<p>Mikei you yourself are biased towards “science and research”. you don’t have a shred of evidence to back up that US News is “completley unreliable”. and what do you mean by “old american universities”?!! Cal is about as old as Cornell with both starting in the late 1800s. </p>
<p>US News is a very well established ranking of american schools, many university websites themselves allude to it in order to entice prospecitve students. the US Department of education itself provides a link to US News ranking for prospective international students. </p>
<p>The ARWU ranking is like an year old. Besides any statistic that comes out of China must be taken with a grain of salt. Chinese institutions are infamous for cooking up numbers. they even lied about the number of SARS and HIV patients in their country just to “look good”!!!</p>
<p>Berkeley is a gold mine for high achieving first-gen students and for mediocre, unremarkable CA residents. But, in the extremely competiitve world of higher education it ranks far below the Ivies and places like Stanford, MIT and Caltech.</p>
<p>My bias is toward education and academics and away from business but not toward science. I believe college is for learning and expanding one’s knowledge-that is, I believe college is an institution of education-and I believe that if one is to rank colleges it should be on the basis of academics.</p>
<p>When I said “old American universities” I meant Ivy-like private schools. I apologize for my poor phrasing.</p>
<p>Chinese government’s statistics regarding their own domestic disparities is different than a Chinese university ranking international universities.</p>
<p>You stated, “Berkeley is a gold mien for high achieving first-gen students and for mediocre, unremarkable CA residents. But, in the extremely competiitve world of higher education it ranks far below the Ivies and places like Stanford, MIT and Caltech.”</p>
<p>What is your evidence for this?</p>
<p>Because I happen to know many people who went to Stanford (including in my own family) and also Berkeley and UCLA. They state that there is almost no difference in academics and whereas there is a difference between Berkeley and UCLA’s prestige in academia, Berkeley is definitely not “far below the Ivies and places like Stanford.” I cut off the remainder of your statement because stating that Berkeley is “far below… MIT and Caltech” is simply foolish. Although I will admit that Stanford and Harvard are generally better schools than Berkeley, they are not vastly better. Schools like Yale and Princeton are better or worse than Berkeley depending on the program. But Cornell? Really? We are literally arguing over marginal and unnoticeable differences. But to say that Cornell is “vastly superior” to Berkeley is far-fetched and I believe it is completely unfounded.</p>
<p>And, by the way, the ARWU ranking is not “like an year old.”</p>
<p>Globally, Berkeley is definitely thought of as a top 5 University in the world. I can say this from people I personally know who come from Thailand, Singapore, and Japan.</p>
<p>After reading previous posts by you it’s obvious that you are a complete fanboy for the Ivy’s which explains why your arguments have no substance behind them.</p>
<p>I urge you to move away from the Ivy League myth and to begin thinking for yourself.</p>
<p>Am I the only one who realizes how dumb it is to argue over which school is better? And yet… I still do it… It’s just entertaining but it’s such a huge waste of time.</p>
<p>Haha, sorry. Well, I forgot to mention an acquaintance of mine who is from England doing EAP at UCSC. He told me that when one does EAP, one must rank where one wants to go. He said, and I quote: “You need to be really special to get into the Berkeley EAP program. My professors say it is as good as Harvard and Stanford.”</p>
<p>"And, you’re completely false about Cornell’s acceptance rating. Granted, it’s high, but Berkeley’s is much higher.</p>
<p>For example, Anthropology and Philosophy majors have an OVER 50% chance of getting into Berkeley. That’s a bit absurd."</p>
<p>LOL dude, you are completely speaking out of your ass. you want proof? cuz i got some right here. </p>
<p>CALS: 51%
Architecture: 14%
A & S: 8%
Engineering: 31%
Hotel Admin: 25%
Hum Ec: 43%
ILR: 53%</p>
<p>hmmmmm… i know majors like philosophy have a 50% or greater chance of getting in, but the whole college of arts and science? i believe it’s in the 20’s. Meanwhile, Cornell’s WHOLE cals and ilr colleges have AVERAGE acceptance rates over 50%. I know what you’re thinking rileyjohn.you’re thinking that guaranteed transfers are included in these numbers, but under these statistics, it clearly states that special students are not included (special students = guaranteed transfer). </p>
<p>Chris: Seriously dude, learn the facts of your own school before you try to brag about it. Your oh-so-mighty Cornell is partly funded by New York State and thus has to accept a certain amount of students from the state as part of the contract. Before you go saying that these students are still more qualified than the “ivy-rejects” of Cal, think again. I know PLENTY of people that currently go to cornell and they all say that there is a significant amount of unqualified people from the Queens and Bronx who struggle mightily once they get to Cornell.</p>
<p>I don’t know what’s up with the egos of these Cornell kids. It’s like they have to go out of their way to prove that Cornell is superior and their evidence is: “Cornell is an Ivy League!!!”</p>
<p>But if you go to Harvard, Princeton, Yale or Columbia, you don’t have to tell people you go to an Ivy League… You just tell them you went to Harvard, Princeton, Yale or Columbia!</p>
<p>Whereas the UC kids just talk among the UC Transfer thread and never head over to the Cornell thread with plans of proving superiority… So strange…</p>
<p>If I compute correctly the %s are:
CALS 42%, AAP 12%, CAS 9%, COE 7%, Hotel 25%, HumEc 36%, ILR 48%.</p>
<p>Some of these transfer #s fluctuate a good bit year to year, so for example in Fall 2008 ILR accepted 25% of transfers.</p>
<p>One thing that’s important to understand though is that the numbers for the “contract colleges” (ILR, Hum EC & CALS) are swollen by so-called “guaranteed transfers”- people for whom admission was assured upon re-application provided they meet certain conditions. The admission rate for truly new transfer applicants to these schools is obviously much lower. For example, someone posted that only 11 of Hum Ecs newly matriculated transfers were truly new applicants. Unfortunately the Guaranteed Transfer applicants are not broken out separately.</p>
<p>“Cornell is a far superior institution to Berkeley. It is ranked # 15 this year while Berkeley is at # 22. Cornell’s transfer acceptance rate is high because a LOT of those are guaranteed transfers: freshmen who were given the option to transfer to Cornell after 2 years provided they maintained a certain GPA.
Cornell is an Ivy League school and is infinitely more reputable than Cal. Cal is ridiculously easy to get into. as some1 pointed out, maintain a 3.5+ GPa at a CCC, do a few clubs and whip out 2 measly essays and you’re in. Getting into Cal from a CCC is really not that big of an achievement. they don’t even ask for recommendation letters or high school transcripts!
Be sorry you were too mediocre to even aim for a place like Cornell or if you did, you failed.”- This chris fellow basically summed up my entire view.</p>
<p>Also, aside from the guaranteed transfers inflating the ratings, you can’t even compare a, say, 35% acceptance rating from Berkeley to a 35% acceptance rating for Cornell. At berkeley, if 100 kids apply, 35 get in, and probably at least 30 kids stood NO SHOT at getting in, and were just were bound for UCR, UCD, UCSC, ect from the start. All you have to do is check a box on your UC application to apply? Why not click it?</p>
<p>The kids who apply to Cornell, (and I’m basing this statement off of things I’ve seen on both transfer forms. Well, that and logic, given the rigorous process of applying.) are much more qualified as a whole. You won’t be having those 30 kids with 3.2 GPAs applying. It’s not the same.</p>
<p>Whoa, so much hate here hahahahaha. I’m a big fan of Cornell and Berkeley, but I really don’t think people should be comparing both of the schools. I love Berkeley because I’m a Norcal kid and it’s basically known as the Public ivy around here. Most people in my family graduated from Cal and it’s basically in my blood. It’s a great institution for those who choose to remain in California for the great people and want to bask in this amazing weather. I have friends who are working in Washington DC and Maryland, and all their employers KNEW UC Berkeley and how great the school is.</p>
<p>As for Cornell, it’s an Ivy. I have relatives in parts of Europe, Australia, and Asia who do not really know Berkeley, other than the fact that people in my family went there. They have heard of the school and know it’s very reputable… but when they hire foreign students (ie. students from the US) then they try to get the Ivies first or strong private colleges such as Stanford, MIT, etc. It’s a completely different world over at some of those Ivies. I’ve visited Brown, Harvard, UPenn, and Cornell, and I can’t even compare it with my visits to the UC campuses. You just look at the architecture and the student environment and you KNOW this is what a university is supposed to be (I love gothic and roman buildings so I’m biased). </p>
<p>I think the biggest factor here is jobs. A degree from Cal is basically a ticket to work for most large companies around the US, there is no arguing that. However, Cornell is just a beast with sending its kids to large firms right out of university (maybe why the numbers for graduate students are skewed). One girl who went to De Anza community college turned down Haas to go for Cornell’s AEM - Finance program (in her case she would have went to Wharton if they gave her FA). At first I was shocked because Haas is the real deal, it doesn’t play games like the other transfer majors at Berkeley who just accepts everyone. However, she’s in her 2nd year at Cornell and has been working part-time during the school year at JP Morgan Chase as an I-banker and full-time during the summer. Once she graduates, she’s guaranteed a job there (although major stress and LONG work weeks).</p>
<p>I’ve been in the corporate world for about 2 years now and I can say there’s a huge bias towards companies trying to “recruit the Ivies or private school kids.” I’m not going to lie, it’s really unfair. This spring when I was helping my team pick another student intern to work in our finance department, we finally narrowed it down to 2 kids from UC Berkeley, 1 from Pomona, and 1 from SCU (all had 3.8 - 4.0 GPA’s and all worked for financial firms during the school year). SCU is nowhere ranked near those two other schools, but because my team’s boss got his undergrad at SCU and personally listed the position through SCU’s career center, the SCU kid was hired. I personally, wanted the Pomona kid because of his extensive skill-set, but I’m just an intern and really have no say.</p>
<p>^ That’s a very succinct analysis. I think for the money you pay, Berkeley’s probably the best deal out there. even if you’re a non-resident Cal is cheaper than most privates unless you get a tonne of fin aid.</p>
<p>@riley haha yep. I agree. Especially if you have a good amount of FA for cornell.
And no I wasn’t serious, but I’m tired of arguing haha, I need to save my strength for my Religion paper :D</p>