<p>What do you guys think are the pros/cons of choosing MIT over Berkeley and vice versa, for someone who is going to major in Engineering(electrical specifically)?</p>
<p>for engineering I would say go to MIT, but for pros and cons, I don't know</p>
<p>Both are great schools for that major. If you have other academic interests, Berkeley is better, as it offers a plethora of other classes in countless highly-ranked departments. It also costs a lot less and has better weather. Employment opportunities will likely come from the Silicon Valley and elsewhere in California, though the Berkeley name will serve well elsewhere in the country too. MIT, on the other hand, has more of a math/science focus. While it has some good programs in other fields of study (such as business), they have a different focus and there are less choices. Depending upon your financial circumstances, there may or may not be a major difference in financial obligations between the two schools. Finally, Boston is a college town, so there are plenty of other college students within a short radius, which enhances the social environment if that is important to you. Berkeley, on the other hand, is 20 minutes away from San Francisco, and there is a comparatively smaller percentage of the Bay area population comprised of college students.</p>
<p>The choice hinges on what financial aid packages, if any, the 2 schools are offering, as well as how much money you have, but I would say that unless you are sure you want to major in humanities, I would take MIT.</p>
<p>As for the reasons, I can think of several</p>
<p>*Complete freedom to choose your major.</p>
<p>One of the most annoying aspects of the Berkeley experience is that you're not completely free to switch majors. While Berkeley offers lots of majors, indeed, more majors than most schools, that doesn't mean that you as an undergrad are free to declare whatever major you like. Far from it, in fact. This is particularly true of the engineering majors. If you find out that you prefer to do, say, MechE, you can't just decide that you're going to major in it. You have to apply to switch into that major, and approval is not automatic. You might not get it. The same is true if you want to switch colleges. For example, if you come into Berkeley as EE and then later find out you want to major in Physics or Mathematics or some humanities major, you can't just automatically switch. You have to apply to switch into L&S, and this is not automatic. You might be denied. </p>
<p>Contrast that with MIT, where you can major in anything you want, without restriction. For example, if you find out you want to major in business at the Sloan School, the switchover is automatic. However, if you want to major in business at the Haas School, you have to take the Haas prereq's and then apply. Only 60% of those who apply get in. And that's just talking about those that apply. Plenty of students don't even apply because they don't do well in the Haas prereqs such that they know they won't get in, so they don't waste time applying. </p>
<p>The bottom line is, a lot of Berkeley students end up being forced to major in something they don't really want to major in. For example, all of those Berkeley students who applied to Haas and didn't get in or who didn't even apply to Haas at all now have to complete a major they don't really want to do (either that, or transfer out of Berkeley completely). There are engineering students who are stuck in engineering because they got bad enough grades in engineering such that the other Berkeley colleges won't let them switch in. {Hence, because they did badly in engineering, they're forced to stay in engineering, which is the epitome of irony. Wouldn't it make more sense for the bad engineering students to be allowed to switch out of engineering?} </p>
<p>This is why I cringe whenever I hear somebody saying that Berkeley offers "more choice". That's only true on a nominal level. Just because Berkeley has a lot of available majors doesn't mean that you as an individual undergrad will be given free choice between all those majors. Hence, in my mind, the assertion that Berkeley has more choice in majors has to come with a huge asterisk. There are a lot of students at Berkeley who end up having to major in something they don't really want to major in. For some students, especially engineering students who are doing poorly, it is clearly MIT that offers more choice. Somebody at MIT who is doing poorly in EECS is free to switch to any other major. However, Berkeley EECS students who are doing poorly can find themselves locked into EECS because no other major will take them. </p>
<ul>
<li>I believe MIT has better support for its students.</li>
</ul>
<p>I think everybody understands the difficulty of the MIT curriculum. Yet the fact is, MIT a quite impressively high percentage of its students, given that it is such a tough school. MIT sets high standards, but then tries to ensure that its students are given the tools to meet those standards. This seems to be far less true at Berkeley, where some students do indeed fall through the cracks. The advisors at Berkeley are few and far between and they are generally swamped by the huge student body.</p>
<p>Now some would say that Berkeley has a plethora of resources, and it's all a matter of students taking advantage of those resources. And to that, I would say that's true, but with a major caveat. Berkeley does indeed have a wealth of resources, and it is only a matter of trying to accessing them. The problem is, let's face it, a lot of new college students are not mentally strong and confident, and they don't have the personal initiative to aggressively access resources. Let's face it. If you, for whatever reason, are having personal problems or not doing well in school, you're probably not going to aggressively attempt to access resources. You can't reasonably expect people in that frame of mind to stand strong. I would say that at MIT, the school is going to try to see whether you are doing OK. At Berkeley, you're left to fend for yourself. </p>
<p><em>UROP - Probably the most valuable part of the MIT undergraduate experience. Basically, every MIT student who wants meaningful research experience gets it. And I mean actually *meaningful</em> - meaning that you're not going to be stuck washing glassware or other such lab monkeywork, but actual meaningful lab research experience that will help you get into graduate school or get a future research job. At Berkeley, it's a different story. You might get it, you might not. I know plenty of Berkeley students who tried to get into research projects and couldn't get in. Or if they did, they often times got stuck doing monkey work. </p>
<p>*Now let me deal with the humanities/social-science issue.</p>
<p>Many people would concede that MIT may be a better place to go for undergrad engineering or natural sciences or business, but would state that Berkeley would be better for humanities or social science. First of all, I would point out that MIT has significant strengths when it comes to social sciences. Economics and linguistics, for example, are world-class. Political science is surprisingly strong, as is philosophy. Psychology (deemed Brain and Cognitive Sciences) is also quite strong. </p>
<p>Furthermore, even the supposed weakness of MIT in the humanities is mitigated by the fact that MIT has a long-standing cross-registration program with Harvard, such that you can, if you want, end up taking a significant number of classes at Harvard, and basically end up with a "pseudo-Harvard degree". The presence of the subway system (the "T") makes it such that Harvard and MIT are practically next to each other. For example, I know one guy at MIT who discovered that it actually takes him less time for him to get from his MIT dorm at Eastgate to Harvard Yard/Widener Library than it does for him to walk to Building 1 at MIT, where a lot of his classes are. And it's not like Building 1 is some remote outpost in the middle of nowhere. It's actually smack in the middle of the MIT campus. </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I think that Berkeley is one of the best undergrad public programs in the country, and certainly the best West of the Missisippi. I also think that if you're not getting any significant aid from MIT and you don't come from a rich family, then it may make sense to take advantage of in-state tuition at Berkeley. I also agree that if you know you're not going to major in something technical, Berkeley may be a better choice. But if none of these conditions holds true, then I believe MIT is the better choice.</p>
<p>Thanks Sakky, that was really helpful! I recieved a pretty good grant from MIT so im leaning towards MIT right now.</p>
<p>Pick MIT and don't look back. MIT cares about offering a great undergraduate experience; berkeley does not. That's the main difference.</p>
<p>I got accepted to both CalTech and MIT. </p>
<p>I'm choosing Cal over both schools. Why? First of all, my intended major is EECS. Cal ranks higher than CalTech in this area, and the EECS program at Cal is comparable to that at MIT. </p>
<p>Mostly, I don't see myself at MIT. I have some friends there, who are EECS students, and they tell me that life is so much work and stress. For me, college isn't all about studying. It's supposed to be this experience, where I get to live on my own (not independently of course, since I will still be linked to my parent's pocketbooks), but you know what I mean. I don't think I could handle the MIT or Caltech academia. I don't want to waste 40k per year on MIT, when Cal is cheaper, closer to home, and I would still get a decent education there. </p>
<p>Also, I have a little sister who will definitely surpass me in every field. I'd rather save the money for her, since she'll use it to greater goods than I ever will.</p>
<p>In your case, it all depends on you. The truth is MIT offers a great social life, but you will end up overwound in coursework and academia (depending on your major of course). If you're hard working, and willing to go through all of that, then by all means, choose MIT. It is the best tech school in the world. This isn't an oppurtunity to pass up that easily. I've debated for about a week before I made my final choice about Cal. </p>
<p>Do some more thinking about this. It may be true that Cal sets less high standards than MIT does, but it's ultimately up to you to make the best of your four years at college, no matter when you end up going. Choose wisely which college would benefit YOU the most. Don't succumb to parental or peer pressure of where to go.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mostly, I don't see myself at MIT. I have some friends there, who are EECS students, and they tell me that life is so much work and stress. For me, college isn't all about studying. It's supposed to be this experience, where I get to live on my own (not independently of course, since I will still be linked to my parent's pocketbooks), but you know what I mean. I don't think I could handle the MIT or Caltech academia. ...
Also, I have a little sister who will definitely surpass me in every field. I'd rather save the money for her, since she'll use it to greater goods than I ever will.</p>
<p>In your case, it all depends on you. The truth is MIT offers a great social life, but you will end up overwound in coursework and academia (depending on your major of course). If you're hard working, and willing to go through all of that, then by all means, choose MIT. It is the best tech school in the world. This isn't an oppurtunity to pass up that easily. I've debated for about a week before I made my final choice about Cal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't want to be overly combative, but I find a MAJOR flaw in this argument, in that the assumption is that EECS at Cal is some cakewalk. It absolutely is not. </p>
<p>You say that you don't want to go to MIT because life isn't all about studying and that you will be overwound in coursework and academia. Uh, well, what do you think Cal EECS is all about? Believe me, they aren't exactly lounging around. Why don't you take a walk down to the computer labs in Soda Hall around midnight on a Friday night and you will see some exhausted students still plugging away. Some of them may have been at it for more than 24 hours straight. This is supposed to be a Friday night, a night for relaxing, yet there they are, still at it. </p>
<p>If you were going to say that you were going to turn down MIT/Caltech to choose Cal to major in a creampuff subject, then I would agree with you. But turning down MIT or Caltech because it's too hard, and instead choosing Cal EECS? You know what they say...out of the frying pan, into the fire. </p>
<p>The biggest difference in my mind is that if you go to MIT or Caltech for EECS and you do poorly, you can switch to some other major. Fine, it wasn't for you. You can find something else that is more to your liking. But if you go to Cal for EECS and do poorly, you may find yourself stuck there. That's because to switch to a liberal art means that you have to switch colleges to L&S, and L&S won't take you if your grades are poor. There are a LOT of Cal EECS students who get poor grades.</p>
<p>Never in my argument did I state that Cal EECS was a cakewalk. Read before you post. I only said that MIT EECS was renowned for its difficulty, and that it was ALL study and little play. </p>
<p>Whearas, for Cal, I've been to classes, lived in the dorms, and I've seen what EECS students do with their lives, which is why I have made my statements. Don't objectify my post by saying that I think Cal is a cakewalk, which is not true.</p>
<p>However, the way you compared MIT and UC Berkeley certainly seemed that you implied it, "Mostly, I don't see myself at MIT. I have some friends there, who are EECS students, and they tell me that life is so much work and stress. For me, college isn't all about studying."</p>
<p>And Sakky has given noted how many EECS students have had to stay in Friday nights to finish their projects, etc.</p>
<p>Have you taken EECS classes at Cal for a whole semester, or did you simply stay over for a few nights and tagged along with your college friends? Were you staying over the few nights before finals and midterms?</p>
<p>Yeah, I have to agree with unlimitedx. You seem to be dismissing the difficulty of Cal EECS out of hand. It is a rough rough major. Soulzmischief, perhaps you should read before you post.</p>
<p>In fact, I would actually say that MIT might actually be 'easier' in this sense. If you go to MIT for EECS and you find out it's too hard, you just switch to an easier major, which you do anytime you want. True, there are no truly 'easy' majors at MIT, but there are easier ones than EECS. At Berkeley, like I said, if you find out that you don't like EECS, you may find that you're trapped and you can't leave. In that sense, Berkeley is far harder than MIT because now you're stuck in a major that you don't like but can't get out of.</p>
<p>Of course there are going to be nights where students will pull all nighters at Cal. I never even stated that EECS at Cal was easy, just easier compared to MIT. You state that I might find myself in a trapped major- I know full well how hard it is to transfer out a major (especially one like EECS). My years of high school and outside of school education has taken care of that.</p>
<p>I don't even know where the whole "I think Cal EECS is a joke" is coming from. </p>
<p>"And Sakky has given noted how many EECS students have had to stay in Friday nights to finish their projects, etc."</p>
<p>If you've attended any amount of public schooling, you should know that that is applicable to ANY college, not just Cal. </p>
<p>Don't misinterpret what other people are trying to say. i was merely trying to offer jnnypea my two cents and my own personal choice about the matter.</p>
<p>what they're trying to tell you, buddy, is that cal EECS is similar in difficulty to the MIT EECS. </p>
<p>also, your assumption that all colleges (public?) have it difficult and have to stay in at friday nights to finish projects is quite incorrect. the amount of work for eecs at cal or mit will be relatively greater than at other colleges. they expect much more out of their students, and it shows.</p>
<p>Yep, ccmadforever has got it down.</p>
<p>What I am saying is this. I actually think that MIT and Berkeley EECS are of similar difficulty, and Berkeley may actually be harder than MIT, for this reason. If you turn out to be one of the top students in Berkeley EECS, then you would have most likely done fine in MIT EECS. However, if you turn out to do poorly in Berkeley EECS, as many students do, then you would almost certainly have found MIT easier. Not because MIT EECS is easier, but because MIT would allow you to switch to something other than EECS, whereas Berkeley might not. </p>
<p>Hence, top students in Berkeley EECS would have survived MIT EECS just fine. So that's a wash. However, bad students in Berkeley EECS would have been crushed if they chose MIT EECS. But that wouldn't really have mattered because they would not have chosen to stay in EECS at MIT, rather, they would have switched to something else. Nobody stays in a major in which they are getting crushed unless they have to stay. Yet that's precisely the problem with Berkeley EECS - it can make you stay. Hence, I would say that Berkeley is actually HARDER on the bad students than MIT is, and hence arguably harder overall (that is, aggregated over all of the EECS students, good and bad).</p>
<p>my cousin's RA went to undergrad at MIT and thought the EECS curve at Berkeley was killer. </p>
<p>I think that speaks for itself.</p>
<p>(there seems to be MASSIVE grade deflation at Cal. I don't know about MIT in particular, but the private schools seem to be more on the path of grade INflation.)</p>
<p>At MIT, I wouldn't say that it's really 'grade inflation' per se, as it is still extremely difficult to get A's, or even B's. However, I would call it more 'grade protection' in the sense that the policies are quite liberal in their ability to shield you from truly bad grades, like D's and F's. For example, the MIT drop deadline allows you to drop a class quite late in the game. MIT doesn't report any failing grades in your freshman year. MIT also allows sophomores to designate one class per semester as 'exploratory', meaning that you can change that class to audit/listener status after final grades are out, which is effectively the same thing as a retroactive drop. And in general, MIT offers better one-to-one counseling such that those who really are in danger of failing out will be aggressively placed with advising services. </p>
<p>Berkeley is far less forgiving to those who fail. Berkeley will not hesitate to tag your academic record full of bad grades.</p>
<p>When considering Berkeley and MIT, the actual locations, including surrounding areas and weather, might (and probably should) be a consideration.</p>
<p>Thanks guys, this post has really been helpful; I've been talking to a lot of people these last few weeks before I finally decide, and it seems that in the top engineering schools, EE is pretty hard everywhere, and people stress a lot.</p>
<p>Frankly sakky, it seems that you and Polite Antagonis share a deep bias against Cal, if not outright antagonism, with gratuitous statements like:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, don't get me wrong. I think that Berkeley is one of the best undergrad public programs in the country, and certainly the best West of the Mississippi.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now that's the mother of all underhanded compliments. Berkeley is not just clearly the best public school in the US (if not the world), it is much better than that.</p>
<p>I'm really curious as to what your personal background and experiences are.</p>
<p>I actually think it's cool that you are very critical, even negative, about many aspects of the Berkeley experience. Cal is not a rah-rah school, because it isn't a bubble that molds people into clones like many other universities. But at the same time you have to realize that your experience and perspective is in the minority. Not doing so would be disingenious.</p>
<p>About the OP's original question:</p>
<p>I didn't get in MIT, but I chose Cal over CalTech for engineering. What sets Berkeley and the Cal experience apart from MIT is that it is far more of a balanced, healthier environment by virtue of being immersed with students from all walks of life and from different majors. I lived in a large dorm at Berkeley, made up of mostly grad students and got to meet a lot of CalTech and MIT alums. By and large, they tended to be brilliant, but not well-rounded at all.</p>
<p>I managed to take a lot of electives, and those were always a breath of fresh air in my curriculum. Don't get me wrong, I adored the technical curriculum, theoretical and practical, but I wanted a more complete experience. MIT might have a few good humanities classes, but most of the student body is made up of engineers and scientists, it's the overwhelmingly dominant culture on campus. As well, the gender gap is also a bit unhealthy IMO. There is a lot more balance at Berkeley. I'm very thankful of having ended up at Cal. Ultimately, my career was outside of engineering, in business, a pretty successful one (I plan to retire by age 50 and work full-time in nonprofit), but I've always drawn upon the great technical base I've acquired at Cal, and beyond that, the set of experiences and outlook I've gained outside of the engineering quad have made a tremendous positive difference in my life. I am so grateful of having attended Cal, it was one of the best things that ever happened to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now that's the mother of all underhanded compliments. Berkeley is not just clearly the best public school in the US (if not the world), it is much better than that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nice try. Notice how I said UNDERGRADUATE. If you want to talk about overall schools, then I would agree that Berkeley is the best public school in the nation, and arguably the world (although I still strongly suspect that Oxford and Cambridge are the best true public schools in the world in the sense that OxBridge are highly subsidized by British government funding and thus are 'public' in that sense). </p>
<p>But we're not talking about overall. We're talking about UNDERGRAD. And on that scale, I still have a feeling that Virginia is often times better at the undergraduate level. And certainly many of the foreign public universities are better at the undergraduate level. For example, again, Oxbridge are clearly better at the undergraduate level, as is the London School of Economics. (You might argue that Oxbridge and LSE aren't really 'public', but to that I would say that if you are a British citizen, then almost all of the Oxbridge/LSE tuition is paid by the British government, so honestly, how is that different from a 'public' school?) . I believe that the Sorbonne/University of Paris is better at the undergraduate level, as are the elite French Grand Ecole's from which almost all of the French elites graduate from. For example, 3 Presidents of France, including current President Jacques Chirac and 13 Prime Ministers of France, including current Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin all studied at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris for undergrad. How many Presidents of the US has Berkeley produced? I believe that the University of Tokyo is better at the undergraduate level. After all UoT has graduated 6 Prime Ministers of Japan. </p>
<p>And then of course there are the 5 service academies. These academies are clearly public in the sense that they are obviously well-backed by government funding. Now obviously the service academies have an unusually mission. However, the quality of the graduates that they produce is clearly unimpeachable. For example, if somebody truly wanted to get the world's best undergraduate education on leadership, character, maturity, discipline, and so forth, I would say that such a person is far far more likely to get that at West Point or Annapolis or another academy than at Berkeley. Just look at the accomplishments of the graduates. Service academy graduates have gone on to unusual success in all walks of life, including the US Presidency 3 times (Grant and Eisenhower from Army, Carter from Navy), numerous governorships, CEO positions of large companies, and so forth. </p>
<p>The point is, I think it is quite clear that Berkeley does not have the best public undergraduate school in the world. You simply cannot deny the undergraduate success of the foreign public universities.<br>
I'm not even entirely convinced that Berkeley has the best undergraduate education in the country - I believe that Virginia can give Berkeley a very good run at the undergraduate level (though not at the graduate level). Berkeley has more resources and more prominent faculty, but Virginia has the advantage of a more cohesive program and better undergraduate focus. So it's not clear to me who wins this battle. I would rate it as a tie. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm really curious as to what your personal background and experiences are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? Would it really change your mind about anything? Somehow I doubt that it would. Seemes to me that you've already made up your mind about me. But I would say that my PM and email are open. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But at the same time you have to realize that your experience and perspective is in the minority. Not doing so would be disingenious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In the minority, is it? Well, let me tell you. I know many Berkeley graduates and not one of them can report an unqualified positive experience. The experiences are all mixed - some good, some bad. </p>
<p>I'm not saying that Berkeley is all bad. But I'm also not saying that Berkeley is all good either. </p>
<p>In particular, I will always think of one of my very closest friends who got completely screwed over by Berkeley. He was brought into Berkeley EECS, didn't do well, in fact, so poorly that he ended up getting expelled, and now his life is basically ruined. He can't transfer to another decent school because no decent school will take somebody who flunked out of their previous school. He can't get into another major at Berkeley because that would mean that he needs to switch colleges, which Berkeley will not allow because of his poor grades. So he's just stuck, and can't do anything better except take a job at FedEx pushing boxes around all night long.</p>
<p>You say that going to Berkeley was the best thing to ever happen to you. Well, in the case of this guy, he says that going to Berkeley was by far the worst thing to ever happen to him. I agree. Basically, his career is ruined. He says he would have been better off if he had gone to Cal State Hayward (now Cal State East Bay) rather than go to Berkeley. It's better to graduate from CalState than to flunk out of Berkeley. </p>
<p>Now in fairness, it should be said that he fully admits that when he was 18 years old, he was not mature. He was simply not ready to handle Berkeley. That's a big reason why he flunked out. Fine. I agree and he agrees that he should be punished for his immaturity. Fair enough. But come on. That was many years ago. He didn't murder anybody. He didn't commit any crimes. He didn't hurt anybody (except himself). He just had problems with immaturity when he was younger. Why should that matter now? Hasn't he been punished enough?</p>
<p>Not according to Berkeley. What I think Berkeley should do is let him come back in with a clean slate. The guy has a sad life of just tossing boxes at FedEx now. Let him come back to Berkeley and start over as if he had never taken any classes there before. Or at the very least, why not just seal his academic records so that he can transfer to some other decent school? Berkeley will do neither. Why not? It's more than a decade later, and Berkeley still refuses to let the guy off the hook. Why? That stuff happened a long time ago. He's a different man now. Leave the guy alone. But Berkeley refuses to do it. That's unconscionable. </p>
<p>Nor is this guy the only sad story that I know about. I happen to know quite a few others. But his is the most compelling case. </p>
<p>And that's my biggest indictment of Berkeley. I fully agree that there are some people who do very well at Berkeley. Very well indeed. These are the ones that have the maturity and strength to take full advantage of all of Berkeley's resources. Good for them. Unfortunately there are other students who are not well suited for Berkeley at all, and will get trampled underfoot. Berkeley does very little for these students, and seems not to care about them at all, and doesn't WANT to care about them. </p>
<p>I've never worried about the students who do well at Berkeley. The question in my mind has always been - what about the ones who don't do well?</p>