<p>^^^It might even drop in the ratings at USNWR…</p>
<p>I’d like to be able to go to Michigan, but its hard to justify paying such high OOS tuition for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The answer is quite simple - one I hoped UCBChemEng would have arrived at - which is, at least within chemical engineering (and,sadly, most engineering disciplines), academic prestige simply doesn’t seem to matter very much. With the important exception of EECS, engineering employers sadly do not seem to be willing to pay a premium for graduates of the top programs. </p>
<p>So I pose the question again: what is the relevance of Berkeley’s (or any other school’s) engineering ranking or NAE membership to the average undergrad, if it doesn’t seem to produce a salary boost? In other words, what exactly is the value of taking courses by eminent researchers such as Harvey Blanch and John Prausnitz if employers don’t seem to care?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say “most”. I said the bulk, meaning a plurality. Certainly you would agree that more of them work in the Bay Area than any other area.</p>
<p>So to you, I say: oops!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The real question is,if those lower-Ivy/other-private-school students could get into Berkeley and could afford it, would they go? Obviously this is impossible to know for sure, but I suspect that the majority probably would not. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I think we can agree that most Berkeley students who could have gotten into HYPSM and afforded it would have taken it.</p>
<p>Sakky, I understand engineering is more egalatarian. However, education is not always about a high salary as an end result…it’s about the journey. It’s refreshing and rare for a state school to have elite faculty.</p>
<p>I wish the benefits to being educated by top engineering faculty - if such benefits do indeed exist - actually accrued to the students, financially speaking. Sadly, this does not seem to be the case, which is a point I’ve made repeatedly within the engineering forum. Graduates of top-ranked engineering programs such as Berkeley (along with MIT and others) do not seem to make much more than do the graduates of average engineering schools - which is precisely why so many of them choose not to work as engineers, at least not for long, but instead become consultants or bankers. Our colleague JohnAdams12 would personally attest to that, having himself graduated from a highly ranked ChemE program but not working as an engineer for long. The US may then sadly lose its edge in technical innovation as the (purportedly) best-trained engineering minds choose to leave the industry. </p>
<p>*Even at M.I.T., the U.S.'s premier engineering school, the traditional career path has lost its appeal for some students. Says junior Nicholas Pearce, a chemical-engineering major from Chicago: “It’s marketed as–I don’t want to say dead end but sort of ‘O.K., here’s your role, here’s your lab, here’s what you’re going to be working on.’ Even if it’s a really cool product, you’re locked into it.” Like Gao, Pearce is leaning toward consulting. “If you’re an M.I.T. grad and you’re going to get paid $50,000 to work in a cubicle all day–as opposed to $60,000 in a team setting, plus a bonus, plus this, plus that–it seems like a no-brainer.” *</p>
<p>[Are</a> We Losing Our Edge? - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156575-6,00.html#ixzz0uZuURWEm]Are”>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156575-6,00.html#ixzz0uZuURWEm) </p>
<p>As I’ve said on other threads: engineering is a fantastic major for relatively mediocre students. If you’re just an average student at a no-name school with nondescript faculty, completing an engineering degree along the way to a $50k starting salary is a sweetheart deal, for after all, what else were you going to do? Most other career choices you could have made would have paid you far less. But engineering students of Berkeley-caliber don’t seem to financially benefit from studying under illustrious faculty. So I ask again: what exactly is the benefit of having that faculty for the average undergrad?</p>
<p>sakky</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not why I responded to your post. I was merely reacting to your earlier statement: the fact remains that most students at Berkeley are there because they couldn’t get into HYPSM, or didn’t even apply because they knew they wouldn’t get in. </p>
<p>My point is, HYPSM are superior to Berkeley and to all the rest of the schools. And there’s very little point to pit Berkeley against HYPSM for undergrad education, unless one is bent on becoming an engineer, in which case, Berkeley can compete with Princeton and Yale.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think more smart students would rather feel better to have graduated from Berkeley from say, Ohio State, simply because of the school prestige and self-esteem. It may not benefit that much - salary-wise - but the feeling and thought that you can boast to your colleague that you went to Berkeley engineering instead of Ohio State engineering makes Berkeley worth attending than a no-name school, for sure.</p>
<p>sakky, there you go, wrong again…</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065299248-post184.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065299248-post184.html</a></p>
<p>oops!</p>
<p>It is I that said that most of the ChE’s form UC Berkeley DO NOT take a job in the Bay area.</p>
<p>Your comment that “more of them work in the Bay area than any other area” is again false.</p>
<p>The main reason we were discussing this topic is that you claimed that the cost adjusted salaries for the ChE’s should be lower at UCB because they mainly work in the higer priced bay area, however, I have shown that most work in areas that are lower priced than the bay area.</p>
<p>oops, you were wrong again.</p>
<p>JohnAdams12, there you go, wrong again. </p>
<p>Your quote was:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which does not conflict with what I had said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So where, pray tell, was I wrong? Seems to me that you’re wrong for saying that I was wrong. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you care to name which other specific area you believe more Berkeley ChemE’s work than in the Bay Area? Hint: don’t try to name ‘Irving, TX’, as I believe the Fluor guy took a job in Dublin. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I never said they *mainly<a href=“as%20in%20the” title=“majority”>/i</a> work in the Bay Area. It is sufficient to show that the bulk (as in a “plurality”) work in the Bay Area. </p>
<p>As a case in point, if I say that, out of 10 graduates from any school, 3 happen to work in a highly expensive city (and hopefully make high salaries), and the other 7 work in a regular-cost area and make regular salaries, then the average salary of all 10 graduates should be higher than average. That is, of course, if those 3 graduates are indeed making high salaries to justify their higher expenses. If they do not, then we indeed have a problem, do we not? </p>
<p>So, I’m afraid to have to tell you, oops, you were wrong again.</p>
<p>RML,
Our interactions are odd to me because I like and respect UC Berkeley and have been on the campus dozens of times. I think that it’s a good place and IMO, along with U Virginia and nichy William & Mary, among the best public unis in the USA. Our difference stems from what we think this means. </p>
<p>IMO, UC Berkeley is a good place and value for undergrad, especially for Californians, and truly a major power for many areas of graduate education. But the fact remains that, in the national conversation for undergraduate, it’s hardly a national player for elite students. Same with highly competitive employers looking for staff almost anywhere outside of California. </p>
<p>IYO, UC Berkeley is a colossus and one should accept its graduates as elite, regardless of one’s affiliation with the school. Major LOL to anyone with an understanding/appreciation of USA undergraduate options, of which there are dozens with equal or better students and environments for undergrad. Using UCB’s grad school prominence as you do, I characterize your position as “free-riding” as virtually no one east of Denver gives UCB undergraduates anywhere near the same power/prestige as you (nor do I know of any consequential employers outside of the West who would). That does not translate to UC Berkeley is bad or weak, but rather to the fact that there are a lot of very good undergrad options around the USA. American students/families and employers understand that, even if you do not. </p>
<p>You can claim UC Berkeley is prestigious all you like (and you know that I mostly couldn’t care less about prestige and furthermore am certain that you are wrong on its prestige outside of the West), but the facts of life on the ground for elite American prospective undergrads and for American businesses looking to recruit is that UC Berkeley is a regional school with excellent connections in the nation’s largest state. My conclusion is that that is pretty darn good.</p>
<p>Re the posted stats for UC Berkeley students, may I suggest that we wait til we get the full numbers when the CDS comes out in the fall. These numbers remind me of the differences between admitted/enrolled students and it will be interesting to see how these numbers compare with the official data to come. </p>
<p>If it works out that the higher numbers are accurate, then no one would be more pleased than I as I believe that the quality of one’s peers is an exceptionally important aspect of one’s undergraduate educational environment. </p>
<p>As for other statements on UCB data, a few cautionary comments:
- The SAT data may well be superscored. Comparable ACT data would help substantiate this as we could cross reference the levels. One of the dirty secrets is that many schools that do not superscore for admissions nonetheless report their data in a superscored fashion. Admissions officers will privately concede this although in a public setting will more likely defer the question to their institutional research counterparts.<br>
- The Top 10% data is questionable, including to many others in the collegiate world. More relevant, however, is the fact that the usefulness of this statistic is very low. Using this number as a guide would place 6 UCs in the nation’s Top 10 national universities. Major LOL.<br>
- We don’t have data on any of the transfer students and it’s not reported/included. Given that transfers represent approximately 40% of UC student populations, this creates a huge gap in making judgments on student body strength. Should we assign them all equal strength to those who enter as freshmen? I think not, though I’m not sure how to discount this. </p>
<p>Re criticisms of Notre Dame and its reporting of standardized test data, there are many high ranking colleges that report in this manner, eg, Dartmouth, Amherst, etc. Do you believe that the student bodies of these colleges are materially weaker than what is reported? Personally, I think that the ND/Dartmouth/Amherst method makes the most sense as it only counts each student once.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I said statistics can be deceiving without analyzing where they came from. </p>
<p>I am sure you are aware that a lot of schools in the US dont rank and a lot of the top 10% are approximations. I am sure you also know that there are a lot of elite prep schools in the US where the top 10% is different from a general public school that is not a magnet school. I am also sure you are aware that when a school gives the SAT score range it does not mean much. For example assuming there are two students at berkeley with one at 780 Q and 600 V and the second student has a 780 V and 600 Q, then Berkeley’s full range would be 600-780 Q+V. For such a large public school with its engineering school you would see a lot of variance than in a smaller school like Emory where ther is no engineering program so no one to skew the math ranges. Lots of problems with statistics. I would have expected you to know that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Emory, Vanderbilt, Rice- Southern Schools duh. Very few southern schools are seen as prestigious and I feel this is a big mistake IMO. Southern schools except maybe Duke are continually berated even though they have phenomenal students. Thats another reason why I find it hard to believe Michigan and Berkeley should jump Rice because we dont have a Rice student on CC campaigning for why his school should be in the top 10. </p>
<p>Brown- how many of those hippies want to work for corporate America?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was what I meant when I said RML should check his data. Infact Emory has a lower percentage of people for their SAT scores. Most of these statistics are approximations </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We know lol</p>
<p>Hawkette’s said everything I need to say. At the risk of plagiarism, I would say, there are just too many excellent schools in the US with equivalent student bodies as Berkeley and Michigan apart from of course the engineering program where the students are top top notch. I dont know if engineers are smarter than humanists or people who studied the arts and social sciences so I would stop at this point.</p>
<p>Imo, the universities more prestigious than Berkeley are HYSPM, Cal Tech, Ivies, Duke, University of Chicago, Northwestern, Rice, and Johns Hopkins. I do not include LAC’s because it’s too complicated then.</p>
<p>“Re criticisms of Notre Dame and its reporting of standardized test data, there are many high ranking colleges that report in this manner, eg, Dartmouth, Amherst, etc. Do you believe that the student bodies of these colleges are materially weaker than what is reported? Personally, I think that the ND/Dartmouth/Amherst method makes the most sense as it only counts each student once.”</p>
<p>If you believe that median test scores are the judge of the strength of the student body…then the answer has to be yes…</p>
<p>Apologists for some private school’s manipulation of statistics seem to be abundant here on CC. Good point too dstark.</p>
<p>Re: Post #188: My point is, HYPSM are superior to Berkeley and to all the rest of the schools. And there’s very little point to pit Berkeley against HYPSM for undergrad education </p>
<p>Lots of HYPSM worship here </p>
<p>At least in the case of Harvard, there is certainly much to suggest that it is not necessarily the be-all and end-all for undergrad education.</p>
<p>[The</a> Truth About Harvard - Magazine - The Atlantic](<a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/03/the-truth-about-harvard/3726/]The”>The Truth About Harvard - The Atlantic)</p>
<p>[Student</a> life at Harvard lags peer schools, poll finds - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/03/29/student_life_at_harvard_lags_peer_schools_poll_finds/]Student”>http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/03/29/student_life_at_harvard_lags_peer_schools_poll_finds/)</p>
<p>@ RML</p>
<p>You said, “My point is, HYPSM are superior to Berkeley and to all the rest of the schools. And there’s very little point to pit Berkeley against HYPSM for undergrad education, unless one is bent on becoming an engineer, in which case, Berkeley can compete with Princeton and Yale.”</p>
<p>The point has been made that if one is majoring in engineering, having a bigger name school is not all that important. Also, bigger name schools for humanities and the like are different from engineering. Engineering undergrad rankings (2008 I believe, but rankings have not changed too much) have UCB at #2, tied with Stanford and only second to MIT. Princeton is #12 on the list, and Yale is #37 on the list. I don’t think UCB is competing with them, as much as they are attempting to compete with UCB. </p>
<p>(Note that Yale and especially Princeton are nothing to scoff at in terms of engineering, or anything for that matter, and I am unqualified to be accepted to any of the aforementioned schools.)</p>
<p>I am not a very impressive student compared to a lot of posters on this forum. I believe someone mentioned earlier that engineering is a great choice for a mediocre student, and I could not agree more. I am from PA. I can’t go to Princeton, or Yale, or anywhere like that, but I feel Penn State would give me a great education for what I want to learn, and I do not feel that nearly anyone has enough of an advantage over me for the job market / getting higher pay to claim superiority. </p>
<p>Economics, Linguistics, Philosophy, etc. I am sure those schools are superior. But in engineering… it seems UCB has a pretty big advantage. Oh, and who said engineering majors were dead set on being engineers? I figure that majoring in engineering will leave me (this applies to me, not to others. I am sure majoring in Economics at Harvard will set someone else up much better than my plans could, but I am not exactly getting into Harvard) the most competitive in whatever endeavor I want to pursue after college. My Dad is an engineer, and many people he started out with are now doctors, lawyers, and businesspeople.</p>
<p>Haha, I doubt too many people on this forum would consider the University of Delaware all that prestigious, but come out with a Chem Engineering degree from there, and I don’t think anyone will look down there nose at you with the job prospects you will get.</p>