<p>I visited both campuses. I would say Berkeley has a better environment. MIT has those hacks (which I found interesting). Boston is beautiful all seasons. So is Northern Cal. </p>
<p>If you are into the sport environment, Berkeley definitely wins.</p>
<p>I would say both are equally good in term of engineering / academics. For undergrad, I would probably pick Berkeley. For grad, I would pick MIT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is true. unfortunately things are getter WORSE not better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it's gotten much, much better. And you cite an article that affects the UC system as a whole. Berkeley has a $3.5 billion endowment, a multi-billionaire campaign under way, and tons of private donations (the Hewlett Foundation's, for example). The budget cuts are going to hurt other UCs much more than they will Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This compares to an investment of around $75,000 per undergrad per year at MIT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Per-student spending is very difficult to measure. You have to take into consideration state and federal funding, private funding, research funding, grad:undergrad ratio, etc. and it still may not be accurate.</p>
<p>And again, you are citing a system-wide figure, not Berkeley's figures.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fair or unfair, the financial divide between well endowed private universities and larger public universities affected by budget cuts is only getting larger. To claim that this has no impact on the student learning experience is naive at best.
[/quote]
Your views of this are hindered by your assumptions; again, with all that Berkeley is doing, the budget cuts are not as harsh. But let's say that state funding to Berkeley was cut by $100 million; it'd come to, say $400 million, and a university would need an $8 billion endowment to match that. (This isn't even counting federal funding.)
[quote]
Same 3-4 UCB students post at every thread mentioning Berkeley obsessively defending their school to death.
[/quote]
a) I'm not a student at Berkeley. b) I have, on multiple occasions, argued points in favor of MIT as well as Berkeley. I think many of the assumptions that drive students to choose schools are stupid, and I will try to dispel that. For example, if the student were choosing Harvard instead of MIT because its endowment is larger, I would explain why that's flawed reasoning.
And as soon as you can point out an illogical argument, I'll be glad to address it.</p>
<p>So you are not a UCB student. I believe Sakky was and have written plenty about UCB. Should we believe you or Sakky, someone who spent four years there? Even if Sakky's view maybe a little bit skewed? I believe your experience so far has been more theoretical vs actual.</p>
<p>According to a the Daily Cal, Berkeley will only be cut by 3 million...which isn't really that big of a deal, especially with all the money the school has been raising. MIT does have more prestige with the general public than Berkeley, but that isn't the case in engineering. You should visit Boston because its a great town, actually I was planning on going to college there but then went up in February and it was way too cold, especially since I am from South Florida. An important question is can you handle being in dreary cold weather september through march, especially having grown up with Berkeley weather your whole life.</p>
<p>Also there are big classes at every school. What's the difference whether you're in a 250 person lecture at Columbia, MIT, Harvard or a 400 person lecture at Berkeley. Also for those classes you have discussion sections which are usually less than 20.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Should we believe you or Sakky, someone who spent four years there?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and who has outdated information on the university? (as evidenced by his insistence that engineers get "trapped" into a major they're doing poorly because L&S won't accept them, which makes no sense)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe your experience so far has been more theoretical vs actual.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please point out which of my claims may be drastically different in the "actual" realm vs. the "theoretical" one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and who has outdated information on the university? (as evidenced by his insistence that engineers get "trapped" into a major they're doing poorly because L&S won't accept them, which makes no sense)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Makes no sense? Perhaps. But that's the actual rule. Outdated? The following webpage is from 2004, and I am not aware of a more recent rule. </p>
<p>Please note: Grade Point Average is also a significant consideration for admission to the College. Students who meet all other criteria and have a 3.0 or higher GPA are more likely to be approved.</p>
<p>Again, if you still don't believe me, I would once again invite you to join me in sending an email to L&S and asking them to clarify what it really takes for an engineering student to successfully switch into L&S and specifically whether engineering students who have below a 3.0 GPA (as many do) run the significant risk of being denied.</p>
<p>Look, it's not my rule. That's L&S's rule. If you don't like the rule - if you don't think it makes sense - then take it up with them. I'm just telling you what the rules are; I didn't make the rules.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley engineering = MIT engineering in terms of prestige. Pull up the salary figures to see if the difference in pay translates into "prestige". Prestige in engineering circles is over rated.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok, I did. And I noted that the average salary for MIT grads in all majors is higher than that of every single engineering major at Berkeley besides EECS, CS, and Mat Sci and every single non-engineering major except Haas and math.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I think it is fair to note that salaries are heavily affected by geography, and the fact is, the Bay Area is a more expensive place than is Boston.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can take classes from top notch faculty in top departments right on the same campus at Berkeley...and I don't have to trudge through the snow to get there...how cool is that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MIT students are free to choose any technical major they want (and I assume somebody would apply to MIT only if the person is technically oriented). If they decide they want to choose EECS, they just choose EECS. If they decide they want to major in MechE instead, they just major in MechE. Nobody will stop them. How cool is that?</p>
<p>Honestly guys, it's a rank 1 school vs a rank 2 school. Not a huge difference there. Why don't you visit both campuses and see which one fits you?</p>
<p>All of this squabble about salary and prestige is moot compared to that. Both of them are excellent schools where you can get a solid engineering degree and land a decent job. It all comes down to personal preference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would once again invite you to join me in sending an email to L&S and asking them to clarify what it really takes for an engineering student to successfully switch into L&S and specifically whether engineering students who have below a 3.0 GPA (as many do) run the significant risk of being denied.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know what, why don't you just go ahead and do that? You don't need me. Surely a graduate from Berkeley has the independence and resourcefulness to write a simple letter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, it's not my rule. That's L&S's rule.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And evidence shows that it isn't strictly applied to engineers. Until you present evidence otherwise, your position will continue to make no sense. Arguing the same point over and over and over and over again on many boards does nothing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
nd I noted that the average salary for MIT grads in all majors is higher than that of every single engineering major at Berkeley besides EECS, CS, and Mat Sci and every single non-engineering major except Haas and math.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Source?</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT students are free to choose any technical major they want (and I assume somebody would apply to MIT only if the person is technically oriented). If they decide they want to choose EECS, they just choose EECS. If they decide they want to major in MechE instead, they just major in MechE. Nobody will stop them. How cool is that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And it's not that difficult to change majors, even in the COE.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You know what, why don't you just go ahead and do that? You don't need me. Surely a graduate from Berkeley has the independence and resourcefulness to write a simple letter
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because I want to make sure that YOU receive their reply, rather than have you accuse me of not "presenting evidence". </p>
<p>However, since you seem to be so scared of joining me, I think I will indeed do it myself and I will gladly post their reply. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And evidence shows that it isn't strictly applied to engineers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What evidence? Show me this "evidence". </p>
<p>
[quote]
Until you present evidence otherwise, your position will continue to make no sense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, until YOU present evidence otherwise, you're just whistling past the graveyard and YOU will continue to make no sense. </p>
<p>Tell me again, what evidence have you ever presented? ** Show me a weblink, or a news article, or anything substantial that shows that the rules are not "strictly applied to engineers". ** Can't do it, can you?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Source?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not my job to always present data for you. It's all available online. Surely you have the resourcefulness and independence to do that, as opposed to always having everybody do things for you. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And it's not that difficult to change majors, even in the COE.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is it? Perhaps we should ask some engineering students just how difficult it is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uh, until YOU present evidence otherwise, you're just whistling past the graveyard and YOU will continue to make no sense.</p>
<p>Tell me again, what evidence have you ever presented? Show me a weblink, or a news article, or anything substantial that shows that the rules are not "strictly applied to engineers". Can't do it, can you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My god, I posted it multiple times every time you started going on about the "engineering trap."</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not my job to always present data for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I couldn't find recent and reliable data on it. Nor could I find it broken down by major.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is it? Perhaps we should ask some engineering students just how difficult it is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I did; it was their replies that I had posted before.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My god, I posted it multiple times every time you started going on about the "engineering trap."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah - and your data is not hard. It's just a bunch of anecdotes, which have been fully countered by MY anecdotes.</p>
<p>I, on the other hand, have presented actual documentation. My God, how can you seriously compare the two? </p>
<p>I ask you again: where is your hard evidence? I have hard evidence. Do you? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I couldn't find recent and reliable data on it. Nor could I find it broken down by major.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look again. It's not that hard. Surely you have the resourcefulness and independence to do that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I did; it was their replies that I had posted before.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I presented counter-replies. I have also presented *actual documentation. * You have presented nothing of the sort. I think it's quite clear where the preponderance of evidence lies.</p>
<p>Look, kyledavid80, it's not that hard. If what you are saying is really true, then it should be trivially easy for you to find an official document somewhere that specifically states that engineers are indeed immune from the rule I presented above. If such a document isn't posted somewhere, you could obtain such a document by asking the advisors at L&S for a written statement. By all means, please, present some documentation. I have already presented documentation, so now I think it's your turn to do the same. That is, if you can.</p>
<p>Yes, you posted "actual documentation," but the real-life evidence shows that it fails for engineering majors switching to L&S; that would go along with the whole "the logical position is the correct one." And my position is currently more logical than yours. You counter with "But I provided actual documentation!!11" when the evidence is what is countering that. You're going in circles, sakky.</p>
<p>I'm tired of this. Get the real evidence from L&S and then I might start to take your position seriously.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, you posted "actual documentation," but the real-life evidence shows that it fails for engineering majors switching to L&S
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no the (what is according to you) real-life evidence is ambiguous. Like I said, you have your anecdotes, and I have mine. In fact, I know quite a few people, including my former roommate, who couldn't get out of their engineering majors. YOU are the one who is going in circles. There is absolutely no reason to believe that your anecotes are better than mine. Since the anecotes conflict, we then have to go to the actual documentation. </p>
<p>What you never bothered to answer about your anecdotes is whether those people you cited actually did well*in engineering. I will freely concede that my anecdotes are regarding people who didn't do well in engineering, and that's why they couldn't switch. *But that's the point: not everybody in engineering does well *. I am not surprised in the least to find that those people who do well in engineering can switch to L&S freely: in fact, the documentation specifically states that that is the case. But the question is, what about those who *do poorly. Do you have anecdotes regarding that? </p>
<p>I too am tired of this. Please, YOU get some real evidence from L&S, or else concede that you don't have any. I am continually amazed that you seem to believe that you actually think you know more about Berkeley engineering than I do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know quite a few people, including my former roommate, who couldn't get out of their engineering majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And yet, of all the opinions I posted, all of them agreed: they had never even heard of your so-called "engineering trap." That's because it doesn't exist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please, YOU get some real evidence from L&S, or else concede that you don't have any.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have already conceded that I don't--and you agreed to contact L&S. Currently, I don't have so much vested in the COE.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am continually amazed that you seem to believe that you actually think you know more about Berkeley engineering than I do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am continually amazed by how circular your reasoning is and how irrational your views are on many topics--like this one.</p>
<p>Haha, sakky is still going at it. sakky you're so funny.</p>
<p>I'm going to have to back up sakky here. If you are in engineering at Berkeley you are somewhat "locked in" and you have to apply to change majors. It's a bit of a hassle and I think you can only do it in February; pretty inconvenient. Usually you shouldn't have too much problem, I know a lot of people who transferred from ME to BioE, BioE to ME, ME to CivE, etc. etc. But again, it is a hassle and you do run the risk not being able to switch into the major you want, especially if you're trying to switch into EECS or something.</p>
<p>I have a personal example: I know a guy who is EECS and wants to switch into BioE. We keep joking that if he doesn't get into BioE, he'd be in big trouble because he's been taking BioE classes all year and hasn't taken any EECS courses.</p>
<p>Not to mention, if you go into engineering, do terribly and decide it's not for you, you may not be able to transfer into L&S if your grades are terrible. I don't know if this whole switching majors is a HUGE deal, because from my experience engineers usually stick with their major or switch into another engineering major and they usually succeed, but it is a legitimate concern.</p>
<p>I would also consider some other important factors like:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>weather - Berkeley wins hands down. I have so many friends complain about the weather on the East Coast and especially Boston.</p></li>
<li><p>cost - if either one is significantly cheaper I would take that one. If you can save $10,000+ a year why not?</p></li>
<li><p>location - if you don't want to be far away from home, etc. It is kind of a hassle to be across the country from your hometown. Moving your stuff, visiting during breaks and stuff.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I think the engineering culture and academia at MIT and Berkeley are pretty similar, with MIT being a little more hardcore and prestigious, but it's a close call.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And yet, of all the opinions I posted, all of them agreed: they had never even heard of your so-called "engineering trap." That's because it doesn't exist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, they did well enough that they don't KNOW it exists, because they don't have to know. Like I said, sure, if you do well in engineering, you can switch to L&S without a problem. But what if you don't do well? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I have already conceded that I don't--and you agreed to contact L&S.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I never agreed to do anything. I suggest that YOU do it so that you can actually have some documentation. That is, unless you're afraid of what the documentation might say. But I don't know why. If the 'major trap' doesn't exist, then it will be trivially easy for you to obtain documentation that shows that it doesn't exist, right? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I am continually amazed by how circular your reasoning is and how irrational your views are on many topics--like this one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I too am continually amazed by how circular your reasoning is and how irrational your views are on many topics--like this one. Just concede that you have no documentation and that you're not interested in getting any.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Currently, I don't have so much vested in the COE.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Funny - for somebody who claims not to have "so much vested", you seem to really enjoy talking about it. But apparently not enough to actually want to obtain documentation that ought to be trivially easy to find.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And yet, of all the opinions I posted, all of them agreed: they had never even heard of your so-called "engineering trap." That's because it doesn't exist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This reminds me of the following story. January 19, 2002, AFC Championship Game, the Oakland Raiders were leading the New England Patriots by 3 in the playoffs in the waning minutes of the game. Tom Brady got the ball, pumped it but tucked it back into his body, and was then tackled from behind by Greg Biekiert. Brady dropped the ball, seemingly fumbling it into the hands of the Raiders, which would have basically ended the game as the Patriots had no timeouts left so the Raiders could have simply kneeled onto the ball until time expired. Instead, the refs ruled that actually, because Brady was tucking the ball back into his body after attempting a forward passing motion, Brady's dropped ball was actually an incomplete pass, in spite of the fact that the ball was moving backwards at the time of the drop. Hence, the Patriots got the ball back, kicked a field goal to tie it, and then ultimately won the game in overtime, and then went on to win Superbowl 36. </p>
<p>At that time, practically nobody had even heard of the 'tuck rule'. Everybody thought the play was a fumble. But it was in the NFL rulebook. </p>
<p>That's my point exactly. Just because you've never heard of a rule doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and more importantly, that it can't hurt you. I think we can all think of examples where people have run afoul of laws they didn't know about. I am simply making the point about the major trap is that you don't want to be blissfully ignorant of the rules until it's too late. The rules quite clearly state that GPA is an important consideration in determining whether you will be allowed to switch into L&S. Certainly, people like my old roommate know this rule all too well.</p>