NU vs. BERKELEY!

College Search & Selection
61

<p>Alexandre:</p>

<p>"gd, in defense of Joshua, I think his reaction is a result of CC ignorance. It is sad to see the number of people on this forum who think that private elites likes Duke or NU are better than public elites like Cal just because of the USNWR ranks the private elites slightly higher than the public elites."</p>

<p>i agree with you, i do think excellent public schools such as U of M are not given enough credit on these boards. for example, the LSA honors program at U of M offers a quality education that is comparable to any ivy or private elite like Duke or NU. there is no question to that.</p>

<p>however, the discrepancy in the undergrad rankings are due to the fact that the entire student body is evaluated as a whole. the LSA honors kids do not represent the whole student body at U of M. in state schools, a large portion of the student body is inevitably constituted by in-state kids who were not particularly outstanding but diligent in high school and also transfer students from community colleges within the state (such is the case for most UCs, including UCB. i'm from California, i know).</p>

<p>because state schools are required to fill a quota for in-state students and are originally meant to serve the residents of the state, the student body as a whole will be different, by nature, from that of a private school. private schools have no such obligations; this allows private institutes to select their students solely based on merit and character without having to consider residency. this, perhaps, is the explanation for why people assume a big difference in the quality of the student bodies of public and private universities.</p>

<p>but even so, i agree with you in that there always are select groups of students in top public schools such as U of M, UCB, and UVA, who could outperform the average students from ivies or private elites, regardless of rankings. in the end, rankings are incredibly vague; it'll be the performance of each individual student at their respective university that will determine the opportunities for them in the future.</p>

62

<p>pennfan:</p>

<p>well i'm glad we're going back to berkeley v. NU, or public v. private, or whatever it's meant to be.</p>

<p>"I have never bashed any school in relation to Wharton, or even promoted Wharton on its own."</p>

<p>yes you did.</p>

<p>"I could believe that top MMSS > average Wharton, but not average MMSS > average Wharton."</p>

<p>you see, i could believe average Wharton > average NU or top Wharton > average MMSS, but not average Wharton > average MMSS, but who cares what i believe. it's all subjective. we get recruited to the same top firms as Wharton. we're one of the top business school, MBA feeders. look on some of the links provided by sam.</p>

<p>but you're right, recruitment should be discussed when comparing schools at the undergraduate level. because no one goes to school any more for an education right? back when i applied we used to consider class sizes, curriculums, programs and atmosphere. and that's what my response to the OP was about, but clearly that comment is now snowed under discussions on how Credit Suisse only hires Ph.Ds from NU, evidently an indication of the quality of education at NU.</p>

<p>"There's simply no need to because everyone knows how good it is."</p>

<p>word. wharton is the best, go for it man.</p>

63

<p>Don't take what I said out of context. I was responding to this comment by Sam Lee:</p>

<p>"MMSS students (mostly econ majors) have more impressive placement than even average Whartonites."</p>

<p>Challenging such a presumptuous statement can hardly constitute bashing NU or promoting Wharton.</p>

<p>NU offers good education and placement, but is it better than Berkeley for the OP's goals?</p>

64

<p>gd, you should not underestimate the character or ability of state school students. The top 30% of the students at Michigan, Cal or UVA are equal to the top 50% of the students at NU or Cornell or Penn. And the top 50% of the students at Cal, Michigan and UVa are equal to the top 75% of the students at NU, Cornell or Penn. Finally, 75% of the students at Cal, Michigan or UVa are good enough to be students at NU, Cornell or Penn. Yes, the overall student quality at those huge state schools is not exactly as strong as those at smaller private university, but it is not significantly weaker either.</p>

65

<p>Alexandre,
I agree that the top public schools like UC Berkeley and U Michigan have a subset of very good students, but Northwestern is a good deal stronger and deeper at the top. </p>

<p>Let's look at three schools individually and then put that in a national context. It is also important to calculate the impact of transfer admissions and consider their dilution of the overall strength of a school's student body. </p>

<p>Number of students (including transfers)
UC Berkeley: 4157 + 3096 transfers = 7253 students
U Michigan: 5060 + 1081 transfers = 6141 students
Northwestern: 2062 + 238 transfers = 2300 (31% the size at UCB and 37% of UM)</p>

<p>700 scorers on SAT Critical Reading:
1289 students or 17.8% of the students at UC Berkeley
1063 students or 17.3% of the students at U Michigan
1093 students or 47.5% of the students at Northwestern</p>

<p>Number of students nationally scoring at this level: 68,993 students</p>

<p>700 scorers on SAT Math:
1912 students or 26.4% of the students at UC Berkeley
2176 students or 35.4% of the students at U Michigan
1299 students or 56.5% of the students at Northwestern</p>

<p>Number of students nationally scoring at this level: 95,759</p>

<p>For the students who scored above 1400 on the SAT, Northwestern would appear to have a decided advantage over both UC Berkeley and U Michigan. The gap for Critical Reading is narrowed somewhat when you go to the 600 level, but a much higher percentage of NU students achieve at this level. This gap is much closer on the Math parameter at the 600 level as all three schools have high percentages of students scoring over this level.</p>

66

<p>I agree with Alexandre in that Berkeley and Michigan are target schools for most BB's in I-banking. I'm not sure how much more impressive you will have to be at either of those schools than Ivy-plus schools, but I've heard that there is plenty of recruitment and offers made to both of these schools.</p>

67

<p>by the way, for those who keep pointing out that 99% of berkeley students are in the top 10% of their high school classes... this is why:</p>

<p><a href="http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=1469%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=1469&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>65% high school proficiency for english in california public schools</p>

<p>63% high school proficiency for math</p>

68

<p>Hawkette, I am not sure where you got transfer statistics. Most schools do not keep track of or publish SAT averages for transfer students. </p>

<p>For Freshman classes, I know that 30% of Cal, Michigan and UVa students score over 1400 on the SAT compared to 50% at Cornell, Northwestern and Penn. 50% of Cal, Michigan and UVa students score over 1300 on the SAT compared to 75% at Cornell, Northwestern and Penn. And Cal and Michigan don't superscore. Cornell, Northwestern and Penn do. </p>

<p>I never said that the overall student body at Cal or Michigan is equal to the overall student body at Cornell, Northwestern or Penn. However, the difference is not as significant as people on this site think. Like I said, the top third of the students at Cal and Michigan are as good as the top half of the students at Cornell, Northwestern or Penn and about half of the student body at Cal or Michigan are equal to the top three quarters of the student body at Cornell, NU or Penn.</p>

69

<p>^^^ a more accurate way of saying this, since you can't measure the outliers or standard deviation, is that cornell, northwestern, and penn's 75th percentile is cal and michigan's 50th</p>

70

<p>UCB and U Michigan and the like would like you to believe that their student body is at the levels indicated by Alexandre, but it is not so. The dirty secret of UCB and U Michigan and other schools with high transfer numbers is that their numbers are excluded from the student profile. But the high likelihood is that they score at a different (and lower) level than FT/FY students and almost certainly not at the 1400 level on the SAT. Yet these transfer students are a legitimate part of the student body and deserve to be counted in the assessment of the overall student body.</p>

71

<p>Hawkette, Michigan does not have a high stransfer rate. Only 15% of Michigan's entire undergraduate student body are transfers. And like I said, I have never see stats of Transfer applicants. You underestimate the student quality at elite publics Hawkette.</p>

72

<p>Alexandre,
It may be that U Michigan’s transfer numbers are only 15% of its students. However for a student body size of 25,555, this means 3833 students. I doubt that any of them scored over 1400 on the SAT which was the comparison that I was making.</p>

<p>As for your contention that the student body at U Michigan or UC Berkeley is a near peer for schools like Northwestern or U Penn, let’s take a closer look at your comparison. You claim that 33% of the students at U Michigan and/or U Berkeley score at the same level as the top 50% at Northwestern and U Penn. Several problems here:</p>

<p>1) U Michigan’s numbers are significantly lower than UC Berkeley for the comparison being made (and most comparisons for that matter). Nonetheless, both are well below Northwestern and U Penn. For first-time, first-year (FT/FY) students,
a) 31% of UCB FT/FY students scored over 700 on the Critical Reading (U Michigan had 21%). Northwestern and U Penn were 53% and 54%, respectively.<br>
b) 46% of UCB’s FT/FY students over 700 (U Michigan had 43%). Northwestern and U Penn had 63% and 69% respectively. </p>

<p>2) These numbers don’t include transfers which make up a huge portion of UCB’s enrollment and an important part of U Michigan’s enrollment. It is VERY likely that their inclusion would have a negative impact on the overall student profile. </p>

<p>3) For FT/FY students, the facts are as follows:
1450 75th percentile for UC Berkeley
1420 75th percentile for U Michigan</p>

<p>1410 50th percentile for Northwestern
1420 50th percentile for U Penn </p>

<p>Using your logic, this makes UCB and U Michigan near peers to Northwestern and U Penn. If you ask me and other readers to accept that, then let’s see what schools BELOW measure up in the same manner and I ask if you will accept them as near peers to UCB and U Michigan. </p>

<p>1330 75th percentile for Syracuse
1330 75th percentile for Northeastern
1320 75th percentile for Rutgers
1320 75th percentile for Clemson</p>

<p>1325 50th percentile for UC Berkeley
1315 50th percentile for U Michigan</p>

<p>So, Alexandre, I will accept UCB and U Michigan’s student bodies (non-transfer adjusted) as near peers to Northwestern and U Penn if you will accept the student bodies of Syracuse, Northeastern, Rutgers, Clemson and many others as near peers to UCB and U Michigan. Do you accept?</p>

73

<p>Yes, I accept Hawkette. I don't see anything wrong with the student bodies at Syracuse, Clemson, Northeastern or Rutgers. I never said their students weren't good. But I also always emphasize that student body is only one of many important factors to consider when evaluating the quality of a university. I am not obsessed by selectivity. I care more about academic excellence and recognition. The reason why Syracuse, Northeastern, Rutgers and Clemson aren't considered equal to Cal and Michigan isn't because their students aren't good, but rather, because they don't have many top 10 departments. Virtually every single department at Cal and Michigan is ranked in or around the top 10 in the nation. Almost none of the departments at Rutgers, Clemson, Northeastern and Suracuse are ranked among the top 50 nationally. </p>

<p>Furthermore, every single company that is worth its weight will list Cal and Michigan among their top 10 or top 15 hunting ground. Last time I checked, McKinsey, Lockheed Martin, Google, BP, Goldman Sachs etc... weren't exactly fighting over Syracuse or Clemson students. </p>

<p>Every single academic on Earth will tell you that Cal and Michigan are amazing, as evidenced by their Peer Assessment Score (4.7 and 4.5 respectively). What are the peer assessment scores of Rutgers, Clemson, Northeastern or Syracuse? 3.5? </p>

<p>So, now that I accepted that the student bodies at Northeastern, Clemson, Rutgers and Syracuse are peers to the student bodies at Cal and Michigan, do you accept that the student bodies at Cal and Michigan are peers to the student bodies at Cornell, Northwestern and Penn?</p>

74

<p>"It may be that U Michigan’s transfer numbers are only 15% of its students. However for a student body size of 25,555, this means 3833 students. I doubt that any of them scored over 1400 on the SAT which was the comparison that I was making."</p>

<p>Hawkette, I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that none of Michigan's 3,000+ transfers (out of 25,000 mind you) scored over a 1400 on the SAT? I have known students who transfered from elite universities into Michigan because of a particular program or because they weren't happy and wanted an environment better suited for their personalities. Of course, many Michigan residents decide that they made a financial mistake and transfer back into Michigan from elite private universities because the cost differential wasn't easily justified. Finally, I have known some very talented students at Michigan who chose to attend community college for financial reasons and transfered into Michigan after their Sophomore year of college.</p>

75

<p>^^</p>

<p>the reason for this, moreso for berkeley than michigan, is that berkeley has contractual obligations to admit community college transfers from the state of california, and the assumption being made is that community college students, by virtue of being such, have low SAT scores. Not true in all cases, granted, but how many people with 1590 SAT scores do you know going to Bay Area Community College.</p>

76

<p>I know Cal has an obligation to Community College students. But that's definitely not the case with Michigan. The University of Michigan is not under any obligation to accept community college transfers from the state of Michigan or any other state. Although I never asked any of the transfers I met to share their SAT details with me, I have met students at Michigan who transfered from other elite universities and they certainly did well on the SAT.</p>

77

<p>joshua:</p>

<p>i don't even know what part of my so-called "argument" was about selectivity. in fact, i didn't even once mention the word selectivity when talking about public v. private schools, so i'm not sure where you're drawing that conclusion from. but just because you mentioned selectivity and the weighing of SAT scores and high school performance, let me mention a few things.</p>

<p>"elite private schools look more on SATs, most elite public schools (State Us) value the applicants high school performance as reflected in their very high high school rank."</p>

<p>according to the common data sets posted by NU: <a href="http://ugadm.northwestern.edu/commondata/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ugadm.northwestern.edu/commondata/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Rigor of secondary school record: very important
Class rank: very important
Academic GPA: very important
Standardized test scores: very important</p>

<p>high school performance is not listed as just "important" or "considered," it is "very important" just like Standardized test scores. so i don't know where you get the idea that private elites do not place as much emphasis on high school grades and class ranks as state schools do.</p>

<p>however, i also want to mention why high school grades and class ranks are not the best measurement of a student body's academic aptitude. i went to a prestigious prep school in California called the Cate school (the "Groton" of the west coast), and believe me, it is much harder to earn an A or be in the top 10% here than it is, for example, at Irvine High School. most prep school students focus on private elites so a good portion of the applicants at private elites are students from very, very competitive prep schools, who aren't necessarily in the top 10%, but have already made it through a competitive application process to make it into these schools in the first place. ok, so UCB's percentage of top 10% student is 99%, but why don't we also emphasis the same for UC Irvine and UC Davis; 99% of their students were in the top 10% in high school too. does that make these schools more selective than NU, Cornell, Penn and Duke or does it put them on par with private elites?</p>

<p>Grading scales and measurement can vary from school to school; i hate to say it, but GPA and class rank simply aren't as objective as Standardized test scores like the SATs or the ACTs. it's an indication of the student's diligence and passion for learning, but not an objective measurement of academic aptitude. but, sure, you can always argue SAT scores aren't objective either since some students do test prep while others don't, but that's not good enough of an excuse. any student can go out to Barnes & Noble's and pick out a SAT prep book to study, if the really wanted.</p>

<p>so that's my take on the issue.</p>

<p>"AND THERE always are many students at top public schools (UCB, UM, UVa, UCLA to name a few) who could outperform the brightest students from ivies or private elites."</p>

<p>yeah i agree. it's a matter of individual performance.</p>

78

<p>Hm. Same argument that goes on over and over again. My response: You can't rank undergraduate departments by simply using graduate strength. The goal of undergrad is very different than grad. Also, what makes a grad program strong isn't necessarily the ideal characteristic for an undergrad. Strong grad programs have lots of professors, students, resources, etc. - but this doesn't necessarily correlate with undergrad. </p>

<p>I would assume the best students choose the best undergrad programs that appeal to them, with their own future in mind. And since the goal of different undergrad institutions is to get the best students, I think student strength is very important. And student strength should me measured beyond SATs, class rank, national merit scholars etc. and also measure how many students go to top law schools, business schools, win major awards, etc. so any thorough measurement would have many variables. However, instead, looking at a few basic factors is easier. The task is to compare schools side by side in a number of categories. Does school A have more resources per student versus school B? Etc. These are questions students should ask. Not how many top 10 departments a University has.</p>

<p>I'm sure the publics don't value class rank significantly more highly than SATs and other attributes, or at least not anymore than most non-publics - class rank is very important to every school, but its not standardized and therefore students who go to easier high schools will have a better chance to have a high class rank. I just don't think its that good a gauge.</p>

<p>And again, no one is saying Mich or Berkeley are bad schools - they are highly recruited at, and excellent all-around schools.</p>

79

<p>This thread is about Northwestern and UC Berkeley so the introduction of U Michigan to the discussion was unnecessary (and looks to me like yet another attempt to attach the name of U Michigan to a discussion with higher ranked schools). But I am glad to know that it has been accepted that the student body at U Michigan is as close to Northwestern and U Penn as it is to Syracuse, Rutgers, Northeastern, Clemson, etc. </p>

<p>For future purposes, if you want to associate UCB with equivalent public schools, U Virginia is the true qualitative peer. Considering USNWR ranking data going back to 1991 (17 years), here is the record:</p>

<p>UCB: Ranked as #1 US Public 11 times including 3 ties with U Virginia)
U Virginia: Ranked as the # 1 US Public 8 times including 3 ties with UCB)</p>

<p>U Michigan: Never ranked as the #1 US Public </p>

<p>With regard to UC Berkeley, this is obviously an excellent state university with a very strong record among academics (most especially for graduate work) and with employers (though mainly on the West Coast). However, I do think that there are a few differences with Northwestern that deserve consideration when comparing the undergraduate quality and nature of education of these two schools. Some of those differences include:
1. Huge transfer numbers coming into UCB (equivalent to 74% of the FT/FY enrollees) from the California CC system and elsewhere. Their addition distorts the true student profile of UCB and the other UCs.
2. Sizable differences in class size and student/faculty ratio (7/1 at NU vs 15/1 at UCB)
3. The 93% in-state population at UCB. This is a reality of life at the UCs and one must question the diversity of thinking that exists on a campus with so many students from the same geography. By contrast, 23% of Northwestern's students come from Illinois. </p>

<p>With regard to departmental rankings, there are a lot of claims being made about faculty strength. Can someone please post the latest rankings for the undergraduate departments across the entire university? This is what is actually going to be experienced by a student and it would be helpful to compare the claims with the facts.</p>

80

<p>Hawkette, I use Michigan as an example because I am familiar with it. But UVa and Cal are very similar to Michigan in many respects, so if you prefer using Cal and UVa, that's fine with me. All three schools have generally been ranked within 5 spots of each other and although Michigan has not been ranked #1 among publics according to the USNWR, it has been ranked #2 several times and always among the top 3. And I am glad, nay, comforted, that your general tone is as respectful and dignified as ever! </p>

<p>TheThoughtProcess, I don't know how all universities function. I know Michigan's graduate programs are a duplicate of their undergraduate programs, not the other way around. Graduate students take Econ 601, 602, 605 etc..., which are duplicates, only more quantitative, of undergraduate courses 401, 402, 405 etc... And those classes are generally taught in the same classrooms by the same professors. I agree that rankings of graduate programs are more pertinent because graduate students spend most of their time within their own department. Only 50% of classes that undergraduate students take are within their own major. But that doesn't mean those undergrads cannot benfit from taking their electives in top ranked departments. Those electives are generally taught by leaders in their fields. Finally, at Michigan, most undergrads take several graduate classes. I took 6 graduate level Econ classes while at Michigan. My professors recommended me to major Econ departments. Econ professors at lesser known departments (even those in elite universities or LACs) do not have as much clout as Econ professors at top ranked Econ departments like Cal or Michigan. </p>

<p>Yes, SAT averages are important, but one must look at the entire package. The mean SAT score at Cal or Michigan is in the 1300-1350 range. At smaller private elites, it is more like 1400-1450. But how do the students at Cal and Michigan prepare for the SAT? How do students at private elites prepare for the SAT? Michigan's philosophy when it comes to SATs is clear. Michigan treats a 1350 and a 1600 equally. Michigan treats a 1200 SAT almost the same as a 1600 SAT. Michigan openly says that a 3.9 student with a 1200 SAT score is more impressive than a 3.8 student with a 1600 on the SAT. That is a FACT that all Michigan high schoolers are told when groing up. Do you honestly think that those high schoolers are going to prepare that hard for the SAT when they know that if they get 5s on APs, maintain a 4.0 unweighed GPA while taking challenging classes and graduate in the top 1% of their class, they will most likely end up at the University of Michigan (one of the nation's top 10 or top 15 universities) for one third the cost of a private elite that is no better academically or reputationally? And how does Michigan report SAT scores? Michigan only records one SAT score, the highest in one sitting. Even if a student has taken the SAT more than once, Michigan will only report the highest score in one sitting. Most private schools superscore. They mix and match the highest score in each section. This can also play a role in the debate. Overall, who knows by how much those two points deflate Michigan SAT scores/inflate SAT scores at private elites. And the same is true of Cal and many other elite publics. For this reason, it is really not possible to compare SAT scores at public elites and private elites. If Public elites all of a sudden changed their philosphy regarding the importance of SATs and if they started to superscore, you would probably see a small jump in SAT averages. Not a major jump mind you, but at least 80-120 points on average.</p>

<p>And assuming that there really is a "real" 100 point gap in average between the SAT average at Cal/Michigan and the private elites, how does that make them inferior as educational institutions? Does it really matter whether 30% or 50% of your classmates are brilliant?</p>

<p>At the end of the day TheThoughtProcess, what determines quality of education is purely a matter of opinion. It cannot be measured statistically. Most of the leading intellectuals and exclusive companies agree with that. I (and many like me) personally want a university with an insatiable intellectual vibe, great academics, access to excellent upperclass level and graduate level courses in my major, top faculty in my chosen field, access to top recruiters, rabid school spirit, a fiercely loyal alumni network etc... To a guy like me, Michigan is unbeatable. Others want an administration that knows students by their name and mean SAT scores over 1400. To those students, Michigan is not the best choice. It really depends on what one wants. But neither of those groups' criteria determine the quality of a university. The quality of a university is innate, inethible and intangible. Some schools have it, others don't. Cal, Michigan and UVa most definitely have it.</p>