USNews rankings

<p>Zip, congrats on having the opportunity to spend your summer abroad, but consider this:</p>

<p>There is a great chance that many of us have ventured away from the computer long enough to discover the what lies outside the door. I know I have. I believe many of us have been far and wide, and experienced our world's surroundings to an astounding degree. Just because some of us are experiencing one lazy summer (myself included), doesn't mean we don't know how to kick a ball around.</p>

<p>Remember that some of us are new incoming students who are about to leave home for the first time and move to college - in this case, move to Berkeley. Of course we're posting here like mad, we're interested in all this college business. Do you remember when you first decided on a university to attend? I'm sure you were likely to defend your new choice. So, please, give it a rest. </p>

<p><3,</p>

<p>Izzie Bear</p>

<p>
[quote]
zip, how is mediocrity 1420? many kids would kill for your lovely litte test score, a full 100 points above mine. Go you.</p>

<p>If you're so aware of the world, you must realize, although it doesn't matter, that is in the top at least 10% of scores. How is that mediocrity?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>he probably means mediocrity among berkeleians.</p>

<p>But that isn't, kevMD. That is far above the averages, i do believe, and, even if it isnt', it's in what, the top 20% of the class?</p>

<p>Gentleman--I remember you. You just like to argue with people, even when people (like me) ask what's the importance with rankings! (What is the importance anyway?)</p>

<p>As for my mediocre SAT score of 1420-- The average at Berkeley I believe is 1350, but what I meant was I expected more without studying (da*n it), but didn't attain it. So it's just mediocre to me, not necessarily in comparison with my fellow Berkeleyans. (Oh, and btw I am female, not male.)</p>

<p>In the School of Engineering, the average SAT score is probably in the 1400s, but in L&S it's a bit lower. So it depends on the school.</p>

<p>And as for the question about whether or not I talked about the rankings whatnot for college before my freshman year (which was last year), I was moreso nervous about living in the dorm and potential competition, but it's alright. I wasn't really defensive about Berkeley though because some of my closer classmates ended up going to Cal-Tech and Harvard. So there was no competition there eh.</p>

<p>Zip, the point is that its condescending to come here and basically say that you've been out there been dora the exlorer and we've been "arguing about rankings. "There is life to live; a world to see. So take a deep breath, step away from the monitor, and venture outside.</p>

<p>I wouldn't want to be argumentitive, but what's ^^^that all about? If there's so much we should all be doing, like living life, seeing the word, taking long deep breaths and contemplating life, then why waste your time hear?</p>

<p>Gentleman--you may call it condescending, but it's probably true with some people on here!! So why can't I just be honest? Why is it that the truth offends people? </p>

<p>And frankly, I'm spending my time on here because I just got back, so I am at home now, which means I have time to--as you say it--waste.</p>

<p>I mean honestly, how many times have CERTAIN people talked about this one rank over and over and over and over again,back and forth?</p>

<p>Sometimes honesty & truth are as you put it "condescending."</p>

<p>hahahahaha. dora the explorer.</p>

<p>Zip, obviously you're free to say whatever pops into you're head, but I'm doing this for you. You need to be taught. I don't want you going out into pubic and interacting with people like this. They might think you are socially inept. Its ok. You'll learn. See, patronizing people is lame.</p>

<p>yay, another debate, with gentleman and sakky........and this time...zip too! o_O</p>

<p>man this place is getting crowded...</p>

<p>Gentleman, you say that I am patronizing? Look at what you wrote to incoming freshman:</p>

<p>"Why would they bother wearing these things if they didn't care? And by the sound of it, this isn't just a big game thing, as the author says that its "not uncommon" to see it. As an incoming freshman, how would you even know? I bet I've spent more time on the farm than most of you incomings, so maybe you should wait until school starts before you talk about anything."</p>

<p>Is obvious, is it not? You tell them basically to shut up because they're freshman and know nothing. Who is being hypocritical now? At least admit you're condescending--condescending to Stanford students for "paying too much and buying their way" and to incoming freshman for being "ignorant."</p>

<p>So, please, you have no right to teach anyone a lesson since you are obviously condescending. </p>

<p>But hey, maybe you're just being honest huh.......like I was about CERTAIN people spending their entire summer arguing about rankings.</p>

<p><em>Golf clap</em>, that's for Sakky's inciteful posts.</p>

<p>I was on the stanfurd board. I was doing my best to be condescending. And in case you missed it, I was illustrating a point with my speach about giving you lessons. But if you're still not satisfied, by all means keep reading my past posts. I'm sure you'll find some good ammo in there. It might take a while, but hey, its not like you think we should all be outside enjoying life, and realizing our true potential or anything.</p>

<p>
[quote]
...the "certain people" who benefit from the UC's are also the MAJORITY of the state.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let's look at it from a financial standpoint. The cutoff for a full-ride in the form of 100% grants from Harvard is 40k and from Yale is 45k, whereas the cutoff for a full-ride (but not necessarily 100% grants) is 60k. I believe the cutoffs at MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and Princeton are similar. The median household income in the state of California was only about 52k in the year 2004. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2004/04/26/daily38.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2004/04/26/daily38.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So it seems to me that the majority of Californians would qualify for a fullride of one form or another from HYPSMC, if they could get in. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Many rich and poor alike are rejected by the "elites," and many of these benefit highly from the availability of a comporable education for much less, even if this was not the orginal intention of the attendees. I was rejected by privates with comporable resources, prestige and quality as the fantastic publics to which i was accepted. To some, these schools are the reaches, to others, the safeties, but they are there for everyone, rich and poor alike.</p>

<p>You know that very few institutions are created without any degree of personal benefit involved. Guess what else: the UC system isn't on the list. Of course they want things selfishly, but there are probably not many students that would rather not go thousands of miles away, would not be able to get into any institution that would pay for a lot, or would rather not go to these institutions. Are they really trying to help the poor of california? Yes, to a great extent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. It's not really about helping poor Californians. It's really about helping poor Californians who weren't good enough to get into HYPSMC. THAT's the truth. So what you're really saying here is that, as far as the poor of California is concerned, the poor don't really benefit from UC's low cost (because, as mentioned, HYPSMC are often times actually cheaper than UC for poor students). UC benefits the poor by providing easier admission. That's how the poor of California benefit. </p>

<p>So then, fair enough. That should be UC's new mantra. UC shouldn't go around saying that they offer a more affordable college experience to poor people, relative to HYPSMC. Because that's not really true. They should say that they offer a college experience that's easier to get into than HYPSMC. That would be the truth. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Of course there are people in California that live both above and below the means of a 'middle class' family. I'm positive the UC system understands this. But for a system that is state owned and operated, it makes sense to cater to the largest economic class - the middle class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But like I said, are they really doing that? The data indicates that the median household in California would financially qualify for some sort of fullride from HYPSMC. Hence, from a financial standpoint, you could say that HYPSMC are serving the California middle class more than UC is. How UC serves the middle-class seems to not be financialy, but in admissions. </p>

<p>Even the discussion of Chancellor's/Regent's Scholarships doesn't quite cut it. The fact is, the dollar-value of the C/R scholarships are based on family income. If you have a strong family income, then your C/R scholarship comes with less money. I know one guy who came in with a Chancellor Scholarship that turned out to be worth only $500, because he came from a rich family. Hence he still ended up paying a substantial fee to go to Berkeley. </p>

<p>Contrast that with how merit scholarships work at other schools. Again, I would point to my brother. Caltech gave him not only a full-tuition merit scholarship, but also a stipend, which meant that he actually MADE money by going to Caltech. He didn't pay Caltech, Caltech paid him. Now THAT's the way a merit scholarship is supposed to work. As a result, Berkeley lost my brother. Berkeley was never going to match the package that Caltech offered him. </p>

<p>
[quote]
However, it is fairly interesting when it comes to the "elite's" and financial aid~ everyone praises them for what is explicitly listed- $45,000 income and under don't have to pay- but they're only able to do that because they don't accept ENOUGH low-income applicants, so much so that they consider $45,000 the standard

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, and I've offered an idea to thread the needle. UC can offer a free-ride in the form of pure grants to anybody who makes less than 45k who managed to get into HYPSMC. So, not to ALL people who make less than 45k, just those who managed to get admitted to HYPSMC. Like you said, there aren't that many people who come from these kinds of backgrounds who can get into the elite private schools. Well, I would turn that around and say that the Berkeley administration has no excuse not to do it. If HYPSMC are really admitting a lot of these poor people and giving them freerides, then HYPSMC deserve all the praise they get, and then we have to wonder why UC can't work to do something similar. If HYPSMC are providing these rides to only a few people, then it should be easy for UC to match them for these few people. If it's easy to do, why not do it? </p>

<p>Then of course there is the other issue that I have discussed on other threads. I've heard people remark that UC has no money, that UC is in a financial crisis, that UC can't afford this-and-that. Well, the reality is that UC wastes PLENTY of money. The truth is, to be perfectly honest, a lot of state taxpayer money is wasted on bad UC students. There are students at UC who have been hanging around for years and years, and are not serious about trying to graduate. There are students who just don't go to class, don't want to study, and don't want to do anything. You guys who are current Berkeley students - you guys know what I'm talking about. Now obviously private schools have slothful students too, but at least they're not wasting state taxpayer money. If the private schools want to waste money on slothful students, that's the problem of those schools . But if UC wastes money on slothful students, that's the taxpayer's problem. I would argue that it is fair that those students who have demonstrated that they just don't want to study should lose their UC state subsidy so that UC can then redirect that money to people who do want to study.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Let's look at it from a financial standpoint. The cutoff for a full-ride in the form of 100% grants from Harvard is 40k and from Yale is 45k, whereas the cutoff for a full-ride (but not necessarily 100% grants) is 60k. I believe the cutoffs at MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and Princeton are similar. The median household income in the state of California was only about 52k in the year 2004. </p>

<p>So it seems to me that the majority of Californians would qualify for a fullride of one form or another from HYPSMC, if they could get in.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, I understand what you're saying. But consider a family of 4 (two parents, two children, one or both in college) making ~100k a year, which in this day and age, is still considered middle class. In this case, the UC system is considered more of a bargain than 'HYPSMC'. Of course, I will give you this; some families that are currently bringing in ~100k annually can afford a UC or private education out of pocket without a problem. Other families making ~100k a year may be further from retirement than others and might have many bills, car payments, house payments, and other responsibilities that come before college tuition. The second example sounds a lot like my family, who considered the UC system a fair price for what is offered. I'm sure there are many 'middle class' (90-150k, not eligible for much or any from UC or Privates) families that would agree. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Hence, from a financial standpoint, you could say that HYPSMC are serving the California middle class more than UC is

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I stated above, you must notice that the phrase 'middle class' encompases a huge amount of people. 'HYPSMC' may be serving middle class families brining in about 45k a year, but for those making 110k a year, the reality is that the UC system may be a better bargain.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But if UC wastes money on slothful students, that's the taxpayer's problem. I would argue that it is fair that those students who have demonstrated that they just don't want to study should lose their UC state subsidy so that UC can then redirect that money to people who do want to study

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Very valid point. I would have to agree totally, beyond a doubt.</p>

<p>I would just like to include something else. While I totally sympathize with those directly affected by the way in which the UC system can only seem to financially accomodate a small group of applicants (I too, am affected by poor financial assitance for the middle class), I would like to express my thoughts on personal responsibility.</p>

<p>I consider my choice to attend UC Berkeley a great one indeed. I am excited, pleased, and know that I will receive a valuable degree upon leaving Cal. But I also think of myself as a very intelligent, well rounded student, one who probably had the means to be admitted to more elite universities. Of course, let me mention that I probably wouldn't stick out enough to have schools beg for me with cash in hand. Because of my parent's 'upper middle class' income, I wouldn't be able to afford a private school. </p>

<p>Although my parents are able to assist me a great deal, I will still be responsible for taking out small loans each year to personally take a part in funding my education. I don't understand why this option is ignored by so many. No one needs to think of themselves as permenant extensions of their parents income. Someday, especially if you are getting a college education, you will be confronted with several opportunities to make an income that will easily assist in paying off your loans.</p>

<p>Middle Class California Residents - if you can't go to an elite private, go to a UC. If you can't go to UC, consider the CSU system. If you don't want to settle for less, then consider taking out loans to fund your education. If the amount you will be left with is realistic, then there's no reason you shouldn't proceed.</p>

<p><3,</p>

<p>Izzie Bear</p>

<p>
[quote]
Quote:
Let's look at it from a financial standpoint. The cutoff for a full-ride in the form of 100% grants from Harvard is 40k and from Yale is 45k, whereas the cutoff for a full-ride (but not necessarily 100% grants) is 60k. I believe the cutoffs at MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and Princeton are similar. The median household income in the state of California was only about 52k in the year 2004. </p>

<p>So it seems to me that the majority of Californians would qualify for a fullride of one form or another from HYPSMC, if they could get in. </p>

<p>Yes, I understand what you're saying. But consider a family of 4 (two parents, two children, one or both in college) making ~100k a year, which in this day and age, is still considered middle class. In this case, the UC system is considered more of a bargain than 'HYPSMC'. Of course, I will give you this; some families that are currently bringing in ~100k annually can afford a UC or private education out of pocket without a problem. Other families making ~100k a year may be further from retirement than others and might have many bills, car payments, house payments, and other responsibilities that come before college tuition. The second example sounds a lot like my family, who considered the UC system a fair price for what is offered. I'm sure there are many 'middle class' (90-150k, not eligible for much or any from UC or Privates) families that would agree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, obviously for some people, UC is the better bargain. I don't deny that. What I am saying is that for other people, the private elite schools are in fact the better bargain. Therefore, neither the UC's nor the private elite schools can be said to be the best bargain for everybody across the board. </p>

<p>We need to take costs on a case-by-case basis. Not everybody in California is making 90-150k. As shown by the data, the vast majority of Californian households make far far less than that. Again, the median household income in California in 2004 was about 52k. When I say median, I'm not talking the average (where you add up all the household incomes and then divide by the number of households), because such a number is skewed by the few households that make huge amounts of money. Median means the middle number, such that half of the households make more, and half make less. I think it's safe to say that if the median is only 52k, then the vast majority of households make less than 90k. </p>

<p>Which leads to another point. It has been asserted by some people that UC manages to serve the majority of people out there, and the private schools don't serve that majority. This is a groundless assertion because according to the UC charter, only the top 12.5% of Californian high school graduates are eligible for UC. Hence, you cannot really say that UC is out to serve the majority of Californians - in fact, the vast majority of Calfornians are ineligible by charter from being served by UC. The same is true of the CalStates, which by charter are eligible only to the top 1/3 of all Californians. Even those who are eligible may find that they may not get in. For example, a person who is in the top 12.5% and hence is UC eligible but only applies to the top UC's like Berkeley and UCLA may not get in anywhere. He might have gotten into Riverside had he applied, but he didn't, so consequently, he ends up not going to UC at all.{Incidentally, I think this calls for a possible UC admissions reform - those people who apply to only the top UC's but don't get in should have their applications forwarded to the lower UC's so they will get into at least one of the UC's}.</p>

<p>The point is that while the private top schools obviously serve only a minority of the population, the UC's and CSU's also serve only a minority of the population. I have heard people assert that the private schools are elitist because they don't serve the majority of the people, conveniently forgetting that the UC's/CSU's also don't serve the majority of the people. So if the private schools are elitist because they don't serve the majority, then the UC's and CSU's are also elitist for the same reason. Sure, maybe they're not AS elitist, but they're still elitist. So an accurate statement that Berkeley could make is that it could say "Yeah, we're still elitist, but just less elitist than HYPSMC", but somehow that doesn't exactly seem like the world's most compelling slogan.</p>

<p>"Look, obviously for some people, UC is the better bargain. I don't deny that. What I am saying is that for other people, the private elite schools are in fact the better bargain. Therefore, neither the UC's nor the private elite schools can be said to be the best bargain for everybody across the board."</p>

<p>Sakky, considering state income levels, which serves more people?</p>

<p>Every school serves only a minority of the population. Name a school that serves a majority of the population?</p>

<p>Sakky, you are always missing the big picture. </p>

<p>The big picture is UC Berkeley alone educates more poor people than all the Ivies together. </p>

<p>That's what counts.</p>

<p>So go complain about HYPSMC. All those huge endowments, and these schools still don't educate the poor in representative numbers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"Look, obviously for some people, UC is the better bargain. I don't deny that. What I am saying is that for other people, the private elite schools are in fact the better bargain. Therefore, neither the UC's nor the private elite schools can be said to be the best bargain for everybody across the board."</p>

<p>Sakky, considering state income levels, which serves more people?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. The median household income in the state of California was about 53k in 2004. The cutoff for a fullride of some kind from Harvard was 60k. Hence, the average household in California easily qualifies for a fullride from Harvard. Berkeley refuses to provide any such comparable financial aid program. So you tell me, GS, considering the state income level in California, what's the better deal for the average household in California better, Harvard or Berkeley? </p>

<p><a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2004/11/29/daily27.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2004/11/29/daily27.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, you are always missing the big picture. </p>

<p>The big picture is UC Berkeley alone educates more poor people than all the Ivies together.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I see the big picture just fine. Obviously Berkeley educates plenty of poor people. The fact is, Berkeley is so large that it educates plenty of people of all kinds, rich and poor. Should Berkeley get credit simply for just being really big? </p>

<p>Now it is also true that Berkeley probably educates a larger percentage of poorer people than do the top private schools. But that has more to do with selectivity than anything else. The fact is, we live in a world where the richer you are, the more likely you are to be able to amass the qualifications necessary to get into a top college. Like it or not, that's the world we live in. And the fact is, it is easier to get into Berkeley than to get into HYPSMC. Hence, Berkeley picks up a lot of poor people simply through lower selectivity. Should Berkeley get credit for that? To follow that logic, you then have to give even more credit to San Jose State, because they pick up even more poor students than does Berkeley, primarily through even lower admissions standards. Quite frankly, lower admissions standards is a 'cheap' way to to pick up poorer standards. </p>

<p>What I'm saying is that I think it is indisputable that a student who is both poor and extremely well-qualified is almost certainly better off at a top private school than at Berkeley, because of the extremely aggressive financial aid that the top private schools offer. Again, I would point to the example of the 2 guys that I know that found that it was cheaper to go to Harvard than to go to Berkeley.</p>

<p>Besides, the real point is that UC claims as part of its mandate that its mission is to provide affordable education. HYPSMC never make that claim. UC does. So if UC wants to keep claiming to be able to provide an affordable education, then they should actually go around providing it. Either that, or stop claiming that they do. Either you provide an affordable education, or you don't. It's as simple as that. If it's really true that UC provides an affordable education to Californians, then I should never have to hear about Californians getting better deals at HYPSMC than at UC.</p>

<p>You're kidding right? The definition of affordable education doesn't mean nobody is getting a better deal elsewhere. That's ridiculous.</p>

<p>Sakky, I'll ask you the same question that I've asked you before: If the median income is 50k, and the Harvard cutoff is 60k, there should be huge numbers of "full riders" at Harvard as we speak, right? 70 to 80 percent would seem right to me. So when you get a chance, could you post those numbers for me? To clarify what I said earlier, considering the average income AND the average test scores, which is a better deal, the UCs or Harvard?</p>