<p>"as many Bear backers argue on CC"</p>
<p>That made me laugh.</p>
<p>/obscenity.</p>
<p>I find it difficult to compare student bodies when they aren't roughly the same number. Berkeley has about 20,000 undergrads; HMC, 750. Berkeley lets in top students + ones that are great but not quite 'top.' I don't know whether this is a valid way of comparing, but take the top 750 students at Berkeley and compare them to HMC's undergrad body. How do you think they compare?</p>
<p>
[quote]
My main point is that Cal is not the end-all answer to all "bests" as many Bear backers argue on CC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, I certainly don't believe that. I don't think any poster here would say that except maybe CalX, and I would have disputed his posts earlier had I found them. I agree and even stated that UCSD has a better BioE, for example, or that Stanford has overall better academics, or USC has better athletics. But the OP is asking about the schools overall and I gave my opinion that s/he should go for UC Berkeley, then UCLA, then USC. I don't see anything wrong with that. Sure you can say that Stanford has better academics, but they get crushed in football. Sure you can say that USC has better athletics but they get crushed in departmental rankings, for example. I think we can agree that overall, UC Berkeley and UCLA are very good schools to attend, and USC, while a little behind, is also a very good school to attend. I'm not sure when all this pro-Harvey Mudd crowd came out of nowhere.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are really smart and like only being around other really smart people you may be happier at Caltech, not Cal
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed, but keep in mind only if you are science-oriented.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to learn how to start businesses and create jobs and wealth you may be happier at USC, not Cal (although Cal grads make great middle mangers and finance mangers once you start hiring)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know about this one. Haas ranks #3 in undergrad business schools. The problem is getting into Haas in the first place, because you have to compete with Berkeley students to get in and only ~60% are accepted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to live in a fun and relatively safe neighborhood you may be happier at UCLA, not Cal
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. Berkeley isn't exactly the safest city on earth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to go on to med-school or study biomed you may be happier at UCSD, not Cal
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That depends. It may be easier to get higher grades at UCSD but Berkeley will probably prepare you better for the MCATs. Having great bio departments and getting into med-school are two completely different things. I would say Stanford outshines both schools in that area.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to be around smart people with very small classes and lots of access to professors you may be happier at Claremont/Mudd/Scripps, not Cal (no research facilities at small liberal arts colleges but how much “research” does a Cal undergraduates really do?)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, but keep in mind Berkeley's class sizes are exaggerated. 74% of its classes are under 30, and only 7% are over 100, compared to 79% and 5% for Stanford, respectively. And I would argue that undergrads do a lot of research; it is essential for getting into a good grad school. From atomicfusion's posts I will also infer that Harvey Mudd does indeed offer research opportunities, in fact maybe more than Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want a close-knit student body, incredibly strong school spirit, national championship level sports teams and academic teams (such as mock-trial), and a top research university where undergraduates are encouraged to participate in lab research with professors you may be happier at UCS, not Cal
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, if there is a top research university in the nation, Berkeley is far closer to that title than USC is. But I agree on the athletics.</p>
<p>My point is, yeah we can argue about individual points, but what if a student wants ALL of these things? Then which school is best? Between UCB, UCLA, and USC I would say UCB > UCLA > USC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cal backers should be more responsible to the fact that a lot of HS juniors read these boards and deserve accurate information from alumni or current students and stop their ranting about being the best.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, and I think atomicfusion needs to be more responsible and stop trying to manipulate data and just take them at face value. Comparing 2005 with 2001 averages? Come on, that's laughable.</p>
<p>"Hey, do you think Harvey Mudd got its numbers from every single student who graduated there?"</p>
<p>I think there is a very good chance that the answer is yes. Harvey Mudd is an incredibly small school, we watch our graduates very carefully. No one can hide what they're doing after graduation. At any rate, I'm almost certain the response rate is greater than at Berkeley. I suppose I could ask the registrar.</p>
<p>Oh and by the way, it wasn't atomicfusion that compared 2005 to 2001 averages, it was RocketDA.</p>
<p>"Look, do you have some kind of vendetta against other engineering schools or something? Is it your mission to bad mouth other competing engineering schools and praise your own? Because if it is, just come right out and say it."</p>
<p>Sigh...I am not proud of everything Harvey Mudd students say about other schools. But rest assured we do not exist solely to bad mouth Berkeley or MIT or whatever other fine schools there are out there. I suppose we just feel we deserve more recognition, maybe that causes some people to be particularly defensive. As for myself, you will note that I never insulted Berkeley itself, I said it had a fine engineering program, and in fact I even said that RocketDA was incorrect to claim that Berkeley and Mudd are not comparable. So I speak for myself when I say that I DO NOT have any vendetta against other schools. And I also speak for the majority of Mudd students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To go even further, do you think that a Harvard education is really so much better than a Berkeley one? People complain at both places! The reason why Harvard graduates tend to be 'better' than Berkeley ones is because they were able to make the Harvard cutoff, which is a lot higher than Berkeley's. People aren't successful because they went to Harvard; rather, they were accepted by Harvard because of their potential success. Studies have shown that those who got into HYP but chose to go elsewhere do equally as well as those who attend HYP.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To answer that you have to define "better education." In terms of better teaching, I'm not sure. Each school has its shares of bad teachers, although I suspect Berkeley probably has more. What gives HYP the edge is the other benefits it brings. For example, if you're pre-med, it's a lot easier to get into a med school from Princeton than from Berkeley. The average GPA of those admitted from Berkeley is a 3.7-3.9, while the average GPA from Princeton is probably around a 3.4-3.6.</p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm</a>
<a href="http://web.princeton.edu/sites/hpa/premed.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.princeton.edu/sites/hpa/premed.html</a> (I couldn't find exact figures for now, but it says students with a B+ average are getting into med schools)</p>
<p>This is despite the fact that it's tougher to make good grades at Berkeley than it is at Princeton.</p>
<p>Average GPA (1996) for Berkeley: 3.10
Average GPA (1996) for Princeton: 3.31</p>
<p><a href="http://gradeinflation.com/%5B/url%5D">http://gradeinflation.com/</a></p>
<p>In fact if you look at the website it looks like the average grades at Princeton has climbed even farther in recent years (although it might have dropped recently due to its new policy, but not by much).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh and by the way, it wasn't atomicfusion that compared 2005 to 2001 averages, it was RocketDA.
[/quote]
[quote]
As for myself, you will note that I never insulted Berkeley itself, I said it had a fine engineering program, and in fact I even said that RocketDA was incorrect to claim that Berkeley and Mudd are not comparable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah there were so many people arguing for Harvey Mudd that it's hard to keep track. My apologizes. And the last quote obviously wasn't aimed towards you.</p>
<p>By 'better' I mean the school that fosters one's intellect the most. GPA is not really a good indicator, even at the high school level I've heard people transferring from my school to other ones and saying how As were so easy to get (of course, the school's students as a whole were not as good, and so grade distribution looked the same as my school's), and my point is that a 3.0-er in Berkeley engineering probably learned more than a 3.5-er in Harvard philosophy, just because of the nature of the material and the schools' grading policies.</p>
<p>Of course Berkeley has more 'bad' teachers - it's a bigger school :P Of course, HYP will go out and hire a prof if you want to learn some niche subject, so they'd probably have more 'good' teachers percentage-wise as well.</p>
<p>In the end, I guess it really is about choosing a 'match' school. If I got into and chose a reach school, would I really be happy being an average student? Personally, my academic success gives me reason to continue working, and so I'd like to go to Berkeley, where I know (or hope?) I'll do well, and want to learn.... which is why I'm crossing my fingers for that RC scholarship so I'll have another reason to want to go.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course Berkeley has more 'bad' teachers - it's a bigger school :P Of course, HYP will go out and hire a prof if you want to learn some niche subject, so they'd probably have more 'good' teachers percentage-wise as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Er? This isn't quite how hiring happens in academia...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find it a little suspicious that Harvey Mudd only posted the average salary for all engineers. If HM has nothing to hide, why not post all the data like Berkeley does? Hmm?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe because HMC only offers a general engineering degree? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I saw that you wanted to compare average salary, so I gave you stats of average salary. Hey, since you presented the AVERAGE salary of Harvey Mudd students and not the MEDIAN, I thought it's only fair to compare apples to apples, right? But wait, when the numbers don't go in your favor, you want to compare one category to another category? Now who's the manipulator of data?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That wasn't me who posted the average salaries. The data for Harvey Mudd takes into account almost every engineering student for the class of 2005. The data is far less likely to be skewed. The fact that you didn't weight the data is completely biased. If you want to get the average engineering salary, would it make sense to consider 11 BioE majors to be weighted the same as 62 EECS majors? Of course not. The way you compiled your average Berkeley engineer starting salary is completely incorrect. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh really, Mudd's average starting salary is consistently 58-60k, huh? What's this article I see, citing Harvey Mudd's graduates in 2003 having an average salary of $53,900? It's under the last section "HMC Alumni", second bullet point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe because Harvey Mudd is only ~45% engineers? Once again, another point of yours that makes no sense. Yes, the average salary for all students in 2003 was ~$54k. Shall we compare this to the average Berkeley salary for all students in 2003? No, because we are only concerned about engineering.</p>
<p>The original data by RocketDA might have been wrong to compare because he used old Berkeley data. But, it is clear that the average harvey mudd graduate in engineering has a higher starting salary than the average berkeley graduate and has been higher for at least the last couple years. </p>
<p>If you want to talk about other differences in the schools then that would be cool.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Er? This isn't quite how hiring happens in academia...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Usually, no, but a student at Princeton a few years ago wanted to learn some obscure dialect of some language, and Princeton went out and hired a teacher who knew it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe because HMC only offers a general engineering degree?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes that's true (I find that a little silly, personally) but it could still present more data than just an average. How about what kind of jobs these engineers got? I would like to know, for example, how many Harvey Mudd engineers got jobs in the Bioengineering industry. Or let's start with something simpler. How about telling us how many engineers actually responded to the survey? Even that's missing from Harvey Mudd's data.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That wasn't me who posted the average salaries.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alright, so I didn't bother looking at the User Names. That point aside, I am still wondering why you all of a sudden wanted to compare the median salaries to average salaries when the original post was comparing averages with averages.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The data for Harvey Mudd takes into account almost every engineering student for the class of 2005. The data is far less likely to be skewed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do you know that? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Like I said, for all we know only 5 engineers responded. I suspect that you are speculating as much as I am.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that you didn't weight the data is completely biased. If you want to get the average engineering salary, would it make sense to consider 11 BioE majors to be weighted the same as 62 EECS majors? Of course not. The way you compiled your average Berkeley engineer starting salary is completely incorrect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alright, I was lazy and just wanted a general estimate, but if you insist.</p>
<p>72,120 x 11 (BioE) + 51759 x 11 (CivE) + 62461 x 62 (EECS) + 55250 x 4 (engineering science) + 62700 x 20 (IEOR) + 53940 x 4 (MaterialsE) + 22 x 55677 (MechE) = 8,150,905 / 134 engineers overall = $60,827.60 average.</p>
<p>Well it looks like by weighing it the average salary of a Berkeley engineer in 2005 was even higher than not weighing it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe because Harvey Mudd is only ~45% engineers? Once again, another point of yours that makes no sense. Yes, the average salary for all students in 2003 was ~$54k. Shall we compare this to the average Berkeley salary for all students in 2003? No, because we are only concerned about engineering.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, you didn't specify that in your post. But if you want to keep splitting hairs with me, why don't you show me some data concerning how much Harvey Mudd engineerers were making in 2003 or 2001, since you seem to know the college so much better than I. It's certainly not on their engineering department website, and just makes me wonder even more why it insists on hiding all this data. But even if you find it, I have a strong suspicion that it's lower than $58,000, since rising salaries in the past few years isn't limited to Berkeley; it's a national trend.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The original data by RocketDA might have been wrong to compare because he used old Berkeley data. But, it is clear that the average harvey mudd graduate in engineering has a higher starting salary than the average berkeley graduate and has been higher for at least the last couple years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I still don't see how it's "clear" that the average starting salary for starting Harvey Mudd engineers is higher than that for Berkeley engineers when I just showed you that Berkeley engineers have higher starting salaries, whether you weigh the figures or not.</p>
<p>Oops. Sorry, I forgot to weigh the figures. My bad.</p>
<p>was inflation really 15% in 4 years? </p>
<p>have you been to hmc? have you sat in on our classes? because i've been to berkeley (for a week in november, 2005) and i sat in on berkeley undergrad classes. the chemistry lecture i went to (frosh chem) had ~600 people in it. mudd's frosh chem classes have ~25 people in it. albeit, berkeley's lower division math class (that i went to) only had ~10 people in it, the class was taught by a TA, not a professor. </p>
<p>there is a definite difference for how students are intellectually nurtured at these schools. </p>
<p>berkeley has a fabulous grad program. i'll grant it that. i think that is where most of berkeley's engineering status comes from. it is one of the top in the US.</p>
<p>maybe it is people like me who throw off mudd's numbers. doesn't a six-figure salary directly out of undergrad engineering sound like the school did something for me at all?</p>
<p>brand thoughts on Cal vs HM?</p>
<p>my hit on a kid applying for a job at my firm from HM and a kid with the a similar degree from Cal is that the kid from HM is sharper. That's the "brand" that Harvey Mudd has, it's right up there with Cal Tech and MIT. Really smart kids go there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
was inflation really 15% in 4 years?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Salary doesn't always rise in exact proportions with inflation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
have you been to hmc? have you sat in on our classes? because i've been to berkeley (for a week in november, 2005) and i sat in on berkeley undergrad classes. the chemistry lecture i went to (frosh chem) had ~600 people in it. mudd's frosh chem classes have ~25 people in it. albeit, berkeley's lower division math class (that i went to) only had ~10 people in it, the class was taught by a TA, not a professor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? Would you care to tell me which Chemistry class is that? The largest Chemistry lecture on campus right now, Chem 1A, only has about 300 and can go no larger than 500 anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
albeit, berkeley's lower division math class (that i went to) only had ~10 people in it, the class was taught by a TA, not a professor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which math class is this? Are you sure it's not a discussion? I don't know of any lower div math class that are taught by TAs, and certainly not containing only 10 people.</p>
<p>Besides, why are you bringing this up? If you'll read my posts I have stated several times that one of the advantages of attending Harvey Mudd is it has smaller classes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
maybe it is people like me who throw off mudd's numbers. doesn't a six-figure salary directly out of undergrad engineering sound like the school did something for me at all?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, I'm happy for you. There are engineers who come out of Berkeley and make six-digit incomes too (certainly one BioE major did in 2005, it looks like). But so what? No one ever said "no one who comes out of Harvey Mudd makes a six-digit income." No, this started when you said that Harvey Mudd's engineering program is better than Berkeley's engineering program in just about every aspect, something I disagreed with. You said that the average starting salary for a Harvey Mudd engineering grad is significantly higher than that of a Berkeley engineer, something I disagreed with, and showed data to disprove it. I never said Harvey Mudd isn't a good school, nor that graduates don't do well, so I'm not sure why you're moving on to whole new topics now. I've always said that Harvey Mudd is a very good engineering school and does better than Berkeley in several areas.</p>
<p>the chemistry class was really big. that's all i know. i was there with my friend while you guys were answering questions regarding acid/base equilibria with your PRS things.</p>
<p>the math class was whatever a first-semester premed student would take if he/she had taken one year of calculus in hs.</p>
<p>rocket, berkeley offer different levels of classes. it sounds like you sit in chem 1A and math 16 or something. these classes are catering to pre-meds who essentially dont care what they learn as long as they are getting A's. </p>
<p>you can argue how smart the kids from other schools are, but the fact is berkeley offers a unique opportunity. if you prefer taking classes, then sure LACs are better than berkeley. but berkeley is so much more than just classes. a lot of berkeley undergrads are doing research. in fact there is an organization to help people get research position research.berkeley.edu you have opportunity to be in a lab, to talk to professors in office hours and be in an intellectual community if you choose to. it is not uncommon for berkeley undergrads to publish paper, at least in the crowd i belong to. </p>
<p>it is true that not all berkeley kids are smart. sometimes i was wondering how they get in here. but i dont understand why it compromises my education. if you are smart, you can always find a lot of smart people here. you dont have to hang out with these more intellectually challenged kids. but i gotta tell you. berkeley is tough. there is no such thing as grades inflation, and if you survive berkeley, you can survive anywhere. </p>
<p>apps: i am not trying to say berkeley is the best in everything. but what you said is simply ridiculous. im sorry but berkeley is known for its research facilities, both on campus and up the hill in LBNL. the research opportunity is unparallel and much better than USC. in fact, i dont really consider usc as a "top research university" it is barely a better one. and i know a few of my friends have publication on "science", so here is the answer to "how much research does a cal undergraduate actually do?" and berkeley isnt the easiest school for pre-meds but if you manage to keep above 3.7 that will be seen as much better gpa than 4.0 in most schools and 4.3 in the case of stanford because berkeley is known for being the toughest school around. i have pre-med friends in both berkeley and ucsd, i dont see the difference in their level of happiness. i mean why you are even here on the berkeley board if your message is "dont go to cal because they suck."</p>
<p>you're ranting again.</p>
<p>my message is that Cal does not suck but it is also not the best at everything as your post suggests, again. nor does it have the smartest SB.</p>
<p>the students at HM are smarter. the top of the undergrad class at Cal is not as bright as the HM students. nor are Cal students any brighter than Stanford, USC, Claremont, Scripps, and Call Tech students, unless of course you don't believe is using the SAT scores as a measurement.</p>
<p>and in many many areas these other schools outperform cal as listed in my earlier posts. so for students looking into top california schools they should know, on this board, that cal is not the best in a lot of areas, nor the smartest.</p>