<p>Sorry DRab, I didn't mean to imply that the UCs were lacking in any way that concerns academics. To me, "undergraduate education" doesn't mean the actual subjects they teach you. That's pretty uniform in all universities with competitive admission. I meant that the quality of my personal "education," or how my understanding of the world will deepen, will be less if I stay here. I'm a weird philosophical idealist.</p>
<p>"So, depending on your field, there will always be an Ivy that will be awesome in the field ur interested which is better than Berkeley."</p>
<p>Arjun, you're right. If take the best program from each Ivy and add them up into one big "super school", maybe just maybe that school will be better than Berkeley:)</p>
<p>dude. Cal sucks.</p>
<p>Dudes.</p>
<p>Dude. Oxford was good 100 years ago. Unless you made a time machine (in which case you'd be going to Berkeley or MIT) you're in pretty bad shape at Oxford.</p>
<p>oxford was good 100 years ago. thats more than i can say for Cal and oxford still is good. btw they have a patent pending on the time machine. dude.</p>
<p>Whatever helps you sleep at night.</p>
<p>tkm256, that's fine. If you felt it, you should state it, but because it seemed like you implied it, I asked for clarification, and now things are make more sense. I agree with you, undergraduate education is really more than just the coursework, but most people seem to consider it the academic stuff strictly speaking.</p>
<p>The Ivies are supposed to be really good, and they are all well rounded. The thing is, the UCs are similar in these regards. Sure, most UCs are not held to be as good as the Ivy league or as strong all around, but the worst is supposed to be decent. For individual programs, I think many UC programs could match or beat many Ivy program. Berkeley's English could match the best of em. Many would say Berkeley's engineering is superior to Cornell's and any Ivy engineering program, at least in most fields. Film at UCLA is amazing, and many arts departments there, such as musical theater, also probably beat most Ivy programs, to name a few. </p>
<p>And many would say you can get better than Cornell engineering, and that is not to say that Cornell engineering is bad.</p>
<p>People often ignore the difference between grad and undergrad.</p>
<p>Cal, at the graduate level has both breadth and depth that few Ivies can match (if any.) UCLA is much like that as well.</p>
<p>Undergrad is a different story.</p>
<p>How........?</p>
<p>The undergrad programs at the UCs tend to much less "focused" than those at even the big research oriented Ivies.</p>
<p>What does "less focused" mean? My program seems to be pretty focused. Could you explain how and why I'm wrong about that?</p>
<p>Well, consider Princeton's program. They offer almost constant one-on-one counseling, require a senior thesis (at least I think they still do), and generally get their students the classes they need on time.</p>
<p>UCLA, on the other hand, offered counseling on demand (though it was never really mandatory or all that helpful for me), few people do theses, and tons of people complain about class availability.</p>
<p>How does a senior thesis (which you can do if you want) and constant one on one counseling mean that one school has "breadth and depth," while the other doesn't? And do all of the Ivys have the same level of of counseling and require a senior thesis like princeton? If you're statement said "at Berkeley you wont get your hand held like you would at private schools" then I'd agree, but I have no idea were breadth and depth factor into having someone hold your hand as you sign up for all those big, scary classes.</p>
<p>SnuggleMonster,</p>
<p>I never said that the undergrad program lacked breadth and depth. I was unclear. But UCs have a few disadvantages that I can see:</p>
<p>You call it "hand holding." I call it giving students the direction they may lack and/or need. </p>
<p>UCs have to accept a much lower percentile group of students than Ivys. Now, I don't know about you, but at least a few of my profs who had taught at privates said very clearly that while the best student at a UC was as good as an Ivy student, the worst was far worse.</p>
<p>UCs tend to focus more on their grads than undergrads. It's not bad, but it means that the undergrad programs suffer, since funding is lacking in many cases.</p>
<p>Of course this also applies to many of the Ivies. However, the gap between undergrad program quality and grad program quality is usually far more pronounced at Berkeley than at Harvard. At the graduate level, Berkeley is practically unbeatable. But how many people would choose Berkeley over Princeton for undergrad? If yield rates are any indication, not many.</p>
<p>"Now, I don't know about you, but at least a few of my profs who had taught at privates said very clearly that while the best student at a UC was as good as an Ivy student, the worst was far worse"</p>
<p>No, I've never had a professor say anything about the quality of students, and I doubt they ever would.</p>
<p>"the gap between undergrad program quality and grad program quality is usually far more pronounced at Berkeley than at Harvard."</p>
<p>How do you figure? Are you measuring undergrad quality by average SAT scores? </p>
<p>"But how many people would choose Berkeley over Princeton for undergrad?"</p>
<p>And how does that equate to quality. Britney Spears sells more albums than Bob Dylan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, I've never had a professor say anything about the quality of students, and I doubt they ever would.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've heard the exact same thing as UCLAri from someone who has taught at Berkeley and Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, I've never had a professor say anything about the quality of students, and I doubt they ever would.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I had at least a couple of my professors profess that the student body at UCLA wasn't, on average, at the level of Harvard or Yale's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How do you figure? Are you measuring undergrad quality by average SAT scores?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you're going to tell me with a straight face that the average student at Cal is at the level of the average student at Harvard, Princeton, or Yale?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And how does that equate to quality. Britney Spears sells more albums than Bob Dylan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your analogy is overblown. The gap between Berkeley and Harvard isn't the gap between Cal State Northridge and Harvard. It's much less noticeable. But it's still there. Let me ask you something. Do you think the average Berkeley or UCLA undergrad (AVERAGE) could have gotten into Cal? Do you think that the average Harvard or Yale undergrad could have gotten into UCLA or Cal?</p>
<p>Now there's one issue that the undergrad programs have. The average student at a UC undergrad program is simply not on the level of the average at a top Ivy. Add in chronic funding issues, a "sink-or-swim" attitude toward the undergrad programs, and lack of quality counseling and services as well.</p>
<p>Look, I'm not even saying that the gap between Berkeley and Harvard for undergrad is terribly large. But the gap between Berkeley undergrad and Berkeley grad is much larger than the gap between Harvard undergrad and Harvard grad.</p>
<p>What percent of Berkeley undergrads do you think could get into Berkeley's poli sci PhD program? How about Harvard's undergrads?</p>
<p>Man, you are all over the place. How does me asking about the correlation between popularity and quality mean that I'm saying Cal is better or has better students than Princeton? You seem hung up on selectivity, and if that's how you measure quality than that's your business, but please state that so I can avoid wasting my time responding to posts about breadth and depth. That goes for your percentage of poli sci question too, as that can easily be exlained by Cal size its bottom 20 percent. But, again, how does that equate to quality of education? Say I'm in a lecture with 100 students. Lets say, in that same lecture at Harvard, all but a handfull of them are really bright. Lets say that 20 of them at Cal are useless and stupid. Everything else is the same. Both professors lead their fields of study and have won awards and written best sellers and all that. So, becuase there are 20 people in my class that aren't very bright, you're saying that I won't learn as much from my professor as the Harvard kids will from theirs? Is that what you're saying?</p>
<p>SnuggleMonster,</p>
<p>There's more to an education than just the lectures, right? There's the environment, the people you interact with outside of class, and your discussion sections.</p>
<p>The professors are comparable. The rest isn't. </p>
<p>Do you honestly believe that the whole experience, from the quality of counseling to the average student quality is the same at Cal/UCLA and Harvard/Yale?</p>
<p>First, I've never stepped foot in a class at UCLA, so it has no bearning to my argument. Second, I'd be willing to bet that there are more people with 1400 plus SATs at Berkeley than at Harvard. As far as the whole experience, I wouldn't know. I've never gone to school at Harvard or Yale. Have you? What makes the environment better at Harvard? And are you telling me you couldn't find smart people to study with at Cal? And again, I'll willingly admit that there is much more counseling at Harvard and Yale than at Cal, but that means nothing to me. I get counseling whenever I want it, so I don't find a problem in that area. Maybe Harvard and Yale kids don't know what the're doing and need to be led through every task. I don't. Lastly, I'm not, nor have I ever said that Cal is better than Harvard or Yale. I'm simply asking what it is that makes you think that.</p>