<p>And I would argue that in general, Cal's undergrad programs are better than Penn's. And US news academic reputation rankings agree with me.</p>
<p>This is a freakishly long tread and i started it! lol iight it was good but i didn't really find out the actual question i asked but thanx anyways.</p>
<p>Oneunknown, you asked if there is a rivalry. Yes, although it is really only seen for a week or two in November. Happy now?</p>
<p>Iight thanx a lot for clarifying it for me, off to bed now</p>
<p>You can argue that all you want, but the US News Rankings of #4 seems to sway in our favor =)</p>
<p>but still, ACADEMICALLY, Berkeley is a better school. Can't argue with that buddy. Anyone in the world will tell you that Cal trumps Penn.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, do you remember saying this:</p>
<p>"I would also ask the question of if UCSF is considered to be Berkeley's medical school, then is it fair to say that MIT's law school is considered to be Harvard Law, and MIT's medical school is considered to be Harvard Medical? If not, why not? Is Caltech's medical school = UCLA Med? Again, if not, why not? If Berkeley can supposedly claim UCSF as its medical school, then why not?"</p>
<p>In that instance, you disputed California1600's assertion that Berkeley could claim UCSF as its medical school. However, you wrote that quite a while ago so just to be fair I'm going to let that pass. After all, people's opinions change over time and I'm not going to be anal about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, Gurtrade, you misunderstood that old post. Go back and read it in its entire context, with all the surrounding posts, and (especially) with the point and counterpoint I was having with california1600/westside. I was doing the exact same thing to him as I am doing to you, in that I wanted to see how far he (and you) are willing to take your own logic. </p>
<p>In that old post, california1600 was trying to claim that UCSF was Berkeley's medical school. I was not the one making the claim, he was. I made no judgment about whether that claim was right or wrong, I was simply showing him that if Berkeley can claim UCSF, then MIT should be allowed to claim Harvard Medical. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If california1600 is going to create new rules, then he has to be consistent when he applies those new rules. You can't just pick and choose your rules whenever it is convenient, and then ignore them when they are not convenient. </p>
<p>You have to remember, california1600/westside seems to dislike MIT, and uses the fact that MIT has few professional schools as a reason to dislike MIT. I was pointing out that if Berkeley is allowed to claim UCSF for itself, then MIT should be allowed to claim the Harvard professional schools for itself. What's fair is fair. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Going from Stanford to UCSF takes less time than going from Berkeley to UCSF if you take highway 101 or 280.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is it really easier to travel to UCSF from Stanford than from Berkeley? I would submit that Berkeley people would get to UCSF by BART, which you must admit is far far more convenient than trying to get there by highway or by Caltrain. </p>
<p>Second of all, you sparked my curiosity about just how long it would take to get to UCSF from Stanford or Berkeley, so I MapQuested it out. According to Mapquest, it takes about 27 minutes to get to UCSF from Berkeley, it takes about 44 minutes to get from Stanford to UCSF. Simlar results are obtained if you use Yahoo Maps, GoogleMaps, etc. Are you saying all these mapping services are wrong? If so, maybe you should contact them and tell them that they're wrong and that you've managed to find a way to radically cut the travel time from Stanford to UCSF, because these mapping services obviously don't seem to know about it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, let me remind you that Stanford Med and UCSF were negotiating a merger in the past. Although the merger did not go through, it is a strong indication that the two schools are in close enough proximity and share similar enough goals to realistically think about becoming one entity. That is a powerful statement in of itself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And let me remind you that, once upon a time, Harvard and MIT also almost merged. So by your logic, does that mean that Harvard 'belongs' to MIT (or vice versa)? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't see any collaboration going on between Berk and UCSF
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? I would submit that maybe you haven't been looking hard enough?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.me.berkeley.edu/ergo/%5B/url%5D">http://www.me.berkeley.edu/ergo/</a>
<a href="http://bioeng.berkeley.edu/graduate/%5B/url%5D">http://bioeng.berkeley.edu/graduate/</a>
<a href="http://www.medschool.ucsf.edu/admissions/jmp.aspx%5B/url%5D">http://www.medschool.ucsf.edu/admissions/jmp.aspx</a>
<a href="http://jmp.berkeley.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://jmp.berkeley.edu/</a></p>
<p>So, Gurtrade, maybe you ought to tell the administrators of all these joint programs that you can't detect any collaboration that happens between Berkeley and UCSF. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, I'd like to respond to your remark that I was "statistically" confounding things by letting the prestige of the overall institution bias the prestige of the PhD or professional school program. My answer to that is, "why not?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Allright, so I've gotten you to admit that you are in fact statistically confounding the data. Good.</p>
<p>So that means that admit that you have confused cause and effect. You earlier made the assertion that it is always professional school prestige that counts the most in determining the overall prestige of a particular school. That is why I chimed in, because I disagreed. You reversed cause and effect. Now I see that you are basically retracting your previous statement. It is not always professional school prestige that drives overall institutional prestige, but rather often times the other way around - that overall institutional prestige that drives professional school prestige. In other words, the prestige of the Yale School of Management, which B-school insiders understand to be not that good, is largely derived from the Yale SOM's affiliation with greater Yale University proper. Hence, Yale University as a whole is not benefitting from the prestige of the Yale SOM, but rather the other way around.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My answer to that is, "why not?" If Berkeley's name is not as prestigious as Stanford's or Yale's, then that's how things are. Berkeley simply isn't as prestigious to the American public as HYPS, even at the graduate school level. That simply proves my point that Berkeley's graduate program still doesnt measure up to the top schools like HYPSMC. If a Berkeley PhD doesn't impress people as much as a Stanford PhD degree or a Yale Law degree, then who cares how highly ranked the Berkeley degree is. As you so often say, it doesn't pass the "smell test" of public acceptance and prestige. It might be ranked #1 on US News, but the majority of people don't really know about that. My question then, is "why?" If Berkeley's PhD programs are ranked so highly, and as you claim, are so superior, why is it that Berkeley is not a prestigious school in the eyes of the American public? If Princeton's graduate program is full of "W's" and "Incompletes," why is Princeton regarded way more highly than Berkeley? You can't say that it is because Princeton has a stronger undergraduate program. Places like Amherst and Williams, which arguably have the strongest undergraduate programs in the nation, are also ignored by the American public. There must be something that the public knows about. Do you know what it is?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And now I see that the truth comes out. You're not really interested in true quality, you're really only interested in pop-culture prestige, is that it? It seems to me that you're now basing your entire argument on what the common man views to be prestigious, is that correct?</p>
<p>If so, then I have several responses.</p>
<p>First off, the common man doesn't know that much about schools. Let's face. Plenty of Americans know only 1 prestigious school - Harvard. Plenty more know only 2 - Harvard + Yale. Plenty more know only 3 - Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. To many Americans, if you're not one of these 3 schools, you're nothing. I have heard common people ask if MIT stood for the Michigan Institute of Technology. I have heard common people never having heard of Stanford, or if they have, thinking that it is only a 'sports' school. </p>
<p>So, Gurtrade, I agree, if your goal is simply to impress the common man, then Berkeley probably isn't your school. And in fact, Stanford probably isn't either. Go to Harvard or Yale, or maybe Princeton. </p>
<p>Which leads to my second point. If your only goal is to impress the common man, then that would lead you to make decisions regarding professional/graduate school that others would find bizarre in the extreme. For example, you said it yourself, Yale has great common-man name recognition. So if I were to get admitted to the MBA programs at Northwestern-Kellogg, Penn-Wharton, and the Yale School of Management, then according to you, Gurtrade, I should automatically pick Yale, right? After all, why not? The common man has heard of Yale, but has never heard of Penn or Northwestern. Just like you are asking the question of why Berkeley doesn't have pop-culture prestige, I could ask the same thing of Penn or Northsetern. </p>
<p>Yet the fact is, very few people who are admitted to the MBA programs of both Wharton and Yale, or both Kellogg and Yale, are going to pick Yale. The Yale SOM wins very few of these head-to-head crossadmit matchups. So I would ask you, are these people being dumb? Why are these people picking a school that has less pop-culture prestige? Obviously these people are fools, right? </p>
<p>Gurtrade, I want to see how far you're willing to go down this road. If you really are comfortable with your purported position that pop culture is the only thing that matters, then how about we go to the Business School section of CC and you can zealously and vigorously defend your assertion that the Wharton MBA program sucks and everybody who is in it should have instead chosen to go to Yale. If that's what you believe, then you should have no problem in defending it in front of an audience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In this regard, it matters very much what the public thinks, and it matters to everyone that Berkeley isn't seen in the same light as HYPSMC... </p>
<p>...CEOs, large business owners, judges, doctors, and lawyers are more impressed with HYPSMC than Berkeley
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I said it before, I'll say it again. The public has never heard of Penn, yet Wharton MBA's aren't doing too shabbily, and in fact, I would submit, are doing better than Yale MBA's are. CEO's, large business owners, etc., also seem to value the Wharton MBA more than the Yale MBA. Why is that, if Yale has such a strong pop-culture brand name? Are they being stupid?</p>
<p>A reminder that College Confidential is maintained as a friendly, respectful place for people to share college information. Consequently, personal attacks are not allowed nor are inflammatory ways of referring to various colleges such as embedding obscenities in their names.</p>
<p>It's fine to disagree with each other and to dislike each other's schools, but in order to retain your posting privileges, follow our guidelines when expressing your opinions.</p>
<p>Rowdiness aside, I think you Berkeley might enjoy reading this thread:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=65194%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=65194</a></p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
<p>the cal/stanford rivalry is fun... even if ur not in college.... I'd have to say I'm a cal fan over stanford.... (and it is definatly not just with football)</p>
<p>"And let me remind you that, once upon a time, Harvard and MIT also almost merged. So by your logic, does that mean that Harvard 'belongs' to MIT (or vice versa)?"</p>
<p>No, I never argued that just because Stanford and UCSF proposed a merger that UCSF "belongs" to Stanford. I was just pointing out that the proposed merger indicates that there is some close connection between the two schools. Harvard and MIT proposed a merger precisely because they have a close connection with each other. (They are right across the street!) Even today, students at MIT and Harvard are allowed to cross-register classes. Although they haven't exactly officially merged, they sure do share a very intimate connection. </p>
<p>When people propose mergers, they only do so when the two entities share many interests in common. In this respect, I used the proposed Stanford-UCSF merger as a priori evidence of an close relationship between the two. There's nothing wrong with that. It simply means that Stanford has as much right to claim a close connection with UCSF as Berkeley does. </p>
<p>"Second of all, you sparked my curiosity about just how long it would take to get to UCSF from Stanford or Berkeley, so I MapQuested it out. According to Mapquest, it takes about 27 minutes to get to UCSF from Berkeley, it takes about 44 minutes to get from Stanford to UCSF."</p>
<p>Okay, so I was 10 or 20 minutes or so off. That's not that big in the grand scheme of things. Certainly 20 minutes of extra commuter travel won't deter people from traveling from Stanford to UCSF.</p>
<p>In addition, MapQuest and other similar resources do not exactly take extreme rush hour traffic into account. When there is gridlock on the Bay Bridge, the projected 27 minutes might look good in theory but can easily turn into an hour and thirty in reality. </p>
<p>"No, Gurtrade, you misunderstood that old post. Go back and read it in its entire context, with all the surrounding posts, and (especially) with the point and counterpoint I was having with california1600/westside. I was doing the exact same thing to him as I am doing to you, in that I wanted to see how far he (and you) are willing to take your own logic."</p>
<p>As I stated previously, "However, you wrote that quite a while ago so just to be fair I'm going to let that pass. After all, people's opinions change over time and I'm not going to be anal about it." I obviously wasn't making it an issue, and it's incredibly hard to debate the intentions of what you said since it occured a long time ago. I didn't hold that argument against you because I didn't have enough evidence within context to truly extrapolate what you were saying. I thank you for clarifying what you mean by your assertions. However, I don't think you should really use it as a rebuttal to my remarks. You can mention it for clarification, of course, but it think it's shorthanded to use it as a rhetorical weapon. </p>
<p>"And now I see that the truth comes out. You're not really interested in true quality, you're really only interested in pop-culture prestige, is that it? It seems to me that you're now basing your entire argument on what the common man views to be prestigious, is that correct?"</p>
<p>Well, there certainly is a huge stigma about caring about pop-culture prestige. Let's examine something here. Why is there a huge stigma against pop-culture prestige. It sounds cheap. It sounds demeaning. It sounds downright superficial and degrading. But why? It's because majority opinion determines the definition of what is right and what is wrong. It determines what we should view as worthless (pop culture prestige for instance), or what we should view as praiseworthy (high departmental rankings on US news for instance). And since the definition of right is based purely on the dominant ideology, the majority opinion shapes what we believe and perceive in the world. There's nothing wrong with that I guess. It's just a fact of human nature. When Hitler convinced Germany to exterminate the Jews, he established the dominant ideology of the time, and what he was doing was considered "right" by majority opinion. In context of Germany, it WAS right, because as I said earlier, only majority opinion can define what is accepted belief. It's the basis of everything in society. By the same token, when Americans massacred the Native Americans, what we did at the time was "right" according to majority opinion. By today's standards, of course, those ideologies were wrong. But they are only wrong because we today form a dominant majority opinion that says that what they did was wrong. If everyone today started believing they were right, then they would be right. At the end of the day, all value judgements are just the thoughts and beliefs of the majority. There is no universal theme that determines what is "unequivocally right" all of the time. So on that note, let me just say that while you and I disagree on some things, neither of us can claim victory and certainly neither of us can claim to be right. You might be considered "right" in the social context if you happen to sway everyone's opinions on this board, but as we have seen in the examples of Hitler and America's muderous past, sometimes there is very little value of swaying majority opinion. Anyway, I'm glad you took the time to discuss my post point by point, and I appreciate learning about counter viewpoints that I haven't yet considered. However, as I stand back a little from the heat and passions of the argument, I realized how futile it was for us to pick apart each other's argument in such anal detail. There certainly is good value in dicussion, but I think the discourse we started with each other didn't quite meet the standards of a rational-critical debate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard and MIT proposed a merger precisely because they have a close connection with each other. (They are right across the street!)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hope that's a metaphoric street you are referring to, otherwise, it will come as rather greatly shocking news to students at both Harvard and MIT that they are literally across the street from each other, which would lead me to inquire exactly which street is that? Have you ever actually tried walking (not taking public transit or driving, but actually walking) from Harvard to MIT? Sure, it's doable, but it's not exactly a trivial jaunt. </p>
<p>
[quote]
n addition, MapQuest and other similar resources do not exactly take extreme rush hour traffic into account. When there is gridlock on the Bay Bridge, the projected 27 minutes might look good in theory but can easily turn into an hour and thirty in reality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, and there's NEVER any rush-hour traffic on 101 or 280, right? So I guess all those huge pile-ups on 101-N when I was trying to get into China Basin were all just my (and everybody else's) imagination, is that it? That there must never have been any any rush-hour crawlfests on the South San Francisco manifold, right, not even once? </p>
<p>Believe me, it's not all that trivial to drive to UCSF during rush hour, whether you're coming from the East Bay or from the Peninsula. If it's rush hour, then either way, you're screwed. Which is why the more realistic option is to take mass-transit, particularly BART. I would venture that the vast majority of all Berkeley people (students, faculty, whoever) who travel to UCSF does so through BART. BART, unfortunately, is not an option at Stanford. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, there certainly is a huge stigma about caring about pop-culture prestige. Let's examine something here. Why is there a huge stigma against pop-culture prestige. It sounds cheap. It sounds demeaning. It sounds downright superficial and degrading. But why? It's because majority opinion determines the definition of what is right and what is wrong. It determines what we should view as worthless (pop culture prestige for instance), or what we should view as praiseworthy (high departmental rankings on US news for instance). And since the definition of right is based purely on the dominant ideology, the majority opinion shapes what we believe and perceive in the world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that you couldn't look at things through the prism of pop-culture. Indeed, I have never disputed the fact that Stanford has better pop-culture fame than does Berkeley.</p>
<p>What I am saying is that if you are going to rely on pop-culture as your measuring stick, then you have to rely on it ALL THE TIME, not just whenever it is convenient for you to do so. So, again, what that means is that, according to you and the logic you have laid out, the guy who gets admitted to the MBA programs at Penn (Wharton), Northwestern (Kellogg), and Yale should automatically choose Yale. After all, you said it yourself, Yale has more pop-culture prestige than does Penn or Northwestern, so according to you, anybody who turns down the Yale MBA program for Wharton or Kellogg is obviously being a fool, right? By the same token, according to you, anybody who turns down Stanford Med or Yale Med for Johns Hopkins Med, Duke Med, UCSF Med, UPenn Med, Michigan Med, Columbia Medor WU Med is obviously an idiot, right? After all, Stanford and Yale have better pop-culture prestige than do Hopkins, Duke, UCSF, Upenn, Michigan, Columbia Med or WU, and according to you, it's pop-culture prestige that matters the most. One of my friends got into Yale Med but decided to opt for Johns Hopkins instead. Is he dumb? Or how about this. If I get into the graduate engineering programs at both Yale and Berkeley, should I choose Yale for its pop-culture prestige? </p>
<p>My stance is that you should judge individual programs on their individual merits. Yale has some programs that are better than others. Just because Yale's undergrad program and law program are elite doesn't mean that its MBA program or its engineering graduate program is. Each program has to be judged as a standalone program. I know very few people who would turn down the Wharton MBA program for the Yale MBA program. </p>
<p>However, if you really believe in what you are saying, then why not defend it across the board? Let's go to the B-school section of CC, or to the Penn section of CC, and you can debate the people there that pop-culture matters and therefore Yale is a better place to get your MBA than Wharton is. If you believe what you say, then you ought to have the courage of your convictions, right?</p>
<p>Gutrade, I assume you think Berkeley is the fourth best school in the country then? Because there is a poll (gallup, I believe) that asked regular people which college they believed was "best." No surprise that Harvard dominated, but then came stanfurd, then yale, then Cal (tied with several others that I can't remember). So I'd just like to hear you admit that Cal is the fourth best school in the country.</p>
<p>UCB or Sfurd or UC palo alto are basically the same. UCPA has 70% application from area around CA and enrollment around 50% from CA which is similar to any UC systems achool. UCB, UC palo alto and Cal tech basically compete with each other. among 700 or so CA admit at Cardinal hang out are no different that top 1000 admit at UCB, Overall Avg at UCB may look lower since they are a state school. But first 1000 kid would outclass UC at Stanford since no legacy issues. UC palo alto get about 50-100 kids from North East as compare to HYP who get 200-300 from west. So Stanford based on application pool and ebrollment basically an extension of UC system.</p>
<p>Actually, Stanford has about 60% of its undergraduate enrollment coming from California, whereas Berkeley draws only about 11% of its undergraduate population from outside of California. Hence, Stanford draws upon a far more geographically diverse student body. Stanford (or UCPalo-Alto, as you call it) cannot really be compared to a UC at all. Stanford cannot really be construed as an extension of the UC system. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/facts/undergraduate.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/facts/undergraduate.html</a>
<a href="http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/a/berkeley.htm%5B/url%5D">http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/a/berkeley.htm</a></p>
<p>does any one know how many UCB rejects end up at UC Palo alto. I heard that c;ose 4000 UCB rejects apply there and 400 join.</p>
<p>Baba, a survey done with stanfurd students and alums showed that 1/3 of all that applied to Cal were rejected, so the whole theory that Berkeley is a bunch of stanfurd rejects is not quite as true as some would want you to believe. It doesn't say exactly how many students were actually turned town, but you have to think that many, many, many students apply to both schools, so 1/3 of all those that applied to both has to be a pretty large number.</p>
<p>Well, Berkeley's and Stanford's admissions are kinda different. Stanford's admission is similar to other top ivies/private schools' and more holistic than Berkeley's which is very number (SAT score, rank) driven (even though they claimed to start using "comprehensive review" few year ago..</p>
<p>For students with top SAT scores and top rank, Berkeley's admission is definitely a lot more predictable and easier. While most vals/sals with over 1500s are in comfortable positions to get into Berkeley, Stanford can be a huge reach if the person has mediocre ECs or wrote a bad essay.</p>
<p>Funny things happen however when applicants have either top SAT scores or top hs rank but not both. For Stanford, the relatively low scores/low hs rank can be balanced by other superior qualities/awards even if you not URMs. For Berkeley, those can be balanced also if you are like URMs, thanks for the introduction of "comprehensive review" few years ago which looks more like applying AA through the backdoor. But if your GPA is, say, only 3.6 because you had a bad freshman year or went to a competitive school AND you are asian/white, you are pretty much out of luck for Berk. It doesn't matter even if you have upward trend after freshman year, have stellar ECs/awards, or have 1600 on SATs (actually the formula used by UC system ranks a person with 1360 and 4.0 GPA higher than one with 1600 and 3.75 GPA--sucks if you go to a competitive school). Some of those can be admitted to Stanford while rejected by Berk.</p>
<p>I don't think that 1/3 of all Stanford students were rejected by Berkeley....no matter what some carelessly-carried-out, unreliable survey the students working for the Stanford Daily conducted. First of all, their pre-Big Game survey was full of bias. The students were LOOKING for concilliatory statistics to make Berkeley look good and have a story that stands out. It's similar to how a recent Big Game article stated that "Berkeley is unequivocally better than Stanford." People of the Stanford Daily always like to make an interesting article to galvanize interest in a student body too busy studying, getting internships, or winning awards to pick up the paper.</p>