<p>Unless you come from a middle class family which earns less than $60k and below or whatever the private universities stated would waive university costs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just clicked on your link and found that table. So it's basically a wash, academically speaking, as far as top in tech....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I see. So now that MIT is ahead in the ranking, it "a wash". Before, when Berkeley was ahead, I didn't hear you using phraseology like that. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I vehemently disagree with your perpetually sunny depiction of Berkeley. The fact of the matter is, even you would agree, there are problems at Berkeley, and prospective students ought to have the right to know what those problems are before they sign up. That's truth-in-advertising. I think it is actually our responsibility to tell potential students about problems. People have the right to read about the problems and then determine whether they still want to go or not. You don't conceal the problems, only to have people discover the problems when they arrive. </p>
<p>But contrary to what you keep saying, I don't hate Berkeley. In fact, I have defended Berkeley on quite a few occasions, especially the Berkeley graduate programs. Why would I do that if I truly hated Berkeley? But my take is that people ought to know what the problems of Berkeley are. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, whoever said that I supported PA on everything he writes? Point to the quote where I said that I support everything he has ever written. I agree with some things that he has said, and I disagree with other things that he has said. But he does have the right to say those things. </p>
<p>I think it's a matter of YOU being fair. I agree with you that Berkeley offers a more balanced experience, but you then have to concede that a lot of tech students (whether at MIT or Berkeley) are simply not interested in a balanced experience. You and I both know that a lot of engineering students, whether at MIT or at Berkeley, actually ENJOY a highly specialized tech-oriented lifestyle. And I think you would also agree that a lot of undergrad engineers at Berkeley would rather be going to MIT, but didn't get in. However, not that many undergrads at MIT would rather be going to Berkeley, but didn't get in. Grad students are a different story, but we're talking about UNDERgrad here. I think somebody even posted here in the past that MIT clearly won the cross-admit battle with Berkeley. Hence, seems to me that, whether we like it or not, MIT seems to be a attractive to quite a few students who are now at Berkeley. You can characterize these students in any manner you want, but at the end of the day, you can't change the fact that those students preferred MIT but didn't get in, and if they had gotten in, they would have gone there. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're right, Berkeley needs to work on this. That's always been my point exactly. Berkeley has some things that it ought to be doing better, particularly in the undergraduate program. If Berkeley improves the program, then that will translate into better alumni donation rates, I am sure. </p>
<p>So I think you have to agree with me that Berkeley needs to stop doing those little things that tick its students off. Like for example, trapping engineering students into a particular major that they no longer want to be in. Like refusing to increase capacity in majors like economics or psychology, hence keeping them impacted. These majors never used to be impacted in the old days. But now they are. Why is that, and why hasn't Berkeley done anything about it? See, these are the sorts of things that annoy the students. Students graduate and they remember these little annoyances, so when donation time comes around, they don't want to contribute. And I can't blame them. Why doesn't Berkeley get rid of these annoyances? It's not that hard to fix these problems. </p>
<p>Come on Calx, I take you to be an honorable guy. Can you seriously come up with a good reason for why Berkeley continues to allow those majors to be impacted? Or why Berkeley will trap some engineering students into majors they don't want to be in? Come on, man, you know that Berkeley shouldn't be doing this. You know this isn't right. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? A shift in popular culture? So you're saying that people were not this way in the past? Come on, if anything it was probably even MORE so in the past. For example, it wasn't that long ago when the Ivy League probably held a STRONGER sway on the American conscious than it does now. </p>
<p>If anything, what USNews has actually done is actually popularize and promote Berkeley - especially for its graduate schools. For example, right now, people can hold their head up high and choose Berkeley over places like Harvard or MIT to get their PhD and can point to USNews as justification. I remember quite a few elderly people who have told me that they never appreciated just how strong Berkeley's graduate programs are, but because they read USNews, now they know. Furthermore, they related the pride they felt that their grandson or grand-nephew got his doctorate or law degree from Berkeley, etc. </p>
<p>Hence, I believe that the USNews rankings have actually been a strong net positive for Berkeley. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But not according to THES. Again, according to THES, A&M is ranked #120, whereas Davis and Irvine are not in the ranking at all. So basically you're saying that you don't really agree with THES. You say that they are comparable. THES does not. That's a pretty significant difference. After all, the best that Davis and Irvine can be is #201. Hence, A&M is at least 81 ranking points better than Davis or Irvine. This is insignificant?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, we might get somewhere if you're honest here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, and what about you? I'm still waiting to hear which 8 months of the year that students are wearing shorts at Berkeley, as you so claimed. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I stand by my statement. Harvard and MIT are indeed many ways a unified school. Does that mean that Harvard is a 'big' part of MIT? No. It means that cross-reg is there. Dual research projects are available. Obviously the public transportation system deeply connects the 2 campuses. And plenty of Harvard and MIT students do things together, including socialization.</p>
<p>But it is obviously true that most MIT students do not use Harvard resources, hence it But that's not the point. The point is, you can if you want to, and it is not that hard to do so, if you want to. </p>
<p>I'll give you an analogy. I personally have NEVER had anything to do with the Berkeley School of Social Welfare. Heck, I don't even think I've even been to Haviland Hall. In fact, most Berkeley students don't, because they're not interested in that major. Heck, it took me a while before I could even remember where Haviland is. In fact, I would bet you that the vast majority of undergrads do not know exactly where Haviland is. Simply put, Haviland Hall and the School of Social Welfare have nothing to do with the lives of most Berkeley students. Certainly the SoSW is not a BIG part of most Berkeley students' lives.</p>
<p>But that doesn't mean that the SoSW is not a part of Berkeley. Students CAN take classes there. They can use the Social Welfare library. Most simply choose not to. Hence, it's not a big part of their lives (hence, it's probably not ANY part of their lives). </p>
<p>Furthermore, I am not saying that Harvard belonged to MIT or vice versa. What I am saying is that the resources of the other school is there, if you want to use them, just like the SoSW's resources are there if Berkeley students want to use them. Berkeley students can't just show up at Stanford and start taking classes there. But MIT students CAN take classes at Harvard. Do most students do that? No. But you CAN. You have the OPTION. That is why I said that in many ways, they are unified schools. Not in EVERY way, of course. I never said in EVERY way. But in many of the important ways, especially when it comes to course availability, they are unified.</p>
<p>Inded (although it depends on the school's policy and the financial situation). i don't know the history of financial aid for the various current or past top institutions, but perhaps one reason that more are choosing other schools has to do with better fin aid and scholarships (and more people going further for college).</p>
<p>
[quote]
CAL tuition fee/yr ===>> $8,000.00
HYPSM tuition fee/yr===>>$31,000.00-34,000.00
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With apologies to those who have heard this story before, I know 2 guys who are California state residents who got into Berkeley and Harvard, and then found out that Harvard was actually CHEAPER, once financial aid was factored in. Basically, Berkeley wanted them to take out loans, whereas Harvard was offering them full rides + stipends. I will always one of them mordantly stating that he had always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so now he has "no choice" but to go to Harvard. He had a wickedly sarcastic sense of humor. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is, you have neglected to consider financial aid, which changes a lot. HYPSM (especially Harvard) are EXTREMELY aggressive when it comes to financial aid, far more so than Berkeley is. This is especially so now that Harvard has guaranteed full rides to anybody whose family makes less than 60k. Yep, that's right, a full ride. Berkeley doesn't offer that. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12093303/%5B/url%5D">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12093303/</a></p>
<p>Yale, Princeton, and Stanford run similar policies, but with a lower threshold (45k). They may raise those thresholds soon in response to Harvard.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/finaid/%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/dept/finaid/</a></p>
<p>So tell me, if you come from such a family who is making less money than these thresholds, which school is really the better bargain, Berkeley or these other schools?</p>
<p>I think what you really mean to say is that Berkeley may be a better financial deal for those in-state students who are too rich to qualify for these financial thresholds, and yet not rich enough to not care about the cost. But that's a far cry from saying that Berkeley is the best financial deal for everyone. For some students, it is actually Harvard that is the better financial deal in the world. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I would also point out that since these THES rankings are about graduate programs, not just undergrad, I feel justified in bringing in some graduate considerations. Many Harvard doctoral programs are well known for offering the most generous funding packages of any doctoral programs in the country. For example, I know a guy who got admitted to the doctoral programs in business at both Harvard Business School and the Haas School, and reported that Harvard's doctoral stipend was at least DOUBLE what Berkeley's stipend is. Not only that, but Harvard was offering a full fellowship, whereas Berkeley's stipend was contingent upon a lot of TA/RA work. In other words, Harvard Business School is a better business school than is Haas, and HBS is offering a far better stipend package. Hmm, which one would you choose? Be honest now. </p>
<p>Furthermore, let's talk about Oxford and Cambridge. Just like Berkeley's tuition subsidy is only available to California state residents, British citizens get to take advantage of subsidies to go to Oxford and Cambridge, because by law, every British citizen gets to attend any private university in the UK for the same price (if they can get admitted, of course). Starting in August, 2006, the annual tuition for any school in the UK, including Ox-bridge, will be 3000 pounds (about $5300 US). Living costs at Oxford (including room + board) are projected to be about 5700 pounds (about $10,000). Hence, a total of about $15k. </p>
<p>And what is Berkeley's in-state tuition, room + board total? </p>
<p>40k a year. Definitely more than Stanford or Harvard for many if not most out-of-staters. Berkeley blows.</p>
<p>Most? Show me some statistcs about most students at Stanford and Harvard paying less than 40k, or don't sort of claim it. Feel free to claim many, but most is not going to fly sans proof.</p>
<p>And also feel free to ignore the history of the situation. While you're right that it's 40k a year for out of staters, you fail to mention it's very new, just like Stanford's new fin-aid policy is very new.</p>
<p>Yeah, as I've said, they jack out-of-state tuition by like 25-30% a year since I've been here. The housing situation has not improved much either and prices are still high and likely to become higher as the UC's are forced to take on more and more students. Lets not deny how much Berkeley screws over out-of-staters. You can definitely get a better education for the price elsewhere as an out-of-stater. In-state, I'll concede its awash.</p>
<p>Even if the "UCs are being forced to ake on more people," this only affects Berkeley (one campus) so much. The university cannot really expand anymore, and I think they're realizing that. </p>
<p>Your numbers are a little off, I think, as is your prediction. Do you really think the UC system is going to make oos cost as high as the private schools? No, they're going to stay at least a bit below it. And the housing situation hasn't improved much? Do you even know about the four new buildings on campus? No, or you're not making it seem like it. </p>
<p><<this is="" especially="" so="" now="" that="" harvard="" has="" guaranteed="" full="" rides="" to="" anybody="" whose="" family="" makes="" less="" than="" 60k.="" yep,="" that's="" right,="" a="" ride.="" berkeley="" doesn't="" offer="">></this></p>
<p>I will expect Berkeley to offer that as soon as it gets an endowment the size of Harvard's. Unfortunately, public institutions can't afford to compete or help in the same way as private ones. Fact o' life.</p>
<p><<lets not="" deny="" how="" much="" berkeley="" screws="" over="" out-of-staters.="">></lets></p>
<p>Last time I looked, going to a public school from out of state was a choice. It's not like anyone held a gun to your head and said "you have to come to Cal and you have to stay there no matter what." </p>
<p>California went through a major budget crunch while you were a student at Cal. Both K-12 and college education budgets took a hit. It's not fair, it's not right, but it's not personal, either. The university didn't screw you over; the governor did. A lot of folks are still mad about that.</p>
<p>MIT offered my kid full ride plus $2,000 stipend.
CAL offered him full ride plus $1,300 stipend.</p>
<p>My kid picks CAL.</p>
<p>I am very honest with you.....SAKKY.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. These are all great universities and we should be very proud of that. Most of my kids' friends went to ivy schools, MIT, UCLA, UCSD, CAL and etc. The kids themselves NEVER had this kind of my-school-is-better-than-yours-blah-blah-blah conversation.</p>
<p>Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.</p>
<p>Calwood- you must be talking grad. I've never heard of MIT giving stipends to undergrads.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Last time I looked, going to a public school from out of state was a choice. It's not like anyone held a gun to your head and said "you have to come to Cal and you have to stay there no matter what."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I absolutely dont want to be tied up in this argument but last I checked OP was out-of-state. So, that element of 'choice' is contingent on getting full disclosure on just how out-of-staters fare at the university. I mean, for the sake of no surprises and fewer future out-of-state students bashing Berkeley on internet forums, I think that previous poster was perfectly justified in such a statement.</p>
<p>pebbles- you are right. I am talking about grad. I am responsding to Sakky's statement on page 6.</p>
<p>" Furthermore, I would also point out that since these THES rankings are about graduate programs, not just undergrad, I feel justified in bringing in some graduate considerations. Many Harvard doctoral programs are well known for offering the most generous funding packages of any doctoral programs in the country. For example, I know a guy who got admitted to the doctoral programs in business at both Harvard Business School and the Haas School, and reported that Harvard's doctoral stipend was at least DOUBLE what Berkeley's stipend is. Not only that, but Harvard was offering a full fellowship, whereas Berkeley's stipend was contingent upon a lot of TA/RA work. In other words, Harvard Business School is a better business school than is Haas, and HBS is offering a far better stipend package. Hmm, which one would you choose? Be honest now. "</p>
<p><<so, that="" element="" of="" 'choice'="" is="" contingent="" on="" getting="" full="" disclosure="" just="" how="" out-of-staters="" fare="" at="" the="" university.="">></so,></p>
<p>If you are talking about tuition/fee increases, everyone in California colleges and universities fared poorly over the past few years, not just out of staters. Look, public universities operate on a public budget, supported by taxes. When the governor says "I'm going to cut your budget, the only thing these institutions can do, short of turning away students, firing staff, etc... is raise the cost of attendance." It would be nice if they could guarantee to all students that the cost of attendance over four years would not increase, or would only increase by inflation. But how could they make such a promise when they have little control over a significant portion of their income? And yes, I'm aware that the out-of-state fees went up relatively more than in-state fees, but Berkeley's first responsbility, budget-wise, is to stay as affordable as it can for in-state students, whose families, in all likelihood have paid into the system for decades, if not generations. </p>
<p>Public and private institutions have different goals, responsibilities and limitations. Polite Antagonis aka CantSilenceTruth is well-aware of this distinction but he chooses to ignore it to try to get attention.</p>