<p>I think its time for another meeting of the Inner Council of the California Ivies. </p>
<p>Berkeley, UCLA, UCSF and Cal Tech. </p>
<p>Lets face it guys, we're gonna have to go it alone. To the batcave!</p>
<p>I think its time for another meeting of the Inner Council of the California Ivies. </p>
<p>Berkeley, UCLA, UCSF and Cal Tech. </p>
<p>Lets face it guys, we're gonna have to go it alone. To the batcave!</p>
<p>wait a second i thought we agreed on the palm league</p>
<p>yeah berkeleys admit rate is slightly higher but thats because berkeley has enough prestige to scare away some admits with lower stats. ucla doesn't have that prestige so those kids aren't scared about applying to ucla. thats why ucla has more people apply</p>
<p>i agree. many believe berkeley is intensely cutthroat and many shy away from even applying.</p>
<p>How about the </p>
<p>"Wannabe-Ivy League"</p>
<p>Palm League: Stanford, Caltech
Saplings: Berkeley, UCLA, Pomona
Seeds: Other UCs, other Claremonts, USC</p>
<p>Palm League
Stanford
Caltech
UCB</p>
<p>Saplings
Pomona
UCLA
UCSD</p>
<p>Seeds
other UC's/ claremont/ harvey mudd</p>
<p>I don't think UCB is Palm League material unless you are measuring graduate school strength. I second Gutrade's list:</p>
<p>Palm League: Stanford, Caltech
Saplings: Berkeley, UCLA, Pomona
Seeds: Other UCs, other Claremonts, USC</p>
<p>If I were to include all the school in America, this is what I would list in the America League:</p>
<p>Hail to the Thief: Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Caltech
Oil Barrons: Dartmouth, Columbia, UPenn, Brown, Cornell, Duke
War Mongers: UChicago, Northwestern, JHU, Berkeley
Neo-Cons: Wustl, Vanderbilt, Rice, Emory, CMU
Bible Thumpers: UCLA, UVA, UMich</p>
<p>I challenge everyone to define what the qualities of a good undergraduate program should be comprised of.</p>
<p>All you people that say that a school is only as good as its acceptance rate, SAT scores, and GPA don't know crap besided the numbers they see in front of their face. Berkeley has stronger academics in nearly EVERY field than LA. They also have superior professors who have earned worlwide recognition ( a lot more than UCLA) In addition, Berkeley has more of a national and global prestige than LA. Don't get me wrong, you can't go wrong choosing either school, but to say that UCLA is as good or better than Berkeley is just foolish. Besides just looking at the admission statistics, do some research.</p>
<p>Ok:
The debate of Cal vs. UCLA vs. $C vs. Stanfurd can rage as long as the national debt.</p>
<p>Since judging academic and student quality is difficult to do, let me present some facts.</p>
<p>-The Campanile is 22 feet taller than Huver Tower.
-$C is surrounded by areas made infamous by Tupac/Dr. Dre's California Love.
-UCLA is surrounded by Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Brentwood, and West Hollywood.
-Cal football is ranked 9th in the nation (and Cal Band marches).
-Stanfurd has a gold course, whereas Cal does not.</p>
<p>Does this seem to be going anywhere? I think not. So how about all you trolls **** and get a life.</p>
<p>BTW $C is still surrounded by places like Compton and Watts.</p>
<p>Uh I think you're getting the wrong message...
ALL of you trolls (Cal, UCLA, Stanford, SC) need to shut up...
seriously...
When people are trying to make the most important decisions of their lives, and come here looking for objective facts, they see incessant, misguided opinions raging from West Sidee's trolling to Gutrade's rants of f@ggotry.</p>
<p>The facts are:
-Cal is the #1 public university in the world, and holds the primary obligation of educating the population of the state of California. This is not a private university, and cannot be rightfully compared to privates. Namely those in an inferior Div. 1-AA football conference. Berkeley offers a world class education for those who seek it, and milks money out of those who don't. It's obviously not for everybody.
-Stanford is one of the best universities in the world. It offers smaller classes and a more nurturing environment than Cal, which can be a good or bad thing. For those of us who like the idea of webcasted lectures, this is not the place. It has a pristine, suburban campus, which also isn't for everybody.
-UCLA is the finest public university established in the 20th century, and is an excellent place to get an education. It's more rounded than both of the above mentioned schools, which again, might or might not be a good thing.
-USC is a good private research university with a lot of money. Money usually translates to good things. Its ranking was achieved through money, which isn't a bad thing, since money funds research and builds infrastructure. However, it's small and mostly regional, so it is not for everybody.</p>
<p>In the end, no school is really better than the other, since people look for different things in an undergraduate experience. No school is really that much better than the other, since these all of these are at the pinnacle of higher education.</p>
<p>Also, no matter how inflated any of your egos are, all of these universities are vastly more important than your existances. For those of you who think you can do better managing a research institution, I'd like to see you try. I mean, if the leading scholars and executives of the world can't do it, obviously you can do better...</p>
<p>i must be getting the wrong message, because it still looks like you're trolling too, calling people names now? </p>
<p>and i wouldnt label everything you said as "facts", more like observations or opinions. Alot of the things that you said about one school can be applied to the other. Stanford is the only school with a pristine campus? they all have them!</p>
<p>USC is the only school out of the four that has built a rep soley on money? I would disagree, on both parts of that, on the money alone and being the only one that would use finances like that.</p>
<p>--but these obersvations alone probably prove your point even further, that one cant really prop one university above the other in alot of these cases, no point in trying.</p>
<p>it indeed probably isnt much more helpful for someone to read alot of the worser posts previous to yours, but two wrongs dont make a right.</p>
<p>hell i never said they were neutral, i said the posts before yours were much worse, but you arent being as levelminded as you think either.</p>
<p>but actually, i do respect UCLAri's posts most of the time, he's a pretty straightforward guy.</p>
<p>Well if you didn't notice, the first post was meant to be sarcastic. I'm sorry if it didn't come out that way.</p>
<p>^^
True. This debate is pointless. No post or topic will change any school for the better or for the worse. Only time will tell whether LA will be able to match Cal.
This topic was obviously made by a UCLA fanboy, so the best thing to do is just let it die. We've seen about 10 posts lately comparing UCLA and Cal, and I'm just sick of hearing it. Just go back to your own board and post.</p>
<p>Or I'll go there and post "UC Riverside surpassing UCLA"</p>
<p>Well I hope it also gets rid of the incessant Cal, Stanford, SC trolling too, but hey thats a start.</p>
<p>amen to ironic paste and his various comments</p>
<p>IronicPaste</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rooster, UCLAri, themegastud, and West Side are SOOOO neutral omg.
My goodness, Sakky should be appointed chancellor of UC Berkeley this very minute, he's a genius.</p>
<p>You all think your opinions are God's gift to man. My opinion was simply justifying the facts that all of these institutions are superior universities, just for everyone. Why don't you guys play some Russian Roulette and see who wins?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought my ears felt hot.</p>
<p>Look, I never claimed to be unbiased. I have my own leanings, and I think I've been fairly honest about them. However, I also believe that I have been willing to assess with some degree of fairness the strengths and weaknesses of each program that has been thrown at me. I'm a student before I'm a fan.</p>
<p>Look guys, Cal is Cal. There is something to be said about 128 National Academy of Science members, 16 National Medal of Science bearers, 7 Nobel Prize winners, 139 Guggenheim Fellows, 221 American Academy of Science and Arts Fellows, 3 Pulitzer Prize winners, and a million other distinguished leaders in every field AT ONE SCHOOL. Most of the Ivies can't even boast numbers like that. Cal is an incredible school, and there is no doubt about it.</p>
<p>I'm not about to prance around and say that UCLA, based on .00001% difference in selectivity, is going to become the new king of the UC anytime soon. I do argue that UCLA is not as far behind as some perceive, but there is no doubt in my mind that Cal offers a concentration of prestige, discovery, and scientific achievement that no other university, short of maybe Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, and Oxford can equal. I am very proud to have worked with many Cal colleagues on some projects while at UCLA, and would have gladly called Cal my home. </p>
<p>This USC bashing is also sad. USC is not some third-tier institution. The past decade has seen a meteoric rise in USC's ability to attract bright young scholars, through a combination of intelligent use of money and fame, and careful development of the alumni network. Given a decade or less, and continued careful development of its endowment, student capital, and faculty body, USC may see itself being looked at as the serious place to study that it actually is.</p>
<p>In the end, this is why I hate the whole USNews rankings. They go against the spirit of intellectual discovery, and replace it with petty squabbling over 10 point differences in SAT scores.</p>
<p>"USC may see itself being looked at as the serious place to study that it actually is."</p>
<p>never!</p>
<p>(inappropriate comment edited out) </p>
<p>I disdain all sorts of merit aid offered to students, it should only be need-based aid.</p>
<p>By what logic do you disdaid merit-based aid?</p>