<p>Haha-- I’m in the process of still writing which is why I’m on here at not at the GCB, which is indeed, an awesome place to be on campus.</p>
<p>I agree with IBClass06, Modestmelody</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well that’s a bit outlandish considering how ungodly expensive experimental physics is. Then again, in such a case nobody would have X. Every experimental physicist I know is a frequent flyer 
(hates flying)</p>
<p>Okay, here’s my argument. </p>
<p>Selectivity does not ONLY and always connote elite-ness. **By elite, I mean prestigious, well-known, rich, productive, selective and staffed with highly distinguished people who are leaders of their fields. **Dartmouth and Brown may qualify on certain criteria. But they obviously lag behind on some. Cal may lag behind Dartmouth/Brown in selectivity, but only very slightly. In addition to that, Cal would eat Dartmouth and Brown alive on the rest of the criteria. </p>
<p>The Berkeley name is famous, not just in the US, but in the entire world. I can assure you that there are many more people in the world that have heard and be wowed by the Berkeley name than a Dartmouth/Brown name. In the UK, Ireland, Italy, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, Brown is a color. lol… Berkeley is a world-class academic institution. And, the Dartmouth name? It’s almost never heard of… In these countries where I once lived, it doesn’t matter if Brown is slightly more selective than Cal. What matters in those countries is the name. The brand. The Berkeley name is way more prestigious and powerful than the Dartmouth/Brown name. In these countries, Berkeley has a strong alumni association and some of its alumni occupy high seats in government and large organizations and corporations. </p>
<p>sakky: I think it’s a misnomer to base the university fund on endowment fund alone. Academic institutions have several sources of funding not just endowment fund. State Us receive funding from the government too, aside from tuition fees generated by the school. Dartmouth and Brown, though have slightly higher endowment fund than Cal has, don’t receive funding from the government as much as Cal does. So, to base the school’s funding from endowment alone is a huge misnomer. And some research-led schools like Cal, UCLA, UIUC, Florida, Washington, UMich and Texas do get money from tie-up private corporations. CITRIS of Cal is a good example. They also make money from patents and inventions of their researches. That’s why if you would look at their facilities, they’re more advanced and high-tech than those facilities found at Dartmouth and Brown. </p>
<p>I also think that Dartmouth and Brown do not have the resources to compete with schools like Berkeley because science and engineering facilities are quite expensive. (you of all the people here on CC should have known that.) Their whole endowment fund --even if you’d combine them which would only go over 5 billion-- wouldn’t be enough to establish a science, tech and engineering community. Even Harvard tried to improve their engineering a decade ago and poured several hundreds of millions of dollars on the program, but it didn’t succeed. Yale has also done that and also didn’t succeed. If H and Y, the richer and more prestigious schools, had a hard time boosting their tech and engineering communities, how much more the less prestigious and less moneyed schools such as Dartmouth and Brown.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you’re probably not talking “elite” in the context of academic institutions.</p>
<p>popcorn anyone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dartmouth’s overall acceptance rate will be between 11 and 12% for the class of 2013, while Berkeley’s will be 21%. That isn’t a slight difference in selectivity.</p>
<p>What America’s Elite Colleges are as seen through the eyes of foreigners is an interesting question, but probably a different one.</p>
<p>Around India, if you were to ask the average Joe (give or take another 10 syllables) what America’s best schools are, you’d get a response along the line of:</p>
<p>-Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Wharton at the top
-Yale, Columbia, Penn, Cornell</p>
<p>Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, etc are basically unheard of (to my endless delight)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No; that’s not what I was saying. But research is an integral part of the college level. Unless we’re talking about high school here. lol…</p>
<p>In my opinion, the word “elite” when referred to academic institutions requires several criteria. But the most important criterion here is ACADEMIC PRESTIGE because that’s the hardest, the longest and the most expensive to attain or accomplish. Do you know of a very prestigious, world-class academic institution anywhere in world that was founded only 20 or 30 years ago? I have not. Even Olin College isn’t prestigious yet even if it is as selective as Harvard. </p>
<p>The next important criterion here is the people that comprise the academic institution. The more Nobel laureate awardees associated with the school, for example, the more it becomes elite. Ever wonder why schools publish their staff that won Nobel? </p>
<p>Then facilities. This is college level that we’re talking about. hightech equipment is needed here. internet connections/access, libraries, laboratories, classrooms and study halls should count here too. Unless we’re talking about liberal arts courses wherein you can even conduct lectures on open spaces… or under the tree… </p>
<p>Then the quality of the students. Then access to higher education/college as provided by the school. and so on…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But Chicago has something like 30%. Is Dartmouth more selective than Chicago?</p>
<p>It’s time for the FAQ again: </p>
<p>SELECTIVITY </p>
<p>It’s NEVER a valid procedure to compare base acceptance rates alone to derive an inference about selectivity. That’s because different pools of applicants apply to different colleges, based on their own estimates of their chances. I’ll repost here an example I have posted earlier.</p>
<p>If Podunk Community College started a more vigorous marketing campaign, and encouraged many more applications than it has received before, it might find that the number of applications submitted was far above its capacity to enroll students, and thus find, even taking into account less than 100 percent yield of admitted students who actually enroll, that it could not admit all applicants. If Podunk has a 10 percent yield, a new first-year class size of 1,000, and receives 200,000 applications, it might issue a press release, after it admits 10,000 applicants, saying “Podunk admission rate down to 5 percent, lower than any Ivy League college.” But a thoughtful reader of that press release, even one who believes everything that Podunk reported, might still have genuine doubts that Podunk is more selective than Columbia, not to mention Harvard. Base acceptance rate is one interesting statistic about a college’s annual admission cycle, but it is not the sole competent evidence about which college is most selective. Scholars of the college admission process have some genuine disagreements about how to show which college is most “selective,” but NO ONE thinks that base acceptance rate is the last word on that subject.</p>
<p>“RML, if you think about it, which school people at your average cocktail party know is just the opposite of what is truly elite. Elite by definition means only open to a few.”</p>
<p>hmom, the word “elite” does not mean “only open to a few”. Elite simply means the best…or at the top. Elite universities are those that are considered the best. </p>
<p>Now I agree with you that there are different takes on which universities are elite, but I have found that in educated circles, most people would only list 10-20 universities as truly elite…but those 10-20 varry wildly from person to person (depending on geography, profession, field of study etc…) and are chosen from a group of 50 or so colleges and universities. It’s not like all educated people have one short list that is identical. It varies even in similar professions and georgraphic areas. With the exception of Harvard, Princeton, Yale and perhaps MIT and Stanford, there isn’t a university out there that is consistantly regarded above the others, except perhaps for Cal and Columbia.</p>
<p>And by the way hmom, I have been to many cocktail parties myself and I would not really trust the judgment of most people I have met is such a millieu. You are more likely to run into Paris Hilton than into an educated person at such getherings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This made me smile. Good work :)</p>
<p>
That is exactly why Public schools are not as good. They have less money and the money they do have is not spent on the students. </p>
<p>
RML we get it you go/went to Berkeley. Whats its acceptance rate…30%? That is so far behind Brown and Dartmouth its ridiculous. Berkeley may have great professors, but in the U.S. its not held as even a peer as the ivies for most people (whether it be employers or prospective students). We are talking Elite colleges, I doubt Berkeley comes into that group for its undergraduate prowess</p>
<p>My List:
HYPSM
Duke +cal Tech+ rest of ivies and maybe Chicago</p>
<p>and then if you really want add NU, Hopkins and Wash U and maybe a few others</p>
<p>Bescraze, I was born in Chicago and had my early education spent there before we moved to California. In the turn of my high school, we moved to Singapore where I’ve earned IB and was later accepted to Harvey Mudd, Columbia, UPenn, Duke, NYU, UCSD (all in the US) and Cambridge, Imperial, Warwick, Durham (in the UK). I also got into NUS. The only schools that did not accept me were MIT and Berkeley. In short, I’ve applied to many US schools and have gone through the same process like you did. At my time, however, the SAT has just two parts. I scored 1,480. Back then, it was a very good score, but still was denied acceptance at the university which you just called NOT PRESTIGIOUS and ELITE. I eventually chose Cambridge. But back then, my sight was set for Berkeley computer science. It was my top choice. Too bad; I wasn’t too smart to get admitted.</p>
<p>My only higher education experience in the US was at Stanford where I’ve trained for 6 months under a Google sponsored training in 2001. It wasn’t a degree program; just a graduate certification. Up until 5 months ago, I was with Asian Development Bank where my colleagues come from some of the best schools on earth! My background and experience may be quite different from yours, but I’m certainly far from less informed. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you prove this? </p>
<p>Cal is certainly way better than D and B in most academic departments. In computer science, for example, the gap is even wider. </p>
<p>Some State Us are also just as rich or even richer than D and B. For example, UMich and Texas have more endowment fund than D and B combined. </p>
<p>Texas has endowment fund than Cal has, yet it’s not as “elite” and as prestigious as Cal is. </p>
<p>You see? elite as applied to academic institutions isn’t just about student selectivity. It’s not also just about money. It’s a combination of many factors.</p>
<p>
I believe it was 21%. This year maybe even less than 20%. </p>
<p>
Cambridge has 25%-28% selectivity rate, or 1 is admitted for every 3.8-4 applicants. Is Cambridge less selective than Dartmouth?<br>
What about Brown vs Caltech? Caltech has like 17% acceptance rate whilst Brown has like 11%, you said. So, is Brown more selective than Caltech?</p>
<p>
Who are these people. Over at Cal threads, you’d see many of its students got into the lower ivies. Almost half the people at Cal or a massive number of 12 thousand students at Cal have stats about the same as or even better than Dartmouth’s and Brown’s. I got into Columbia but not at Cal. How would you explain all these things then?</p>
<p>You were not an in state applicant at Cal, and more to the point, you were an Asian international. The took few internationals in the past and they tried yo achieve diversity with those they accepted. More Asians is the last thing they needed for diversity.</p>
<p>If you compare enrolled students stats for lower ivies and Berkeley, you will find Berkeley is significantly less selective. And that’s not taking into account the highly inflated grades at CA public high schools where the majority of Cal students come from-some of the worst schools in the Country.</p>
<p>RML, there are many Californian seniors who will be rejected from Penn, Duke, Columbia,etc who will be accepted to and attend Cal this year. You applied to study CS at Berkeley (as an international I’m guessing as well), so it’s goddamn competitive. Overall, you cannot honestly conclude that Berkeley is as competitive to get into for undergrad as a whole as Penn,Duke, Columbia, etc as a whole. I’m not saying that you are, but just throwing it out there. This whole debate harkens back to the whole definition of elite, and another corollary to my definition is, if you can have a serious debate about whether or not a school is elite, it isn’t elite. No one here is seriously going to debate that HYPSM are not considered elite, so therefore, they are the only elite American schools, again by my definition =)</p>
<p>Selectivity with regards to schools like Hopkins or UChicago… Hopkins and UChicago attract a certain personality or type of individual who have be pre-professional (like premed), or the quirky type individuals. Selectivity numbers are skewed in the sense that the nature and the reputation of the school as a quirk and nerdy place automatically weeds those out who are not interested. In the end, only the students who are really in love with what the school offers apply and typically these are pretty smart ppl so competition is tough because the applicant pool is self selecting in relations to what schools they choose to apply…</p>
<p>So a 35% acceptance rate for UChicago back in 2006 means ZERO because at schools like Chicago, the application pool is highly competitive and is self selecting…Not that many ppl apply to Chicago because of the workload. That doesn’t mean the applicant pool isn’t competitive or it’s easy beans for admissiosn lol.</p>
<p>Everyone applies to a top tier Ivy for the sake of applying… you apply to Harvard just to get a rejection letter because it’s almost a rite of passage because you know you won’t get in and you probably won’t attend even if you do get in because it’s not your realistic first choice school.</p>
<p>I agree with middsmith.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Weak response attacking someone’s credential’s is meaningless unless they are arguing a technical point. Since this is a logic based arguement the only thing that matters is what he said not how much education he has. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue that equipment and human capital are interchangable. Top researchers go to schools that have the facilities to perform top research, if you don’t have top researchers in say experimental physics or some sort then it probably is indicative of the fact that Brown does not have the equipment or monetary investment to support that level or research.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you wrote that whole paragraph to say that you have not published a single paper. As far as publishing credentials then that means that you and middsmith are on the same level. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is also a sign of people who can not defend their own position, basically you are telling middsmith “you are stupid so I don’t care what you think” which is neither logical nor a refutation of his main point. </p>
<p>Middsmith said that brown lacks the equipment (which may as well be parsed to mean infrastructure) to support top notch research to gain international recongnition which is 100% true. Brown is probably good in what they have like your chemistry field or whatever, but it is the breadth and depth of the quality of scientific research that makes Berkeley a top research school. And they have the equipment (read again infrastructure to support this) and so are an elite school.</p>
<p>Very few schools have top law, engineering, business, and natural sciences but Berkeley does. Berkeley is WAY more elite than Brown because ultimately the above displines on a perceptional sense are what defines elite (within international contexts) not an undergrad education.</p>
<p>I agree Phead, and think that much of the difference in acceptance rates between HYPS and the lower ivies, top LAC’s and schools like Chicago and Duke is due to the every man throwing in an application at the icon schools.</p>
<p>hmom, I’m Italian (decent) although I hold an American passport as I was born in the US. 
</p>
<p>Morsmordre, there are more than 5 US schools that can be considered elite, although I must admit HYPSM are the kings of all the elite schools out there. </p>
<p>I understand Berkeley is less competitive for in-state students. but we all are not in-state students when we applied to Cal. Therefore, for me and you and those several thousand applicants out there who wish to get into Cal as OOS and International, would need to have an impeccable credential to get in (and huge amount of money to be able to actually enroll). Thus Cal is selective. In fact, according to USNWR selectivity ranking, it’s number 14 as most selective in the US. 99% of the admitted students come from the top 10% of their high school class. How is that not selective? </p>
<p>Look, I’m not saying Cal is more selective than D or B is. All I was saying is that Cal is also selective. But student selectivity is just one of the many criteria to become being the best school or elite as we termed it in our discussion.</p>
<p>Again, let me ask this question to you: Is Caltech more elite than Yale or MIT? Caltech students have higher SATs scores than Yale or MIT students have?</p>