MIT or Berkeley?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
61

<p>We care about how you choose to spend your time because you've spent hundreds of hours unduly criticizing our alma mater. No other poster has put as much time and energy in this forum. You want to improve Berkeley? this is not the board for it, you've used this board for venting.</p>

<p>Regarding your post above, your arguments are getting weaker, you're starting to serve warmed up leftovers here, leftovers that weren't so good on day one.</p>

<p>
[quote]
if all you care about is good weather, then forget MIT

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You need to learn when to concede, instead of repeatedly trying to force a square pegged argument into a round hole. Weather is ONE factor that separates Berkeley from MIT. It's neither THE decisive factor nor an element to dismiss. We were focusing on the social scene and the environment around both campuses and weather certainly factors in. </p>

<p>MIT's weather is notoriously drab, and is one element that contributes to this drabness, as does its unremarkable campus. By comparison, Berkeley's campus is much prettier (both in its architecture, its layout and its physical/geographical setting), much more cheerful. </p>

<p>I spent countless all-nighters on campus, and the feeling of elation from having finished a good solo or group project was very much magnified by watching the California sun rays clear the hills ridge to light up the Golden Gate with an orange glow on still morning bay waters, or hearing the birds chirp in a february dawn, or walking by the magnolia blossoms in late winter. As was the sight of the first pairs of shorts on coeds and the smell of charcoal-fired BBQ on the Bechtel Terrasse during sunny lunch breaks in March (on a typical year that is.) </p>

<p>You didn't say that Berkeley is the best school in the world. I did. Public or private. This actually is the opinion of the rest of the world. With all due respect to your n-thousands plus poster status here, the opinion of the rest of the world actually matters more than yours. Harvard certainly is at least as good, but it doesn't even register on the engineering radar screen. The international rankings from the Times or the Shanghai survery DO NOT limit themselves to graduate levels. That distinction is totally blurred abroad. The fact is, the faculty is THE SAME for both graduates and undergraduates. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Don't believe me? Pop quiz. Where, on the LT rankings, are the elite LAC's like Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Wellesley? Can't find them, can you? So does that mean that they are bad schools? No, it just means that they have very few graduate research programs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Those schools are vastly overrated. The fact that they don't appear in the international polls should confirm this instead of your dismissing the polls just because they ‘re not in them, because the global perception of these institutions is that they are nowhere in the same league as Berkeley. Not even close. What they have in social appeal (social as in east coast upper-class cachet here) cannot make up for the fact that their international reputation is an epsilon better than nil. The fact that NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF ANY ON THESE COLLEGES OVERSEAS is the reason why those schools are ranked in the second tier. They are basically provincial institutes with socio-culturally cachet, while Berkeley is a WORLD CLASS institution and truer meritocracy that draws upon and thrives through world-class talent in its faculty, its student body and its outlook. That's why a large proportion of Berkeley's Nobel prize winners are from overseas.</p>

<p>If anything, what's vastly overrated is the purported "undergraduate quality premium" that those institutions have over Berkeley. Let's review them:</p>

<p>Class size: (source: common data sets)</p>

<p>74% of undergrad classes at Berkeley are under 30 students
7% of undergrad classes at Berkeley have 100+ students</p>

<p>Virtually the same class sizes as say, Stanford's:
78% of undergrad classes at Stanford are under 30 students
5% of undergrad classes at Stanford have 100+ students,</p>

<p>clearly this dismisses the perception on these boards is that Cal has all huge classes and stanford has all small classes. Chemistry classes are crowded? How about Math or Physics upper div, or Stats? The average is stated above. For every big-class major there are smaller classes on campus that average it out. That's irrefutable.</p>

<p>So please refrain in the future from slapping the class size albatross on your alma mater up and down this board as you have seemingly been doing thousands of times since Al Gore invented the internet. Doing so at this stage would be dishonest.</p>

<p>Your other totem pole in the cult of Berkeley self-hatred is the flexibilty of changing and choosing majors. On this matter, 83.7% of the thousands of Berkeley students surveyed say they are satisfied:</p>

<p>
[quote]
How satisfied are you with your ability to get into a major that you want
364 (3.2%) Very dissatisfied
502 (4.4%) Dissatisfied
1103 (9.7%) Somewhat Dissatisfied
2267 (19.9%) Somewhat Satisfied
4203 (36.9%) Satisfied
2940 (25.8%) Very Satisfied

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You want to look at any other "undergraduate education premium" that the private schools always get credited with vs. Berkeley? Well the Cal numbers are similarly positive for:</p>

<p>-Value of the education you are getting given how much you have to pay for it
-Availability of courses for general education or breadth requirements
-Overall academic experience
-Overall social experience
-Knowing what I know now, I would still choose to enroll at Berkeley: 86.3% agree</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hence, the question is not really about geographic isolation.

[/quote]

Thanks for wisely adopting this conclusion after trying to argue at length that Harvard is a bigger part of MIT than the College of Engineering at Cal is a part of the Cal campus. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The question is about SOCIAL isolation. Many tech students at Berkeley are isolated because they WANT to be isolated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thank you for coming to the essence of my original argument to the OP: if you're an engineering or science student who cares very little about anything else, and want to be fully immersed into your technical studies to the point of wanting to seek isolation, go to MIT. If you want a broader, richer, more diverse and ultimately more stimulating fulfilling learning experience, Berkeley is the superior choice.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But fine, have it your way. If you really think that Berkeley is so much better than MIT, then why is it that Berkeley's yield rate is only 40%, meaning that 60% of students who are admitted to Berkeley will turn it down to go elsewhere? Compare that to the 67% yield rate of MIT and Stanford

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A good part of this is bad PR, from the USNWR poll to the blowing out of proportion the "big bad scary Berkeley academic experience" while at the same time putting too much hype into the concept of "boutique" private school undergraduate education.</p>

62

<p>jesus christ. </p>

<p>berkeley's a good school, it's no paradise.</p>

<p>MIT's a good school, it's no paradise.</p>

<p>At least some of us are realistic about these things. </p>

<p>so sakky's a little overenthusiastic in his offering of the dissenting opinion on Berkeley's board but at least he's attended the school that he is purportedly an expert on. From the hackneyed stereotypes you're spewing left and right about MIT it's apparent that not one of the Berkeley-enthusiasts has spent more than a day (much less a semester) on our campus. It's all well and good to go gung-ho overboard alma-mater happy and everything (I think school pride is great) but honestly, it's when you try to act like you're some expert on a school about which you can only barely speculate that current freshmen who are unbelievably hosed and should absolutely not be wasting their precious time online feel the need to jump into the fray. </p>

<p>Yeah, work here can be overwhelming but it doesn't have to be. Yeah, the winter is bitter but it makes spring all the sweeter. Our m/f ratio is something like 55-45. EECS is NOT our hardest major, but may be in contention for the most boring (personal opinion, of course). Even within similar academic interests can we find the whole spectrum of human diversity. No, really, I mean, if it makes you feel better that you were turning down some cultish tundra of misery and despair swarming with socially flaccid uv-intolerant pimple-magnets for some in-state merit money instead of a thriving, unique, college atmosphere that just happens to be populated with kids smarter than they would ever let on, then FINE, keep it to yourself, write run-on sentences about it in your diary, just don't start trying to convince other people about it because sooner or later, it'll be refuted and you'll go back to feeling really miserable.</p>

<p>No, we're not 'one' with Harvard (nor would we ever want to be), the school calendars are sufficiently shifted so to make cross-registration a pain if you want any kind of a winter break. That said, I may be taking classes at mass-art sometime in the near or distant future and that kind of stuff is possible. But honestly, all these accusations about a place not being 'diverse' or 'rich' or 'well-rounded' because it's strong in particular departments is bull. So the students have something in common, no one here HATES science. But does that mean no one here LOVES the humanities? Having friends look at you cross-eyed that you're doing a physics assignment and actually LIKING it instead of going out on wednesday night and getting ****-faced makes for a more "fulfilling learning experience"? (an interesting phenomenon I've observed is the fact that science kids tend to enjoy humanities whereas humanities kids tend to despise science.) Doing your homework in the lounge in big groups with music and food and talking and laughing about anything just because you're all in the same math class is your definition of "seeking isolation"? And let me guess, weekly class fieldtrips to art museums and ballets and musicals is your ideal of "full immersion into technical studies"?</p>

<p>Honestly, I don't mean to be rude. You may know a lot about Cal, and even French, and even how to have a prolonged argument online, but please don't presume to know anything about MIT.</p>

<p>EDIT: "you" takes on several different subjects throughout the course of this post.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
sakky...I think it's just rather sad that you seem to project your hate for Cal onto everybody in this forum. You know what? Here's an eyeopener. Berkeley does not care about you. You were just a statistic. Nothing you say on this board is going to have any effect on improving Berkeley. Don't whine about how bad Cal was, just because you had a bad experience. Do something constructive with you life, like getting a job. If you spent as much time working as you did on CC, you'd be well off by now.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Trust me, pal, I'm quite well off. I'll match up my biography against yours any day of the year. </p>

<p>And who ever said that I 'hate' Berkeley. I have often times defended Berkeley against the true haters. </p>

<p>It is possible that nothing I may say will ever improve Berkeley. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try. Certainly, I can absolutely 100% guarantee you that if nobody ever says anything at all, then nothing will ever get better.</p>

64

<p>Whatever you say, pal. You can't live off your parents forever.</p>

65

<p>People from Oakland aren't the brightest chips on the block. My business professors often give stories about how vastly underqualified a lot of the people in Oakland are even for menial jobs.</p>

<p>Anyways, stop making ad hominem on Sakky's. He's actually tries to be civil.</p>

66

<p>soulzmischief, I don't see how what you claim sakky's situation is with regards to Berkeley is much different than most other schools (yeah, even private) with regards to their alumni. But regardless, your rude post was unnecessary, and you probably know that much.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But does that mean no one here LOVES the humanities? Having friends look at you cross-eyed that you're doing a physics assignment and actually LIKING it instead of going out on wednesday night and getting ****-faced makes for a more "fulfilling learning experience"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hmm, lovely generalizations you have here.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
We care about how you choose to spend your time because you've spent hundreds of hours unduly criticizing our alma mater. No other poster has put as much time and energy in this forum. You want to improve Berkeley? this is not the board for it, you've used this board for venting.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And how about you? How is what I am doing any better than what you are doing. You are also spending quite a bit of your time talking about Berkeley. Why is it appropriate for you to post your opinions about Berkeley, but not appropriate when I post mine? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I spent countless all-nighters on campus, and the feeling of elation from having finished a good solo or group project was very much magnified by watching the California sun rays clear the hills ridge to light up the Golden Gate with an orange glow on still morning bay waters, or hearing the birds chirp in a february dawn, or walking by the magnolia blossoms in late winter. As was the sight of the first pairs of shorts on coeds and the smell of charcoal-fired BBQ on the Bechtel Terrasse during sunny lunch breaks in March (on a typical year that is.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>All I can gather from this is that YOU would not like MIT. But the fact is, quite a few people at MIT do like it. Take a look at molliebatmit. She really really loves MIT. Her personality fits in very well with the rest of the MIT community. MIT has one of the tightest alumni networks of any school in the world. I would say that it is far tighter than Berkeley's is. </p>

<p>Look at the alumni donation rate. If you think that donation rates are biased against public schools, then I would say to simply look at UVa's donation rate. Or North Carolina's. Or William & Mary's. These are all public schools. Why can't Berkeley have a donation rate that is as high as them. Heck, even UCLA has a better donation rate than Berkeley does. If the alumni of Berkeley really enjoyed their experience, then why don't the alumni donate at the same rate of Virginia's, or, very at least, UCLA's? </p>

<p>
[quote]
You didn't say that Berkeley is the best school in the world. I did. Public or private. This actually is the opinion of the rest of the world. With all due respect to your n-thousands plus poster status here, the opinion of the rest of the world actually matters more than yours. Harvard certainly is at least as good, but it doesn't even register on the engineering radar screen. The international rankings from the Times or the Shanghai survery DO NOT limit themselves to graduate levels. That distinction is totally blurred abroad. The fact is, the faculty is THE SAME for both graduates and undergraduates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh really? So why is it that only 40% of the undergrads who are admitted to Berkeley choose to come? If Berkeley really is the best internationally respected school, then does that mean that 60% of the admits are being stupid? Why is that?</p>

<p>Furthermore, why is is that even somebody like GentlemenScholar has admitted that he would have chosen Harvard over Berkeley if the costs had been the same? Are you saying that he is being foolish? I think Drab too has mentioned before that he would probably have gone to Harvard instead of Berkeley. What's up with that? In short, why is it that Berkeley loses the undergrad cross-admit battles to the top private schools. In particular, someone once posted documentation on the Stanford section of CC that Stanford clearly wins the cross-admit battle with Berkeley. Why is that, if Berkeley really is #1? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Those schools are vastly overrated. The fact that they don't appear in the international polls should confirm this instead of your dismissing the polls just because they ‘re not in them, because the global perception of these institutions is that they are nowhere in the same league as Berkeley. Not even close. What they have in social appeal (social as in east coast upper-class cachet here) cannot make up for the fact that their international reputation is an epsilon better than nil. The fact that NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF ANY ON THESE COLLEGES OVERSEAS is the reason why those schools are ranked in the second tier. They are basically provincial institutes with socio-culturally cachet, while Berkeley is a WORLD CLASS institution and truer meritocracy that draws upon and thrives through world-class talent in its faculty, its student body and its outlook. That's why a large proportion of Berkeley's Nobel prize winners are from overseas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, I don't even understand why you are bringing up the subject of the THES ranking. After all, according to the ranking, MIT beats Berkeley. So if anything, the invocation of the THES ranking doesn't weaken my argument that MIT is a better school than Berkeley, it actually STRENGTHENS it. </p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Higher_World_University_Rankings#External_links%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Higher_World_University_Rankings#External_links&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Hey, if you don't like it, take it up with THES. If Berkeley really is #1, then why does THES have it ranked as only #6? Are you saying THES is wrong? </p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. I never said that I agreed with the THRS ranking. But you said that you liked that ranking. Yet THES has Berkeley ranked behind MIT. So I don't know what to tell you. </p>

<p>But more to the point, I believe that THES has some extremely interesting rankings. For example, according to the ranking, UCLA is ranked #37, whereas UTAustin is ranked 11 slots higher at #26. I don't particularly agree that UT is better than UCLA, at least at the undergraduate level. But hey, since you seem to like THES so much, maybe you should go to the UCLA section of CC and tell the students there that Texas is better than UCLA. I'm sure that a certain other poster here on this website would be extremely interested to know highly regarded UTAustin is in the world's eyes, according to THES. </p>

<p>And what about the other UC's? I see that UCSD is ranked #42 and UCSB is ranked #159. But what about the other UC's? What of UCDavis? UCIrvine? UCSanta Cruz? UCRiverside? They aren't even in the top 200. Yet I see that other "famous" schools like Michigan State and Texas A&M are in the top 200 (ranked #121 and #125). Interesting. So maybe everybody who is going to UCDavis is clearly being foolish, and you should be telling them to go to Michigan State or Texas A&M instead? I happen to think that UCDavis is a better place to go for undergrad than Michigan State and Texas A&M is, but hey, according to THES, this is not the case, right? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Class size: (source: common data sets)</p>

<p>74% of undergrad classes at Berkeley are under 30 students
7% of undergrad classes at Berkeley have 100+ students</p>

<p>Virtually the same class sizes as say, Stanford's:
78% of undergrad classes at Stanford are under 30 students
5% of undergrad classes at Stanford have 100+ students,</p>

<p>clearly this dismisses the perception on these boards is that Cal has all huge classes and stanford has all small classes. Chemistry classes are crowded? How about Math or Physics upper div, or Stats? The average is stated above. For every big-class major there are smaller classes on campus that average it out. That's irrefutable.</p>

<p>So please refrain in the future from slapping the class size albatross on your alma mater up and down this board as you have seemingly been doing thousands of times since Al Gore invented the internet. Doing so at this stage would be dishonest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? Perhaps it is you that is being dishonest. Since when on this thread have I been talking about Stanford? I have been talking about the elite LAC's. I think you must concede that the LAC's have smaller class sizes than Berkeley does. Stanford is not one of the LAC's I'm talking about. A comparison of class sizes between Berkeley and the elite LAC's is one that Berkeley is destined to lose. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Thanks for wisely adopting this conclusion after trying to argue at length that Harvard is a bigger part of MIT than the College of Engineering at Cal is a part of the Cal campus.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And once again, putting words in my mouth. I never said that Harvard was a 'big' part of MIT. I said that it is there if you want it. The real question is what do you want. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Thank you for coming to the essence of my original argument to the OP: if you're an engineering or science student who cares very little about anything else, and want to be fully immersed into your technical studies to the point of wanting to seek isolation, go to MIT. If you want a broader, richer, more diverse and ultimately more stimulating fulfilling learning experience, Berkeley is the superior choice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you saying that MIT isn't stimulating? Then why is it that so many MIT students report such excellent social experiences? Talk to pebbles. Talk to molliebatmit. Seems to me that they have had quite positive experiences to report. </p>

<p>The problem with Berkeley is that Berkeley won't come out to engage you. The resources are there, but you have to be aggressive enough to access them. And as you have noted yourself, a lot of Berkeley students don't have that aggressiveness. Hence, it's not clear to me in the least that Berkeley is really, on the aggregate, a more stimulating experience. More stimulating FOR YOU, but certainly not more stimulating for everybody.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
A good part of this is bad PR, from the USNWR poll to the blowing out of proportion the "big bad scary Berkeley academic experience" while at the same time putting too much hype into the concept of "boutique" private school undergraduate education.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh really? So are you saying that yields were so much better during the times BEFORE USNews published its rankings? Are you sure? USNews first published its rankings in 1983. So are you saying that before 1983, Berkeley was beating all of the top private schools in cross-admit yields? </p>

<p>And besides, if USNews is a case of 'hype', then I would say that the hype cuts both ways. After all, USNews also publishes graduate school reports where Berkeley looks extremely good. For example, take the MBA program at the Haas School of Business. It's ranked #7 in USNews. No other major business school ranking places Haas that high. Both Businessweek and FT place Haas in the low teens. </p>

<p>Yet USNews ranks Haas very highly. And in fact, Haas actually advertises itself as being a very small, tight-knit program. In fact, Haas is something of a "boutique PUBLIC" school. </p>

<p>So if what you are saying is true and Berkeley undergrad should not be dinged for offering a boutique experience, then similarly, the Berkeley grad programs should not be credited with offering a boutique experience. The fact is, many of Berkeley's graduate programs provide the things that you seem to dismiss as unimportant. Why are the graduate programs doing this, if it is so unimportant?</p>

<p>All I'm saying is that the Berkeley undergraduate program should be run more like the grad programs. The graduate programs are clearly the best part of Berkeley, so why can't the undergrad program be like them? Furthermore, I think that USNews is right-on-target to ding Berkeley's undergrad program for its problems, but then credit Berkeley's graduate programs for its strengths. </p>

<p>But if you don't like USNews, then you can't have it both ways. Either you like their methodology, or you don't. If you don't, then you have to dismiss ALL of USNews, including the graduate rankings. You can't just pick and choose the rankings you like and ignore the rest. You either take all of it, or you take none of it.</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
Hmm, lovely generalizations you have here

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hmm, even lovelier selective reading.</p>

70

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, why is is that even somebody like GentlemenScholar has admitted that he would have chosen Harvard over Berkeley if the costs had been the same? Are you saying that he is being foolish? I think D*R*ab too has mentioned before that he would probably have gone to Harvard instead of Berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps. Not sure. Probably I would, although I might be out of place , and I would do it for the name and for the people (but certainly not the weather, and my feeling towards the culture is a toss-up).</p>

<p>C'mon, pebbles. You very much implied that the humanities students love the get drunk on weekdays. I read the whole thing, and I think you still do make a lofty generalization.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
Whatever you say, pal. You can't live off your parents forever.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Dude, just walk away before you get embarrassed. Some people here know my biography. Trust me, you don't want this fight.</p>

72

<p>Um, sakky, different aspects of US News have different methodology. Shouldn't that be taken into acount? If someone only likes it when their favorite schools do good, and doesn't when they do bad, that's weak, but if someone likes all peer review methodology (which ug business schools use, and graduate programs), then why is it wrong for them to dismiss the general rankings (which have a lot more factors that are manipulated yearly).</p>

73

<p>If that's the case, then it is the responsibility of that poster to make a case for why he is picking out only certain aspects of the rankings as being better than the complete rankings. </p>

<p>Furthermore, you have to be able to abide by the rules of the game. You can choose the rules of your own 'game', but then you have to live by them. So if you invoke a set of rules, and then those rules say that you lost, then you have to concede that according to your own rules, you lost. </p>

<p>For example, if somebody says that they really like the THES ranking (which I do not) because Berkeley was ranked #2 in THES in 2004, then when Berkeley drops to #6 in 2005 in THES, then they have to concede that Berkeley has slipped. Otherwise, don't invoke THES in the first place. What's fair is fair.</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
But honestly, all these accusations about a place not being 'diverse' or 'rich' or 'well-rounded' because it's strong in particular departments is bull. So the students have something in common, no one here HATES science. But does that mean no one here LOVES the humanities?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>thanks for the input pebbles.</p>

<p>Look, I love the sciences too, but not 24/7/365. If you're really brilliant as a science student, MIT will take you regardless of the rest. I don't think that characterizing MIT as a heavily technical school and a somewhat imbalanced university is really unreasonable. It is after all the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That's also true of CalTech and Georgia Tech. I haven't attended MIT, but a lot of my friends and TAs did, and they certainly conveyed that feeling of campus imbalance, either with their comments and stories, or with their lack of interests outside of sciences/engineering.</p>

<p>The stats about gender that I saw had 35% W overall and 43% for undergrads, so OK there, not great, but not too bad either.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And let me guess, weekly class fieldtrips to art museums and ballets and musicals is your ideal of "full immersion into technical studies"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The difference is that at Cal, the art museum, ballets and musicals actually are on campus. And you've got to admit that after a long week doing engineering projects and cramming for midterms with your classmates, it's really nice to end up with a beer in hand in the middle of a party on your campus with some babes from the litterature, philosophy, psych, soc or poli sci depts, or it's great to blow off steam and catch some rays shirtless in late october at the stadium with 8,000 other students, thousands of them from the above categories.</p>

75

<p>
[quote]

C'mon, pebbles. You very much implied that the humanities students love the get drunk on weekdays. I read the whole thing, and I think you still do make a lofty generalization.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>College students love to get drunk whenever they can. no matter the major. the heaviest drinkers here for whatever reason are comp sci. I don't see the humanities majors here drink much at all.</p>

<p>no hate.</p>

76

<p>Alright, science humanities love is fine by me. I love the quantum mechanics, for instance. Boggling.</p>

77

<p>sakky, according to your liink:</p>

<p>Top universities worldwide for engineering and IT
Rank Institution Country Score (out of 200)
1 University of California, Berkeley USA 200.00
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA 191.15
3 Stanford University USA 150.71
4 Indian Institutes of Technology India 149.34
5 Imperial College London UK 137.87
6 California Institute of Technology USA 123.99
7 University of Tokyo Japan 121.46
8 University of Cambridge UK 116.46
9 National University of Singapore Singapore 106.50
10 Beijing University China 102.42</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
sakky, according to your liink:</p>

<p>Top universities worldwide for engineering and IT
Rank Institution Country Score (out of 200)
1 University of California, Berkeley USA 200.00
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA 191.15
3 Stanford University USA 150.71
4 Indian Institutes of Technology India 149.34
5 Imperial College London UK 137.87
6 California Institute of Technology USA 123.99
7 University of Tokyo Japan 121.46
8 University of Cambridge UK 116.46
9 National University of Singapore Singapore 106.50
10 Beijing University China 102.42

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Once again, trying to quote the 2004 THES rankings? Shouldn't we be quoting the 2005 THES rankings? </p>

<p>And what do the 2005 rankings say?</p>

<p>Technology:</p>

<p>1)MIT
2)UC Berkeley</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Higher_World_University_Rankings#Top_universities_worldwide_for_technology%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Higher_World_University_Rankings#Top_universities_worldwide_for_technology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Overall:
1)Harvard
2) MIT
3) Cambridge
4) Oxford
5)Stanford
6)Berkeley</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Higher_World_University_Rankings#Top_universities_overall_.28worldwide.29%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Higher_World_University_Rankings#Top_universities_overall_.28worldwide.29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Hey, don't blame me for what the 2005 THES rankings say. It is what it is. I didn't create them. I also didn't say that I liked the THES rankings (in fact, I actually don't), but since it's being invoked here, it's fair to post them. And if we are to use THES, then we should use the latest ones. I don't go around pulling out old USNews rankings, so why are you constantly pulling out old THES rankings?</p>

79

<p>I just clicked on your link and found that table. So it's basically a wash, academically speaking, as far as top in tech....</p>

<p>
[quote]
You are also spending quite a bit of your time talking about Berkeley. Why is it appropriate for you to post your opinions about Berkeley, but not appropriate when I post mine?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A big part of the reason I post here (if that wasn't clear to you in this thread, somehow) is because I vehemently disagree with your negative depiction of the Berkeley experience. And because the other resident Cal hater on this board has purposely stated that his mission was to smear the University and scare off as many prospective students as possible. And your two views are expressed with extreme abundance...</p>

<p>
[quote]
All I can gather from this is that YOU would not like MIT. But the fact is, quite a few people at MIT do like it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I actually agree with this statement sakky. What's important here is to be fair. I have earlier today for instance recommended Davis over Cal for a propective applicant given what I've gathered from his profile. However in the context of this thread, I think that one can objectively state that Berkeley offers a better rounded experience for an engineering student who wants a balanced college experience. Most of my MIT friends would concede that. We should approach future debates with this mindset. Even if Polite Anagonis' positions are highly unusual and extreme, many applicants might share his predispositions and attitudes and those should indeed be steered away from Cal. However he shouldn't make blanket statements and you shouldn't support him either in those efforts.</p>

<p>Of course both of our views and experiences are by definition subjective. The important thing is to state where you're coming from and how representative your views are. I would like to see Polite antagonis for instance qualify his take on the Cal experience as extremely disappointing with the fact that only one student in 62 shares this position...</p>

<p>
[quote]
If the alumni of Berkeley really enjoyed their experience, then why don't the alumni donate at the same rate of Virginia's, or, very at least, UCLA's?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There are a whole lot of Cal alumni who did very much enjoy the experience, but don't donate. The two aren't as strongly correlated at Cal as they are at other schools, because there is a perception at Cal that the state provides for the school. UCLA has done a better job of outreach to its alumni. We certainly need to work on that. BTW Haas has greatly improved upon this, their donation rate used to be very low too.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why is it that only 40% of the undergrads who are admitted to Berkeley choose to come? If Berkeley really is the best internationally respected school, then does that mean that 60% of the admits are being stupid? Why is that?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some of it is a shift in popular culture, with students being more materialistic and more prone to associate private schools as an upscale experience and a path to social climbing. As well, the USNWR has almost become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I do think that part of those 60% turning down Berkeley are indeed misinformed. Just spending a couple of weeks on this site has really opened my eyes about this...</p>

<p>There is as well a differential in reputation between domestic and international. Berkeley is about #2 behind Harvard abroad. </p>

<p>As well, Davis, Irvine and A&M are fairly comparable, as is UT with UCLA. Same ballpark. The inconsistencies here are fairly minor if not insignificant.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And once again, putting words in my mouth. I never said that Harvard was a 'big' part of MIT. I said that it is there if you want it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OK sakky, you said earlier and I quote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
The fact is, Harvard and MIT are in many ways a single unified school. Students are allowed to cross-reg. Plenty of parties are dual-school parties.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, we might get somewhere if you're honest here.</p>

80

<p>CAL tuition fee/yr ===>> $8,000.00
HYPSM tuition fee/yr===>>$31,000.00-34,000.00</p>

<hr>

<p>Now look at the ranking from above post.....
Technology:
1)MIT
2)UC Berkeley</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_..._for_technology%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_..._for_technology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Overall:
1)Harvard
2) MIT
3) Cambridge
4) Oxford
5)Stanford
6)Berkeley</p>

<p>I think Consumer Reports will give Berkeley=====>> BEST BUY</p>