Transfer Cornell from Berkeley: Worth it?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>
[quote]
I think the OP has gotten his just deserts. He picked Cal, a very prestigious school but one that is not known for attention to undergrads. And as an OOS student he is paying $40K or more a year, a sum that would pay the tuition practically anywhere in the country. So why was Cal chosen over some other school that provides a better experience at that price? My answer is it must have been prestige. And now the OP is looking to make the same decision with the same criteria but hope for better results. He is looking for a household-name elite school that has a better environment. </p>

<p>So is Cornell better? I dunno. But any OOS student who could get into Cal could get into most other colleges in this country. Given that he chose Cal I think it is the decision-making process that is flawed here, not the school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, don't you think you're being a bit harsh? Everybody wants both prestige and a good undergraduate environment. Everybody wants to have their cake and eat it too. You do, I do, we all do. </p>

<p>The problem is that most people don't get everything that they want. So they have to prioritize. In the case of the OP, he apparently prioritized prestige over undergrad experience. That's not to say that he didn't value undergrad experience at all, it's just that when he was forced to pick only one, he picked prestige. What's wrong with that? </p>

<p>For example, I frankly suspect that the people who go to Harvard are there mostly for the prestige. And I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that. Like it or not, we live in a brand-conscious world where brand names matter. It's a simple career move. Sometimes you have to give up something that you want in order to get something else that you want. That's how optimization works.</p>

<p>But given a different set of contraints, you might optimize differently. For example, if the OP can now transfer into, say, Stanford or MIT, then what's wrong with that? In that case, he would have * both * more prestige * and * a better undergraduate experience. I suspect the OP was not given those choices back when he was a high school senior, and so that's why he's not there now. But if he gets those choices now, it seems as if he comes out ahead. </p>

<p>So I hardly see how his going to Berkeley is a matter of 'just desserts'. You have to make a choice based on what is actually available to you at the time, and also importantly, with the information you have available to you at the time. Not everybody gets admitted to their first choice right out of high school. In fact, the vast majority of people do not. </p>

<p>Hence, first of all, I'm not even sure that the decision-making process was necessarily flawed. Like it or not, prestige is important in this world. But even if the decision-making process was flawed, people should be allowed to adjust their decision-making processes as they learn more. Let's face it. 17-18 year old kids don't really know what they're doing and often times make bad choices. It's pretty harsh to force a kid who made a bad decision to have to live with it forever. That's like saying that if a kid picks up smoking at 17, then that kid should never be allowed to quit because it's his "just desserts" to be a smoker for the rest of his life.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
No, I don't understand any better--though I do apologize for preaching, I've just seen to many students like the ones I described in my above post. Look, bottom line is, ask any professor at MIT or Berkeley about research positions for undergrads at either school and they'll tell you that they are the same. If I understand correctly, your original posts pertained to undergraduate research, yes?</p>

<p>It sounds like you seriously have one of the best possible undergraduate positions at LLL, why would you give this up? Honestly, I just don't see what you'll gain by transferring, but I certainly do see what you'll be giving up. And the whole "Berkeley is underfunded" argument is just complete Bulls**t when it comes to research. Even Sakky, who I rarely side with, will agree with me that Berkeley research facilities are top-notch. Berkeley couldn't compete with schools like MIT if they let their research areas go by the wayside.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would say that the issue is not about resources in an aggregate sense. Rather, it's about resources * per capita *, and specifically, per capita with respect to undergrads. Sure, I have always held that Berkeley has plenty of top-notch reseach facilities. The problem is that Berkeley has a lot of undergrads competing to use those research facilities. MIT has 4000 undergrads. Berkeley has 23000. Hence, unless Berkeley has almost 6 times the resources that MIT does (which it does not), then Berkeley undergrads inevitably end up with fewer available resources per capita. </p>

<p>Now, I agree with you that you can fight for access to resources at Berkeley and get that access. But why would you want to have to do that if you don't have to? As Pulkit said, at MIT, they practically give away research positions through UROP. So you don't really have to fight for anything. </p>

<p>As a case in point, MIT has about 1000 faculty members. Berkeley has 2000. Hence, just from a pure faculty-per-capita standpoint, MIT beats Berkeley 3:1. MIT also has an $8 billion endowment. Berkeley has $2 billion. In 2005, Berkeley garned about $490 million in reseach revenue. MIT had $517 million. So clearly, on a per-capita basis, and often times on an absolute basis, MIT has better resources than Berkeley does. Berkeley is obviously doing pretty well (Berkeley's research revenue is among the top in the world), but not so well on a per-capita basis. It's like how mainland China has a large aggregate GDP, but the average Chinese person doesn't live that well simply because there are 1.3 billion Chinese. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Annual/research/research.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Annual/research/research.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.global-engineering-excellence.org/en/partners/mit/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.global-engineering-excellence.org/en/partners/mit/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
My advice...unless you really hate berkeley is to stay there, persevere, get into a kick ass grad school, and thumb your nose at all those ivy league kids who needed to have a personal advisor approve their classes for them before registering (like, the one benefit I had with an advisor at Cornell--it was actually more of a hassle).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a bit harsh, don't you think? I don't think Berkeley wins any kudos for not providing the kind of advising that other schools do, nor should Berkeley win any kudos. Berkeley kids are not better off because they don't have advising. The truth is, one of the major downsides of Berkeley is that it is a system where you are often times left to fend for yourself. Nor is anybody saying that the Ivy kids "need" to have personal advising. It's just one of those things that is useful to have in your back pocket. I don't think Berkeley grads who do well feel much pride in succeeding despite not having much advising. If anything, I think they wish that they had that advising. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I disagree with that. I think Berkeley and Harvard are the most similar. Cornell is totally different in campus style and location.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Location-wise, I definitely agree that the city of Berkeley and the city of Cambridge are sister cities. So if you're just living there as a city resident, you will probably notice little difference.</p>

<p>But if we're talking about undergraduate experience and culture, then I'm afraid that Harvard and Berkeley are substantially different and a comparison between Berkeley and Cornell is more apt. Harvard undergrads live much better than Berkeley undergrads. To give you just one example, when a bunch of grauduate students went to visit the Harvard undergrad Houses (which are where the non-freshman are all guaranteed housing), they were so impressed that they wish they were living there. I've never heard of anybody being impressed with the living conditions at the Berkeley dorms.</p>

23

<p>okay, thanks for the support guys.</p>

<p>but geez, some of you guys are harsh. Do you think I don't understand the mistakes I made during the first time I was going through the application process. My choices were between Berkeley and UT Austin (I'm from Texas so it would be instate), I had applied to many top schools such as MIT, Brown, JHU, Caltech, but I didn't get into any of them. One of the main reasons is probably beause I did my application at the very last minute and my essay were very mediocre. My stats may or may not have been good enough, but my shoddy job in applying definitely killed any chancecs I had. Therefore, I went to the best school I got into, Berkeley.</p>

<p>I admit, I had not thought much about ugrad experience when I was applying or even choosing Berkeley over UT, and I realize I should have. So yeah, I did make mistakes and I did just choose based on prestige, but now I am trying to do things right and research fully about schools and stuff before transfering or anything. i don't need to be told i "got my just deserts," i know. I am doing well here, and in the worst case I would not be that devastated to stay here, but I just want to try to go to the best school for me, and I am not too worried about making friends again. I am very capable of making friends, I am pretty sure I can cut through most cliques...but yeah, it would be a very good idea to visit the schools probably...</p>

<p>Howver, this is what the question really comes down to. Okay, if I transfer to Stanford or Harvard, then it completely worth it to go there. I mean that is an easy choice. However, wher the choice is not so easy is deciding if I get into Cornelll, which I am pretty sure I will given their transfer rate to CALS is l ike 50%. Therefore, back to the original quesiton: is there enough difference as Sakky aptly put it, to justify a transfer to Cornell based upon the things I am looking for, which is basically a good ugrad experience coupled with prestige?</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
is there enough difference as Sakky aptly put it, to justify a transfer to Cornell based upon the things I am looking for, which is basically a good ugrad experience coupled with prestige?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>On this one, I think I have to agree with CU Grad and say 'no', for the same reasons that I don't think it's worth it for you to transfer to Chicago. Again, I don't see that the benefits are large enough to outweigh the pain of transferring. </p>

<p>But again, that's me. If you feel strongly about Cornell after visiting it, then take it.</p>

25

<p>Basically what it boils down to is what i thought it would boil down to, the schools that are worth it, ie. Stanford, Harvard, well...actually that's it. because MIT's requirements for transfer are too crazy. so, i think that would be the top schools worth it. I don't know about other ives such as Upenn, maybe thats worth it too. but all other schools pretty much in the entire country are either worse, or marginally better, and not worth the transfer. In a way, thats kind of nice to know that although USNews ranks berkeley as 21 or whatever, to most people and by most standards it falls short only to HYMPS...thats what it seems like anyways...and the rest are better or worse by a lil bit, marginal if anything</p>

<p>However, if you look at it and add a few criteria such as good for sending students to med school along with good ugrad and prestige, then maybe cornell would fit into that because it definitely has a substantially higher percentage kids getting into med, and students with a 3.4 or above had an 86% acceptance to med school. </p>

<p><a href="http://admissions.cornell.edu/resources/faq_answer.cfm?num=22%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://admissions.cornell.edu/resources/faq_answer.cfm?num=22&lt;/a>
that is really pretty good. way better than Berkeley's like 65 or something percentage. </p>

<p>so, i don't know, i feel like after you make certain asswuumptions berkeley is just as good as most, but then when you break it down, it seems like an ivy private would be better, iono, i mean both have grade deflation, but Cornell does better with their deflation. I realize I'm being picky here, i mean i know that berkeley is a fine institution and if i stayed here the rest of my time I would probably end up fine, but its about what is the best I can do. if I can do better, then why not take it is what i feel. and really, ajjdusting to the shift would not be that bad. plus, gf goes to MIT, and if I went to Cornell, the lack of distancec and the same time zone would be a HUGE plus. im not saying this is the decideing factor or anything, but im just saying that there are signifiant advantages to the shift from a social aspect as well</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
However, if you look at it and add a few criteria such as good for sending students to med school along with good ugrad and prestige, then maybe cornell would fit into that because it definitely has a substantially higher percentage kids getting into med, and students with a 3.4 or above had an 86% acceptance to med school. </p>

<p><a href="http://admissions.cornell.edu/resour...wer.cfm?num=22%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://admissions.cornell.edu/resour...wer.cfm?num=22&lt;/a>
that is really pretty good. way better than Berkeley's like 65 or something percentage.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, to be fair, you gotta match apples with apples. If you just want to look at Cornell premeds who have a 3.4+, then you also have to look at Berkeley premeds who have a 3.4+. </p>

<p>I don't want to do all the math, but it seems as if Berkeley premeds with a 3.4+ do decently, with 80% of graduating seniors and 65-70% of 'one-year-out' premeds getting in. </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2005seniors.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2005seniors.stm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2005oneyearout.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2005oneyearout.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
so, i don't know, i feel like after you make certain asswuumptions berkeley is just as good as most, but then when you break it down, it seems like an ivy private would be better, iono, i mean both have grade deflation, but Cornell does better with their deflation. I realize I'm being picky here, i mean i know that berkeley is a fine institution and if i stayed here the rest of my time I would probably end up fine, but its about what is the best I can do. if I can do better, then why not take it is what i feel. and really, ajjdusting to the shift would not be that bad. plus, gf goes to MIT, and if I went to Cornell, the lack of distancec and the same time zone would be a HUGE plus. im not saying this is the decideing factor or anything, but im just saying that there are signifiant advantages to the shift from a social aspect as well

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, personally, I would be more inclined to take a school like Brown, Dartmouth, or Columbia, over Cornell. They're all closer to your girlfriend too. I think any of these schools offer better undergrad experiences than Cornell with comparable prestige. </p>

<p>But again, like I said, that's me. If you really really like Cornell, then take it.</p>

27

<p>yeah i mean ideally your right brown or dartmouth may have more of what I'm looking for, however, they're transfer rates are really low, to the point where if i get into them, i can probably get into stanford transfer. in which case, i would most def choose stanford...and about the berkeley 3.4 being comparable, well, cornell's is still better. the difficult part about this sakky is finding a school with decent transfer rates, making it a realistic option, along with having good value for money</p>

28

<p>bump </p>

<p>10 characters</p>

29

<p>pulkit:</p>

<p>am I reading the earlier threads correctly? You are a first year (with a boatload of APs) at Cal and the 3.87 is your HS gpa, correct? Since Cal is on the semester system, you won't have any UC grades yet, which are crucial to transferring. </p>

<p>I also saw that you were a spring admit -- are you on campus now taking a full load?</p>

30

<p>Pulkit: I've several friends at Cornell, and while it's not the most intimate of schools, you can get a personalized education without too much work. Dartmouth has a transfer acceptance rate of around 12%, so while that's not high it's not awful either...Brown is around 4% which is a bit more of stretch. I'd advise Cornell/Dartmouth if only because the "isolation" makes up for the size etc. Campus community is certainly strong on both campuses. LACs are great for that aw well, but have really low, low transfer rates (Midd took 1 kid last year), untill you get into the mid 20s.
Good Luck!</p>

31

<p>the 3.87 is the minimum gpa i will recieve this semester from Berkeley, so it is not the high school, but rather the college gpa. at best, which would not be too hard, i would get get a 4.0 this semester. by the time i apply for transfer, I will have first sem grades, i am a spring admit, i am taking ethnic studies, poly sci, and english this semester, next sem im taking organic chemistry, computer science, english, war and peace in the middle east, and a physics seminar. those are the real stats...</p>

<p>yeah, i can try for dartmouth, what i don understand is how people can say 12% is not bad for transfer, but how 12% at regular freshman admission would be one of the lowest acceptance rates. is it just me, or is 12% like ridiculously difficult. the only thing i can think of that would make that 12% a little possible is that this time I am at berkeley, a competitive and recongize school. also, many ppl who are applying for transfer prolly arent the ones who got into harvard, whereas a person applying to dartmouth in regular admission may be a person who would apply to both bcuz hes not sure of admission to dartmouth. case in point: the applicant pool for transfer may be somewhat less strong than freshman admission. this may not compensate entirely for the increased diffulty in terms of percentage for transfer, but it probably helps. just a speculation...</p>

<p>oh, and cornell much more feasible than dartmouht seeing as CALS in cornell accepts about 50%.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
the 3.87 is the minimum gpa i will recieve this semester from Berkeley, so it is not the high school, but rather the college gpa. at best, which would not be too hard, i would get get a 4.0 this semester. by the time i apply for transfer, I will have first sem grades, i am a spring admit, i am taking ethnic studies, poly sci, and english this semester, next sem im taking organic chemistry, computer science, english, war and peace in the middle east, and a physics seminar. those are the real stats...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now, this confuses me. How do you already know what the minimum GPA you would get is?</p>

33

<p>well, of the 3 classes im taking, one i have finished with and i am getting an A+ in that class, the other 2 are pretty much in the bag unless i really screw up the finals, so basically if i really screw up then i am not even going to try, however, i am talking about in the likely chance that i dont screw up and i do get a gpa between 3.87 and 4.0, then</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
oh, and cornell much more feasible than dartmouht seeing as CALS in cornell accepts about 50%.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm curious about this also. Where did you see that the rate is 50%? Do you have a website to show? </p>

<p>
[quote]
yeah, i can try for dartmouth, what i don understand is how people can say 12% is not bad for transfer, but how 12% at regular freshman admission would be one of the lowest acceptance rates. is it just me, or is 12% like ridiculously difficult. the only thing i can think of that would make that 12% a little possible is that this time I am at berkeley, a competitive and recongize school. also, many ppl who are applying for transfer prolly arent the ones who got into harvard, whereas a person applying to dartmouth in regular admission may be a person who would apply to both bcuz hes not sure of admission to dartmouth. case in point: the applicant pool for transfer may be somewhat less strong than freshman admission. this may not compensate entirely for the increased diffulty in terms of percentage for transfer, but it probably helps. just a speculation...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, the transfer percentage rates are all a matter of relativity. There are doctoral programs that admit less than 5%, and in some cases, around 1% of their applicants. Hence, a 12% admit rate is pretty good, relatively speaking.</p>

<p>Furthermore, again, I would point out that transfer applicants are a highly self-selected pool. Generally, only those students who do well are the ones who apply to transfer to places like Dartmouth. You don't get too many (probably zero) applicants who did badly in college and are now applying to transfer to Dartmouth. You have a lot of people who do well in high school and then go to a top college, and then do poorly. As I'm sure you know, Berkeley has a lot of students who are getting poor college grades (especially the engineering students), yet practically all Berkeley students did well in high school in order to get admitted to Berkeley.</p>

35

<p><a href="http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000156.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000156.pdf&lt;/a>, that is the site with the stats about 50% cornell CALS transfer admission.</p>

<p>okay, so basically my chances at dartmouth or stanford at 5% is virutally nil, there is bound to be a person with better stats than me...my gpa may be 4.0 and i may have good research and LOR's, but my SAT is only 2020, someone will beat me on that alone most likeley. i mean the chances just seem so bleak...</p>

36

<p>dude, you're at berekely - an incredible school to fall back on, don't ya think?</p>

<p>If you want to apply to Dartmouth, Stanford, hell even Yale, give it a shot. You've got nothing to lose but a few hundred bucks. No, you don't have an amazing shot, but it's definitely not a shot in the dark either. You are a competitive applicant for those schools.</p>

37

<p>yeah, i guess your right. the thing that i have to lose is money and time i guess. It takes quite a bit of time to get rec's and do everything necessary for an application. the last school that i was thinking of applying to was upenn, on the website it says it accepts 175 out 1900 kids. is that the number who get accepted or matriculate. that number seems wrong compared to what other have said is the accceptance rate to upenn, not to mention what collegeboard says is the rate. anyone know the real number?</p>

38

<p>was I too harsh, sakky? I think of it more as a splash of cold water, although from subsequent posts by the OP it looks like it didn't work. Look at what he says:

[quote]
As for why Cornell, over other top schools, mainly based on two things. I don't want to go to a no name school just for the ugrad experience, I mean ugrad exp is important, but I still for my own satisfaction want it to be primarily a research institution, not an LAC. I know Cornell does some pretty good research so thats really good. The second criteria is that it should have a decent chance of me being able to transfer. That rules out schools with really really low chances, but would be good research/ugrad schools such as HYMPS. So then, given those two sets of criteria, the only schools that seemed to come up strongly were: Cornell, Chicago (sort of....its kind of uber nerdy...), possiby UPenn...thats about it I believe

[/quote]
So the only schools that aren't no-name, are research instutitions, and have a decent xfer rate in the entire country are Cornell, Chicago, and possibly Upenn ...</p>

<p>The arrogance here is astounding. Since you (sakky) are usually a good resource for finding top-quality schools I'm surprised you weren't all over this. </p>

<p>What you've got here is a kid who admits he did his apps at the last minute but focused only on the most prestigious schools in the country. To few people's surprise, including the OP, he didn't get into them except for Cal and UT. You think that given how things turned out it would be time for some serious reflection and redirection, but the OP seems to think he's done this and for this round the only suitable schools are Cornell, Chicago, and possibly UPenn. Yeah, right ....</p>

39

<p>sakky...I agree with everything you said, and I certainly won't deny that finding research opportunities at a place like MIT is easier than at Cal. This student, however, already has an amazing research position from what it sounds like. His foot is already in the door. Again, as someone with transfer experience, I think he would be giving up more than he would be gaining based on what I've read thus far. There are certainly good reasons for transferring, and if the student simply does not fit in at Cal, than by all means transfer. My impression though, is that this student simply thinks they can "do better." My response is that 99% of students around the country could probably have done better (in terms of where they go to school).</p>

<p>Also, as an ex-ivy leaguer myself who now is at a graduate school filled with UC grads (plenty of Cal grads) I find they do take a sort of sophomorish pride in the fact that they graduated from Berkeley...they certainly don't fail to make fun of my ivy league degree (plenty of silver spoon comments). Sure, lots of them don't care, but some do. The point is that they could have had better advising, they could have had less crowded courses, they could have had easier access to research positions. Somehow, through perseverence and hard work, they managed to make it out of Cal and are doing pretty well for themselves--they should be proud. </p>

<p>Anyway, I wasn't trying to be harsh to you Pulkit, I just want you to know that transferring is a difficult and laborious process. Just realize what you're gaining and what you're giving up. What happens if you transfer and you suddenly realize that the grass is not always greener? I have seen it happen. I'm only trying to help by letting you know that transferring is not some panacea to your college ills.</p>

<p>One last point for Gomestar...I think it's important to point out that you are doing research in ILR at Cornell (correct me if I'm wrong) and I was doing bio research in CALS--my hunch is the type of research we're doing and the logistics behind getting undergrads in the lab might be pretty different. At least in the sciences, it's the same everywhere I have been--and I've been around a few time now.</p>

<p>Cheers and good luck with your decision Pulkit...</p>

<p>CUgrad</p>

40

<p>pullkit:</p>

<p>you are obviously driven by prestige, but money is somewhat of an issue. If you were my kid, you'd transfer to UT, and save the $$ for a "prestige" grad school. I'm a big fan of the UCs, but not at OOS prices.</p>