<p>There is no sane person who would choose cal over stanford.</p>
<p>I disagree...</p>
<p>Any rival of USC, including Berkeley, is an ally of UCLA by proxy.</p>
<p>well bubbles,</p>
<p>I can get into UCLA, Cal or Stanford...of the 3 I only applied to UCLA.</p>
<p>Cal...I hate the area.</p>
<p>Stanford...hate the area and I see no reason to spend $30k on an education I can get from UCLA or UCB</p>
<p>You have an over-idealized image of Stanford. If you think there is any diff between a Cal, UCLA or Stanford grad, academically speaking, you are dead wrong. However, I am sure you will see that it will take that Stanford grad a bt longer to pay off his financial loans.</p>
<p>I'd have to disagree on your disagreement icarus. </p>
<p>I'd have to say when looking at undergrad, stanford by far excels beyond usc and that ucla and ucb are about at par, with stanford greater than all 3. For the cal elitists (99% stanford rejects) to compare themselves and suggest an academic rivalry with stanford is pure hypocrisy.</p>
<p>Bubbles,</p>
<p>Two words for you: Prove it.</p>
<p>Exilio: I don't need to because it's a known fact wheter you're willing to accept it or not. Most cal kids are either rejected by their first choices or simply dont apply, knowing that theyd get rejected. how are you so sure youd be accepted into stanford? stanford isnt like the ucs where you can tell based on stats whether youre in or not (BTW: when someone cries foul that they got a 1590 and got rejected from cal or la and you choose to ignore the fact that their gpa is a 2.8, dont go complaining about how random it is. it doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that you have to see things overall)</p>
<p>Bubbles:</p>
<p>I think you're suffering from your own case of elitism. Its time to come back down to earth...</p>
<p>Bubbles...I might pick UCLA over Stanford. UCLA has a great atmosphere.</p>
<p>Its not a "known fact" if you're the only one who "knows" it lol. For all of these prestigious schools (UCLA, UCB, and Stanford alike), admissions is not only a numbers game.
As for your theory that most cal students were rejected by their first choice... well, I don't want to know what you were smoking when you came up with that one. You need to step a few feet around that pedestal you have placed Stanford on, and look at the truth of the matter.
So yes... you do need to prove it (if you can).</p>
<p>UCB is better than UCLA hands down, just a different caliber of students that apply</p>
<p>btw I applied to UCSB, UCB, UCSD, not UCLA because thats too close to home. I think its just a different calier of student that goes to UCB</p>
<p>While we're making wild assumptions...
Stanford is a safety for those who apply for Berkeley EECS.</p>
<p>Um, I haven't been rejected by Stanford but I would choose Cal over Stanford any day...</p>
<p>Stanford is better than Cal, few people can deny that. That's because Stanford is extremely rich, and has a lot of money per student. Nonetheless, two people at my school chose Cal over Stanford, because they know that they'll learn more about life and the real world at Cal. Cal is not a protected microcosm like high school. You either work hard and suceed, or slack off and fail. There aren't any excuses. The result is a graduating class that believes in hard work rather than formulating grand ideas that go nowhere (my dad has the latter impression of Stanford students)
Most people agree that Stanford students are superb to begin with, so their intelligence after graduation is expected. Cal, though, gets good students, but manages to turn all of them into gold.
One of the reasons that I dont like UCLA is that most of the people there are arrogant. Even the director of admissions is that way. He said that UCLA's applicant pool was decreasing because of UCLA's increasing selectivity! Well, if UCLA is more selective, wouldn't more people strive to apply, so an acceptance would be more rewarding? Applying for another UC just requires one click, and a few dollars. It's understandable that few people apply to elites like Harvard and Stanford, but that's because of the ultra high fee and the need to write new essays/ take more time to apply (especially for Stanford). Even the admissions director has become a joke.</p>
<p>I am not really sure why it matters if people know of either in Asia, but OK...</p>
<p>Don't forget that Berkeley is really the better place to live. LA is huge, smoggy, and hot. Berkeley has good restaurants, good cafes, and better people.</p>
<p>Berkeley >> UCLA</p>
<p>"You either work hard and suceed, or slack off and fail. There aren't any excuses. The result is a graduating class that believes in hard work rather than formulating grand ideas that go nowhere"</p>
<p>This is true at ALL public universities. They all share the same sink-or-swim environment.</p>
<p>anyway, i suspect some elitism in this thread instead of "well-researched" conclusions.</p>
<p>Cal, though, gets good students, but manages to turn all of them into gold.</p>
<p>Blue and gold, to be precise.</p>
<p>if i get into both UCLA and UCB... id have to go with UCLA</p>
<p>god i hope i get in lol</p>
<p><a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_bios_full.htm%5B/url%5D">http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_bios_full.htm</a>
They didn't list TB with their most famous philosophers either.
<a href="http://www.d.umn.edu/phil/resources/famous.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.d.umn.edu/phil/resources/famous.htm</a>
and they forgot him too!</p>
<p>There is no question that he is known but he is not the most famous philosopher of this or the last century.</p>
<p>Exilio - agreed on william hung</p>
<p>Which school has the most students that have heard of India or China and could find them on a map?</p>
<p>"Stanford is better than Cal, few people can deny that." Agreed!</p>
<p>"because they know that they'll learn more about life and the real world at Cal" That is the most common cop out of a "Cal attending - Stanford rejectee". This is simply masking jealousy as well as a morale booster into some false statement that you think is true by repeating it over and over again. If you want to live in your fantasy world, keep thinking that the real world is measured by a school's ability to give low gpas. You imply that students can slack off at stanford ("sink-or-swim" thinking)? well im sorry but stanford doesnt recruit slackers like cal does to begin with. stanford recruitees are competent and successful to begin with and their skills are honed in an environment of like-minded successful individuals. you have to be successful to get into stanford to begin with while those who aren't up to par must settle for less (Cal).</p>
<p>bubbles - lets see, off the top of my head, i know 6 people who chose Cal over Stanford (in one year). And no, they werent all REgents or full rides neither. Once again, they are all great schools, it makes very little difference. btw, dude who "disproved" my point about departments, you uh brought up ONE section of cal-ucla. How about physics? EECS? chem? english? history? Poli sci? hmmmmmmm bringing up one freakin ranking of how ucla has a SLIGHTLY better grad department does not disprove my rankings on cal grad.</p>