<p>vc08,</p>
<p>I've never seen that phrase used by UCLA publications... is it a new one?</p>
<p>^^ I believe it's used in some of the short videos that UCLA has made to entice students to attend.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was just pointing out the opinion of the undergrads here who are convinced that Berkeley = Stanford in prestige due to the numerous rankings out there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, like I said, I think even many of those undergrads who really do think that Berkeley equals Stanford in prestige would themselves have probably preferred to be going to Stanford, but just didn't get in. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be too many undergrads at Stanford who would have preferred to go to Berkeley but didn't get in (granted, there are some Stanford undergrads - OOS in particular - who got into Stanford but not Berkeley, but I highly doubt that many of them would have instead chosen Berkeley had they gotten in). I can ask my brother - he's interacted with numerous Stanford undergrads - but at first pass I would say that it's unlikely that there are many of them. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think we can all say that those who can survive the Berkeley curve are of high caliber regardless of their "mediocre" <sarcasm here=""> high school stats.
[/quote]
</sarcasm></p>
<p>Yeah, for those who survive the Berkeley curve. But not everybody does. In fact, many don't. What if you're one of them? Then you probably wish you had gone to Stanford instead, with its far more forgiving grading scheme. But that is, of course, presuming that you actually got into Stanford. And like I said, many Berkeley undergrads are only there simply because they didn't get into Stanford. </p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky: A lot of people like sterile environments, such as Stanford, over a 32,000 person public school. Think about it, if you had the chance to attend Stanford, with its rich alums, immediate connections, etc., where the student body is 1/4 the size of the competing elite public university, where would you go? To Stanford, or to 32,000-person Cal, where nobody holds you by the hand and offers you a fresh tree-smell every morning when you wake up? UCLA has a great motto, I think, when they say that "Nobody here cares who you are. They just want to see what you do." Then you watch a USC commercial, and all they show are George Lucas, John Wayne, Reggie Bush, etc. Notice the difference in perspective? I think it's a pretty similar one between Cal and Stanford. Both are just as prestigious as each other, just in different ways.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But again, the question on the table is why is grad different from undergrad. After all, if you are admitted to a Stanford grad program, then presumably you will also have access to rich alums, immediate connections, and, I guess, that fresh tree smell every morning (?!). So then why are so many people who are admitted to Stanford grad programs so willing to turn it down for the corresponding Berkeley grad program instead? </p>
<p>The point is, there seems to be a key distinction of Berkeley between ug and grad that makes Berkeley less competitive in the former than the latter. Or, in other words, some feature seems to make many people unwilling to seriously consider Berkeley for ug but quite willing to consider it for grad.</p>
<p>Maybe people are scared of the challenges Berkeley undergrad presents. Big school with 32,000 of the brightest minds in the world. And you're on your own.</p>
<p>vs</p>
<p>9,000 (Stanford population? Not sure lol, around there though) of the brightest minds in the world. And you're surrounded by people who are making sure that the 45k you pay per year gets you everything you need, every day. Not saying it's EASIER by any means. But it's certainly less intimidating.</p>
<p>I do understand your point, I'm just saying that I don't think the difference is so much in the level of students, but rather in the approach to learning. By the time people hit grad school virtually anywhere, you have closer access to professors, you rent your own apartment, etc. You've been living on your own for 4 years, so you don't need someone to lead you every step of the way. Suddenly, a prestigious school with 32,000 people sounds a whole lot better.</p>
<p>YouTube</a> - Here. Now. UCLA.
Here's the UCLA commercial...it's played during televised sporting events.</p>
<p>^^ just to add: Berkeley's undergrad is about 23,000. Stanford's is about 6,500.</p>
<p>Other than that, I completely agree with your post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe people are scared of the challenges Berkeley undergrad presents. Big school with 32,000 of the brightest minds in the world. And you're on your own.</p>
<p>vs</p>
<p>9,000 (Stanford population? Not sure lol, around there though
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, Stanford has 15k total students. It's really not that small; it's about the same size as UC-Santa Cruz. What is relatively small is the Stanford undergrad population. But Stanford actually has *more * grad students than does Berkeley. </p>
<p>But in any case, I don't think size is the real issue anyway. The better counterexample to use is Harvard. Harvard is actually a quite large school; with about 20k students (ug + grad), Harvard is actually significantly larger than the average US school, and in fact, is by far the largest school amongst HYPSMC (in fact, Harvard has more students than does Princeton, MIT, and Caltech combined). Yet, let's be frank, not too many high school seniors are deterred by Harvard's size. From a ug cross-admit standpoint, Harvard clearly beats both much smaller schools (i.e. Princeton, Caltech) and *much larger schools (i.e. Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, etc.) Whether we like it or not, Harvard is the king of cross-yield, regardless of size. Don't you think that has *something to do with prestige? Just something? </p>
<p>Consider another example. You talk about fear and challenge. So let's take MIT. I would argue that MIT is a far more fearful and challenging school than is Berkeley. I've heard MIT described with many adjectives, but 'safe' or 'unchallenging' aren't included. I think it's fair to say that MIT strikes a higher magnitude of fear and challenge within undergrads than Berkeley does. Nevertheless, MIT's overall yield is far higher than Berkeley's, and MIT also, I believe, clearly beats Berkeley in terms of cross-yield. That is, most high school students who are admitted to both Berkeley and MIT will choose MIT, in spite of concerns over fear or challenge. Again, don't think you think that prestige may have something to do with it? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm just saying that I don't think the difference is so much in the level of students, but rather in the approach to learning. By the time people hit grad school virtually anywhere, you have closer access to professors, you rent your own apartment, etc. You've been living on your own for 4 years, so you don't need someone to lead you every step of the way. Suddenly, a prestigious school with 32,000 people sounds a whole lot better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, but this then speaks to something that kyledavid80 and I discussed on another thread. Sure, grad students probably are more mature and confident. and therefore have greater independence. But Berkeley grad students are precisely the ones that enjoy the individualized contact with profs, the smaller classes, and the hand-holding. {For example, I know Berkeley grad students who have said that they have never even once ever had to interact with the Registrar's office or the Financial Aid office; their department took care of all that stuff for them.} Hence, it is precisely the most mature and independent group of students (the grad students) at Berkeley who get the most support and the personal attention, and conversely, it is precisely the least mature and least independent (the undergrads) who get the least support and the least attention. In other words, the support structure is exactly backwards. Those students who are most in need of support are the ones who are the least likely to get it. It's like taxing the poor to provide welfare for the rich.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford has 15k total students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, it's about 20k now.</p>
<p>Stanford</a> University: Common Data Set 2007-2008</p>
<p>Though that just furthers your case.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some people say Berkeley is regarded every bit as good as HYPSM in Asia. Is that true??? do any of you have any experience that can attest to that??
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To answer this original question, for it to be true that Berkeley is truly regarded as 'every bit as good' as HYPSM in Asia, it would indicate that Berkeley ought to be tied when it comes to cross-admit yields with those other schools mentioned. That is to say, an Asian person who is admitted to both Berkeley and Harvard is just as equally likely to choose Berkeley as he is to choose Harvard. How many of us really believe that's the case?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some people say Berkeley is regarded every bit as good as HYPSM in Asia. Is that true??? do any of you have any experience that can attest to that??
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I didn't want to include those 5k grad "students" who are not enrolled in degree programs. Many of them are 'special students': for example, employees at Silicon Valley firms who are "taking" Stanford graduate courses that Stanford provides as part of part-time continuing education and distance learning. Hence, at least to me, it's debatable as to whether they are truly 'students' in the classical sense. </p>
<p>But in any case, 15k or 20k, the point is, Stanford is not a small school.</p>
<p>^^A lot of Asians do their undergrad in Asia and then come to berkeley for grad school. I would assume they make the reasonable assumption that the ug program is just as prestigious as the grad program.</p>
<p>In any case Sakky, what I am saying about the curve is that there are a lot of undergraduate students in my engineering classes who are in my opinion just as smart in their field as the people who got into Stanford and some other ivy league schools. However, for these schools, their undergraduate admissions tends to reward doing a lot of pointless EC's and taking pointless classes (pointless in that it doesn't further education in engineering and such). These students may not have done extremely well in HS or they might have been passed over by Stanford and despite getting into some lower ivy leagues (my roommate) went to Berkeley. </p>
<p>The point being that Stanford automatically precludes anybody that does not do well in HS while Berkeley shows some leniency and offers those that did not do well the chance to beat the Berkeley curve. This is perhaps the reason for Berkeley losing the crossadmit battles--the people that aced high school and got into some of the prestigious schools we have rattled off would pretty much be on an equal level with any Berkeley student in engineering. Even if this student got a 2310 and a 4.0 GPA and took AP Latin and AP English, when it comes down to EE40 all that stuff goes out of the window. This student would now have to work just as hard to survive the Berkeley curve. So this student would have had to prove himself twice! Now if you went to MIT and got a lower GPA you are pretty much fine. </p>
<p>Note that I am restricting the entire "education" to engineering and engineering alone, because that is what I am familiar with. When you talk about cross admits I am talking about engineering (which I am still sure Berkeley loses to a lot of schools). The "sad truth" here is that the relatively "easy" access of the Berkeley opportunity causes the best students to shy away.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^^A lot of Asians do their undergrad in Asia and then come to berkeley for grad school. I would assume they make the reasonable assumption that the ug program is just as prestigious as the grad program.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, until they actually arrive at Berkeley and then they inevitably hear the ug chatter of "Oh, I would rather be going to Stanford, but I didn't get in.", or how Berkeley is described as "Stanford's safety school", etc. You hang around Berkeley as a grad student for a few years and you're inevitably going to pick up on that talk. Then they will tell their friends back in Asia that perhaps the Berkeley ug program is not as desirable as they thought. </p>
<p>
[quote]
n any case Sakky, what I am saying about the curve is that there are a lot of undergraduate students in my engineering classes who are in my opinion just as smart in their field as the people who got into Stanford and some other ivy league schools. However, for these schools, their undergraduate admissions tends to reward doing a lot of pointless EC's and taking pointless classes (pointless in that it doesn't further education in engineering and such). These students may not have done extremely well in HS or they might have been passed over by Stanford and despite getting into some lower ivy leagues (my roommate) went to Berkeley.</p>
<p>The point being that Stanford automatically precludes anybody that does not do well in HS while Berkeley shows some leniency and offers those that did not do well the chance to beat the Berkeley curve. This is perhaps the reason for Berkeley losing the crossadmit battles--the people that aced high school and got into some of the prestigious schools we have rattled off would pretty much be on an equal level with any Berkeley student in engineering. Even if this student got a 2310 and a 4.0 GPA and took AP Latin and AP English, when it comes down to EE40 all that stuff goes out of the window. This student would now have to work just as hard to survive the Berkeley curve. So this student would have had to prove himself twice! Now if you went to MIT and got a lower GPA you are pretty much fine.</p>
<p>Note that I am restricting the entire "education" to engineering and engineering alone, because that is what I am familiar with. When you talk about cross admits I am talking about engineering (which I am still sure Berkeley loses to a lot of schools). The "sad truth" here is that the relatively "easy" access of the Berkeley opportunity causes the best students to shy away.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just listed a bunch of reasons that all prove my basic point: which is that, for various reasons, other schools are more desirable than Berkeley for ug, such that Berkeley predominantly ends up with those students who just couldn't get into those other schools. </p>
<p>Your last point in particular is the most telling one: the relatively easy access of Berkeley causes the best students to shy away. That's a feature of prestige. Berkeley is simply not that hard to get into for ug, relative to those other schools, and that fact reduces Berkeley's prestige, relative to those other schools. But that doesn't happen with the Berkeley grad programs. Berkeley is just as difficult to get into as far as its PhD programs as schools like Stanford, MIT and Harvard are, and that means that Berkeley's PhD programs don't experience the problem of the best students shying away because the program is providing 'easy access'. The Berkeley PhD programs certainly don't demonstrate any 'leniency'. They certainly don't believe in giving people a chance to survive the "Berkeley PhD curve". If you're not an elite candidate, you're not going to get in, simple as that. And the Berkeley PhD program then serves to coddle and hand-hold those few elite students who they do have. </p>
<p>Hence, consider the situation. I think there is little dispute that Berkeley derives the lion's share of its prestige from its grad programs, and especially its PhD programs. {Note, this is the direct opposite of schools like Dartmouth or Brown who clearly derive their prestige from their ug program.} Berkeley's PhD programs are small, extremely selective on a world-class level, and provide extensive student support. None of those 3 characteristics can be said of the ug program. Hence, it's almost as if Berkeley is running 2 entirely separate schools that just happen to be located in the same place, the grad school being the better and more prestigious of the two. It's simply too bad that the ug program can't be as good as the grad program.</p>
<p>But in any case, back to the original question, I think that it is inevitable given the proliferation of information nowadays that Asians will inevitably figure out - if they haven't done so already - that the Berkeley ug program is not as prestigious or desirable as the Berkeley grad program and in particular that most of the elite undergrads prefer other schools over Berkeley. After all, it's not that hard for an Asian to pull up the USNews College rankings. It's not that hard for them to find websites like IPEDS or similar places and note that Berkeley's ug yield is only about 40%, meaning that most who are admitted for ug end up choosing to go somewhere else. In other words, Asians are learning to become discerning customers.</p>
<p>^^Yes I am agreeing with you on many levels--except for the OP's topic. If I were to go to Asia (Taiwan), the people I would interact with (my relatives) would believe Berkeley is prestigious for undergrad. They are not going to come to Berkeley and experience it...its just word of mouth prestige. And that is what the OP is asking.</p>
<p>The reason I listed those points was that you were asking why Berkeley loses the cross admit battles to Stanford if its just as prestigious...I now realize that that was a rhetorical question. I agree with almost all of your points about Berkeley's undergrad education. And I think we can both agree that Berkeley Engineering undergraduate is quite good, and I would even go so far as to say it is "comparable" with Stanford's in some fields (EECS at Berkeley??). </p>
<p>Bottom line: </p>
<p>1) In Asia Berkeley is, on average, just as prestigious as HYPS, unless of course you are talking about an Asian with a lot of knowledge about the US education system. Heck, some of the foreign undergrads from India Ive met chose Berkeley over some other great schools for engineering (Yale). MIT, to Asians, is cut above everything else (from my experiences). This was the OP's question.</p>
<p>2) Berkeley undergrad is extremely overrated. Fact. But the quality of students in Berkeley engineering is fairly high; furthermore, if you are smart enough to go to a top tier grad school you will do fine at Berkeley...and if you get raped by the curve here as Sakky mentions? If can't hack Berkeley's curve then you would not have done so well at say Stanford (I have friends who go here and I can tell you its NOT a cakewalk as Sakky makes it seem). And if you couldn't hack Berkeley's curve AND wanted to pursue grad/med school....well then you should have been smart and chosen Cal State Hayward and aced your classes.</p>
<p>^^ That's because Yale's engineering is crap. Yale is good and famous for humanities, not science or engineering.</p>
<p>Yes, Berkeley undergrad is overrated. While I agree that engineers on average are more qualified than the average L&S student, they are not nearly as smart as MIT engineering students considering MIT is the MOST competitive (above Harvard) university to get into. I've met more than my fair share of not so smart in-state admissions engineering students. The disparity between in-state acceptance versus out-of-state acceptance ridiculous. I meet my fair share of engineers here who didn't even get above a 700 in math. </p>
<p>I'm in L&S and my math score was higher than many engineers' while my friend who got a near 1600 on the old SAT got rejected to Berkeley engineering as an out-of-stater...something is clearly wrong with this.</p>
<p>I think engineers like to toot their own horns and and talk about how smart they are. On average they probably are smarter, but there are many L&S students who did better on the SAT including the math sections but didn't choose to major in engineering. In addition, getting a 2.5 in engineering is nothing to brag about. Just because you are majoring in engineering doesn't mean you are smarter. You have to do well in it to have boasting rights.</p>
<p>My post is slightly irrelevant, but I think that MIT engineering is far superior to both Berkeley and Stanford, based on admissions alone.</p>
<p>^^So someone who doesnt get a 700+ in math is not smart...i guess if it works for you. Seriously its like you miss a three questions and you get a 690 or something. But I would say that someone who doesnt get at least a 700 might be pretty smart--they may have done somewhat better on the other two sections, which I think is a better predictor of success because the math can be beneath somebody.</p>
<p>Somebody on this thread (read it again) said that Berkeley was not as prestigious in Asia as HYPS....the Y being Yale, thats why I stated that in my post. </p>
<p>As a whole Berkeley engineering students are not nearly as smart as MIT engineering students: Agreed, but I would venture to say, from personal experience, that many of the engineers I have met in my freshman year are on par with Stanford engineers since I know a few of the latter.</p>
<p>You sound really bitter about Cal engineering though. As a sophomore I did fine GPA wise but I am not having "fun" here. Some classes seem like a rehashing from a textbook and others are so far away from the book that its difficult to study for. I suppose it gets better as you advance though.</p>
<p>^^,Well considering engineers are supposed to be SUPERB at math and science, getting below a 700 really questions their abilities. Hell, I know English majors who did better than 700 on math. But yes, I think standardized tests judge natural intelligence (well at least those who don't study) better than a GPA does . The other two sections are what, english and writing? Writing is a joke. Verbal was probably the most difficult section, but not by far. </p>
<p>Stanford engineers aren't as smart as MIT engineers, by far. MIT admissions is way more rigorous. </p>
<p>I am just bitter about Cal in general. I'm about to graduate and haven't really thought much of my experience here. And yes, I have met my share of arrogant engineers who really are talking out of their a**. They complain about their classes and how hard they are--while mocking L&S students for their "stupidity"--I think to myself "maybe you aren't cut out for engineering then. Maybe you should drop your major and stop complaining and moaning." Because yes, employers do look at your GPA when they hire you.</p>
<p>According to my EECS friend, a good GPA in engineering is 3.7+ (those who go to grad school/ get the best jobs), so that's how I weigh how well engineers fit in engineering.</p>
<p>Same GPA for pre-med and pre-law by the way. A 3.7 is pretty much the "boundary" for everything grad school related.</p>
<p>Nothing at L&S students, but the engineering admits are stronger than the L&S in general (not pointing fingers here) yet the means for engineering are lower. I agree though with the mocking; thats just BS</p>
<p>But as for employers remember that employers are hiring engineers and engineers at most schools (even Stanford) have a lower GPA relative to the other areas of study.</p>
<p>As for the math: Well look at it this way; if you had given Feynman or Hawking an middle school math test (essentially the SAT math test) they might not get every question right! Really on the SAT I math the people who get 800's are just people who study a lot and are good test takers. I would look more at the SAT II Math II (required for engineers).</p>
<p>Writing for me was not a joke! As for Verbal I just got lucky the second time I took it. Maybe it was easy for you.</p>
<p>Finally I wouldn't say MIT admissions is more rigorous. I got Waitlisted at MIT and Denied at Stanford. One of my friends got into MIT and also denied from Stanford. Both of us were very math/science focused and did not really do comparatively well in the humanities. The bottom line: MIT admits the best math/science talent because they are willing to concede a bit in other areas (history, literature, etc).</p>
<p>A closing comment: I am going to offend a lot of people on this board, but it seems to me that in engineering theres too little diversity--its a bunch of asian nerds just studying. Its like that on the basketball court too, really cliquey (spelling?) asians passing to their friends...At least white people are really diverse and know how to have a good time (huge backlash expected).</p>
<p>Btw I am asian...</p>
<p>^^ Yeah, but that's what I meant when I said MIT is more rigorous in terms of admissions, because of the extremely high math/science caliber. I totally agree that the people they admit may suck in the humanities because MIT is after all, a tech school. </p>
<p>On that note, my friend got into Harvard to study math with scholarship but rejected to MIT. He was also one of the nationally ranked American Math Competition contestants. He was in the top 50 of America....he was also very naturally smart as he was one of the laziest people I have ever known.</p>
<p>I know that engineering GPAs tend to be lower, but in terms of hiring, employers still want decently high GPAs. And if you want to go to grad school you pretty much need 3.7+ (this applies for every major). </p>
<p>I took the SAT Math II. It was basically the same thing as SAT I Math in my opinion. </p>
<p>for me writing was the easiest section, then math, then verbal. for everyone it's different. I got an 800 in writing because you can pretty much bs the whole thing. For most engineers, I think their strongest section is math. I'd say many of them do get 800s.</p>
<p>I don't mean to argue: but not that many engineers get 800's on math.</p>
<p>I took the SAT twice and only on the second time did i get 800. My friend got like a 740 or something and another friend got somewhere in the 700's. All of us went to the same HS and all of us are regents so...</p>
<p>I will say this though: Our SAT scores don't mean squat when you take math 54 or something. Heck our AP BC scores dont matter either...everybody else is at the same level in the class.</p>
<p>^^ Yeah, that's true. I took BC (only got a 4 though) and taking math 53 (haven't taken too many math classes) is a, shall I say, different experience.</p>
<p>Then again, AP tests are pretty much irrelevant to everything we do in college.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Hence, it is precisely the most mature and independent group of students (the grad students) at Berkeley who get the most support and the personal attention, and conversely, it is precisely the least mature and least independent (the undergrads) who get the least support and the least attention
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that should speak volumes about the quality of the undergrads who graduate from Cal every year. 4 years of immaturity spent at one of the toughest schools in the world. And you made it through. Imagine what they could have done at Stanford...</p>
<p>
[Quote]
That is to say, an Asian person who is admitted to both Berkeley and Harvard is just as equally likely to choose Berkeley as he is to choose Harvard. How many of us really believe that's the case?
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Well Asians are the majority at Cal for some reason. And since Asians do school best, I trust their judgment.</p>