<p>I got paid to do bio research at Cornell. Some of the research positions are unpaid but most are paid. I believe in many cases you can either choose between being paid or getting academic credit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
By simple economics, it is obivous that a large number of people have had good experiences from transferring, or else the transfer process wouldn't exist, would it?</p>
<p>OKay Mike, I am not saying that Cornell, Chicago, and UPenn are the only schools with a good name and decent transfer in the entire country, i am just saying THOSE ARE THE ONES I KNOW. okay, if you would like to enlighten me and tell me of other schools that meet the criteria of having good prestige, are research institutions, and have decent transfer then by all means tell me! I am not claiming to say that i know all, and that i deem all other colleges crap. You don't understand, I am already at Berkely, and so I dont need a safety or anything. Also, obviouosly prestige is a factor, I wouldn't want to go down in prestige, that is not being eltitist or arrogant, that simply means that I want to be the most successful as possible. Would you call it arrogant that a guy from Harvard doesn't want to transfer to Oklahoma State?</p>
<p>Ande honestly, I have spent a very long time researching about transfer colleges, and I have thought about what I want in a college. And you know what, aybe I do wna thte best of all worlds in that I want a school that has good social experience and good prestige, but I can want that beacuse I am okay with my fall back. Maybe you don't understand that in the worst case situation, I am still going to Berkeley. </p>
<p>I hate how people think that being driven by prestige is so bad. Look, I may have been driven by prestige and thats is why I am at berkeley and not UT, but you know what, I'm still glad for it. Given my choices, I would RATHER be at Berkeley than UT. therefore, I don't even feel that I have made the wrong decision. I just want more options this time. Prestige opens doors, and to me, thats important. I am not saying that is the only important factor, but it is still a factor nonetheless. I see nothing wrong with this. </p>
<p>And bluebayou, maybe if I were your kid I would be going to UT, but I am not your kid, and my family does not have any sort of financial issues, we are lucky that we have plenty of money to afford my education (also an olnly child) so really, it doesnt matter if your not a fan of oos, as far as my career goes, Cal was a better option than UT, and since money isn't a factor, I have the privelege of chooosing simply based on preferencec. I see nothing wrong with this either</p>
<p>
[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 ....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I would hardly call it a matter of 'arrogance'. Is it really arrogant to want more than what you already have? I think it's just simple human nature to want more. Who doesn't? Everybody wants more. Everybody wants to improve. </p>
<p>Secondly, I don't see what's necessarily wrong with valuing prestige. Like it or not, we live in a world where prestige is valuable. Thousands of sociological studies have demonstrated the lengths to which people will go just to obtain status and prestige, and will actually forgo substantial income and even risk their lives for an increase in status. </p>
<p>What I find refreshing about Pulkit is that at least he admits that he values prestige. Many people here on CC claim to be pursuing a high quality education but are actually pursuing prestige. Some of these people have even managed to fool themselves on this regard. Pulkit not only knows that he likes prestige, he also freely admits this fact. I give him credit for his honesty. </p>
<p>He's also willing to trade some prestige for education quality. I would argue that Berkeley is probably more prestigious than Chicago is, yet he is actually comtemplating trading Berkeley for Chicago. That shows that he is not willing to pursue prestige at all costs. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, yeah, but I don't see this is as a reason not to transfer. I agree that almost everybody can do better. But that only seems to me to be a reason for you to try to do better. If you have a chance at improving your life, why wouldn't you do it? Let's leave aside the question over whether a transfer from Berkeley to School X would indeed be a net benefit and let's presume that it would be. So, in that case, why wouldn't you try to get it? I don't see anything wrong with somebody trying to improve their station in life. Far from it, in fact. I think that's exactly what people should be doing. If you're not trying to improve, then that basically means that you have no ambition. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but here you are sampling on the dependent variable. Specifically, you are looking at the ones who actually did well enough at Berkeley to get into a top grad school. What about all the ones who you don't see - the ones who didn't do well? Trust me, there are a lot of Berkeley people who don't do well - people who get hurt by the lack of advising or the sink-or-swim atmosphere. Some of them get so badly hurt by the system that they don't even graduate. Nor does perserverance and hard work provide you with perfect protection. I know people who worked hard and perservered, and STILL encountered serious problems with the system. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. One might conclude that nobody ever died in a war if you look at only the war's survivors. Similarly, if you look at only those Berkeley grads who do well, you might conclude that Berkeley has no problems.</p>
<p>thanks for the support Sakky. It's interesting that wanting to go the best school possible is considered arrogant. And really, if I had put in my best effort the first time around when i was applying in my senior year and I still only got into Berkeley and UT, then most likeley i would not be applying for transfer right now because I would have known that I laid it all down, no regrets. However, right now I do have some regrets, I feel like I could have done better and now its time to go back to complete some unfinished business in some sense. </p>
<p>My overall opinions of schools so far (correct if I'm wrong):</p>
<p>I think that given the circumstances, Chicago is a good fit in that it is small, good advising, and an overall good undergraduate experience. It may fall a bit in terms of prestige, but I think that I can probably compensate for that by doing better due to the better work enivornment for me personally. I like working hard, and although, like Sakky said, I may not get the respect that a school like MIT gets for students working hard, it is still a good eniviornment to be in. Also, the advising and stuff I think will help me succeed as well. Moreover, i would be arguably sacrificing a little bit in prestige(not a lot, mind you Chicago is 9th by US news standards, and many treat that ranking like its God) , but it may be worth it for the extra attention and nurturing environment. Its bio may not be as strong as berkeley's, but at least they really focus on teaching here, so even if the profs arent as good researchers, they probably are pretty good teachers.</p>
<p>Cornell: Good match as well for different reasons. I has good ugrad research opportunities, arguably better than Berkeley provides, and it has relatively the same prestige, if not a bit more than Berkely carries. That's how it seems like to me at least. It is a fairly large school so I am not benefitting from that respect, but the school does have more funding per capita than berkeley by a long shot, and it uses it towards the sciences. The one thing I don't know is how good is it in terms of overalll ugrad experiencec and advising. DO you get a personal advisor like many other private schools, or do you have to go seek them out for yourself, things like that are important to know.
Moreover: Prestigious school with strong sciences that has good med school stats and more funding. Basicallly, it is much like a berkeley, but maybe a step up. Still need to know about advising though...</p>
<p>The others, Stanford, Harvard, and maybe UPenn: Automatic go to's, if I get into these I'll just go, no thoughts about it The prestige is way higher here, and meets most other criteria as well.</p>
<p>Sakky, did you get the statistic I showed you for transfer admission to Cornell's CALS, isn't it insane?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's interesting that wanting to go the best school possible is considered arrogant.
[/quote]
Wanting to go to the best school possible is a rational and worthwhile goal. Valuing prestige is rational for reasons including the ones sakky points out.</p>
<p>Arrogance is dismissing all the research U's in the USA except for HYMPS and Cornell/Chicago/Upenn as "no-name".</p>
<p>okay mikemac, the reason why I am dismissing them is because I do not know any others with a relatively same amount of prestige as Berkeley. So, lets say Mike, that University of Wyoming as really kick ass research. So, thats very good, however since it does not have the level f prestige as Berkeley, and no where close, it would be very difficult for me to decide to transfer there. See, research is an important criteria, but so is prestige. And it is not arrogant for wanting a prestigious school, I am only trying to do as well as possible. </p>
<p>Plus, it is rare I would say, to see a school with really strong research that is not prestigious. As I said before Mike, if you would like to tell me some schools with strong research that I have not consdiered then please tell me and I will consider it.</p>
<p>"Sakky, did you get the statistic I showed you for transfer admission to Cornell's CALS, isn't it insane?"</p>
<p>this was mentioned before on the CU board, but this 50% does include students who have transfer agreements with the agricultural programs from a few (I think 7 or 8) community colleges in NY. These students tend to inflate the numbers since they still have to apply ... the difference is they are essentially guaranteed admission if they meet a certain GPA requirement and certain course requirements. I knew 3 people who got in through the joint program last year on my floor.</p>
<p>that is true gomestar, i know about that. However, there must be several people who get in who are not within that 50%. I am just saying that the chances for Cornell CALS is pretty good, I mean even if 20% of those were CC agreements, that is still a 30% chance for the rest of us. Still quite high if you ask me</p>
<p>buuuuuuuuuuuuuuump</p>
<p>northwestern</p>
<p>
[quote]
Arrogance is dismissing all the research U's in the USA except for HYMPS and Cornell/Chicago/Upenn as "no-name".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't think Pulkit did that. In this thread, we talked about schools like Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia, and the like.</p>
<p>sakky, reread post #6 by the OP
[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.</p>
<p>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]
</p>
<p>Mikemac, reread OP's post #27.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>