<p>For instance, I know a lot of people who didn't go to Berkeley but instead went to UCI or UCSD etc for various reasons and it's not unheard of.</p>
<p>Most of these 'various reasons' include getting into the medical school there, or simply, getting regents at UCI and not UCB and thus actually earning money in college. cool, huh?</p>
<p>confidential: You're talking about a university that enrolls some 25,000 people of all different cultures and circumstances. Your high school, at most probably has 2000 or so people. The pool is much smaller. </p>
<p>Remember that it's impossible to just admit only those who had 1500+ SAT scores. :)</p>
<p>To be fair to Tufts and setting aside the fact that I <3 my institution...</p>
<p>I think that Tufts offers me a better undergraduate experience than that of either Berkeley or LA. I would easily have turned them down if I were to repeat everything again, but that may be just me. However, I really don't think it's as clear cut in terms of cross-admit data that those two schools would be superior in preferences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
confidential: You're talking about a university that enrolls some 25,000 people of all different cultures and circumstances. Your high school, at most probably has 2000 or so people. The pool is much smaller.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good point. Contrasting a competitive magnet school in an affluent area with a large public university isn't exactly a valid comparison.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow, 1480 sat avg? I'm guessing by your composition that the Sat II Writing average is much lower...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure even that is above 700. We had to write timed essays just to get into the school.</p>
<p>To get back on topic, I would've loved to go to Berkeley. Anyone who claims it isn't prestigious doesn't know what they're talking about.</p>
<p>"SAT average of 1350 is nothing to brag about. My high school has 1480 SAT average."</p>
<p>I would say that having an average this high is impressive, although bragging about such test scores is a little rediculous. An average of a 1480 in your school is more impressive, but that doesn't mean that the average school score of a 1350 isn't. If you look at the overall average scores for the nation, and realize that only a small number of people get scores in these ranges, perhaps we can escape our bubbles and realize that hey, not everyone gets a 1600 (now 2400), and that for some people working quite hard and getting a 1200 is more impressive than some people who don't study at all and get a perfect score. Far more people get below a 1350 than above a 1350.</p>
<p>Who claims that Berkeley isn't prestigious?</p>
<p>In a word, cheap
Also, they're aren't many privates in Cali and people want to stay here because of the awesome location and people. The UC's, although large and asian-heavy, have diversity that you just won't find anywhere else. The UC's are the biggest bang for your buck if you are a resident, and UC Berkeley is one of the top schools in the nation hands down.</p>
<p>I'd rather think that a top private school that's willing to give you a juicy scholarship is the true bang for your buck. My brother, for example, could have gone to UC. Instead he got the President's Scholarship at Caltech, which not only paid for all tuition, room and board, but also gave him a stipend. Hence, he actually MADE money by going to Caltech. He ended up paying 'negative' tuition. I don't think you can get a much bigger bang for your buck than to actually get paid to go to school.</p>
<p>your brother is an exception. not everyone gets that kind of deal when given the opportunity to attend caltech.</p>
<p>in general, not including special exceptions like your brother was lucky enough to recieve, the uc's are probably the best bang for your buck.</p>
<p>Well, I think it wasn't 'luck'. Suffice it to say that he worked extremely hard to put himself into position to get that scholarship. Caltech didn't just pick his name out of a hat, you know. Caltech believed that he was one of the best students that they admitted that year - so good that they believed (probably correctly) that if they didn't offer him that scholarship, he'd probably matriculate somewhere else like MIT, which he got into early. Essentially Caltech believed that it was so important that he go there and not elsewhere that they were willing to pay him to come. </p>
<p>To continue the story, after Caltech, my brother got offered a full fellowship for graduate school at Stanford (can't remember what it's called, but it's some highly prestigious Stanford graduate fellowship, I can go ask him sometime). Most admittees to Stanford grad school don't get offered fellowship - rather they are forced to take TA/RA positions to get their stipend. My brother gets his stipend without having to do anything. To this day, not only has my brother never paid a dime to any college in his life, he's actually always gotten paid to go to college. I don't know of any better bang-for-the-buck than 'negative' tuition.</p>
<p>Look, I know this is going to sound harsh, but the fact is, the UC's are not particularly aggressive when it comes to merit scholarships, which means that they usually lose out on top students like my brother. Hence, the truth is, the UC's are good bangs for the buck only for those people who aren't good enough to get a full-ride merit scholarship from a top school, like my brother did. I know that's harsh, but that's the truth. It's hard to get more bang for the buck than 'negative' tuition.</p>
<p>Is it really that harsh that not paying anything is less than paying something? My answer is no, but seeing as most people pay for college, these few exceptions don't truly affect many people directly.</p>
<p>If the Uc's spent all their time giving out scholar ships to under privivalged kids, theyd have no room for the middle class kids trying to get a fair shot at being educated.</p>
<p>
I agree. Due to the budget crunch among the state of California, outreach is the first thing feeling cutbacks at the UCs, and thus there just isn't enough money/room to provide merit scholarships to all underprivileged applicants.</p>
<p>Exactly right, which is why those underprivileged (but highly qualified) kids often times find it a better financial deal to go to an elite private school where they can get a need-based full ride. I know 2 pepple who got into both Harvard and Berkeley, and found out that they'd end up paying less to go to Harvard once financial aid was factored in. They could either go to Berkeley and take on debt or go to Harvard on a full ride. What would you do? One of them dead-panned to me that he really wanted to go to Berkeley but he couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard.</p>
<p>Fact about the UCs: 35 Nobel Laureates and over 300 members of the National Academy of the Sciences, more than any college or university in the United States. The prestige and hype are well deserved.</p>
<p>I think you must agree it's a bit unfair to count all the Nobel laureates and NAS members from all the UC's combined, and then compare those numbers to the numbers at just one other school. That's like combining the Nobel laureates from all of the Ivy Leagues and MIT, and then comparing that to the laureates that Berkeley has.</p>
<p>Yes, it is unfair. However, your analogy is even more unfair. It's more like comparing the whole UC system to MIT and Harvard (schools that have relatively strong ties), as opposed to the entire Ivy League, which has minimal ties.</p>
<p>Comparing California to the East Coast is like comparing apples and oranges.
And when it comes to your career and the rest of your life, where you go to graduate school is more important than where you went to college.....i know somebody who just graduated from Rutgers and will be studying mechanical engineering at MIT this fall for graduate school, so obviously going to a UC for undergraduate school won't doom you forever. Also, an education at the top UC's and an education at a prestigious private school in the east coast is essentially the same, the only difference is that at a private school you usually have smaller class sizes, more outlets for students, better relationship with teacher, etc.</p>
<p>"more outlets for students?" What does that mean? UCLA and Berkeley both have about 700 club type orginizations one can join, for starters.</p>
<p>"I'm not saying that they aren't prestigious. I just think they're overhyped by California kids."</p>
<p>The UC's are a bang for my buck. I'm getting a topnotch education and paying barely anything for it. (good tuition, nice scholarships, etc.)</p>
<p>"Also, an education at the top UC's and an education at a prestigious private school in the east coast is essentially the same, the only difference is that at a private school you usually have smaller class sizes, more outlets for students, better relationship with teacher, etc."</p>
<p>smaller class sizes:
Correct me if i'm wrong for all you seasoned UC'ers (i'm an incoming Bruin) but yes, there can be some hundred students in one lecture hall, but you're required to take a discussion section which I believe is capped off at 25 students, maybe less. I think you'd still get a sense of a smaller class size. </p>
<p>More outlets for students:
I think in ANY post-secondary education, whether it'd be a private or public institution, any student will discover some type of outlet that will fit their wants and needs. It doesn't matter how much more outlets a school has, it's all up to the student to reach out and find those outlets for his/herself. </p>
<p>Better relationship with teacher:
Professors have office hours</p>
<p>I can see why people would view the fact that UC students are just a "number," but personally, I THRIVE in a situation like that. I think it gives me a sense of the real world, where there's no hand holding, where I'm in charge of my own self, where I go out there and search for my own niche and direction in life. I'm a number, a Bruin, and damn proud of it.</p>