<p>rooster always thought that Stanford is too good for Berkeley. He likes to live in his own little world and believe that Stanford is the only elite university in the world.</p>
<p>If you say you didn't know about the rivalry and you didn't know where Palo Alto was and didn't know that Stanfurd was in the Bay Area (even though you grew up there) then I guess I'll believe you, but are you some kind of idiot savant or something? It's a little Rain-manish if you ask me. Did you know what time Wapner was on?</p>
<p>Well I never heard of Berkeley until high school. But maybe that's cause I am on the East Coast.</p>
<p>I don't think I heard of Berkeley until high school either.</p>
<p>The University of Virginia vs. the College of William & Mary...sorry Tech...you're just wayyy below our academic standards.</p>
<p>One way to tell if you have an unequal rivalry or not is if one side cares way more about it than the other side. The Stanford/Berkeley and Princeton/Penn rivalries fit this criterion. People care much more about the rivalry in Berkeley than they do at Stanford. Likewise, people care much more about it in Penn than they do at Princeton. </p>
<p>This is probably because students at the underdog school tend to feel more insecure and try to compensate for it by pretending to feel superior/better. I also feel that Berkeley and Penn students feel a sense of pride that they are "rivals" with schools like Stanford and Princeton. For example, if a mediocre kid in class believes he shares an academic rivalry with the valedictorian, the mediocre guy will feel proud of himself just for sharing that academic connection.</p>
<p>Well Gutrade, that same argument can be said for location. The school in the crappier location has to try harder to catch up, cus no one wants to be BOTH inferior AND crappy location. </p>
<p>So Stanfurd obviously tried a lot in the 80's to get better. It would suck to be the worst in both location and academics.</p>
<p>Stanford has the undoubtedly better location. They started Silicon Valley right in their backyard. They are not only at the center of the tech industry, they created it! They took a boring, no-nothing location and turned it into the prime real-estate of the world. No other college has done this. Not even Harvard.</p>
<p>What Stanford has done is akin to Dartmouth starting a world industry in Hanover, NH and making it into one of the most urban, desired places to live. Simply amazing.</p>
<p>^ IF Stanfurd started Silicon Valley, then Berkeley started San Francisco. </p>
<p>Compared to Berkeley's location, Stanfurd is like a farm. Oh yeah... thats why they're called THE FARM. </p>
<p>anyways, im getting kind of sick of this rivalry. i feel like im picking on a little baby or something.</p>
<p>Hanover a desired place to live? You've got to be kidding me. It's out in the middle of nowhere with pretty much nothing to do. I know kids at Dartmouth who don't even like the location very much. We must talk to two different groups of people.</p>
<p>Read his post more carefully. He said what Stanford has done with Palo Alto (a place that was in the middle of nowhere like Hanover), is amazing. It would be like Dartmouth turning Hanover into a Silicon Valley.</p>
<p>And for all you skeptics out there, Stanford is indeed credited for starting Silicon Valley. Here are just some of the many many sources that credit Stanford with this:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/1997/34/b354116.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.businessweek.com/1997/34/b354116.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.websofinnovation.com/svhistory.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.websofinnovation.com/svhistory.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.netvalley.com/svhistory.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.netvalley.com/svhistory.html</a>
<a href="http://www.netvalley.com/archives/mirrors/terman.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.netvalley.com/archives/mirrors/terman.html</a>
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=stanford+founding+silicon+valley%5B/url%5D">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=stanford+founding+silicon+valley</a></p>
<p>Anyway, as per Westside's comments. Berkeley cannot be credited with the creation of San Francisco. That is just absurd. San Francisco was created during the gold rush, and was there long before Berkeley was founded. Also, Berkeley is completely on the other side of the Bay! </p>
<p>You can, however, credit Berkeley with the creation of the Oakland ghettos and slums. You can also credit it for creating the abject poverty of the East Bay. San Francisco is on Stanford's side of the bay. Ever wonder why that side is so much richer? I think a measure of a school's quality is how they shape their surrounding economy. If Berkeley cannot even shape up its own backyard, how can it ever hope to help shape the entire nation?</p>
<p>huh? </p>
<p>Oakland has one of the top 12 highest cost of living in the US. Oakland has many different sections to it. But seeing how you lie about being from SF when you were really from a town no one's heard of, its understandable. </p>
<p>Rooster, Berkeley is one of the best places to live. It's widely regarded as one of the best college towns in the nation. And its a 15 minute Bart ride to SF. Here are words that describe Stanfurd:</p>
<p>Nothing to do.
In the middle of nowhere
Palo Alto is 70% men. Not exactly a good place for a single guy looking to have some fun a night out on the town. LOLZ</p>
<p>You sure pulled up a lot of articles there... to prove nothing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think a measure of a school's quality is how they shape their surrounding economy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You've obviously never been to Yale or the University of Pennsylvania.</p>
<p>rooster08: "And for all you skeptics out there, Stanford is indeed credited for starting Silicon Valley."</p>
<p>Well, unfortunately Stanford manages their money also like Silicon Valley. Deficits, layoffs, salary freezes, forced mergers with UCSF hospital system because Stanford Hospital was losing money (a failed experiment). I think it would be better for Berkeley to take over Stanford. They've already proven they're better in the Big Game. And after all, that's all that really counts.</p>
<p><a href="http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:5-4yjY9N0WoJ:www.mercurynews.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/11201741.htm%5B/url%5D">http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:5-4yjY9N0WoJ:www.mercurynews.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/11201741.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.stanforddaily.com/tempo?page=content&id=11729&repository=0001_article%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanforddaily.com/tempo?page=content&id=11729&repository=0001_article</a>
<a href="http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:XdHL6w69XJIJ:www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/5319629.htm%5B/url%5D">http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:XdHL6w69XJIJ:www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/5319629.htm</a></p>
<p>"You've obviously never been to Yale or the University of Pennsylvania."</p>
<p>So maybe in this respect Stanford is unique among all schools in that it has PROFOUNDLY reshaped the community it is in. It has also profoundly reshaped California.</p>
<p>"Well, unfortunately Stanford manages their money also like Silicon Valley. Deficits, layoffs, salary freezes, forced mergers with UCSF hospital system because Stanford Hospital was losing money (a failed experiment). I think it would be better for Berkeley to take over Stanford."</p>
<p>Haha, yeah. Let a bankrupt, inferior university take over a clearly superior one. That makes a whole lot of sense. Berkeley has many more students and only a fraction of Stanford's endowment. While we're at it, let's allow Mexico to take over America.</p>
<p>ubermensch... all those articles trying to say that stanford started the silicon valley do not make as significant a point as you are trying to make. Its a fact that hewlett and packard did a lot of work while they had access to labs at stanford. Its also a fact that Steve Jobs is FROM the silicon valley, and that Apple is now one of teh largest silicon valley companies.. all because Steve Jobs grew up in teh Silicon Valley back when it was all just apricot orchards.
The bay area has been rapidly growing in population size ever since 1906.. the poverty in berkeley and oakland has nothing to do with the school, its always been there, and the goal of the university was never to address that... similarly, the only reason there is a lot of stuff around stanford now is because it is of close proximity to san francisco and san jose, and both those cities are running out of room.. so developers did the logical thing and built where there was open land.. which happened to be the silicon valley.
Bill Gates was a harvard dropout
Steve Jobs was a Reed dropout
the titans of personal computing had nothing to do with stanford, your argument is bunk.</p>
<p>on another note, I dont think berkeley is an inferior school because students tehre are more passionate about the rivalry. I think students at Stanford would be more passionate if they didnt lose all the time.
with that said, i believe stanford is a better school for undergrads.. smaller classes, for example.</p>
<p>ubermensch: "Haha, yeah. Let a bankrupt, inferior university take over a clearly superior one. That makes a whole lot of sense. Berkeley has many more students and only a fraction of Stanford's endowment. While we're at it, let's allow Mexico to take over America."</p>
<p>My post was meant to be a little tongue-in cheek. My point was that Stanford is not the end-all and the be-all just like Silicon Valley has led to a lot of busts. Stanford's huge advantage, which TheCity has alluded to, is its incredible amount of land (thousands of acres) near a major urban area. Other universities, including Harvard and Berkeley, don't have this resource. But equally problematic, is the cost of housing/living that Silicon Valley success has spawned. The junior faculty can't even afford to live in the area.</p>
<p>This article is a few years old but the crisis continues:</p>
<p>The crisis is dramatic," President Gerhard Casper told Stanford a few days after the meeting. "It clearly endangers our recruitment of graduate students because our competitors are making intensive use of the housing issues here in order to attract the best students." </p>
<p>In fact, both graduate student and faculty recruitment are already suffering -- and housing is to blame, University officials say. According to Tom Wasow, associate dean of graduate policy, the effect of the crisis is "measurable" in this year's yield rate -- the percentage of graduate school applicants who accept Stanford's offer of admission. The rate typically ranges from 47 to 51 percent, but for 1998-99, it dropped to 38 percent. "As a result," Wasow said at the November meeting, "we offer places to candidates lower down the list." He quickly added that the University wasn't taking unqualified candidates, but that the trend threatened its ability to attract the very best ones. </p>
<p>Likewise, Provost Condoleezza Rice told a June Faculty Senate meeting of a disquieting development in faculty recruiting: Stanford succeeded in hiring only about 30 percent of the professors it sought this academic year. The usual rate is about 50 percent. Rice attributed the drop to the local real-estate market. Housing prices in the county, she noted, had soared even faster than rents: up 48 percent from 1995 to 1998. </p>
<p>""You've obviously never been to Yale or the University of Pennsylvania.""</p>
<p>or the University of Southern California.</p>
<p>provost condoleeza rice?</p>
<p>so that was atleast 4 years ago lol, unless she worked two jobs at once</p>
<p>Hormesis3 pointed out that the article was old which is why it mentions Condi Rice.</p>
<p>And the statement:
[quote]
You can, however, credit Berkeley with the creation of the Oakland ghettos and slums.
[/quote]
is true for 99% of the colleges in the United States.</p>
<p>Ever wonder why colleges seem to be in the bad parts of town? Take Yale, UPenn, and UChicago as examples. The apartments and houses that surround the campus which were built specifically for the students attending the colleges were built to be affordable. However, the low income people saw this opportunity for cheap housing and moved in themselves. We all know that the lower income crowd seems to be more involved in crime so this is why the areas surrounding a city campus tend to be downtrodden and filled with crime. There's nothing the school can do about it besides provide more security on campus, but they don't control the housing developments that are built surrounding the campus. </p>
<p>So don't blame Berkeley; blame the real estate developers that built the apartments intended for students but became a haven for the low-income families who are involved in crime.</p>