<p>yea we do have something else to fight back with........we still have possession of the Axe....was that why Stanfurd had to fire their head coach Buddy Teevens????</p>
<p>Come on Cardinal, if someone wants to have an honest conversation about the two schools, that's fine, but just coming over here to talk crap without saying anything is useless. On both sides. I always hear about how nobody at Stanfurd cares about the rivalry, yet there are a group of people who come out spitting bile whenever the topic of Cal comes up. What's the deal? Insecure with the choice you guys made? As far the THES, its just another ranking. I don't put any more or any less credence into it than any other rankings. But while we're at it, what do YOU have to make Stanfurd look better. You've got your rankings and we've got ours. All are fairly pointless, but all you farmboys only seem to have a problem with the rankings that put Cal at an elite level, along with Stanfurd. Everyone is free to voice their oppinion, but MY oppinion is that anybody who refuses to see the quality of Cal (on par with stanfurd) is dillusional and deserves to be flamed.</p>
<p>Ever heard this song?</p>
<p>Leland Stanfurd had a farm, E-I-E-I-O
And on his farm he built a school, E-I-E-I-O
With a snob here and a snob there,
Here a snob, there a snob
Everywhere a rich snob,
Leland Stanfurd had a farm, E-I-E-I-O</p>
<p>By the way, I've reported rooster08 to the forum administration for his incessant trolling.</p>
<p>conor, understand that..several times earlier in this thread I have said that we should kill this thread because it is pointless and i do think that Berkeley is just as fine an academic institution as Stanford...and I dont disagree with you when you say that Cal is on par with Stanford. I have always believed that...I applied to both schools, got it both places...but since I chose Stanford..I do this rivarly thing for fun..but here on the forum...ppl are making it so ugly...with all the unecessary, BS bashing...I have the highest respect for Berkeley students..but I'm sick of looking at what I'm reading on this thread (from both sides) you guys really need to stop taking this so seriously...but now its become as if this is some sort of hierarchy. </p>
<p>about what mosharma said...yes, thats the kind of fun rivalry i'm talking about where we are not almost at each other's throats. </p>
<p>oh yea..mosharma:
<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/axecomm/calvstanford.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/group/axecomm/calvstanford.html</a>
It's a bit outdated but the numbers have only slightly changed. have fun =)</p>
<p>"I dont disagree with you when you say that Cal is on par with Stanford."</p>
<p>While I do believe you are trying to be considerate and nice when you say that, I have to personally disagree. Berkeley is not on par with Stanford as per undergraduate education. I will concede that Berkeley's graduate PhD programs are on par with Stanford's, but its undergraduate program is not even comparable. They have a considerably less talented student body and their academics are not as strong because there are like hoardes of 500 people jam packed in a lecture hall. In addition, I have my doubts about the intelligence of Berkeley students. The kids from my school who ended up at Berkeley tended to be conformist, shy, teacher fearing students who weren't really smart at all, but just consistently did their homework. They had no refreshing ideas, never contributed to any discussion, and mostly just followed the rules. I think Berkeley is a school for kids who might "work hard," but have no raw intelligence. Therefore, Berkeley is setting people up to be the mid-level work-force of society. I'm talking about the stereotypical office worker who might work hard from 9 to 5 everyday, but never gets anywhere. He's the anonymous work-horse.</p>
<p>Its funny you say that Rooster, because I had the same experience with my school. Only it was the other way around. The stunfurd kids were a bunch of rich, pampered kids who had never experienced anything outside of their safety zone and were scared shtt-less about the prospect of the acedemics at Cal. Honestly, I knew a kid who said, "Stanfurd might be boreing and lame, but at least I wont have to work hard to get good grades." Typical cardinal. Lazy. Half the kids that I know who got into stanfurd had their mommies and daddies paying thousands of dollars to SAT tutors because the kids really didn't have any raw intelegence and needed to take the practice test and actual test about a hundred times before they could get a decent score. The Cal kids took the test once, without paying tutors, and did just about as well as the best combined score of the stanfurd kids. I even knew kids who transfered to the worst school in town just so it would be easier to get good grades and class rank. Lazy+stupid=typical stanfurd admit. </p>
<p>Ok, that was my impersonation of a normal Cardinal post. Pretty close, right?</p>
<p>Actually, that sounded more like jealous banter. </p>
<p>"Stanfurd might be boreing and lame, but at least I wont have to work hard to get good grades."</p>
<p>Nobody at Stanford is afraid of Berkeley grading standards. Put any of us in a room with 500 mediocre students, and I'll guarantee you we'll be at the top of the curve. See, unlike in Stanford, Berkeley students don't have to compete with the brightest minds in America. They just have to compete against regular joes and hard workers. I would much rather take a midterm where the curve is based on Berkeley standards rather than on Stanford standards. You see, the exams we take over here test far more than mere book knowledge. </p>
<p>There might be more D and F grades at Berkeley than at Stanford, but that's only because there are more students of D and F caliber at Berkeley than there are at Stanford. Blaming Stanford for grade inflation is like blaming the police in Beverly Hills for not doing their job and catching enough criminals. Sure the police in Beverly Hills might not nab as many bad guys as those cops down in the hood, but that's only because there aren't as many bad guys to nab. Don't say that Berkeley has harsh grading standards without first examining the students who are graded. That's all I have to say.</p>
<p>Sure, buddy, keep telling yourself that. I'd like to see some data on how many of these "brightest minds in America" had to have mommy and daddy pay for ten tutors so they could boost their scores. Then, once they get to the farm, they get an A+ tightly wrapped up for them without lifting a finger. Its only fair I guess, they are paying alot of money for those grades. Stanfurd students would be left crying in the corner of the room if they ever came to Cal. I can picture it:</p>
<p>Cardinal: I got a C-! Wait a minute, at my old school they gave us an A for effort.</p>
<p>Cal Prof: Hey, you're not at the farm anymore. Get used to it.</p>
<p>Cardinal (eyes getting moiste): Sir, what if my daddy sends you a check for a thousand dollars? Will you change it to an A?</p>
<p>Cal Prof (looking disgusted): Get out!</p>
<p>Cardinal (now openly a mess, huddled in the corner, sobbing): I need to go back to Palo Alto to be with the brightest minds in America. (more sobbing)</p>
<p>Rooster, Berkeley has 900 students every year with 1500+ on their SAT. The competition here is why Berkeley investment bankers are more prized than Stanfurd investment bankers. </p>
<p>You are from a low competition California district, seriously man. I'm sure you study, but it is well known that Stanfurd investment bankers are too soft and too lazy. I kid you not. Anyways, in my eyes rooster, u scored pretty low on the SAT. I wouldn't throw stones in a glass house.</p>
<p>Yeah 1580 makes me retarded. Especially since I took it in a single sitting and didn't prep for it at all besides reading the "10 Real SATs" the week before the exam. </p>
<p>You know the really funny thing is that, on average, Stanford students pay less than Berkeley students for tuition. It's a beautiful thing called financial aid and huge endowments. So while you Berkeley kids pay full sticker price for an inferior education, I'll be laughing my @ss off on the farm paying the same amount of money for a superior experience. Then there are the kids getting full rides. </p>
<p>Stanford does not accept academically unqualified kids just because they are rich. Although there are subtle admissions boosts to alumni kids, Stanford doesn't do it nearly as much as Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. Anyway Condor(vulture), you are way out of your league comparing Berkeley to Stanford. As much as you'd like to believe that your school is up there with us, it seriously isn't. Go play around with Chico State, Cal Poly, UCLA, and USC playmate competitors for a while, and don't reach for the stars before you can even crawl out of your crib.</p>
<p>^ Rooster, I sense deep insecurities in you. Nothing wrong with falling short of a good SAT score. I think you had an unpleasant upbringing. Does your school offer psychological treatment for people like you? If they don't, they should. I'll write to Stanfurd immediately to get you some help.</p>
<p>"I think Berkeley is a school for kids who might "work hard," but have no raw intelligence. Therefore, Berkeley is setting people up to be the mid-level work-force of society. I'm talking about the stereotypical office worker who might work hard from 9 to 5 everyday, but never gets anywhere. He's the anonymous work-horse."</p>
<p>yeah..ok
That is such a false statement. Berkeley students are leaders, the ones who will manage the "typical office-worker." IMO, the cal alumni will be working side by side with stanfurd alumni, and yes the difference is negligible. Even your fellow cardinals agree that berk is on par. Why must you be so stubborn?</p>
<p>My "fellow cardinals" might superficially SAY that Berk is on par, but that's not how they really feel deep down inside. I guess it's politically correct to say that "the top 25 schools are all equally good" and that the "differences are negligible." But just because something is POLITICALLY correct, it doesn't make it ABSOLUTELY correct. I think the difference between Yale and UCLA is huge. Likewise, I think the difference between Stanford and Berkeley is huge. The difference is not only in prestige and selectivity (which do matter by the way), but also in the quality of education they provide. If Berkeley was truly on par with Stanford, then it really shouldn't be full of Stanford-rejects. Yet it is. </p>
<p>I find it ironic that you guys think I am being wrong, unfair and stuck up for refusing to "acknowledge" Berkeley's place alongside Stanford. You know why? Because whenever people compare Berkeley to one of its true peers, like USC, UCLA, UCSC, etc, Berkeley people make a big ruckus about how Berkeley is so far superior and cannot even compare to them. For example, when somebody posted a thread about choosing between Northwestern and Berkeley, Westside stated that it was an "insult" to campare the two because Berkeley is so much better. Then in this very forum, when somebody asked about choosing between Berk and Swarthmore, people were being the worst kinds of prestige whores and kept stating that Berkeley was so much more well known, the degree is worth its weight in gold, so much more prestigious, and all that junk. When I went to Cal Day a year ago, it seemed like all the Berkeley people were mired in the same kind of crap. When somebody in my tour group told people that he was choosing between Berkeley and Claremont McKenna, all the people made rude remarks about how they never heard of Claremont and that Berkeley was the far better choice because it was SOOO much more prestigious and would give you better jobs in the future. It seems like Berkeley is such a prestige whoring school, but when they are on the receiving end, they raise the biggest ruckus imaginable.</p>
<p>Rooster, nobody is arguing that Cal has more prestige than stanfurd. I think you'd have to be borderline retarded to make that claim. Stanfurd is a world class university and is thought of as such. But...but...SO IS CAL, and...SO IS UCLA, and and to some extent USC. Maybe its hard for you and your ilk to understand, but prestige isn't the only indicator of quality. My problem isn't really with the school itself, but rather its the arrogant, self obsessed, coddled, and spoiled rich kids who go there and feel superior to everyone else because they got lucky and caught an admissions officer on a good day (or mommy and daddy have a wing of the admissions office named after them). I can see how touchy this subject is to you by the way you feel compelled to give your SAT scores (classy!) as a way to justify going to a less academically rigorous school. Its alright, rooster, you don't need to justify anything. Embrace the ease of your school. Sometimes I wish my school gave everbody A's, but then I realize that I'm in college to learn, not to impress members of my yaht club.</p>
<p>It's just FUNNY how whenever there's Berkeley vs xxxxxx, the thread just gets so long. No other school's board is like that. Berkeley's PR department must be ranked #1 too!</p>
<p>By the way, Westside, good job at keep posting that 900+ people with 1500+ SAT BS. Berkeley's report already says 360 (out of 4400+) NOT 900 freshmen with 1500+. When most people retake SAT, they improve in BOTH verbal and math. What's the basis of your claim that ALL other private schools use best verbal + best math out of multiple sittings anyway??? Even if that's the case, it doesn't matter much because of the reason I just mentioned.</p>
<p>I think you are exaggerating it a bit when u say all people that get into Stanford are rich white snobs whose parents basically get them in. Sorry, not true. I grew up in a family that makes <40K/yr and I only moved to this country like 6 years ago. I took no SAT courses but yes, I did study for the SAT but all on my own. Stanford is offering to pay >80% of their sticker price. Berkeley....is barely giving me $2000 in grants and like $8000 in loans.
A friend of mine who got in also was mexican-american and his parents worked in the fields all thier lived. He was basically dirt poor. Stanford is offering him a free ride.
Another friend of mine got in 2 years ago...his parents also worked in the fields after they immigrated. He also got a full ride.
These are just some of the people I know...they dont represent the whole student population but to say that Stanford is full of rich white snobs (or is mostly filled with them) is truly and clearly an exaggerated exaggeration.
Plus, also remember that Stanford is the one with the Quest Program that offers students from low-income families a free summer program to facilitate the college application process for them.
And until and unless you have seen Stanford students work their butts off when they are in their libraries till 3 in the morning to study for a test, there is no way you can say that Stanford students go cry to their mommies and daddies when they get bad grades. you're taking this wayyy over the top and undermining Stanford and their students way too much. There is a reason why Stanford has become so prestigious around the world in barely a 100 years when the schools that it is compared to have been around for much, much longer.</p>
<p>Stanford is obviously much better.</p>
<p>uber...seriously....everytime you post about stanfurd....it makes you look more like a stanfurd whore. How can you back a school so much that you.... 1.) Don't even attend....2). Have been rejected from</p>
<p>Cardinal, all I am doing is playing by the rules that Stanfurd kids have made. They say Cal is full of stanfurd rejects who are dumb and just "study machines" without real intelegence. This is obviously just a stereotype. So to match that stereotype I talk about the stereotype of stanfurd kids being spoiled, coddled rich kids that don't do any work and still get all A's. See how it works?</p>
<p>Berkeley grads do play an extremely valuable role in society......as office workers, computer programmers, engineers, etc. They are trained to perform valuable tasks for companies, and I'm sure they do a decent job. Stanford grads, on the other hand, are trained to be leaders, upper-management, CEOs, and the entrepreneurs whose jobs are to make good use of the talented workforce. Is one really better than the other? It depends on what you think and what your opinions are. I come from the school of thought that it's better to be on top, but there can also be some people who enjoy working hard in an office, meeting deadlines, and being the hard worker that Berkeley so effectively trains its students to be.</p>