<p>What is to seperate one tier from another? It would eliminate lots of problems but by widening the focus, you would be strangling the rankings at certain points. If what I said didn't make sense, then I'm too jetlagged, and ignore me.</p>
<p>You're right, there would be a lack of specificity. But really, the ratings are based on these arbitrary metrics anyway, weighted at arbitrary values. If MIT alumni contribute $100,000 more per year to MIT than Cal alumni do to Berkeley, does that really mean they are better than Cal? Arguable. The granularity of the rankings should be broadened, in my opinion, because such specifics don't really mean that much in terms of college quality. We can both agree that they are good colleges, on the same level. To say that one is definitely one rank higher or lower than the other is deceitful, since people associate rankings with general quality, while they really just measure some things that somebody thought would be worth measuring.</p>
<p>Most of this discussion is silly. I'm crazy for posting here, but a student of mine asked me to. I am a professor at what many consider to be one of the best universities in the country. And I used to be a professor at what most people on this board consider to be the most prestigious university in the world. And as far as graduate schools go, trying to rank Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley and Princeton in the way people here are doing is asinine. When it comes to hiring, there is no general difference between the institutions. There are differences in particular fields and subfields. For example, in my field, Princeton is far below the other three. But in other fields this is not the case. In other fields I know of Stanford is the laggard etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's what you guys are doing. I may exaggerate the unimportance of rankings, but you guys certainly exaggerate their importance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I can't speak for others, I would ask how is it that I exaggerate the importance of rankings? Where in this entire thread have I ever specifically said that rankings were so important? I have used rankings to debunk others who have stated that Berkeley is supposedly ranked higher than this-and-that school, under the general principle that if you are going to use rankings, you have to be consistent with what they say. You can't just pick and choose the rankings you like and then dismiss the ones that you don't like. But that's a far cry from saying that I myself think that the current rankings are highly important. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You're right, there would be a lack of specificity. But really, the ratings are based on these arbitrary metrics anyway, weighted at arbitrary values. If MIT alumni contribute $100,000 more per year to MIT than Cal alumni do to Berkeley, does that really mean they are better than Cal? Arguable. The granularity of the rankings should be broadened, in my opinion, because such specifics don't really mean that much in terms of college quality. We can both agree that they are good colleges, on the same level. To say that one is definitely one rank higher or lower than the other is deceitful, since people associate rankings with general quality, while they really just measure some things that somebody thought would be worth measuring.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I personally suspect that the most meaningful 'ranking' of all is the one that demonstrates revealed preferences - basically, where do students prefer to go - and especially, an analysis of cross-admit data. The fact is, whether we like it or not, MIT and Berkeley are NOT comparable at the undergraduate level for one simple reason - MIT has almost double the yield of Berkeley, and MIT wins more of the cross-admits. Simply put, the majority of people who get admitted to both Berkeley and MIT for undergrad will go to MIT. That indicates that these schools are not really on the same level. If they were, then the revealed preferences for these 2 schools would be equivalent. </p>
<p>I don't think people are completely irrational. There has to be a reason for why people prefer MIT over Berkeley for undergrad. MIT must offer something to its undergrads that Berkeley does not, whether that's better research opportunities, better prestige, a more integrated undergraduate experience, or whatever it is. If Berkeley could equal what MIT has, then Berkeley would become more preferred.</p>
<p>princeton review as well as US News show year after year that Harvard and Princeton as academically even, but we all know that Harvard has amazing graduate schools and shifts focus toward them, unlike Princeton who focuses on undergraduate programs. In the recent past, Yale has never been ranked number 1.......wonder why???</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think people are completely irrational. There has to be a reason for why people prefer MIT over Berkeley for undergrad. MIT must offer something to its undergrads that Berkeley does not, whether that's better research opportunities, better prestige, a more integrated undergraduate experience, or whatever it is. If Berkeley could equal what MIT has, then Berkeley would become more preferred.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pure speculation. What prevents me from speculating likewise that MIT is simply a smaller campus, and that it is likely that students who apply to MIT and Berkeley may simply prefer a smaller campus (or colder weather, or don't like the Berkeley area, or anything else that has nothing to do with the quality of education there). It's about as justified as your reasons. And that does not make MIT "better" than Berkeley as a result, necessarily (I'm not saying that it is or isn't, but that such a factor on its own cannot determine this).</p>
<p>Even so, what IS the cross-admit rate of students that choose MIT? I would certainly not say it has to be 50-50 for Berkeley and MIT to be on the same level. It would have to be 50-50 for Berkeley and MIT to be equivalent, but nobody is saying that.</p>
<p>And BTW, sakky, you aren't the only one in this thread. When I say "you guys", I mean that many people are citing rankings to demonstrate one way or another that some school is definitivley better than another (or with strong implications of such as a result of citing the rankings).</p>
<p>sakky, I think, as you do, that cross-admits and revealed preferance rankings are important and telling of certain things. However, I don't think they're as important as you make them out to be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Berkeley could equal what MIT has, then Berkeley would become more preferred.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. But too bad Berkeley could never have what MIT has because Berkeley is limited by being a public school. Public schools are naturally larger than private institutions (especially those at the top). The result is that public schools generally offer a less personable educational experience. Also, public schools must serve students from their state; this would mean lower admission requirements and a greater number of admits. The "easier" admissions would then bring down the prestige of elite public schools such as Berkeley. Thus, MIT would always be more prestigious than Berkeley even iif their academics are of similar quality because it is simply a LOT harder to get into MIT than it is to Berkeley. And, unfortunately but understandibly, most people worship prestige.</p>
<p>I don't think public schools have to be larger than private schools by definition at all. I think you leave many things unsaid that make your post accurate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ure speculation. What prevents me from speculating likewise that MIT is simply a smaller campus, and that it is likely that students who apply to MIT and Berkeley may simply prefer a smaller campus (or colder weather, or don't like the Berkeley area, or anything else that has nothing to do with the quality of education there). It's about as justified as your reasons. And that does not make MIT "better" than Berkeley as a result, necessarily (I'm not saying that it is or isn't, but that such a factor on its own cannot determine this).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see the relevance of this. I have always said that the preference could occur for any number of reasons. But at the end of the day, all that matters is what is preferred, REGARDLESS of the reason, because it means that Berkeley ought to do more to provide these top students with what they prefer. That is, if Berkeley is serious about trying to compete for these students. </p>
<p>Look, at the end of the day, college education is a consumer good, and should be treated as such. That means that colleges should give students (consumers) what they want. Your logic seems to indicate that Berkeley should deliberately NOT give consumers what they want, under the guise that they know better. That seems to run dangerously close to the attitude of many companies in history who chose not to provide what their customers wanted, and hence failed as ongoing businesses. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Even so, what IS the cross-admit rate of students that choose MIT? I would certainly not say it has to be 50-50 for Berkeley and MIT to be on the same level. It would have to be 50-50 for Berkeley and MIT to be equivalent, but nobody is saying that
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The data was posted on CC a long time ago by somebody. It may also be available somewhere on the Web. If I have time, I will try to find it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree. But too bad Berkeley could never have what MIT has because Berkeley is limited by being a public school. Public schools are naturally larger than private institutions (especially those at the top). The result is that public schools generally offer a less personable educational experience. Also, public schools must serve students from their state; this would mean lower admission requirements and a greater number of admits. The "easier" admissions would then bring down the prestige of elite public schools such as Berkeley. Thus, MIT would always be more prestigious than Berkeley even iif their academics are of similar quality because it is simply a LOT harder to get into MIT than it is to Berkeley. And, unfortunately but understandibly, most people worship prestige.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Public schools are NOT naturally larger than private schools. This is especially true on the graduate level. What's the largest law school in the country (and probably the world)? Some public law school? No, it's Harvard Law. Harvard Law has more than twice the students that Boalt does. What business school has the largest MBA program in the country? It's not some public school, it's actually Harvard Business School. The Haas School has actually one of the smallest MBA programs of any of the top B-schools in the country - far smaller than other private programs such as Wharton, Kellogg, or Chicago. Most people don't realize that the graduate engineering programs at MIT and Stanford are FAR larger than the grad engineering programs at Berkeley. In fact, Stanford, which is thought of as a much smaller school than is Berkeley, actually has ALMOST DOUBLE the number of graduate engineering students compared to Berkeley. </p>
<p>Yet all of Berkeley's graduate programs are 'public' programs in the sense that they are financed and subsidized by the state. California residents who study at Boalt or Haas or some other graduate program at Berkeley are getting state subsidized tuition. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, public schools must serve students from their state; this would mean lower admission requirements and a greater number of admits. The "easier" admissions would then bring down the prestige of elite public schools such as Berkeley. Thus, MIT would always be more prestigious than Berkeley even iif their academics are of similar quality because it is simply a LOT harder to get into MIT than it is to Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The PhD programs at Berkeley certainly don't really "serve" the state in the sense of running dual-tracks of admission, one for residents, one for non-residents. No PhD program at Berkeley feels compelled to admit less qualified state residents. In fact, there are years where some PhD programs don't admit a single state resident. </p>
<p>Furthermore, residency preference does not automatically equate to less prestige and less selectivity. There are several factors involved. To give you an analogy. Oxford and Cambridge are public universities within the UK in the sense that British citizens get strong subsidization from London to study there, much of their funding comes from the government, and both schools prefer to admit British citizens as opposed to foreign nationals for their undergrad programs. Yet that hasn't stopped Oxbridge from being extremely selective and prestigious. Cambridge graduates have won more Nobel Prizes than grads of any other university in history (and in fact, if just one of Cambridge's constituent colleges, Trinity College, was its own country, it would rank 5th out of all of the countries in the world in production of Nobels). Oxford may be the one school in the world that has a more recognized worldwide brand-name than Harvard does, especially in (unsurprisingly) the Commonwealth nations. </p>
<p>But the point is, a public school can be forced to institute lower admissions requirements for residents of some political unit, yet still maintain excellent worldwide prestige. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And, unfortunately but understandibly, most people worship prestige.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would just point out that there are lots of people who go to Berkeley just for the prestige. I happen to know plenty of people who applied to many of the UC's and simply mechanistically chose the most prestigious one that admitted them. If they didn't get into Berkeley, then they would hope for UCLA. If they can't get that, they would hope to get into UCSD, etc. </p>
<p>So whether prestige-chasing is unfortunate or not, I think it's important to understand that Berkeley also draws a lot of students who are chasing its prestige. Whatever else I may think of Berkeley, I have always agreed that it has a lot of prestige. It's just that certain other schools have even *more * prestige. Live by the sword, die by the sword.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, at the end of the day, college education is a consumer good, and should be treated as such. That means that colleges should give students (consumers) what they want. Your logic seems to indicate that Berkeley should deliberately NOT give consumers what they want, under the guise that they know better. That seems to run dangerously close to the attitude of many companies in history who chose not to provide what their customers wanted, and hence failed as ongoing businesses.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you're saying that you believe Berkeley should give the best students at Berkeley what they want. I'd bet if you held a survey of all Berkeley students even to eliminate the bottom 10% of students, you wouldn't get a majority. Certainly those 10% of students would NOT vote in favor of any such initiative. And where do you cut the bottom, anyway? What if we reduced it to have a class size like MIT's? 4,136 of our best students (stats used from Wikipedia) out of 22,144 would be kept, the rest dropped. Guess what? Those 18,008 students probably don't want to be looking for another college to attend, and it's likely not all of the 4,136 students would be in favor of such action, meaning a huge majority would probably oppose such action.</p>
<p>Further, go ahead and ask high school students whether they think Berkeley should admit only enough students to have an undergraduate enrollment of 4,136 students. I'm betting they'd say that'd suck as well. They want their shot. Of course, if you asked them if Berkeley should take everybody, they'd obviously say that was stupid and impractical. Most likely they'd say Berkeley should take as many people as possible, not limited to 4,000, but not exceedingly large where it becomes unmanagable. That's generally what Berkeley does. That's what students want.</p>
<p>Berkeley gives its consumers what they want. Otherwise they wouldn't come. They don't give every consumer what he/she wants (clearly they wouldn't give you what you'd want, while they would give me what I wanted), but they fill a niche. Just like MIT fills a niche. If people asked whether MIT should lower its requirements, nobody would say yes, because that isn't what MIT is. Likewise, if anyone thought MIT should halve its undergraduate class to provide an even MORE elite group of students, people would also complain that MIT was being too selective, possibly missing talent that was in the next tier of candidates that was passed by (and you have to agree that in admissions, a candidate that appears less qualified on paper may end up being as or more successful than a more qualified candidate).</p>
<p>There is room for more than one kind of college in this world. It doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, filled with HYPSM clones. Just like the car market has room for more than exotics and luxury sedans. Now, we don't want to be Ford or GM, getting beat left and right by Japanese and German manufacturers. But we can cater to people looking for a daily driver as well as a weekend getaway car without making crappy high-end vehicles. We provide the consumers the goods they want by catering to more than one market.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, you're saying that you believe Berkeley should give the best students at Berkeley what they want. I'd bet if you held a survey of all Berkeley students even to eliminate the bottom 10% of students, you wouldn't get a majority. Certainly those 10% of students would NOT vote in favor of any such initiative. And where do you cut the bottom, anyway? What if we reduced it to have a class size like MIT's? 4,136 of our best students (stats used from Wikipedia) out of 22,144 would be kept, the rest dropped. Guess what? Those 18,008 students probably don't want to be looking for another college to attend, and it's likely not all of the 4,136 students would be in favor of such action, meaning a huge majority would probably oppose such action.</p>
<p>Further, go ahead and ask high school students whether they think Berkeley should admit only enough students to have an undergraduate enrollment of 4,136 students. I'm betting they'd say that'd suck as well. They want their shot. Of course, if you asked them if Berkeley should take everybody, they'd obviously say that was stupid and impractical. Most likely they'd say Berkeley should take as many people as possible, not limited to 4,000, but not exceedingly large where it becomes unmanagable. That's generally what Berkeley does. That's what students want.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you just admitted the weakness of your argument. If it was put up to a vote to all of the high school seniors in California, then I suspect that they would vote to have Berkeley be open enrollment. After all, everybody wants to get admitted to Berkeley. Even if they choose to go elsewhere, they still want the option of going to Berkeley. Who wouldn't want that? In particular, if we asked the 75% of Berkeley applicants who didn't get admitted, I think they would all say that they wanted to be admitted. After all, why did you even apply if you don't want to be admitted? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley gives its consumers what they want.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How's that? Berkeley's undergrad yield rate is 40%. That means that the majority of people admitted to the Berkeley undergrad program choose to go somewhere else. That means that Berkeley is clearly not providing the majority of its consumers (its applicants) what they want. </p>
<p>
[quote]
There is room for more than one kind of college in this world. It doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, filled with HYPSM clones. Just like the car market has room for more than exotics and luxury sedans. Now, we don't want to be Ford or GM, getting beat left and right by Japanese and German manufacturers. But we can cater to people looking for a daily driver as well as a weekend getaway car without making crappy high-end vehicles. We provide the consumers the goods they want by catering to more than one market.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Allright, now we are having an honest discussion. I agree with you that Berkeley fulfills its niche. I never said that Berkeley absolutely * HAS * to become more selective. I said that if Berkeley wants to compete with HYPSM, then Berkeley should become more selective. But if Berkeley does not want to compete with those schools, then that's fine too. Then Berkeley should just say that they're not trying to compete with those schools. </p>
<p>You used the car analogy, so I will extend it. 40 years ago, Japanese cars were crap. Toyota and Honda were widely derided as low-end manufacturers. They could have continued to stay in the low-end. They could have said that they had no aspirations to compete against the Americans or Europeans. And if they did that, then to this day, they would still be considered the low-end choice, for the consumers who don't have a lot of money. Instead, they decided that they did indeed want to compete and beat the Americans and Europeans, so they started designing better cars. Now, it's the Japanese who (along with the Germans) are considered the high-end, with the American manufacturer now catering to the low-end customer who doesn't have a lot of money. </p>
<p>The point is, the Japanese decided they wanted to make a change to compete in a different market segment, and they did it. If Berkeley decides it wants to compete in a different segment, they can do it too. Now, obviously Berkeley can decide not to compete in that segment. If that's the decision that Berkeley makes, then fair enough. </p>
<p>My point is, if Berkeley really wants to compete at the undergrad level with HYPSM, then Berkeley needs to make some changes. But if Berkeley is not interested in competing with HYPSM undergrad, then that's fine too. But then you shouldn't be surprised when people prefer HYPSM to Berkeley.</p>
<p>Berkeley's undergrad yield statistic only shows that many people choose schools other than Berkeley. It does not show they felt that Berkeley didn't give them what they wanted. If an actual survey were done, it could be just the prestige of HYPSM that drew students away, not anything else. I don't consider prestige a valid factor showing that Berkeley is inferior to any other school. While it could be that the students can somehow determine, without having attended either school, which provides a better experience in education, then you'd be right. But that statistic can't establish anything close to that.</p>
<p>And again, I feel the argument that Berkeley students cannot compete with HYPSM students is poorly supported. MIT has 4,136 students. Grab our top 4,136 students (approximately 20%) and you'd find that they were comparable to MIT's undergraduate class (or Harvard's, or wherever's). If you were right, then our top 4,136 would be definitively sub-par compared to MIT's undergraduate class.</p>
<p>The point of my car analogy was not that the Japanese went from making crap cars to making extremeley high-end cars. The point is that car manufacturers offer a spectrum of choices. They can provide cheap cars that just get you from point A to point B, but also luxury cars that get you from point A to point B in 10 seconds with a bunch of nice accessories. A company can do both well, just as Berkeley can offer mediocre students a solid education while providing exceptional students a solid education as well.</p>
<p>I think the point may be best stated as follows: if you have the ability to succeed at HYPSM, going to Berkeley doesn't make you any less likely to succeed. I'm frankly not surprised that people prefer HYPSM to Berkeley. Heck, if I had been accepted to MIT and I didn't get a scholarship from Berkeley, I probably would've gone there. Not because I believe necessarily the education is better, but because I've been indoctrinated with a belief that MIT is superior for no really valid reason except people saying it's a good school. It would've been prestige that led me there, not educational merit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's undergrad yield statistic only shows that many people choose schools other than Berkeley. It does not show they felt that Berkeley didn't give them what they wanted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, isn't that the very definition of not giving people what they want? If I choose Mary Ann over Ginger, isn't that probably because Ginger isn't who I really want? </p>
<p>
[quote]
If an actual survey were done, it could be just the prestige of HYPSM that drew students away, not anything else. I don't consider prestige a valid factor showing that Berkeley is inferior to any other school. While it could be that the students can somehow determine, without having attended either school, which provides a better experience in education, then you'd be right. But that statistic can't establish anything close to that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha! If you are going to invoke the notion of prestige as to why people choose HYPSM over Berkeley, then I would say that the same thing also happens as regards Berkeley vs. other schools, and particularly vs. the other UC's. I know many people who chose Berkeley simply because it was the most prestigious school they got into. Basically, they applied to all of the UC's with the intent of just going to the most prestigious one that admitted them. If they could get into Berkeley, they would go there. If not, but they got into UCLA, they would get there. Otherwise, UCSD, and so on down the line. </p>
<p>So if you don't consider prestige a valid factor for why people should choose HYPSM over Berkeley, then prestige is also an invalid factor for why people should choose Berkeley over the other UC's or a CalState or any other school. </p>
<p>And besides, I also dispute your contention that prestige has no correlation with the quality of the education. After all, how did HYPSM get their prestige in the first place? If the education at those schools truly sucked, then that fact would inevitably feed back into the market and these schools would lose their prestige. Hence, it can't be that bad.</p>
<p>If nothing else, I think the fact that a school is prestigious means that it tends to draw a stronger body of students. A stronger body of students is correlated with the quality of education for the reasons I have cited previously. Basically, education is largely a social phenomenom. The better the students around you, the more you tend to learn. This is why public education systems institute programs like magnet schools and charter schools in order to incubate groups of motivated and gifted children. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And again, I feel the argument that Berkeley students cannot compete with HYPSM students is poorly supported. MIT has 4,136 students. Grab our top 4,136 students (approximately 20%) and you'd find that they were comparable to MIT's undergraduate class (or Harvard's, or wherever's). If you were right, then our top 4,136 would be definitively sub-par compared to MIT's undergraduate class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a nonsequitur. I have always said that the top students at Berkeley are of high quality. But that's not the point. They have to compete for resources with all of those other Berkeley students who are not of high quality. They have to be the ones that often times have to put up with lab-partners/group-partners/dorm-mates/etc. who are not very motivated and not very talented. They have to be the ones who often times cannot find intellectual equals. </p>
<p>I'll give you a sports analogy. If Michael Jordan had practiced and played only against middling-quality players, he would not be the greatest player in history. In order for him to achieve his potential, he had to practice and play against the best players in the world. </p>
<p>To give you a poignant example, it's sad when a person just feels like talking about philosophy or political science or economics or mathematics or some other subject at a high level over dinner in the dining commons, and nobody around him is enough of an intellectual equal to match him. It's far better if that person has, at the same table, somebody who can match him measure-for-measure. THAT'S when you really learn something. </p>
<p>Nor is this a hypothetical example. This is EXACTLY what happened to a friend of mine. He basically felt that, among the undergraduate population at Berkeley, he was, intellectually speaking, a men among boys. He ended up choosing to interact with mostly Berkeley graduate students because, quite frankly, the undergrads were not able to satisfy his intellectual curiosity. But as an undergraduate, hanging around with grad-students is rather problematic because you don't live in the same housing, you don't take the same classes (until perhaps the upper-division), grad-students often times like to go to the bars but if you're only 17, you can't go with them, etc. So what did this guy do? He transferred to MIT. </p>
<p>
[quote]
A company can do both well, just as Berkeley can offer mediocre students a solid education while providing exceptional students a solid education as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Usually companies do not do two different things really well. Besides, like I said, exceptional students often times prefer to study at another school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the point may be best stated as follows: if you have the ability to succeed at HYPSM, going to Berkeley doesn't make you any less likely to succeed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As you may have gathered, I disagree with this, for many reasons. There are a lot of hassles that Berkeley makes its undergrads undergo that those other schools do not. To give you one example, those other schools allow you to freely choose whatever major you want, and then change at any time. Not Berkeley, with its impacted majors and college-transfer policies. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Heck, if I had been accepted to MIT and I didn't get a scholarship from Berkeley, I probably would've gone there. Not because I believe necessarily the education is better, but because I've been indoctrinated with a belief that MIT is superior for no really valid reason except people saying it's a good school. It would've been prestige that led me there, not educational merit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And like I said, by the same notion, a lot of current Berkeley students are there just for reasons of prestige, not because of any educational merit. Prestige is therefore a double-edged sword when it comes to Berkeley. Berkeley attracts students because it has more prestige than the other US public schools do. But it also loses students because it has less prestige than the top private schools do. If it is somehow invalid for people to choose HYPSM over Berkeley just for the prestige, then it is equally invalid for people to choose Berkeley over, say, UCLA just for the prestige.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uh, isn't that the very definition of not giving people what they want? If I choose Mary Ann over Ginger, isn't that probably because Ginger isn't who I really want?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm speaking in terms of educational experience. Of course, generally speaking, it is always true people make choose that which they desire most. However, we're not talking about the best college to attend in factors such as prestige, location, demographics, or what not. We're talking about educational quality. Just like you could choose Mary-Ann for having a crapload of money, that would not indicate that Mary-Ann would give you what you want from a "good wife" perspective (in the general sense--not the "good wife = lots of money" perspective).</p>
<p>
[quote]
If it is somehow invalid for people to choose HYPSM over Berkeley just for the prestige, then it is equally invalid for people to choose Berkeley over, say, UCLA just for the prestige.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I completely agree. People that choose Berkeley over UCLA for prestige are retarded. Those that choose Berkeley over UCLA because Berkeley is stronger in their desired field make the right choice. I never said that people should choose Berkeley over all else. Also, I never said prestige bears no correlation to educational quality. It is certainly true that many prestigious schools offer great educations. That doesn't mean that I should choose Harvard over Berkeley without thinking about what I'm getting at both schools first.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To give you a poignant example, it's sad when a person just feels like talking about philosophy or political science or economics or mathematics or some other subject at a high level over dinner in the dining commons, and nobody around him is enough of an intellectual equal to match him. It's far better if that person has, at the same table, somebody who can match him measure-for-measure. THAT'S when you really learn something.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You talk like it's hard to find such a conversation at Berkeley. You've got a lot of very smart people to choose from here, and can go at it whenever you want. If you intend to sit randomly at a table in the dining commons and start a philosophical debate, people will probably leave you to eat by yourself because, like most human beings, some people just want to eat with their buddies.</p>
<p>If your friend was truly too intelligent for all of the undergraduates at Berkeley, and fraternizing with MIT graduate students was easier, then good for him. I don't know if graduates and undergraduates live together at MIT, or if MIT graduate students don't go out to bars, so I can't really comment on MIT. I know a lot of Berkeley graduate students that are quite social with undergrads, and every class will have multiple GSIs with multiple discussions and office hours for you to talk to them in. You can become their friends if you really want, and hang out and talk about whatever you want.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll give you a sports analogy. If Michael Jordan had practiced and played only against middling-quality players, he would not be the greatest player in history. In order for him to achieve his potential, he had to practice and play against the best players in the world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You've already stated that the top at Berkeley are equivalent to the top elsewhere. I think the fallacy here is obvious.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Berkeley decides it wants to compete in a different segment, they can do it too. Now, obviously Berkeley can decide not to compete in that segment. If that's the decision that Berkeley makes, then fair enough.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You stated this earlier. That's what my non-sequitor was about. Berkeley DOES compete in that segment. That segment is HYPSM and the students they produce. Those are their products, the results of the education at those schools. You snag our top-of-the-line models, and we've got the same stuff going on. And just as many of them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Usually companies do not do two different things really well. Besides, like I said, exceptional students often times prefer to study at another school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>These aren't two different things. It's different levels of the same thing. There aren't two "Berkeleys", you can't get two different educations by coming here in one way versus another. We have a gradient of qualifications in students. We put them through the same machine and get a result. Some will be sub-par, some will be exceptional. Those that are exceptional will not suddenly become un-exceptional because of a sub-par student. If that were the case, then that student was not, in fact, exceptional (unless s/he was maimed/killed by the un-exceptional student, which is a rare case).</p>
<p>
[quote]
As you may have gathered, I disagree with this, for many reasons. There are a lot of hassles that Berkeley makes its undergrads undergo that those other schools do not. To give you one example, those other schools allow you to freely choose whatever major you want, and then change at any time. Not Berkeley, with its impacted majors and college-transfer policies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If it's true that at any time you can change your major at HYPSM, then that's great. Giving students power is good sometimes. I have personally never seen or heard of a student that wanted to go into some major but was unable to at Berkeley. That obviously doesn't mean they don't exist, but it isn't a common occurrence. The fact of the matter is that if you can decide on a major within your first two years here, you should have no problem getting that degree in 4 years. If you can't, you'll be in trouble. I would imagine it rare that an exceptional student wouldn't know his/her primary field of study after 2 years of college, don't you?</p>
<p>I think this'll be my last post in this thread. We're running around in circles now. I'll just summarize the point of this whole thing so maybe it will be enough to give us some definite point where we just say "okay, we disagree, let's move on":</p>
<p>Berkeley, due to its acceptance of poorer quality students than HYPSM, hinders (to some non-negligible degree) students from obtaining as good an education at HYPSM. I feel that simply because we have many students equal to HYPSM students at Berkeley demonstrates that such students have just as good (minus the negligible degree) a chance at succeeding here as at HYPSM. The argument that peers significantly affect educational quality is somewhat valid, but also flawed. If deemed valid, then we have a set of students that match HYPSM students for peer quality, and since forming friends is, IMO, a non-random process, it is no problem to find such a set of peers at Cal. Issues with Berkeley's red tape are overexaggerated and do not significantly affect education there.</p>
<p>Okay, I'm done.</p>
<p>College rankings are the worst indicators of quality. Look at the methods and criteria they use for ranking. What if you want to rank schools by academics, but also throw in weather, food, city, the amount of hot girls, the low amount of douchebags in class, grade inflation ( its awesome), the amount of beer consumed on a weekly basis, or even, the amount of trees on campus? Call it the "Awesome college experience rankings" and you too can publish an annual college ranking list. Read the article below, and see what happened when Cal Tech jumped to #1 and Princeton was #4 in US News Week 1999, those preppies weren't too happy that the people that design space missions beat them. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/89623/%5B/url%5D">http://www.slate.com/id/89623/</a></p>