education School as "Harvard>Berkeley" and I did not argue the fact that Harvard's Public Policy School is better than Berkeley's. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But that's all neither here nor there. I thought that we were talking about undergrad here. After all, the OP was talking about UNDERgrad, not grad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While the thread originally started as a discussion on the relative merits of Berkeley undergrad, it has now turned into a discussion on Berkeley in general. "Berkeley in general" includes grad programs. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why don't you tell me why Harvard clearly routs Berkeley (and everybody else) in undergrad cross-admit? Are all these new undergrads being stupid?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've spent the few months I've been a member of CC explaining that. I'm surprised you haven't read my previous answers which are all the same. </p>
<p>I believe it is because Harvard has a privileged position in American cultural tradition. And if there's anything that's difficult to change, its tradition. Of course, there isn't anything inherently wrong with this, but it is pretty irrational desire. I know plenty of bright high school students whose lives have fallen apart after not getting into Harvard. Literally, they have killed themselves. For them to feel so strongly about it, you'd figure there would be good reasons. But when I think about it, most of the reasons Harvard applicants whom I've known give these kinds of reasons for wanting to get into Harvard::</p>
<p>"Because it's produced a lot of presidents."
"Because it has the most money."
"Because if you don't go there it means you're not the best."</p>
<p>So, it seems to me as if the kids who want to get into Harvard want to do it because they blindly trust in its power to make them successful. Now, there is nothing very wrong about that assumption. It's quite true, after all. The Harvard name can make or break resumes. But that is mainly because people who are in positions of power (and probably went to Harvard) believe that Harvard is the best no matter what. When you think about it, an analogy could be made between getting into Harvard as a high schooler and getting into Hogwarts as a Muggle. You don't really know much about the place other than that it's famous and cool. So why not just "GO!" </p>
<p>I am of the opinion that when Harvard undergraduates get to their senior year, they have shrugged off such childish assumptions and embrace a poorer, considerably younger, and better university as the perfect place to get their Ph.D: Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They well maybe so. But others might think otherwise and say Harvards Yales Princetons Stanfords Columbias {insert anyold school name} are superior to Berkeleys. Look, my point is that as far as liberal art/Hum is concerned; there are so many other good liberal arts/social science schools out there that may well be claimed as world-class status. So Berkeley is just one out of many great LA/hum/SS programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Rabban, I can't quite find of an inoffensive word to descrive what you are saying. </p>
<p>Trust sakky and I, Berkeley's humanities and social science programs are known throughout for the globe for their OTHERWORDLY faculty and research. Go to Columbia, I doubt very many of their professors would argue that Columbia's research in these fields is better than Berkeley's. Certain departments at Yale/Princeton/Stanford might complain about Berkeley's position, but I can guarantee you that most would admit to the superiority of Berkeley's humanities and social science faculty. The only school that can compete is Harvard.</p>
<p>Berkeley's graduate school = pownage. Gives Harvard a good run for it's money.</p>
<p>Berkeley's undergrad = "ehhh" Definately not bad (I'll place it somewhere in the top 10 nation-wide, perhaps maybe even top 5). You don't lose face for saying "hey, I'm going to Berkeley," but you also don't get the rediculous bragging rights of saying "Hey, I'm going to the college where Seth MacFarlane spoke to the graduating class of '06 (Harvard, for those who have no idea what I'm talking about).</p>
<p>Berkeley is still seen as a very difficult school to get admitted in the eyes of many Californians at the undergrad level; it just so happens that at CC we are done a lot of analysis and comparisons among universities that it appears Berkeley is a terrible university for undergrad, when we can all agree it's still one of the best (top) public universities in the world. but i do agree UCB can do so much more to make the undergrad experience more personal rather than the sink or float experience</p>
<p>What do you even mean when you say "world-class?"</p>
<p>Is it a well known fact that only a handful (ie three you've mentioned) are the best in engineering? And by that do you mean every subfield and category? Harvard's engineering department is by no means a big joke for a few reasons, although I've heard anyone consider in the top 10, even the the top 20 engineering schools. But it's right behind that, so in a world with hundreds of hundreds (a thousand or more?) of engineering programs, being above 50 is pretty darn good, wouldn't you say? And if Harvard's poor engineering department doesn't do it for you, any Harvard undergraduate can take advantage of their full cross-registration privelages with MIT. I don't that much about engineering, really. But I bet sakky could more fully cover the merits of programs, and might mention something about Yale's EE or maybe even something strong at Princeton. I've read things about Penn's bioengineering or some sort of biology-related engineering field that made it seem at the least right behind Berkeley's (if not better in some ways for students, at least undergraduate students). Cornell's engineering is probably a big joke to you as well? I guess the engineers at Swarthmore and Wellesley (full cross registration privelages with Harvard and MIT there) really are jokes, and the students place so well in industry and graduate programs. It sort of reminds me of Harvey Mudd. Rose-Hulman and Copper Union have no graduate programs I'm aware of, but are not jokes. But these exceptions don't show that LACs can have non-joke engineering programs? And neither can Lehigh? Moving back to universities, there's Caltech which you haven't mentioned. I've heard a lot about the Indian institute of Technology on these boards. CMU. Mich. Some stars may be shinier, but it seems that in engineering (as well as in the social sciences, humanities, and other fields), there can be many shining stars. Maybe Berkeley is the best, but I would make sure you say in which ways, because other schools can have superior aspects in certain categories, some of these quite important to some people. And again, I would ask you to define "world-class."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's graduate school = pownage. Gives Harvard a good run for it's money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But god forbid something be better than Harvard! </p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's undergrad = "ehhh" Definately not bad (I'll place it somewhere in the top 10 nation-wide, perhaps maybe even top 5). You don't lose face for saying "hey, I'm going to Berkeley," but you also don't get the rediculous bragging rights of saying "Hey, I'm going to the college where Seth MacFarlane spoke to the graduating class of '06 (Harvard, for those who have no idea what I'm talking about).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you consider it to be so good, you think it get's an "eh?" I don't want to hear what anything outside of the top 50 (in your view) gets. Certainly it can improve, but an "eh?" An "eh" in the "top ten, perhaps even top 5" in the country known for having the best higher education in the world?</p>
<p>I've yet to hear someone say "ehhh" when I say to them I attend UCB.</p>
<p>oh, my friend at Harker says that =] lol</p>
<p>edit: <em>sigh</em> no one catches the sarcasm in my tone..very disappointed</p>
<p>Harker? What is that?</p>
<p>Harker School. It's a private high school in northern California (San Jose, milpitas, freemont? idk... somewhere in that general area, they have a website). (That place costs as much as Stanford, and it's a high school -_-') Tuition for one year costs about what we'll pay for four years of tuition at Berkeley. Their senior class of '06 had something like 120 people. Out of those, about 90 got accepted to Berkeley, but only 20-something are going. That's what she (my friend) says at least. Dono if she was trying to bust my bubble (I was a tad bit egotistical when I got that "Congratulations" from Cal) and exagerate a bit, or if those are the actual stats. Anyway, Harker is a crazy school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harker School. It's a private high school in northern California (San Jose, milpitas, freemont? idk... somewhere in that general area, they have a website). (That place costs as much as Stanford, and it's a high school -_-') Tuition for one year costs about what we'll pay for four years of tuition at Berkeley. Their senior class of '06 had something like 120 people. Out of those, about 90 got accepted to Berkeley, but only 20-something are going. That's what she (my friend) says at least. Dono if she was trying to bust my bubble (I was a tad bit egotistical when I got that "Congratulations" from Cal) and exagerate a bit, or if those are the actual stats. Anyway, Harker is a crazy school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, it is. And I would argue that about 7/10 Berkeley undergrads come from similar ultra competitive high schools around California. If I am correct in my estimate (which has been arrived at through facebook and asking Cal students about their high school,) it would mean that Berkeley undergrads predominantly come from California's feeder schools to the top private universities around the country. This would belittle CantSilenceTruth's blanket statement that since Berkeley undergrads are drawn from the top high school in California and California's high schools are among the worst in the nation, Berkeley students must also be among the worst in the nation.</p>
<p>"Grade Tuition Mandatory
Lunch Fee Total
K $19,975 $19,975
1-2 $20,819 $20,819
3-4 $21,815 $21,815
5 $22,939 $22,939
6 $23,947 $800 $24,747
7 $24,568 $800 $25,368
8 $25,389 $800 $26,189
9-12 $26,965 $900 $27,865 "</p>
<p>
One theory I have is that Harvard students have higher expectations for the most prestigious University in the world and was let down by the large introductory classes, while Berkeley students expect them.
Do you have any idea how irrational this is? </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ratemyprofessors.com%5B/url%5D">www.ratemyprofessors.com</a> does not discriminate against ratings for non-intro classes. Both Harvard and Berkeley's pages on <a href="http://www.ratemyprofessors.com%5B/url%5D">www.ratemyprofessors.com</a> feature both intro and advanced classes. In fact, it seems as if Harvard's pages mostly describe advanced classes-not intro classes. </p>
<p>Is your defense going to be: "Well, Harvard students probably already knew the subject matter of advanced classes and were dissapointed with how it was taught."?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you misunderstood me.</p>
<p>Here is my rationale:</p>
<p>This is what I have heard and seen through opinions of others and stats, and what I think are generally true: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Harvard is very prestigious (people think it's great) and prospective students assume the classes (as an elite private) are all small and they get a lot of attention from world-class professors.</p></li>
<li><p>Berkeley is known as a very large and impersonal school. Prospective students assume the classes will be huge and while the professors are good, you won't get much attention.</p></li>
<li><p>In fact, Harvard has large intro classes, as do Berkeley. Harvard just has fewer large classes in terms of percentage, but I think the difference is often over-exaggerated.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>This is my theory from what I have gathered:</p>
<p>Assuming two equal classes with the same professor and 200 students, one at Harvard and one at Berkeley. The Harvard students probably think "I can't believe there's such a large class, I'm barely getting attention from the professor" or "THIS is the grestest University in the country?" whereas Berkeley students probably think "Meh. Typical large class. Professor is okay." Even if we're talking about an upper-division class, Berkeley isn't seen in the same light as Harvard is and a mediocre class will probably be frowned upon more from Harvard students. So the Harvard classes aren't rated as well because of higher student expectations. That's my theory anyway. It COULD be that Harvard's classes just aren't as good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's undergrad = "ehhh" Definately not bad (I'll place it somewhere in the top 10 nation-wide, perhaps maybe even top 5).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This made me smile. How does top 5 in the nation count as "ehhh"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
For engineering, this is not the case. It is well known that HYP and LACs are BIG Jokes when it comes to engineering and only MIT/Berkeley are two distinct shining stars (maybe Stanford , in the background). This distinguished superiority separates Berekely from other old schools including HYPAWS.. whatnots, results in True, FEW World-Class schools in engineering.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would say that there are quite a few 'world-class' schools in engineering - Caltech, Michigan, Georgia Tech, Illinois, etc. I see no reason to cleanly separate MIT and Berkeley from the rest. Nor do the rankings indicate that this separation should occur. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And they also know Berkeley can blow Stanford off the map when it comes to PhD program in true engineering. So the pecking order is really MIT-Berkeley-Stanford- the rest
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, there it is again. Why? I don't see any reason to believe that Berkeley can 'blow Stanford off the map' when it comes to PhD programs in engineering. At MIT itself, I don't see any evidence to indicate that there are any significantly more profs who came from Berkeley than from Stanford, and certainly nothing that would indicate that anybody is blowing anybody off any map. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As you know, its almost meaningless to separate under and grad programs, especially when it comes to engineering education/research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree with this also - it is in fact completely meaningFUL. Think of it this way. What school has the highest percentage of its undergrads go on to complete a PhD in a technical discipline (engineering, natural science, math, computer science). Is it MIT? Caltech? Nope - it's Harvey Mudd, a school that doesn't even HAVE a graduate program because it is a LAC. Something like 40% of all Mudd graduates go on to complete technical doctorates. </p>
<p>I would also point out that some of the other highly prominent undergraduate engineering programs are run by the military academies, none of which run graduate programs. I recall reading a study that indicated that the military academies have some of the highest percentages of their graduates eventually going on to complete graduate degrees in engineering. For example, some of MIT's most prominent PhD engineering alumni, such as astronaut Buzz Aldrin, completed their undergrad at a military academy, which is a fairly remarkable feat as these academy grads had to fit their doctorate around their military commitment, which meant that they either had to have completed their service before going to MIT, or had to have gotten approval from the military for grad-study. One of the most brilliant guys I know who is currently pursuing his PhD at MIT did his undergrad at West Point. </p>
<p>The point is, you can definitely separate grad vs. undergrad. Plenty of excellent undergrad programs don't have affiliated strong graduate programs (or don't even have a graduate program at all). </p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all, in that list of disciplines I posted, I did not include the THES. I only included NRC and USNews 2007. So, those rankings are current
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But you then said that Berkeley had the highest peer-rating according to THES. According to the latest THES, this is false. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think this is a legitimate claim since medical subcategories are just that-subcategories. Many of the items I listed::
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that quite a few doctors and medical students would disagree with you. Believe me, quite a few of them are quite interested in knowing the rankings of the various medical disciplines are. </p>
<p>
[quote]
have become fields of their own. Most notably....East Asian, African-American, Chicano, Native, Queer, and Women's Studies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And we can just as easily talk about medical disciplines like Virology, Pathology, Immunology, etc. - all of which actually have their own department at Harvard Medical School. And that doesn't even account what the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences has. </p>
<p>Trust me when I say that any suggestion that any of these departments are not free-standing disciplines in their own right is going to be met with quite a bit of ire among any of the students. For example, perhaps you'd like to contact molliebatmit, who's going to get her PhD at HMS and tell her that all those various programs are not really 'fields of their own'. I wonder what her response would be. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I have no "evidence" other than that that is what Harvard College grad students at Berkeley have told me. (I already said this.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well look. I also know people who got into doctoral programs at Berkeley and Harvard, and chose Harvard. I have yet to see any clear evidence one way or another that doctoral students strongly prefer one over the other. But I have seen very strong evidence that undergrads strongly prefer Harvard to Berkeley (or any other school). </p>
<p>
[quote]
While the thread originally started as a discussion on the relative merits of Berkeley undergrad, it has now turned into a discussion on Berkeley in general. "Berkeley in general" includes grad programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then let's bring it back to undergrad, and I think there is little dispute that Harvard clearly wins the cross-admit battle with Berkeley from an undergrad standpoint. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe it is because Harvard has a privileged position in American cultural tradition. And if there's anything that's difficult to change, its tradition. Of course, there isn't anything inherently wrong with this, but it is pretty irrational desire.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've read all your posts, and I disagree with you that these people are behaving irrationally. I think it is actually HIGHLY rational. </p>
<p>But before I explain why, let me make a simple point. People choosing Harvard just for the prestige is no worse than people choosing Berkeley just for the prestige. I know plenty of people who went to Berkeley for one simple reason - it was the most prestigious school they got into. Didn't bother to visit Berkeley, didn't bother to see if the Berkeley environment fit them, didn't bother to learn much about the school. For them, it was a simple mechanistic process - they got into Berkeley and didn't get into anywhere else more prestigious, ergo, they're going to Berkeley. In fact, I can count quite a few people whose college strategies were simple - apply to all of the UC's. If they get into Berkeley, they're going. If not, but got into UCLA, they would go there. If not, then maybe UCSD. And so on down the line. </p>
<p>So if it's irrational for people to choose Harvard for the prestige, then it's equally irrational for people to choose Berkeley just for the prestige. And in fact, even sansai (the OP) even said that prestige was a consideration for him in choosing Berkeley. So if that's the case, then you have to admit that he is behaving irrationally, right? </p>
<p>Now, here's why I think that chasing prestige is NOT irrational, but actually quite rational. People choose prestigious schools to reduce market sorting costs. I agree that at any school, even a no-name school, there are some students who are just as good as any at Harvard. The problem is, how does an employer or a grad-school adcom find these brilliant students, when they are surrounded by all these other students who, frankly speaking, aren't that good? In other words, how do you SORT through the pile, and what costs do you incur in doing so. Many employers and grad-school adcoms simply don't want to incur the costs of sorting through the pile. </p>
<p>The truth is that the average quality of the average undergrad at Harvard is significantly higher than that of the average undergrad at Berkeley, mostly because Berkeley has a long tail-end of undergrads who, quite frankly, aren't very good. Let's be perfectly honest here. Sadly, there are a lot of Berkeley undergrads who just aren't very interested in studying. Come on, greatesteyn, you know what I'm talking about, cause I'm sure you've seen them. We all have. There are, of course, some very good Berkeley undergrads, just as good as the undergrads at Harvard, but you have to sort through the pile to find the good ones. So people rationally tend to want to go to Berkeley because they want to signal to the market that they are a member of a stronger group. </p>
<p>Now, to be fair, the same thing happens as far as Berkeley prestige is concerned. For example, at UCRiverside, there are some students who are just as good as the best students at Berkeley. The problem is that there are many more who are not that good. So people will rationally prefer to go to Berkeley over Riverside because they want to signal to the market that they are a member of a stronger group. From a market standpoint, this is perfectly rational behavior.</p>
<p>greatestyen, how many Harker students were accepted by Berkeley for their class of 2005?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am of the opinion that when Harvard undergraduates get to their senior year, they have shrugged off such childish assumptions and embrace a poorer, considerably younger, and better university as the perfect place to get their Ph.D: Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Trust me, there are a LOT of Harvard undergrads who stay on at Harvard to get their PhDs at Harvard. A LOT. In fact, so much so that it actually leads to a certain inculcation - a significant number of people do their undergrad at Harvard, then get their PhD at Harvard, then become profs at Harvard, and basically never leave Harvard. That's what Henry Kissinger did - entered Harvard in 1946 as an undergrad, and didn't leave Harvard for 23 years (to become Nixon's national security advisor), spending those years getting his bachelor's, master's, and PhD, then becoming a Harvard prof. </p>
<p>Nobody, least of all me, is disputing that Berkeley is a top place to get one's PhD. In fact, I have said so myself numerous times, and have defended the Berkeley graduate programs against many detractors. But I would not go so far as to say that it is 'perfect', or to suggest that it is clearly better than Harvard. I believe both of these schools (as well as several others) are all excellent PhD institutions. Some of Berkeley's PhD programs are better than Harvard's. Some of Harvard's PhD programs are better than Berkeley's. If you're a budding doctoral student, then it is up to you to determine which programs in your field are best for you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Certain departments at Yale/Princeton/Stanford might complain about Berkeley's position, but I can guarantee you that most would admit to the superiority of Berkeley's humanities and social science faculty
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know about that. I think that Yale, Princeton, and Stanford also have quite strong faculties in the social sciences/humanities, and certainly not to the point that I can agree that most would admit to the superiority of Berkeley.</p>
<p>I think we should just say that all of these schools have top PhD programs and just leave it at that.</p>
<p>I don't understand the statement that MIT/Cal are far ahead of Stanford in engineering. I thought those were the "big three" when it came to engineering, not the "big two" and a distant Stanford. Can someone explain?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's undergrad = "ehhh" Definately not bad (I'll place it somewhere in the top 10 nation-wide, perhaps maybe even top 5).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Top 5 is clearly too strong. After all, that would mean that Berkeley is harder to get into than one of HYPSM. One which of that quintet are you going to replace with Berkeley in terms of undergrad selectivity? </p>
<p>I think even top 10 is pushing it, especially when you consider the LAC's. Again, along with HYPSM, we can talk about Caltech, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Wellesley - all of which are more difficult to get into than Berkeley undergrad. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley is still seen as a very difficult school to get admitted in the eyes of many Californians at the undergrad level; it just so happens that at CC we are done a lot of analysis and comparisons among universities that it appears Berkeley is a terrible university for undergrad, when we can all agree it's still one of the best (top) public universities in the world. but i do agree UCB can do so much more to make the undergrad experience more personal rather than the sink or float experience
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think there is little doubt that Berkeley undergrad is clearly one of the most difficult programs to get into. After all, there are literally thousands of no-name, low-level undergrad programs out there. Berkeley is clearly better than any of them. Hence, I would have to disagree with anybody who says that Berkeley is 'terrible'. {Yes, unlimitedx, I know you are not actually saying that it is terrible.}</p>
<p>The issue is not whether Berkeley is terrible or not, the issue is how Berkeley compares to other excellent schools. Berkeley is certainly not 'terrible', but it's hard to say that, at the undergrad level, it compares to schools like Harvard, Princeton, or Stanford, which is the topic of this thread. Certainly Berkeley undergrad is better than the vast vast majority of other schools out there. But schools like HPS are clearly not representative of the vast majority.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Top 5 is clearly too strong. After all, that would mean that Berkeley is harder to get into than one of HYPSM. One which of that quintet are you going to replace with Berkeley in terms of undergrad selectivity? </p>
<p>I think even top 10 is pushing it, especially when you consider the LAC's. Again, along with HYPSM, we can talk about Caltech, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Wellesley - all of which are more difficult to get into than Berkeley undergrad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you see how this assumes quality equals selectivity?</p>