OOS UCB, UCLA, or USC

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

<p>appstressin,</p>

<p>
[quote]
the students at HM are smarter. the top of the undergrad class at Cal is not as bright as the HM students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>On this, I beg to differ.</p>

<p>According to Berkeley's admissions site, the middle 50th percentile of admits was:</p>

<p>Reading: 580-710
Math: 620-740
Writing: 590-710</p>

<p>This means that the top 25th percentile must invariable be stronger. I find it hard to argue that the HMC students are much stronger than that. The strongest students at Cal are clearly as worth as the HMC students, but the tail end at Cal is obviously much lower.</p>

<p>Still, it's hard to argue that there isn't an equivalent population at Cal.</p>

62

<p>"the students at HM are smarter. the top of the undergrad class at Cal is not as bright as the HM students."
How about those who chose Cal over HM and are at the top of the Cal undergrad class? Are they less intelligent for choosing Cal (and paying a ridiculously low tuition fee) than those who chose HM?</p>

<p>"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."
SAT is hardly a measure of intelligence, let alone the average SAT of admitted students. The average SAT at Cal is not as high as those of privates, because Cal is a public school: it serves the people of California. It cannot possibly as selective as some of the privates you listed (why is USC there?). Cal has to admit some students who are from low API schools with extremely low SAT's. In turn, this lowers the average SAT score. My suite represents this scale: of the six people in my suite, 4 of us have 2250+ SAT scores while one of my suitemates has 1520 and the other ~2000.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
the students at HM are smarter. the top of the undergrad class at Cal is not as bright as the HM students.<br>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alright, let's take the top 25% of Berkeley students vs. the entire Harvey Mudd population (keep in mind top 25% Berkeley students still vastly outnumber HMC students).</p>

<p>SAT I:</p>

<p>Berkeley: 710-800 verbal, 740-800 math (since 75th is 710/740, top 25% must have higher than this), so average of roughly 760 and 770
HMC: For 2003 incoming students, the average SAT Verbal score is 700; average Math score is 750. </p>

<p><a href="http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2005-06.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2005-06.pdf&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.hmc.edu/highlights/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hmc.edu/highlights/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Or maybe GPA/rank (percent in top 10% of high school class):</p>

<p>Berkeley (overall): 99%, so among top 25% it must be 100%
Harvey Mudd: Approximately 90 percent were ranked in the top 10 percent of their high school class. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If we're talking about average student for Berkeely vs. say Stanford or CalTech, I would agree. But schools like USC or Scripps? Come on. Let's dig up the average SATs and Class rank again...</p>

<p>SAT I</p>

<p>Berkeley: 710-800 verbal, 740-800 math
Scripps: 630-730 verbal, 620-700 math</p>

<p>GPA/Class Rank</p>

<p>Berkeley: 100% in top 10 percent of graduating class
Scripps: Percent in top 10th of high school graduating class: 75% </p>

<p><a href="http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2005-06.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2005-06.pdf&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.scrippscol.edu/dept/about/facts/dataset.html#first%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.scrippscol.edu/dept/about/facts/dataset.html#first&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, keep in mind we were comparing the top 25% of Berkeley vs. all the Scripps students. That's comparing about 4,000 Berkeley students with about 850 Scripps students. Looks like you can find at least five times as many students at Berkeley that would crush Scripps students academically.</p>

<p>So what's this about not having any Berkeley students brigher than Scripps students? Looks like I found plenty.</p>

<p>Or let's take a look at USC vs. Berkeley. Since USC is a bigger school I'll just compare the entire schools instead of top 25%.</p>

<p>SATs:</p>

<p>USC mid 50%: 630-720 v, 620-740 m
Berkeley mid 50%: 580-710 v, 620-740 m</p>

<p>Keep in mind that USC uses composite scores which usually boosts a student's score by 30-50 points, while Berkeley uses single-sitting scores.</p>

<p>GPA</p>

<p>USC: 3.7 average
Berkeley: 3.9 average</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/docs/admission/Freshman_Profile_2006.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/docs/admission/Freshman_Profile_2006.pdf&lt;/a>
<a href="http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2005-06.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2005-06.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>This is despite the fact that Berkeley's undergrad population is much bigger.</p>

64

<p>SAT score rather correlates to wealth of the family(Kanazawa, 2006). basically you are saying avg students at the school u mentioned are richer than avg students at berkeley. i can't agree more. but if you can't offer a precise measurement of intelligence (i dont think anybody can), what you infer from SAT score is pointless. </p>

<p>what i have stressed is that instead of rather than worrying about how "smart" your fellow students are, think about what opportunities the university can offer you. I was just listing the simple fact berkeley is an elite research university that can offer a lot of exposure to cutting edge research outside of classrooms (only Stanford, Caltech, and maybe UCLA in the state of california can say that.) and classes at berkeley are very tough. these are simple facts. and i dont know how u measure "these schools ourperform cal".again based on national ranking? i do not wish to say cal is best at everything. for example, i think stanford has a better psychology program, a better business school, usc and ucla have better film programs, and better mass com, ucsd has a better bioE program, caltech has a better physics. but it is not like what you suggested: cal is not good at anything. we have the best chemistry department in the nation, our engineering school is easily one of the best, our bio programs (including pre-med) together are easily one of the best in california (dont give me the crap about stanford or ucsd, im a bio major and i have friends in these schools that are bio major). </p>

<p>so for incoming freshman, if you want to really develop as a student, not just showing off the fancy stats of your school, cal is a great place to be. you will have to fight off alot of competition. but in the end if you can thrive at cal, you can thrive everywhere. </p>

<p>Kanazawa, S., 2006 Intelligence vol 34 issue 6: 593-600</p>

65

<p>didn't even read the rest of your post after "SAT scores are pointless". </p>

<p>SAT's are a measurement of intellegence, and hard work, and good study habits, and wealth. And guess what, wealthy people tend to be smarter than less wealthy prople, big surprise. If you're not going to accept SAT's as a valid measure of the intelligence of a SB then there's nothing to discuss.</p>

66

<p>Haha, okay so you're comparing the top 25% of Berkeley students with the average mudder. Why don't we compare the top 25% of Berkeley students with the top 25% of mudders?</p>

<p>Mudd class of 2010 top 25%
Math - 800
Verbal - 770-800</p>

<p><a href="http://www.math.hmc.edu/rif/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.math.hmc.edu/rif/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Let's look at the math scores since they matter more for engineering. From the other freshman I've talked to, I'd say more than 25% of us have gotten 800 on math. Since our math range is 730-800, the percentile for an 800 math score doesn't have to be as high as 75th percentile.</p>

67

<p>Always the fighting will go on...</p>

68

<p>tiyusufaly--yours is the only post that I agree with 100%. :)</p>

69

<p>atomicfusion,</p>

<p>You...kinda missed the point.</p>

<p>The only reason I even brought up the top 25th percentile at Cal was because appstressin said that NOBODY at Cal compared to the HMC student body. That's clearly untrue.</p>

70

<p>Okay. </p>

<p>Obviously the best students at UC Berkeley are of Mudd quality. But, one could say that the best students at Mudd are of Caltech quality. So does this mean Mudd=Caltech? No, Caltech students are smarter than Mudd students because while the top Mudd students are comparable with Caltech students, the average Caltech student is smarter than the average Mudder.</p>

<p>If we say that a school's student quality is judged by only the top students, then not only is Berkeley comparable to Mudd, but also UCLA, Michigan, UT Austin, Virginia, Illinois, Ohio State, etc etc are comparable to Mudd. You can find great students at any large state school, not just Berkeley.</p>

<p>My point is that the average engineering student at Mudd is more intelligent going in than the average engineering student at Berkeley. Comparing top Berkeley students to the average Mudd student is illogical because we are talking about Berkeley on the whole.</p>

71

<p>I find the willy-nilly throwing around of the term "intelligent" rather disturbing.</p>

<p>It's not necessarily a given that someone at HMC is more intelligent than someone at Cal. Furthermore, it's not a give that someone who scored 1500 on the SAT is smarter than someone who scored 1400.</p>

<p>A lot of factors go into admission, and many are simply not related to intelligence. What if the student chose Cal because they didn't get enough fin aid at HMC or even Caltech? I know people who went to UCLA over Caltech for a variety of reasons. Does that somehow make them dumber than their Caltech peer?</p>

<p>
[quote]
My point is that the average engineering student at Mudd is more intelligent going in than the average engineering student at Berkeley. Comparing top Berkeley students to the average Mudd student is illogical because we are talking about Berkeley on the whole.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ugh... but I wasn't even talking about the whole. I was merely countering appstressin's statement that NOBODY at Cal was as smart as an HMC student. You're barking up the wrong tree, man.</p>

72

<p>I'm kind of skeptical of the statistic that lists 99% of Cal's students are top 10%. Riverside is listed as 94%, which seems.....fishy. Do the UC's calculate top 10% differently than every else?</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
I'm kind of skeptical of the statistic that lists 99% of Cal's students are top 10%. Riverside is listed as 94%, which seems.....fishy. Do the UC's calculate top 10% differently than every else?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the UC admissions are just much more numbers-driven.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Comparing top Berkeley students to the average Mudd student is illogical because we are talking about Berkeley on the whole.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, I wasn't the one who brought this comparison up, so don't attack me for it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
My point is that the average engineering student at Mudd is more intelligent going in than the average engineering student at Berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What data do you have to back this up? Do you have stats comparing Harvey Mudd engineers with Berkeley engineers? You're only looking at the stats of the entire university versus the entire HMC. I thought we were talking only about engineering. The only comparable data we even have is their average starting salaries and Berkeley wins in that department, so I don't know why you keep making this claim without any substance.</p>

<p>Okay, I think the Harvey Mudd supporters are starting to border on trolling. I haven't seen atomicfusion or RocketDA give any credit to Berkeley's engineering program or the undergrad program as a whole, while I cited Harvey Mudd's strengths several times. I think the pair stopped trying to give a fair evaluation of the two programs a long time ago and are just trying to argue (into a wall) that Harvey Mudd is the superior program. Guys, get over it. Harvey Mudd isn't levels above Berkeley in every aspect. No one is saying that UC Berkeley is better or that Harvey Mudd is worthless, so I don't know why you guys are getting so defensive.</p>

74

<p>apps, i used a peer-reviewed journal as a source. if you are unable to show me another study how SAT strictly correlates to intelligence (smartness), yes there is nothing to talk about. this discussion has degraded into "you say, and i say", not intellectually sound. i agree to put an end to this. </p>

<p>and thank you vicissitudes, well said. the perspective students came to a berkeley board to asked how berkeley students think of these schools, and they will receive a berkeley perspective. i would never go to the HMC board to say HMC is not the same level as berkeley because i have too much respect for HMC to make such comments.</p>

75

<p>atomicfusion, alright i was the one brought it up. my point was not to compare SB of harvey mudd to berkeley because it would be like comparing apples to oranges. what i meant was an "intelligent" kid will find his/her community no matter at HMC or berkeley. so to say berkeley doesn't provide a good environment to "smart" kids as well as HM or Caltech do is erroneous.</p>

76

<p>lol I dismiss people's viewpoints here as soon as they unequivocally state that people X are more intelligent than people Y.</p>

77

<p>this is what started it all:</p>

<p>hawaii: it's a big $ and time investment so if you can visit all three before choosing. also, there are a lot of colleges in California other than USC, Cal, and UCLA. UCD and UCSD are top science schools, I believe for students tracking toward MD's UCSD is the top undergrad program in the state. As for really smart kids Cal Tech and Harvey Mud tops Cal. And then of course there's Stanford! One thing is certain, all of these schools have different settings, cultures, and focuses. I highly recommend you visit and stay overnight if possible.</p>

<p>I don't believe there's anything inaccurate about this paragraph above. But then you Cal people weighed in with the basic position that Cal is "best at everything". And that statement is just not true. </p>

<p>so we've shown that USC, UCSD, and Stanford have multiple programs that are ranked higher than Cal, a few much higher. The other well accepted quality of a school is the intellectual ability of it's SB. The main tool colleges have to assess students intellectual ability is the SAT, and it's a fact that USC has higher SAT's than UCLA and same as Cal. It's a fact the Stanford SAT's are higher than Cal's, it's a fact that Claremont, HM, and most definitely Cal Tech students have way higher SAT's than Cal.</p>

<p>so this constant barge coming from Cal that it is best and "if you can get in" you should choose it over all the other schools in California is an irresponsible message to be sending to HS students. Because Cal is NOT BEST at a lot of things.</p>

<p>The volume and intensity of Cal people to promote their school actually makes them look insecure or have some type of chip on their shoulder. kind of "if I stop yelling about how great I am maybe I won't be so grreat"...that's how it kind of looks, especially in the face of all the data showing that Cal is not best in a lot of areas.</p>

78

<p>appstressin,</p>

<p>For one, I'm not "a Cal person." Far from it. </p>

<p>I actually think that HMC is, in many cases, a better option than Cal. I'm not quiet about my support for top LACs. </p>

<p>However, you have made many overly strong blanket statements that simply do not hold under scrutiny: "Nobody at Cal matches anyone at HMC." "HMC and Caltech SAT scores are higher. Therefore the student body must all be smarter."</p>

<p>Comments like these require qualification and defense, you provided little to none for the most part. Then, when I demonstrated that there are most certainly students at Cal that match HMC's students, you changed your argument to say that the AVERAGE student at Cal doesn't match the HMC student.</p>

79

<p>Oh, and the SAT data is a bit more interesting than you give it credit...</p>

<p>Cal
Reading: 580-710
Math: 620-740
Writing: 590-710</p>

<p>USC</p>

<p>Middle 50% SAT CR 640 — 730
Middle 50% SAT Writing 650 — 730
Middle 50% SAT Math 670 — 760</p>

<p>Now, while it's impossible to argue that the USC numbers are higher, they're not even a full standard deviation higher in aggregate.</p>

<p>Plus, USC superscores, Cal does not. This almost certainly adds on points (I've read as much as 30 points a section.)</p>

<p>So unless we can control for the variable for superscoring (let's just say 30 points for the sake of argument), we don't get an accurate picture. Controlling for superscoring, the averages are...</p>

<p>Cal
Reading: 580-710
Math: 620-740
Writing: 590-710</p>

<p>USC
Reading 610 - 700
Math: 620 - 700
Writing: 640- 730</p>

<p>This provides an interesting picture. USC's numbers are a bit more tightly knit (less variation from the mean). However, Cal's numbers are not that far off.</p>

<p>What publics tend to have is much more wild variation from the mean. This is a problem, but may not necessarily reflect much in the classroom.</p>

80

<p>
[quote]
hawaii: it's a big $ and time investment so if you can visit all three before choosing. also, there are a lot of colleges in California other than USC, Cal, and UCLA. UCD and UCSD are top science schools, I believe for students tracking toward MD's UCSD is the top undergrad program in the state. As for really smart kids Cal Tech and Harvey Mud tops Cal. And then of course there's Stanford! One thing is certain, all of these schools have different settings, cultures, and focuses. I highly recommend you visit and stay overnight if possible.</p>

<p>I don't believe there's anything inaccurate about this paragraph above.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh? Nothing inaccurate? First, you say "as for really smart kids Cal Tech and Harvey Mud tops Cal." Then why did I show that the top 25% students at Berkeley, which is over 5 times the entire size of Harvey Mudd's undergrad size, completely crushes Harvey Mudd students when it comes to high school GPA/rank and SAT scores? It seems to me that there are at least five times as many people at Berkeley who are "smarter" than the undergraduates at Harvey Mudd. I used SAT scores and class rank data collected and published by the respective schools to make such an assertion. What evidence have you given at all for anything you are saying besides your own belief in them?</p>

<p>Next, you say that for students tracking towards MDs UCSD is the top undergrad program in the state. I won't even bother comparing UCSD to Stanford. Let's just compare UCSD to Berkeley since that's more on topic. So if you really believe that UCSD is the better institution to go for pre-med, then explain the following statistics to me:</p>

<p>Year UC Berkeley
2005 84/136 (62%)
2004 92/138 (67%)
2003 72/114 (63%)
2002 78/118 (66%)<br>
2001 79/146 (54%) </p>

<p>Admission Rates
UCSD<br>
2005 47%
2004 50%<br>
2003 49%<br>
2002 51%<br>
2001 52% </p>

<p>Those are the Med School admission rates for the two schools I found on their respective websites. So if UCSD is really the better school to go to for pre-med, why are their pre-meds getting into med school at a lower percentage?</p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/national.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/national.stm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://career.ucsd.edu/sa/PMedHis.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.ucsd.edu/sa/PMedHis.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
But then you Cal people weighed in with the basic position that Cal is "best at everything". And that statement is just not true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So point out the post where I have said that Berkeley is "best at everything." Or point out the post where UCLAri said anything of the sort. In fact, I don't think anyone would make such a claim except maybe CalX, who stopped posting on page 1, so explain to me again why you are still posting. I have said repeatedly that Stanford is overall better for undergrad, that Harvey Mudd beats Berkeley in size and attention, and I think UCLAri would agree, so why do you STILL insist that people in this thread are saying Berkeley is best at everything? Or are you going to keep ignoring my posts?</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's a fact the Stanford SAT's are higher than Cal's, it's a fact that Claremont, HM, and most definitely Cal Tech students have way higher SAT's than Cal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A fact hmm? Even when I posted data that points to the contrary? Your credibility goes down with every post you make.</p>

<p>
[quote]
so this constant barge coming from Cal that it is best and "if you can get in" you should choose it over all the other schools in California is an irresponsible message to be sending to HS students. Because Cal is NOT BEST at a lot of things.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, point out the post where someone said that. I would tell most students to pick Stanford over Berkeley. Even UCLAri has said in other threads that he would go to Harvard over Berkeley. No one in this thread has said a student should choose Berkeley over all the other schools in California, so where are you getting this from?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The volume and intensity of Cal people to promote their school actually makes them look insecure or have some type of chip on their shoulder. kind of "if I stop yelling about how great I am maybe I won't be so grreat"...that's how it kind of looks, especially in the face of all the data showing that Cal is not best in a lot of areas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Funny that you say that, when you have not presented ANY data to support anything you have claimed, and all the data I presented run contrary to what you have claimed.</p>