<p>With all due respect "d-a-d"....as a Berkeley student who loves every single second he spends here, I feel secure enough to say that Harvard IS a big deal. I applied, didn't get in, and am enjoying my time here at Cal. Would I rather be there? Sure. But am I making the most of my time here at Berkeley? You betcha!</p>
<p>I agree with you that Harvard doesn't ensure anything in life, but it SURE does help.</p>
<p>I'd say that most students would jump on the chance to attend HYPMSC...or whatever other initials you want to add. </p>
<p>I bet that I'm not that rare in turning down some big privates for UCLA, but turning down Harvard? That's maybe one in a thousand.</p>
<p>As anyone who has been on these boards will attest, I am a HUGE berkeley fan, but if I'd been accepted to Harvard you better bet I'd be there right this second. Stanford's another story, but Harvard is probably the one school that I'd leave Berkeley for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the wealth in the United States is concentrated in California. I think California would be the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world if we were a separate country. I'm sure that Stanford. UC Berkeley, UCLA, Caltech, UC San Diego, and all the other California Universities/Colleges are doing just fine and aren't worried about Harvard stealing any of their applicants or admits.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, again why is it that Harvard beats all of those schools you just mentioned in the cross-admit war? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the wealth in the United States is concentrated in California. I think California would be the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world if we were a separate country. I'm sure that Stanford. UC Berkeley, UCLA, Caltech, UC San Diego, and all the other California Universities/Colleges are doing just fine and aren't worried about Harvard stealing any of their applicants or admits. </p>
<p>The very fact that you have to use all of the other 49 states combined to make a comparison to California proves my point..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have proved nothing. I do NOT have to use the other 49 states. California gets its strength from its sheer size, and as anybody who actually lives in California, knows, Californiis is basically a bunch of states in one. SoCal and Norcal, for example, share little in common culturally, and both of them share little in common with the Inland Empire. It's just an accident in history that California is such a large state. Even to this day, there are (admittedly fringe) movements to break California into separate states. </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. If I could carve a section of the Eastern Seaboard that was as physically large as California is, that section would easily have more people and a larger economy than California does. For example, I could just combine New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and I would have a bigger population and GDP than California, and only 2/3 of the physical size. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But then again, there are more than a few students on the East Coast who would jump at the chance to go to UC Berkeley or Stanford before going to Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stanford maybe. But Berkeley? For undergrad? That's a pretty rare bird.</p>
<p>And besides, I didn't know we were talking about the general state of California. I thought we were talking about Berkeley specifically. And the fact is, it's hard to imagine Berkeley beating out Harvard at the undergraduate level. We both know that few people are going to make that choice unless cost is a factor. A lot of people have the simple attitude that they are going to go to an Ivy League or MIT for undergrad and then come back to California for your job or for grad school (perhaps at Berkeley) or whatever. What's wrong with that? After all, I am not telling people to necessarily leave California forever. It's just college. It's just 4 years. You can always come back. Are people really that homebound that they can't even leave California for just 4 years? Come on. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The main advantage that Harvard has over many other top schools is that it has been around much longer than the other schools. I think Harvard is about 150 years old than UC Berkeley. So, old habits, like people thinking Harvard is some type of academic nirvana, die hard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, sure, Harvard has an advantage because it's old. But so what? It doesn't matter where the advantage comes from, it just matters that the advantage exists. By the same token, a big reason why UCBerkeley is going to be a lot better than UCMerced for a long time is simply because Berkeley is and always will be a lot older than Merced is. </p>
<p>As a student, you want to go to the school that you will give the the best advantage. It doesn't really matter WHY the school has the advantage, it just matters that it has the advantage. The school is either better or worse at helping you accomplishing the things you want to accomplish, and it doesn't matter why. </p>
<p>So maybe it's not fair that Harvard was the 'first', and so has been able to market itself longer than everybody else. But fairness has nothing to do with it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
There's one high profile cross admit your good old Harvard didn't win
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We'll never know if Chelsea Clinton even got into Harvard or Yale. After all, JFK Jr. didn't even get into Harvard. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, even if she did get into Harvard, I never said that Harvard would win ALL the cross-admits. In fact, I think that Stanford can definitely stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Yale (although still not quite with Harvard). But I don't even know why we're talking about this. We were talking about Berkeley. What does Chelsea Clinton choosing Stanford have anything to do with proving the strength of Berkeley? What is it - some sort of geographical tie-in? Just because Harvard is good doesn't do much to help out Boston University. </p>
<p>My central point is that Berkeley, at the undergrad level, has serious matchup problems with HYPSMC. You then turn around and say that Stanford is a very good school. Well, yeah, of course it is, but how does that help out Berkeley? I thought we were comparing Berkeley to other schools, not the general state of higher education in California vs. that in the East Coast. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess if you are a name brand shopper who buys Gucci bags, Tiffany jewelry, Cadillac Escalades, and other bling; then you would be attracted to Harvard. That's cool. Everybody has to have something to validate their existence. </p>
<p>By analogy, you could say that Harvard is the GM of Universities and UC Berkeley is the Toyota of universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, there you go again. You keep saying that as if Harvard has nothing to offer but a big brand name, and doesn't offer an excellent education. I would argue that the Harvard education is very very good. Is there a lot of marketing and hype to it? Sure. But there is also a lot of substance. It is no coincidence that Harvard graduates go on to accomplish very impressive things. Harvard is by far the leading winner of Rhodes Scholarships. Far more Harvard undergrads go on to win Nobel Prizes than have Berkeley undergrads (Berkeley alumni from the PhD programs, as well as Berkeley professors win a lot of Nobels, but the undergrad alumni, not so much). More Harvard undergrads have gone on to win Pulitzers, and other such major prizes. So it's not just hype. Those grads are very good. For example, John Roberts, Supreme Court Chief, graduated from Harvard and Harvard Law. Even the Democrats who opposed him all agreed that he is very very qualified. </p>
<p>Let's give credit where credit is due. Harvard undergrad students are very good, on average. And Harvard does a very good job of educating its students. Does that make Harvard a perfect school? Of course not. Harvard has flaws too. But I would say it does a better job of educating its undergrads than Berkeley does. </p>
<p>Now, does that mean that Harvard is everything and Berkeley is nothing? I never said that. Indeed, I have always said that at the PhD level, Berkeley can match up to Harvard. In fact, a lot of people even talk about how their 'plan' is to go to Harvard for undergrad and then go to Berkeley to complete their doctorate. </p>
<p>But my point is, let's give credit where credit is due. At the undergrad level, Berkeley is simply not as good as HYPSMC or a few other schools. That doesn't make Berkeley a bad school - indeed, Berkeley is still clearly one of the best public undergrad schools in the country, and perhaps the best. But it's still not as good as HYPSMC. </p>
<p>I don't see why that is so controversial. That's like me saying that the Miami Heat are not as good as the Pistons or the Spurs or the Mavericks. That doesn't make the Heat a bad team - indeed the Heat are a very good team. But if you wanted to honestly rank which teams were the most likely to win the championship this year, the Heat would not have as good of a chance as the Pistons, the Spurs, or the Mav's. Is that really such a controversial thing to say? </p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>Get over it Saaky, Harvard is no big deal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you want to say that Harvard is not a big deal, then Berkeley isn't such a big deal either. Be honest. What is probably going to give a random California high school senior more cause for celebration - admission to Berkeley, or admission to Harvard? Be honest.</p>
<p>
[quote]
With all due respect "d-a-d"....as a Berkeley student who loves every single second he spends here, I feel secure enough to say that Harvard IS a big deal. I applied, didn't get in, and am enjoying my time here at Cal. Would I rather be there? Sure. But am I making the most of my time here at Berkeley? You betcha!</p>
<p>I agree with you that Harvard doesn't ensure anything in life, but it SURE does help.</p>
<p>I'd say that most students would jump on the chance to attend HYPMSC...or whatever other initials you want to add. </p>
<p>I bet that I'm not that rare in turning down some big privates for UCLA, but turning down Harvard? That's maybe one in a thousand.</p>
<p>As anyone who has been on these boards will attest, I am a HUGE berkeley fan, but if I'd been accepted to Harvard you better bet I'd be there right this second. Stanford's another story, but Harvard is probably the one school that I'd leave Berkeley for.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you gentlemen for your honesty. There is a time for school spirit and there is a time for honest and frank discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a school. </p>
<p>There's nothing wrong with saying that you'd prefer to go to Harvard. After all, most people in the world don't get their #1 choice, either for school, or for employer, or career path, or whatever. That's life. But it doesn't make Berkeley a bad school, it is just a simple acknowledgement that other schools out there may be better. It's one thing to be proud of your school, but it's quite another thing to be so proud that you start closing your mind. After all, a lot of UCDavis and UCSC students, if they were being honest, would admit that they would rather be going to Berkeley.</p>
<p>Personally, I have a hard time labeling one school as "better" than another, simply because I'm only truly qualifed to judge one school. I think alot of this comes down to geographic location, name brand, and peer (as in other students) assesment. I wouldn't say Harvard is better than berkeley when it comes to absolute college experience, just as I wouldn't say Berkeley is better than UCSD. I just don't know. I would SUSPECT that Harvard is better, just because its Harvard. The same could be set for Princeton, Stanford, Yale, and maybe a few others, but I wouldn't put MIT or Caltech on that list. Those two schools are considered the "best" for certain programs, but they can't come close to offering the broad range of fields that Berkeley (or HYSP). Either way, like saky said, there's no shame is saying you'd rather be at another school, for whatever reason.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The same could be set for Princeton, Stanford, Yale, and maybe a few others, but I wouldn't put MIT or Caltech on that list.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let me put in a good word for MIT. MIT is not quite as narrow as one might imagine. The only area where I agree MIT is relatively weak is the humanities. However, MIT is quite robust in most of the social sciences. For example, economics at MIT is clearly very strong. Ben Bernanke completed his PhD in econ at MIT. MIT's philosophy and linguistics departments are also very strong. MIT has a department called "Brain and Cognitive Sciences", but that's just a fancy name for psychology, and it is highly respectable, as is MIT political science. For example, according to USNews, MIT's polisci department is ranked 10th, and the BCS department is ranked 12th in psychology. That's equal to or better than the respective rankings held by other supposedly broader schools such as UPenn, Cornell, Columbia, or Northwestern. There are a lot of poli-sci doctoral students in the country who wish they could be going to MIT. And of course MIT offers the highly regarded Sloan School which offers a degree in 'management science', which is basically 'applied economics'. The Sloan School is open to all undergrads without the need for a separate admissions process such as the one that Haas uses. </p>
<p>Even the supposed weakness of MIT in the humanities is not as serious as it may appear, chiefly because of MIT's extensive cross-reg agreements with local schools, most notably with Harvard. Keep in mind that Harvard and MIT are literally only 2 subway stops away. Literally. In fact, for some MIT students, particularly those living on the East Side, you can actually get to Harvard faster than you can get to certain parts of the MIT campus. I know one guy who timed it once, and he showed that starting from the Eastgate dorm, it actually takes less time for him to get to Harvard's Widener Library than to get to MIT's Civil Engineering building (building 1). And building 1 is in the middle of campus, there is an entire huge stretch of campus that stretches to the west. </p>
<p>Heck, I know a number of MIT students who are hardly ever at MIT - they basically spend all of their time at Harvard. You can come to MIT and effectively get a "quasi-Harvard degree" through crossreg. Yes, there are rules and restrictions about cross-reg, but it's a pretty liberal policy - you basically can take up to half of your courses at Harvard through crossreg. And since much of your MIT coursework gets eaten up by the general science/math requirements anyway, it basically means that you can do almost all of your humanities electives at Harvard. </p>
<p>So you may ask why, if these guys so much time at Harvard, why don't they just go to Harvard? In many cases the answer is simple - they didn't get in. For others, they found their interest in humanities only while they were at MIT. By the same token, I have met some Harvard engineers who spend much of their time at MIT, using the same cross-reg policies. </p>
<p>The point is, cross-reg allows Harvard and MIT to act as basically one big unified school, with consolidated course offerings. Getting a humanities education that is 'badged' as coming from MIT but which actually involves extensive cross-reg Harvard coursework is obviously not as good as just getting a standard Harvard humanities education, but is clearly better than the humanities education you can get at most schools in the country. By the same token, getting an engineering degree at Harvard via extensive cross-reg MIT coursework is a lot better than getting an engineering degree at most other engineering schools in the country. </p>
<p>I do agree that Caltech is pretty narrow, which is why I think that Caltech ought to strike the same sorts of cross-reg deals with nearby highly regarded humanities schools like the Claremonts.</p>
<p>I would also make another point about the general concept of broadness. I agree that Berkeley is ostensibly broad in the sense that it has a very wide range of majors. But the fact is, students don't have full rein to explore those majors. As we all know, many majors are highly impacted such that not everybody who wants to declare a certain major is allowed to do so. All majors in engineering and in Haas are impacted. For example, every year, many students in L&S decide they want to major in engineering and so they apply to transfer to the CoE, and most are rejected. The Haas School accepts only half of the continuing students who apply, and that's just talking about those that apply, as plenty of others did so poorly in the Haas prereqs such that they don't even apply. Every year, some students decide they want to declare a major in Computer Science, or Economics, or Psychology, and are not allowed, because these are all impacted L&S majors. </p>
<p>So they all end up either majoring in something that they don't really want to major in, or they transfer to some other school that will allow them to major in what they want. So honestly, does it really matter if your school offers a broad range of majors, if you are not allowed to declare the major you want? </p>
<p>In contrast, you can declare any major you want at HYPSMC without restriction. For example, if you go to Stanford or MIT and you want to be an engineer, then go for it. No need to specify which engineering discipline you want right from the start, and which can be changed only with difficulty. You choose any discipline you want, and you change it anytime you want. You go to MIT and you decide you want to get your management bachelor's at Sloan? No problem - you just do it. Nobody's going to stop you. You decide you want to be an architect? At Berkeley, you have to apply to switch into the College of Environment Design (CED), with no guarantees that you will get in. Granted, it's not that hard to switch into CED, but still, there are no guarantees. At MIT, you don't have to risk that. You can declare the architecture major anytime you want. </p>
<p>The point is not to say that I think that MIT is more broad than Berkeley. I didn't say that. What I am saying is that you have to be careful in how you treat the concept of broadness. Broadness is not just about having lots and lots of available majors, but also about whether you as a student are going to be able to pursue the major that you want.</p>
<p>First, thanks for the MIT/Harvard clarification. I wasn't aware that you could do that, which does make me change my mind about MIT a bit. But I also want to clarify what I mean when I say "broad" area of studies. I don't just mean that you have more options about what you want to major in. I mean that if you are a eecs major but you have a soft spot for, say, russian lit, you can take a class on Nabokov's early novels taught by the very person who translated the latest Norton anthology (just an example). Not that I'm completely agreeing with you about the challenges of switching majors, but even if that was the case and you just want to dabble in something else, you can use your electives to explore all kinds of other programs, most of which are extremely strong. For example, I'm an english major but I enjoy american history and political science, so I can take classes in those programs when I see a class that looks good or hear about some amazing prof.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>Once again, get over it. Harvard is no big deal. </p>
<p>In the words of Wired Magazine; UC Berkeley, UCLA, and Stanford are wired and Harvard is tired. </p>
<p>Do you work for the Harvard public relations department?</p>
<p>Berkeley is just fine. This isn't some ivory polished place. Professors are outstanding and that's all you can ask for. This is real life, not high school over again - I'm thinking about grocery shopping and day planning almost as much as I'm thinking about classes.</p>
<p>I'm in Organic Chemistry which must be the most packed class on campus, there's about 60 students on the steps every day. Does it make any difference? No! The teaching is exactly the same. Only difference is there's competition everywhere including coming early and getting seats.</p>
<p>I will agree that I hated the housing. It can really make you feel cramped and your days seem repetetive. There's no freedom in it. Everyone should try it out and make friends, but be aware that you can cancel your housing and find an apartment at any time, so don't settle for it. However, housing is the SAME as any other college.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<p>"Harvard is by far the leading winner of Rhodes Scholarships. Far more Harvard undergrads go on to win Nobel Prizes than have Berkeley undergrads (Berkeley alumni from the PhD programs, as well as Berkeley professors win a lot of Nobels, but the undergrad alumni, not so much). More Harvard undergrads have gone on to win Pulitzers, and other such major prizes. So it's not just hype. Those grads are very good. For example, John Roberts, Supreme Court Chief, graduated from Harvard and Harvard Law. Even the Democrats who opposed him all agreed that he is very very qualified."</p>
<p>First, who cares? Second, how do these alleged facts benefit me or anybody else on this board who does not or did not go to Harvard? Third, in terms of real world business and making a buck in the real world, why would anybody, besides the person who got the award care? </p>
<p>Second, are you kidding? Those are pretty weak arguments in defense of Harvard. I don't see the Federal Government letting Harvard run Lawrence Livermore Labs. However, UC Berkely does. The only problem with your Rhodes Scholarship and Nobel Prize boasts is that I don't think Harvard is the leader in many, if any, catgories of either award. For instance, the University of Chicago has the most Nobel Prize winners in economics.</p>
<p>With respect to what college or law school the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court went to; I want to thank you for proving my point that IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU GO TO COLLEGE. O.K., Roberts went to Harvard undergrad and law school. So what? Compare that with the academic record of Chief Justice Warren Burger; considered by many lawyers to be the greatest Chief Justice. For his undergrad degree, Warren Burger attended night school at the University of Minnesota while selling life insurance. Warren Burger got his law degree from the St. Paul College of Law. So you are saying that your prestigious Harvard has a graduate who can do the same job as a guy who attended night school at the University of Minnesota? We'll see if Roberts can do half the job Burger did. Personally, I don't think Roberts has half the legal talent Burger had. Roberts is little more that a yes man for a corrupt Administration. Wow, that's something to be real proud of. </p>
<p>Sakky, you really have to get over this Harvard thing. In the real world. You know, that big open space on the other side of your door? When it comes down to practicing law, medicine, accounting, business, etc. Nobody cares where you went to school. The person with the best skills who performs their job with the most success wins. Stop worrying about the name of the school that a person goes to. It is not important. Really, it's no big deal going to Harvard. Get over it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, who cares?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe you don't care, but the people who want to win Rhodes Scholarship or other big-name prizes should care.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, how do these alleged facts benefit me or anybody else on this board who does not or did not go to Harvard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They don't. They benefit people who are thinking of going to Harvard. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Third, in terms of real world business and making a buck in the real world, why would anybody, besides the person who got the award care?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because that award will help you succeed in the real world. Like it or not, having a prize like that on you resume is a HUGE filip. </p>
<p>
[quote[Second, are you kidding? Those are pretty weak arguments in defense of Harvard. I don't see the Federal Government letting Harvard run Lawrence Livermore Labs. However, UC Berkely does. The only problem with your Rhodes Scholarship and Nobel Prize boasts is that I don't think Harvard is the leader in many, if any, catgories of either award. For instance, the University of Chicago has the most Nobel Prize winners in economics
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What did I say? I was comparing only GRADUATES of the school, not professors of the school. What are you saying is a good reason for somebody to become a PROFESSOR at Chicago, but not a student at Chicago. Like it or not, Harvard graduates get a lot of Nobel Prizes. </p>
<p>As far as Lawrence Livermore Labs is concerned, Harvard gets so many other Federal dollars that I wouldn't be too concerned about Harvard. </p>
<p>
[quote]
With respect to what college or law school the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court went to; I want to thank you for proving my point that IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU GO TO COLLEGE. O.K., Roberts went to Harvard undergrad and law school. So what? Compare that with the academic record of Chief Justice Warren Burger; considered by many lawyers to be the greatest Chief Justice. For his undergrad degree, Warren Burger attended night school at the University of Minnesota while selling life insurance. Warren Burger got his law degree from the St. Paul College of Law. So you are saying that your prestigious Harvard has a graduate who can do the same job as a guy who attended night school at the University of Minnesota? We'll see if Roberts can do half the job Burger did. Personally, I don't think Roberts has half the legal talent Burger had. Roberts is little more that a yes man for a corrupt Administration. Wow, that's something to be real proud of.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but Burger didn't go to Berkeley. So you are not proving your central point that Berkeley is strong. Just the opposite, in fact. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, you really have to get over this Harvard thing. In the real world. You know, that big open space on the other side of your door? When it comes down to practicing law, medicine, accounting, business, etc. Nobody cares where you went to school. The person with the best skills who performs their job with the most success wins. Stop worrying about the name of the school that a person goes to. It is not important. Really, it's no big deal going to Harvard. Get over it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And to further your point, if Harvard is no big deal, then Berkeley is even LESS of a big deal. After all, why have so many people, including a bunch of people here on this thread, admitted that they would rather go to Harvard? Are you saying they're all dumb? If so, why not come right out and say so?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the words of Wired Magazine; UC Berkeley, UCLA, and Stanford are wired and Harvard is tired.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, I never said that Harvard was the greatest thing since sliced bread. My simple point is that, at the undergraduate level, Harvard is better than Berkeley. Berkeley is good, but Harvard is better. Is that really such a controversial point?</p>
<p>i see some light in sakky's words, as i do in five of the other posters...cut him some slack</p>
<p>Sakky:</p>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<p>"My simple point is that, at the undergraduate level, Harvard is better than Berkeley."</p>
<p>Your statement is not true. Your statement is your opinion. There are many factors that determine the quality of a school. However, more to the point, and once again for emphasis, it doesn't matter which college or university you or I, or for that matter U.S. News and World Report, think is better. What matters is which school is right for any given student. Comparing schools is like comparing cars. Everybody has an opinion and everybody can use facts to support their opinion. </p>
<p>Overall, I do not think that Harvard is a better school than UC Berkeley.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your statement is not true. Your statement is your opinion. There are many factors that determine the quality of a school. However, more to the point, and once again for emphasis, it doesn't matter which college or university you or I, or for that matter U.S. News and World Report, think is better. What matters is which school is right for any given student. Comparing schools is like comparing cars. Everybody has an opinion and everybody can use facts to support their opinion. </p>
<p>Overall, I do not think that Harvard is a better school than UC Berkeley.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is the opinion of me, GentlemanScholar, UCLARi, and slimlic2001, and probably other people on this thread. And it is clearly the opinion of the majority of cross-admits, as Harvard wins the cross-admit battle with Berkeley. </p>
<p>So sure, you have the right to your opinion. But it seems as if it is a minority opinion.</p>
<p>d-a-d,</p>
<p>As a UCLA grad, I never once questioned my decision to choose UCLA over Cal. Some said I was nuts. In the long run, it hasn't affected me much.</p>
<p>Would I have chosen UCLA over Harvard? It's a pretty hard thing to say as a devoted Bruin, but no. I wouldn't. UCLA may be better wired, but the opportunities that Harvard offers in political science even as an undergrad are much better than UCLA. Plus, I'll be honest- the battle to get into top PhD programs is made much much easier as a Harvard undergrad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Comparing schools is like comparing cars. Everybody has an opinion and everybody can use facts to support their opinion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But, we can say that, without a doubt, that a 2005 Toyota Camry is a better car than a 1987 Hyundai Excel. There are times when these things ARE easy.</p>
<p>Sakky:</p>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<p>"Yeah, but Burger didn't go to Berkeley. So you are not proving your central point that Berkeley is strong. Just the opposite, in fact."</p>
<p>My response:</p>
<p>My central point is that it does not matter where a person goes to college. I proved my point and disproved your point. </p>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<p>"Because that award will help you succeed in the real world. Like it or not, having a prize like that on you resume is a HUGE filip."</p>
<p>My response:</p>
<p>Great, call me when you get your Nobel Prize.</p>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<p>"And to further your point, if Harvard is no big deal, then Berkeley is even LESS of a big deal. After all, why have so many people, including a bunch of people here on this thread, admitted that they would rather go to Harvard? Are you saying they're all dumb? If so, why not come right out and say so?"</p>
<p>My response:</p>
<p>As I said before, for the umpteenth time, it doesn't matter where you go to college. Therefore, it can be said of all colleges and universities that it is no big deal going to one college vs. another college. </p>
<p>Why would you say that I think people are dumb for expressing their opinions. Is this the conclusion that you draw when people do not agree with you. Everybody has a right to disagree without being called dumb by someone like you? Don't they?</p>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<p>"As far as Lawrence Livermore Labs is concerned, Harvard gets so many other Federal dollars that I wouldn't be too concerned about Harvard."</p>
<p>My response:</p>
<p>Harvard is not at all competitive with schools like UC Berkeley, Caltech, or University of Chicago when it come to running and managing the major national science laboratories like JPL, Los Alamos, SLAC, Argonne, etc. But I hear that Harvard does have the Kennedy School of Government for aspiring politicians. Seems to me that the U.S. Government doesn't let the Harvard types play with the expensive toys with moving parts. </p>
<p>The Argonne National Lab that is run by the University of Chicago:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.anl.gov/%5B/url%5D">http://www.anl.gov/</a></p>
<p>The JPL run by Caltech:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/%5B/url%5D">http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/</a></p>
<p>SLAC run by Stanford:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.slac.stanford.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.slac.stanford.edu/</a></p>
<p>Los Alamos National Laboratory, run by the University of California:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lanl.gov/about.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.lanl.gov/about.shtml</a></p>
<p>The Lawrence Livermore National Lab is run by (you guessed it, UC Berkeley):</p>
<p><a href="http://www.llnl.gov/%5B/url%5D">http://www.llnl.gov/</a></p>
<p>I think that should just about wrap up this discussion. </p>
<p>And finally, Sakky once again, you really have to get over this Harvard thing. In the real world. You know, that big open space on the other side of your door? When it comes down to practicing law, medicine, accounting, business, etc. Nobody cares where you went to school. The person with the best skills who performs their job with the most success wins. Stop worrying about the name of the school that a person goes to. It is not important. Really, it's no big deal going to Harvard. Get over it.</p>