<p>Even though it's pretty much accepted that Berkeley is not as good as Stanford, it doesn't mean Berkeley is a bad school. Tufts isn't as good as Harvard, but that doesn't make Tufts a bad school either. Everything is relative. If you compared Berkeley to UCSD, then Berkeley may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, and is INCREDIBLY prestigious. If you compare Berkeley to Stanford, then of course Berkeley is going to look mediocre in comparison. But that just comes with the territory. I know there are at least some UCSD-o-philes who will argue that Berkeley isn't better than their school, just as their are Berk-o-philes who argue that Stanford isn't superior. But overall, on average, people know that Stanford is better than Berkeley and that Berkeley is better than UCSD.</p>
<p>1 afghan penny</p>
<p>collegeperson is a TTT in decline</p>
<p>belongs at UCI</p>
<p>Bears football>>>>>>>>>>>>>hyps (its all relative, after all)</p>
<p>So now you're making fun of UCI (a school I never claimed to go to or even applied to). How mature. You're being so elitist against schools like UCI, and then you expect HYS to regard you guys as an equal? Sorry to burst your bubble, but the difference between HYS and Berkeley is far greater than the difference between Berkeley and UCI. </p>
<p>I find it funny how Berkeley students can be the most elitist of the bunch, and then cry foul when truly superior schools give them a taste of their own medicine. Sorry but Stanford makes Berkeley look like a TTT, just like how you think Berkeley makes UCI looks like a TTT. Poetic justice is a biiiatch aint it?</p>
<p>No, UCI is a great school. It's just painfully close to where I live and I'd never go there.</p>
<p>And you never replied to the fact that Bears football>>>>>>>>>>HYS.</p>
<p>Idiot.</p>
<p>Anyways, why do you feel the need to bash Cal on A CAL FORUM? Probably because you're sad about your life. Try getting one.</p>
<p>No wonder we think people at Stanford are @ssholes. People like you and rooster.</p>
<p>Looking at your previous posts, I think it's funny you're calling me an elitist.</p>
<p>"Anyways, why do you feel the need to bash Cal on A CAL FORUM? Probably because you're sad about your life. Try getting one"</p>
<p><em>petulantly</em> I do too have a life! In fact, you're probably very envious of my two extremely hot girlfriends, Mrs. Left and Miss Right.</p>
<p>so why are you bashing cal again?</p>
<p>That's strange, my girlfriends are also named Mrs. Left and Miss Right. Have you been messing with my women?</p>
<p>I have a third girlfriend named Mrs. Kleenex. I come with her everyday to the movies. You better not mess with her collegeperson, or I'll turn you into pulp.</p>
<p>I saw Mrs. Kleenex, but she's so clumsy. I think she fell onto a wedding cake because her whole body was covered in some sort of frosting.</p>
<p>No that wasn't frosting. That was some sort of IronicPaste.</p>
<p>going to bed</p>
<p>have fun making out</p>
<p>Cross-admits are a good way of looking at the issue. It is true that there are few cross-admits to the undergraduate programs of Stanford and Berkeley who will choose Berkeley, unless cost is the problem (and even then, there are still few who would take Berkeley). On the other hand, I happen to know plenty of PhD student cross-admits who took Berkeley over Stanford (as well as cross-admits to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Yale, Caltech etc. who took Berkeley). I also find it to be no coincidence that the Berkeley PhD programs are unquestionably among the very best in the world. If we were just looking at PhD programs, Berkeley is fully competitive with anybody.</p>
<p>The problem is with the undergraduate program at Berkeley, which while still quite strong, is, on the aggregate, not as strong as that of HYPSMC. It certainly happened to be my brother - as soon as he got into MIT early, Berkeley was no longer in the running, and he ended up choosing Caltech. It's not like he's just anti-Berkeley. Far from it. In fact, he expressed strong desire to consider Berkeley to get his PhD. Why would he do that if he's just a 'Berkeley hater'? It's just that he realizes that he would probably get a better undergraduate experience somewhere else. Again, let me repeat, the Berkeley undergraduate experience is better than that of most other schools. But look who we're comparing it to - we're comparing to the very top places, and Berkeley has difficulty matching those places. </p>
<p>What Berkeley needs to do is improve its undergraduate program so that it can really stand toe-to-toe with that of HYPSMC and compete with them for cross-admits. Lest some Berkeley fanatic think cross-admits are not important, then tell me, if it's not important, then why do the Berkeley PhD programs seem to think that winning the cross-admit battle is so important? And why is it that those PhD programs can and do win those battles fairly regularly? You don't see the Berkeley chemistry or computer science departments routinely losing PhD crossadmits to Stanford, Harvard or MIT. </p>
<p>Finally, let me deal with a possible objection right now. Some people here on CC just think of me as a 'hater' of Berkeley. Well, if that was really, then why would I go around constantly praising the Berkeley PhD programs? If I really hated Berkeley, shouldn't I be dissing ALL of Berkeley? In fact, I have ALWAYS stated that the Berkeley graduate programs, especially the PhD programs, are indisputably great. Go back through my old posts and you should find that I am one of the biggest boosters on CC of Berkeley's graduate programs. I don't think that is particularly consistent with me simply being a hater.</p>
<p>I'll think of you, IronicPaste, when I'm with Mrs. Kleenex and a good magazine.</p>
<p>So, sakky and the so called "ubermensch," is yield rate the only important factor in rating the schools, or just a very important one? Should schools be ranked solely on how cross-admitted students enroll, as a recent Harvard study said (which i cannot find right now)? Sakky, i don't know much about the battle for cross-admits at the graduate level, perhaps you could link to a few articles or websites.</p>
<p>I think that the most important factor is indeed the number of cross-admitted students who enroll. Everything else is too subjective to measure. If virtually all cross-admits pick Stanford over Berkeley, there must be something about Stanford that makes it superior in the eyes of prospective freshmen. Since a democratic society bases everything on the opinions of the masses, the cross-admits are the ones who are in the best position to judge a school. They are the consumers who are choosing the product, and you know that old saying, "The customer is always right."</p>
<p>For the love of [insert favorite spiritual deity here],</p>
<p>LET THESE SORT OF IDIOTIC THREADS DIE!</p>
<p>Stanford is harder to get into and easier to get out of. Given the choice, obviously most people are going to go to Stanford for undergrad. It has the ability to be picky, it's a private school. But I wonder how many people would choose Stanford grad school over Berkeley. The field is much more level.</p>
<p>Many people would choose Stanford Business over Berkeley biz, Stanford Law over Berk Law, and of course Stanford Medical over a non-existent berk med program. There is no competition when it comes to the grad schools that matter the most---the professional ones. This is why Stanford, Harvard, and to a certain extent Yale are such university powerhouses. Stanford has the best law and business schools, Harvard has the best law, business, and medical schools, and Yale has THE BEST law school period. Berkeley's professional schools cannot come close to competing. </p>
<p>As for PhD programs, Berkeley might have some good ones, but the real money and prestige are in the professional schools. If you want to be a Supreme Court justice, a Surgeon General, a President, a filthy rich CEO, the founder of of Fortune 500 company, you go to Harvard, Stanford, or Yale.</p>
<p>"I think that the most important factor is indeed the number of cross-admitted students who enroll. Everything else is too subjective to measure. If virtually all cross-admits pick Stanford over Berkeley, there must be something about Stanford that makes it superior in the eyes of prospective freshmen. Since a democratic society bases everything on the opinions of the masses, the cross-admits are the ones who are in the best position to judge a school. They are the consumers who are choosing the product, and you know that old saying, "The customer is always right.""</p>
<p>Haha that's poor logic. Anyway, have you not heard of people simply going to a school "because they got in."? Many feel that, when the acceptance letter comes from that prestigious enough place, they are okay with their lives, and the decision has been made. Yield rates are measured, but yield rates of cross-admits are much harder to gauge. Students generally have to volunteer such information for it to be known at all, and many choose not to give it for whatever reason. Is the fact that stanford is harder to get into and a good deal more students choose it over Berkeley a reason to believe that it is a better school? No, not really. It's a much better gauge of what is hot and what is not, though. Thank you, yield rate. Also, we should define what "better school" means. And, even though I ask this, it doesn't mean that I go to St. Johns College (and if you don't get the joke, learn more about this awesome school.)</p>
<p>"As for PhD programs, Berkeley might have some good ones, but the real money and prestige are in the professional schools."</p>
<p>Berkeley "might" have some good ones? Well, according to most sources, they have the best overall combination of PhD programs in the country, and in many subjects they are rated as having the top program. The graduate programs at Berkeley are amazing, so please don't fool yourself into thinking that they "might be good." You don't mention UPenn's Wharton business school. What of that? I guess you dont acknowledge the real prestige, at all. As to medical school, how many people would go to Stanford Med over UCSF medical school? As to being a president, how many have gone to Stanford? Herbert Hoover, a fine president, at that <em>note the sarcasm</em>. Stanford does have many great programs, but overall, people consider Berkeley a greater school for post-undergraduate work.</p>
<p>Real prestige is in professional programs?</p>
<p>So people like Feynman, Durkheim, Gould, Fermi, and Oppenheimer weren't "prestigious" individuals because they didn't possess professional degrees?</p>
<p>Gutrade, you obviously know very little about the men and women who shaped science and medicine if you hold onto that incomplete belief.</p>
<p>Well, here's the way it is (for me):</p>
<p>Berkeley is the center of my universe already - and I live in Maryland. All the books I've read in the past year have had something to do with the area, just by chance. </p>
<p>Plus, Palo Alto (?) would cramp my style. Can anyone put on a straight face and tell me that Stanford has the economic, political, and social diversity that Berkeley does, really? that I'd feel comfortable reeling around the campus the way I'd normally do, the way I normally dress?? Stanford's like Disney World. Trees aren't meant to be evenly spaced...</p>
<p>I admire the fact that Berkeley is world known and public, that it got rid of affirmative action, and that it's just so frickin' awesome. </p>
<p>I love Berkeley because it's Berkeley. It was the one place out of everywhere I visited that I felt I could matriculate to without an initiation process; I wouldn't need to figure, adapt, or change to study there. I visited A LOT of places, all over the country, but Berkeley is my home. I knew this already, after my orientation junior year. I wandered about the campus sobbing because the lady had told me I didn't have a chance from Maryland. Heh, suckers. I'll see them in the fall;)</p>
<p>Berkeley fits me. I'd probably start to hate life a little bit if I went to Stanford.</p>