<p>Looking at EECS major.</p>
<p>Differences in research opportunities, course difficulty, course diversity, amount of electives, professor involvement?</p>
<p>Also, how is the support system different, social scene, college city, weather?</p>
<p>Reputation of EECS major? Likelihood of finding fairly good paying jobs? Which would look better to a grad school?</p>
<p>I am offered similar aid packages, and I get to decide between these two. Any opinions would be helpful, thanks :)</p>
<p>Well, to start, MIT is much smaller than Berkeley, and therefore there are more faculty members per undergraduate student. It's pretty fair to say that you'll get more face time with professors at MIT than at Berkeley; that's not to say that you won't get any at Berkeley, just that you'd get more at MIT. It's easier to find research jobs, because there aren't as many students vying for them -- virtually all MIT undergrads participate in undergraduate research.</p>
<p>Classes are also generally going to be smaller, and registration for them will not be a problem -- there are very few lotteried classes at MIT, and even lotteried classes are generally easier to get into. You won't have to put off graduating at MIT because of that one really popular class that you can't get on your schedule.</p>
<p>The support system at MIT is pretty strong. I wrote a blog entry about it [url=<a href="http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/learning/advising_support/the_first_step.shtml%5Dhere%5B/url">http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/learning/advising_support/the_first_step.shtml]here[/url</a>]. It's difficult to slip through the cracks at MIT.</p>
<p>I would imagine that course diversity and difficulty would be approximately similar, unless anybody else has any more information.</p>
<p>Is this even a contest? MIT all the way. MIT was my dream/reach school, while Berkeley was my safety.</p>
<p>Not sure anyone can necessarily consider Berkeley a safety. I know someone who got into Princeton but was rejected (in state!) from Berkeley.</p>
<p>I disagree. You can guarantee a spot at Berkeley through grades, test scores, and academic performance whereas that is virtually impossible at Princeton. However, Princeton may take some people who really don't have great grades and test scores but have some other quality. It is more subjective. Although Princeton is much more selective than Berkeley, Princeton may take people who wouldn't qualify for Berkeley admission. </p>
<p>So yeah, you can talk about Berkeley being a safety school.</p>
<p>Luckily, I got in both schools anyway. Realistically, I suppose required major classes don't differ too much in quality, but I was trying to look for other differences, outside of a specific major's academics.</p>
<p>Well, the subject listing for EECS at MIT is [url=<a href="http://student.mit.edu/catalog/m6a.html%5Dhere%5B/url">http://student.mit.edu/catalog/m6a.html]here[/url</a>]. I don't know where Berkeley's is, but you can definitely look through MIT's. :)</p>
<p>MIT. Berkeley may be able to compare with MIT(but I believe it's still weaker) in graduate school. But when considering undergraduate, MIT is the strongest. It's even not a contest, like KnightMair said.</p>
<p>I have heard that MIT is not about legacy and only about genius. Princeton entrance can be about essays, $$$$, connections, grades and ec's etc. Frist's kid for example could get into Princeton but not into MIT let alone survive it. That speaks volumes.</p>
<p>hedoya: whoever said that was biased. frist is a crappy example, because his father donated a BUILDING - development admits will get in almost anywhere, including MIT. i also think it's pretty crappy of you to belittle him when you don't even know him, much less what he is capable of. Additionally, surviving MIT is not murderous - at MIT, like at most schools, you can get through with easier courses if you're so inclined. It may not be anywhere as easy at MIT, but it's not impossible.</p>
<p>If you're looking for a school whose admissions are almost not at all holistic, but about what might be considered raw intelligence, look at Caltech. I'm not saying that their students are tons smarter than MIT (which is impossible, since MIT students are pretty damn smart), but since Caltech doesn't take into account holistic factors to anywhere near the level that MIT does, and also cares much less about diversity in admits, it comes much closer to your criterion.</p>
<p>MIT is actually much more similar to Princeton in how its admission process works. Yes, math and science are prized, but unusual people with interesting applications don't need unbelievable genius to get in necessarily.</p>
<h2>"MIT is actually much more similar to Princeton in how its admission process works. Yes, math and science are prized, but unusual people with interesting applications don't need unbelievable genius to get in necessarily."</h2>
<p>I went to a math and science magnet people with a lot of people who got into both MIT and CalTech. It was always the same group of people. The Princeton/Harvard/Stanford admits were very different from the MIT/Caltech admits although there was a small overlap... </p>
<p>However, that was 10 years ago. The new MIT admissions director has said that 15% of a given entering class never would have gotten in under the old standards. These 15% did not have the best academic record but demonstrated "passion". Personally, many MIT alums (including me) disagree with this less objective evaluation of candidates. There's a lot more anxiety now among people with stellar academic credentials when applying to MIT.</p>
<p>^ I strongly agree with the way MIT does its admissions. Some of the people who contribute most to my college experience are those that never dreamed they could get into this school.</p>
<p>On the Stanford forum there's a story about how Andrew Fire, recent Nobel Laureate in medicine, applied to and was rejected from Stanford undergrad to his great disappointment. Instead he went to Berkeley. </p>
<p>My feeling is if you have the potential to win the Nobel Prize and have done your best in high school, then you should be able to study at MIT. And guess what, even top students have other sides of their personality though they may not be the best at selling it. </p>
<p>It's very simple: the people who are the most talented and committed at school should have the most choices in where to study for college.</p>
<p>Maybe the olympics should do the same thing...take some actual fast and strong people and some couch potatoes with "great personalities..."</p>
<p>I will add that maybe the people you know who never dreamed of getting in are just modest. Or perhaps they just went to a small high school and didn't think being the best there would be good enough.</p>
<p>No, it's not "simple." What distinguishes someone as talented or committed in school? Does entering academic competitions mean that? Do grades? Sports? Clubs? Community Service? Art? Science Fairs? Tests? It's very, very difficult.</p>
<p>If someone didn't have access to all that at his school how can you compare his commitment in school? If someone has the grades and accomplishments but needed to study and work every waking hour in order to get a decent score in high school classes, does he really deserve to go to a rigorous place like MIT where most likely he will only break down as he has even less time?
But he's sooooooo committed to school.</p>
<p>In high school I did my school work as needed but beyond that I just did sports. I wasn't stellar at them, barely noticeable in a small school, but I liked to play sports and was devoted to them. I had the opportunity to enter many academic competitions and science fairs but I just chose not to. Does that mean I'm not trying hard enough and don't deserve to be here? I liked sports, I didn't like school outside of school. Is that a flaw?</p>
<p>Your "simple" choice becomes a game of chance. There's no way if MIT can know if a super-smart kid will succeed or fail at MIT. Frankly I'd rather see them take a chance on some kids than just accept all those that showed talent in a purely school environment. If a kid shows a passion for learning and life in his essay but has worse grades/scores/"school commitment" than some kid who writes an essay showing off his academic accomplishments does he not deserve a spot here? I'd rather be discussing issues, living life, and becoming friends with the first kid. Yeah, maybe that is partly about selling yourself to the school in your essay (and maybe that's slightly flawed) but what else is the essay for? Does anyone really think they're measuring your writing ability for the rigorous HASS classes of MIT?</p>
<p>Oh and if you have some secret to tell which high school seniors will grow up to be Nobel Laureates please feel free to tell MIT admissions. I'm sure they'd be very interested to know how to pick them out.</p>
<p>Yeah and I definitely know people who never dreamed they'd get in (1400 SATs, no state awards, one or two APs) and they're here, doing better than a lot of kids. So no matter how simple you think it should be, it's not and never will be.</p>
<p>come to MIT, silly.</p>
<p>Jamsmad...</p>
<p>Go do a search on youtube for "Aleksey Vayner." This guy got into Yale and is a great example of the of what passes for "passion" in ivy league admissions--bulls*** artists with no substance. We don't need this at MIT.</p>
<p>If you're a California resident, you should go to Berkeley.</p>
<p>what does in-state out-of-state have to do with it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am offered similar aid packages, and I get to decide between these two.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't read that part. </p>
<p>I'd say it's a toss-up then. Go to the school where you'll be most comfortable living in for a few years of your youth.</p>