<p>. . .</p>
<p>I wish you could bold this: :rolleyes:</p>
<p>hahahahahaha.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what the hell does this have to do with anything?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I just noticed this. I have NO idea.</p>
<p>But I can say this much: I never took a logic class. I just know the fallacies after seeing them used so much on teh intarwebs.</p>
<p>"I will NOT and never trade a Berkeley degree with a Duke, Dartmouth, Brown and the like degree in today’s instant, because from my perspective, and from the perspective of the people where I will make a living someday, Berkeley is a very powerful qualification, and outside of Engineering and Sciences, only a Harvard qualification is more powerful than it."</p>
<p>Wow. Talk about a warped perspective. Some people just refuse to get in touch with reality...</p>
<p>I do find it funny to say that a Cal degree is, without any doubt, more powerful in engineering than say...Cal Tech or MIT...</p>
<p>Don't EVEN get me started on how unequivocally better Cal is than UPenn for business.</p>
<p>It's also way better than JHU for IR. Blows it out of the water, really.</p>
<p>wait wait wait...can we get back to Ari and sansai...haha</p>
<p>ok...maybe not :o</p>
<p>It doesn't really matter, ekn. We all know that Cal is better than Harvard for medicine, Yale for law, Princeton for East Asian studies, MIT for engineering, better than UCSD for oceanography, and better than NYU, USC, and UCLA for film.</p>
<p>Totally.</p>
<p>When did the thread take this dirrection? Anyway, some of the things you say are actually true, UCLAri, depending on which particular departments or programs you mean with your blanket terms, which are somewhat ambiguous. But why dwell on this meaningless tangent? Move on.</p>
<p>"Hi, I'm DRab and I'm opposed to fun."</p>
<p>With a name like "DRab", I'm not surprised. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Psh. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>UCLAri knows I love the fun.</p>
<p>I'm actually liking a post by Flopsy. Oh no, here it comes....</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>It's pronounced "dee rab," but perhaps it has some deep Freudian implications.</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>All I know is this:</p>
<p>Cal is very very very obviously a GREAT school. In fact, I'd probably consider it the best school overall in the country (grad, professional, etc.) However, when you consider how its undergrad, as a whole, generally underperforms compared to its grad, a problem seems pretty self-evident.</p>
<p>I'd say that if Cal cut the bottom 25th percentile you'd see it jump up a bunch of ranks. But it's at the whims of the legislature, so that's just a pipe dream...</p>
<p>Yeah. I would add that there's a good reason why certain schools have better results than others from their graduates in general- some start with better students, or a lot of what are probably the best students, in the first place. It's really not that shocking that many students at say Harvard do amazing things because many already come in amazing.</p>
<p>Yeah, but I think that if you cut out a bunch of the bottom at Cal and UCLA, you'd see performance per capita increase, which would in turn draw better students.</p>
<p>But I don't hold office, so I can say these things.</p>
<p>But is the primary reason (or perhaps the only reason) performance per capita would increase be because a lot of the poor performers wouldn't be there any more?</p>
<p>In part, yes. But you'd also be able to devote resources in a less disperse fashion.</p>