<p>
U of Rochester Admit stats</p>
<p>•Test Scores – 25th / 75th Percentile
•SAT Critical Reading: 600 / 700
•SAT Math: 630 / 720</p>
<p>Berkeley CoE enrolled stats
SAT Critical Reading: 620 / 740
SAT Math: 710 / 780</p>
<p>Sorry, IBclass06, not even close. The bottom 25% at the CoE are the top 25% at U Rochester.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stuy kids = HCHS rejects</p>
<p>
I said in my post. Read again.</p>
<p>
For Berkeley, yes.</p>
<p>Xiggi claimed that the vast majority of Berkeley students – not admits – would not get into Caltech or Mudd. Admitted student statistics are useless for proving or denying that claim.</p>
<p>
Considering that you chose not to enroll and my comment was specifically about Berkeley students, that’s a slap you chose to take.</p>
<p>Given that the majority of Berkeley engineering admits do not choose to enroll and are presumably admitted to a program they find better, obviously the admitted pool is quite talented. That is, however, entirely off topic. This discussion is about Berkeley students, not the students who threw in an application and were admitted.</p>
<p>(Well, actually it’s about the best US colleges. How in the world did this turn into a Berkeley thread? I swear, you Berkeley and Michigan people are taking over.)</p>
<p>
I read, but I still don’t know where you get the Engineering breakdown. ERgo, the question. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>xiggi claim is in context, i hope. So why would xiggi compare non-CoE students with Caltech/Mudd students?
I don’t know why it’s obvious or off-topic when you claimed “between 50 and 75% of Berkeley engineering students would have their applications thrown in the reject pile by U Rochester”</p>
<p>Actually, in honor of the Berkeley and Michigan posters, I am changing my location. Cheers!</p>
<p>
You’ve been outdone, I’m afraid. A new ranking that weights 629 factors has been produced. It is constantly updated and hence more up to date than yours.</p>
<p>[Definitive</a> Ranking](<a href=“http://www.rankyourcollege.com/jggtcmethod.html]Definitive”>College Ranking Service, A Peerless Evaluation of Colleges, rankyourcollege.com)</p>
<p>(Also, “I was stunned and couldn’t believe at first”? It sounds like a spam email. “Hi, I tried this pill trying to lose weight. I didn’t think it would work, but to my surprise I lost 50 pounds!” :p)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t care if you/xiggi/hmom5 continue to think Berkeley CoE students are borderline ■■■■■■■. No one’s ever published the CoE stats on this forum. I did it first. Yay me. </p>
<p>The UCs value GPA over SAT, but the enrolled SAT scores are off the wall for the CoE. Each enrolled class is almost as big as the entire Caltech/Mudd UG population and still maintains impressive stats. If Caltech/Mudd expanded their class, I doubt they could maintain a 10-20 points lead over Berkeley CoE. </p>
<p>How about all of Caltech/Mudd students who aren’t in the top 10% wouldn’t stand a chance of admissions at Cal? Take that, xiggi. </p>
<p>Student bodies are the same. Better profs lead to better grads. Unless someone can prove universities are non-linear, time-variant systems, I assert Berkeley CoE grads are better than Caltech/Mudd grads. ;-)</p>
<p>Sadly, kids don’t value real work anymore. They all want to be lawyers or business executives. No one wants to build things anymore. No one wants to design iPod anymore, judging from the increasing acceptance rate across engineering disciplines and decreasing acceptance rate at Brown and Dartmouth. It’s depressing, really.</p>
<p>Funny, I got a degree in chemistry, and 1/3 of the degrees awarded at Brown (including double concentrations, which favor humanities and social sciences) are science degrees…</p>
<p>I guess a 30:30:40 ratio of science:humanities:social sciences is a terrible thing.</p>
<p>IB, starting salaries and PhD production do not speak to the quality of programs…particularly in Engineering. Stats of students coming out of most acredited programs are similar. </p>
<p>The “catch” has to do with what students learn thanks to access to cutting-edge research, world-class facilities/labs, one of the best Engineering faculties on Earth and a depth and breadth of courses far greater than that availlable at HMC. </p>
<p>Below is a link to all the Engineering classes offered at HMC. </p>
<p>[Courses[/url</a>]</p>
<p>Now compare that to Cal:</p>
<p>ENGINEERING (INTRO LEVEL CLASSES)
[url=<a href=“http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Engineering&p_dept_cd=ENGIN]General”>http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Engineering&p_dept_cd=ENGIN]General</a> Catalog - Engineering Courses](<a href=“http://www.hmc.edu/academicsclinicresearch/academicdepartments/engineering1/courses.html?PHPSESSID=3fab0eea14559829d904b2969aaf51ed]Courses[/url”>http://www.hmc.edu/academicsclinicresearch/academicdepartments/engineering1/courses.html?PHPSESSID=3fab0eea14559829d904b2969aaf51ed)</p>
<p>CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
[General</a> Catalog - Chemical Engineering Courses](<a href=“http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Chemical+Engineering&p_dept_cd=CHM+ENG]General”>http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Chemical+Engineering&p_dept_cd=CHM+ENG)</p>
<p>CIVIL ENGINEERING
[General</a> Catalog - Civil and Environmental Engineering Courses](<a href=“http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Civil+and+Environmental+Engineering&p_dept_cd=CIV+ENG]General”>http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Civil+and+Environmental+Engineering&p_dept_cd=CIV+ENG)</p>
<p>EECS
[General</a> Catalog - Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences Courses](<a href=“http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Electrical+Engineering+and+Computer+Sciences&p_dept_cd=EECS&p_path=*]General”>http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Electrical+Engineering+and+Computer+Sciences&p_dept_cd=EECS&p_path=*)</p>
<p>INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING:
[General</a> Catalog - Industrial Engineering Courses](<a href=“http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Industrial+Engineering&p_dept_cd=IND+ENG&p_path=l]General”>http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Industrial+Engineering&p_dept_cd=IND+ENG&p_path=l)</p>
<p>MATERIAL SCIENCES:
[General</a> Catalog - Material Science Courses](<a href=“http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Material+Science&p_dept_cd=MAT+SCI&p_path=l]General”>http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Material+Science&p_dept_cd=MAT+SCI&p_path=l)</p>
<p>MECHANICAL ENGINEERING:
[General</a> Catalog - Mechanical Engineering Courses](<a href=“http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Mechanical+Engineering&p_dept_cd=MEC+ENG]General”>http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Mechanical+Engineering&p_dept_cd=MEC+ENG)</p>
<p>NUCLEAR ENGINEERING:
[General</a> Catalog - Nuclear Engineering Courses](<a href=“http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Nuclear+Engineering&p_dept_cd=NUC+ENG]General”>http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Nuclear+Engineering&p_dept_cd=NUC+ENG)</p>
<p>There is no comparison. HMC barely skims the surface. That is not to say it is not great in Engineering, but comparing HMC to Cal is a little extreme. Comparing HMC to Rice, or perhaps even Princeton is fair, but comparing it to Cal, MIT or Stanford is not.</p>
<p>IBClass, how would you explain Berkeley’s admissions that they rejected many applicants with near perfect SAT scores but accepted many applicants with excellent GPAs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The figure for Cal includes graduates from other colleges. You can’t use it as a comparison.</p>
<p>Yield protection.</p>
<p>@IBclass06: Now that’s a ranking!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think they do that.<br>
A valedictorian with a minimum of 700 on each section has 80%+ chance of acceptance.<br>
A non-valedictorian (3.9) with the same qualification has 48% or so chance of acceptance. </p>
<p>Of course, those figures include the other crappy colleges. </p>
<p>Berkeley EECS acceptance rate used to be 10% from one year to 11% the next.
Now, it’s closer to 20%. What a shame someone like Chinua Achebe gets more attention than an engineer designing the iPod. I’m pretty sure modestmelody read Things Fall Apart and thinks it’s physical chemistry. =)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NICE post!</p>
<p>middsmith,</p>
<p>I know of 14 students from last year’s applicant pool with a near perfect score who were all turned down at Berkeley. 2 went to MIT, 3 to went Stanford, 4 went to Chicago, 2 went to Duke, 2 to Princeton and 1 went to Columbia.</p>
<p>Please take note that they are the only Berkeley rejects I’ve met through facebook, and I’m sure there are a lot more out there.</p>
<p>Now, we all just have proven that Berkeley engineering is a superior school and is a well-deserved Top-3 school for engineering in the America. What about Berkeley’s College of Letters and Science? Is it as (or more) competitive as Claremont McKenna, Scripps and Pomona?</p>
<p><strong>Here they are again: RML and middsmith, the incredibly-ignorant duo.</strong></p>
<p>Based upon my last post and PM to middsmith, it’d be very stupid for middsmith to even respond to anything I say from now on regarding engineering programs. The reason is that middsmith doesn’t know what he’s talking about… never made it through an engineering program…</p>
<p>“Student bodies are the same. Better profs lead to better grads. Unless someone can prove universities are non-linear, time-variant systems, I assert Berkeley CoE grads are better than Caltech/Mudd grads. ;-)” -middsmith</p>
<p>If you want to talk systems/signals at least set up your system correctly. Also, linearity has nothing to do with this… and time-variance does exist. Just stop it. You already look like an idiot…don’t make it worse. No more from you.</p>
<p>That will leave me to focus my big guns, hell, missiles (since I design space rockets for a living anyway!) on you. Tell me, what classes have you taken at Berkeley? What is your specialty? Let’s talk your specialty.</p>
<p>Just for your information (though I personally don’t use this as a measure of a “good engineer or scientist”): HMC students far exceeds Berkeley grads in PhD productivity (per capita) and in other fields such as Churchill Scholars (raw numbers), Apkers finalists/winners (per capita), MCM/ICM outstandings (raw numbers), Astronaut Scholars (raw numbers), etc.</p>
<p>We’ve presented contradicting evidence that seems to make with “best” undergraduate institution ambiguous at best…</p>
<p>So what now? Well, I ask you if you know what engineering really is… and what makes a good engineer? Can you answer these questions?</p>
<p>Why does it matter? Because if you are spewing out your opinion to the whole wide world on this forum, the world deserves to know your credentials (or lack thereof).</p>
<p>So, please, tell me how I missed that Berkeley engineers/scientists straight out of undergrad are so much better than Harvey Mudd (or Caltech) students straight out of undergrad.</p>
<p>My feeling is that you can’t. You will try to splice together some data to fit your case and have no real-world tangibility to your claims. I think I may be your first HMC interaction…in which case throw something at me because I’m tired of your ignorance.</p>
<p>“Now, we all just have proven that Berkeley engineering is a superior school and is a well-deserved Top-3 school for engineering in the America. What about Berkeley’s College of Letters and Science? Is it as (or more) competitive as Claremont McKenna, Scripps and Pomona?”</p>
<p>You’re joking, right? You really think that Berkeley CLS is better than Pomona College?
You do realize that Pomona College has a per capita endowment of $1,160,000 verses Berkeley’s $64,800, right? (An this is saying that the distribution across grads/undergrads is identical, which it is not!) Each student at Pomona College has 17 times more money behind their undergraduate education than Berkeley. (This is only rivaled with Harvard and Yale which are much older)</p>
<p>Pomona can beat Berkeley’s socks off in just about anything… besides engineering (no Pomona engineering program) and music.</p>
<p>Even though I’m saying all this stuff, it’s not going to stop you from wearing that Cal sweatshirt that you’ve been wearing since age 2.</p>
<p>“Sadly, kids don’t value real work anymore. They all want to be lawyers or business executives. No one wants to build things anymore. No one wants to design iPod anymore, judging from the increasing acceptance rate across engineering disciplines and decreasing acceptance rate at Brown and Dartmouth. It’s depressing, really.”</p>
<p>I have great respect for what engineers do. But your implication that lawyers and business executives don’t do real work is childish. I worked put in 65 hectic hours this week working as an in-house lawyer, drafting contracts that protect the economic value of the work engineers do, and working with business executives who were laboring mightily toward that same end. </p>
<p>Engineers don’t work in a vacuum. They play a crucial role in large enterprises that have other crucial roles, but they’re hardly the only people who work. It doesn’t do you much good to design a product if no one’s selling it, or organizing the capital it takes to build it, or drafting the contracts under which it’s sold, or taking actions to stop engineers with less talent and imagination from ripping off the design.</p>
<p>rocketDa, show us some good breeding… show us some love… lol</p>
<p>No need for name calling on this forum. No need to call somebody “ignorant”, “idiot”, etc…</p>
<p>“Ignorant” or “idiot,” no.</p>
<p>“Insecure” and “pitiable,” yes.</p>
<p>This thread died one month ago because no one in their right mind cares. </p>
<p>Old duffs are willing to perish alongside their irrelevant opinions, and newcomers shouldn’t look upon these discussions as if they have any bearing on the reality of choosing and attending a school in the twenty-first century.</p>