<p>Good graduate program is not equal to good undergraduate program.
Check UCB applicants applied medical school accepatance rate is roughly at 58 %. Law school applicants accepted by elite law school was even less than 1%. Compared to HYP > 90% to medical school application. Over 20% to elite Law school ( Top 5). I don't think anybody can say UCB is top 20 for
undergraduate. For all Ivies and schools like (Duke, Std, Uchi, JHU), the application rate for Med school are all over 85%.</p>
<p>Oh, that's a great way to rank schools. Man, as an english major I guess the quality of my education must suck because some people I've never taken a class with aren't getting into Harvard Med. School. C'mon you can think of a more arbitrary way to rank schools, can't you. Hey how about ranking them by the number of left-handed students. I heard HYP has only 6% lefties. We both know thats a horrible perctage. Or better yet, maybe we could rank them by how many schools have graduates who still post on college websites when they're middle aged.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, that were numbers and that is truth too.
I have a son and I sent him to HYP in stead of UCB, because from statistic
point of view I know he is going to have a better furture over there.</p>
<p>That's truly impressive, I was unaware that one student could attend Harvard, Yale and Princeton all that the same time. Bravo on his part, I'm sure his furture will be rosy!</p>
<p>LOL...maybe he went to Princeton, then transferred to Yale, then to Harvard. It would be hilarious if someone actually did that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I fully agree with what you say about the quality of students helping or hurting your education, but you skirted the issue. I want to know how 100 points on the SATs (where Cal only takes best sitting and most of the schools you named take best combined) can be the reason that Cal goes from being a top 10 to being a possible top 20 school? Compare Cal's GPA to HYPS and tell me where the big difference is. I only see that Cal's SATs are lower, so unless you can clear this up for me I'll assume that the lower SATs are what make Cal students considerably lower than the others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, this notion of the SAT scores causing the difference is something that I have discussed many times before, most infamously with california1600/rayray_222/westside(e). In essence, I agree that Cal's reported SAT scores are lower than they would be if reported the way other schools report them, but a 100 point difference? I find that dubious. I agree that some adjustment is necessary, but not a 100 point adjustment.</p>
<p>Furthermore, you also forget the other factor that makes the comparativity of SAT scores difficult - which is that Berkeley has a far larger percentage of transfer students than do almost all top private schools. And the fact is, transfer students do not need to take the SAT, or any other test. I think we can agree that if the transfer students were forced to take the SAT, and those scores were reported, that would strongly affect Berkeley's "true" SAT median. Transfer students represent nearly 1/3 of the entire pool of new students that Berkeley brings in every year. </p>
<p><a href="http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/transfer.asp%5B/url%5D">http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/transfer.asp</a>
<a href="http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp%5B/url%5D">http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp</a></p>
<p>The following simple thought exercise should serve to convince you that transfer students, on the aggregate, probably have a lower SAT score than do the freshman-admits. If you're a high school student and you bust out with some awesome test scores, that might be good enough to get you into a UC, possibly Berkeley, even if your grades aren't that spectacular (as long as they don't suck). On the other hand, if you get weak test scores, you might be stuck going to a CalState or a community college instead of a UC. Yet if you do decently there, you might apply through the UCtransfer for which it doesn't matter that you had low test scores, and then you might get in. The point is that the freshman-admit pool probably has a higher average SAT score than does the transfer-admit pool, for no other reason, than because the freshman-admit pool will include those guys who busted out with top-notch test scores, whereas relatively few transfer-admits will have top-notch test scores (after all, if you had top-notch test scores, then you probably would never have gone to a CalState or a CC in the first place). </p>
<p>Now of course, I recognize that there are a few people who end up at CC's despite having great test scores or whatever. However, my point is to look at the aggregate data. Let's face it. The bulk of people who go to a CC do so because, quite honestly, their high school academic record, including their test scores, were, for whatever reason, not good enough to get them into a top-notch college. I hope that nobody finds that to be a controversial point, because I think we all know that it's true. I commend the transfer-admits for compiling a college academic record that was good enough to get them to transfer in, but the fact remains that if we were to include their test scores in the overall Berkeley data, it seems likely that Berkeley's SAT median score would decline. The same is true of all other schools who admit transfer students without regard to their test scores, including the elite privates, but the point is that transfer students comprise a far smaller percentage of the student bodies at the elite privates than at Berkeley.</p>
<p>And furthermore, as I'm sure you would agree, not all admissions decisions are based on numbers. The fact is, if you graduate #1 in your class with straight A's in honors coursework, with perfect test scores, and so forth, and you're a California state resident (as most Berkeley students are), then you are far more assured of getting into Berkeley than getting into HYPSMC. While UC admissions do use the new Comprehensive Review, the fact is, once your numbers are above a certain level, you're basically assured of admission. Not so at the top private schools - there is no numerical plateau that 'assures' you of admission. You can have the best numbers in the world and STILL not get into Harvard. Your Harvard admission still rides on the quality of your EC's, your essays, your rec's, your interview, and so forth. Don't do well there, and you're probably not going to get in. The same could be said for the other top private schools. </p>
<p>But again, I return back to my original point, which is that if Berkeley wants to run an undergraduate program that is equivalent to that of the top private schools like HYPSMC, then one thing Berkeley needs to do is be as selective as HYPSMC. That's precisely what Berkeley does in its PhD programs. I would argue that it is equivalently difficult to get into a Berkeley PhD program as it is to get into a PhD program at the top private schools, and in certain PhD programs (like the Berkeley Chemistry PhD program), it is arguably more difficult. So if it's OK for the PhD programs to do that, why can't the undergraduate program do it too?</p>
<p>
[quote]
For all Ivies and schools like (Duke, Std, Uchi, JHU), the application rate for Med school are all over 85%
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is not true. I know for a fact that Cornell's is 77%.</p>
<p>Also, while I can't remember the exact numbers, I don't believe that the premed placement rates at Dartmouth, Chicago, Penn, or Columbia are 85%+. Maybe one or two of them are, but I don't believe all 4 are. Heck, even at MIT, the rate is only 77%.</p>
<p>Sakky, again I agree with the majority of your post. We can't positively assume anything about transfers because, like you said, their sats are not required, but I don't think it would be too big of a leap to assume that thier scores were less than stellar. But I think you're missing a key point here, which is that there is a distinction between looking good on paper (sat scores) and being a good student. I have no problem with transfers because they have proven that they know how to work hard and get good grades in an arena outside of your standard high school work. I can't speak for the difficulty of CCCs, and they probably fluctuate from school to school, but to earn a 3.8 gpa (the average for transfers) proves that you've worked hard and have taken your classes seriously. For me, the sat is suposed to give an indicator of how one will do in college, so I really don't see why transfers need sats, as they've allready shown evidence of how they would do in college. The real issue, for me at least, isn't in the numbers, but the actual student that you'll be around. Someone could get a 1550 on their sats but could be come a party animal drunk in college that doesn't contribute anything to a lecture. So would you rather have a transfer who has proven that he has what it takes to be serious and do well, or the prospect of someone who SHOULD do well but hasn't proven anything. But alas, that is not the greater issue here. The real issue (for you) is the caliber of students, and I think that the caliber of students here is roughly the same as the caliber of students at any other top school, and yes I'm includeing HYP. Those kids have slightly higher test scores and maybe a few more ecs, but nothing too tangible that one couldn't be replaced by another. I have friends at those schools that are no "better" than me, but things worked out the way they did and they're where they are and I'm where I am. I'm willing to bet that if someone put me in Harvard tomorrow I'd to just as well or better there than I'm doing here...but anyway, you catch my drift and you can either agree with it or not, but I stand by it.</p>
<p>Sakky, where you and I differ is on two points:</p>
<p>1) LACs and Research universities are too different to compare. Both provide excellent opportunities, but they vary too much to compare.</p>
<p>2) I do not believe one can identify and single out 10 universities that belong in the top 10. There are roughly 17 or 18 such universities, Cal being one of them. </p>
<p>If you rate universities by the support system provided by the university, none of the research universities do well, and Cal is in that bracket, but so are MIT and Harvard. Oh the horror stories I have heard from Harvard and MIT students about the lack of administrative support and bureaucratic chaos. </p>
<p>If you rate universities according to the quality of the student body, then I agree with you, Cal is indeed not one of the top 10, although it is top 20. </p>
<p>But what if you decide to rate universities according to curriculum, course sellection, and Junior and Senior year high level-academic exposure? Cal would probably be one of the top 3 or 4 universities in the country. </p>
<p>Overall, Cal is one of the few universities that can make a legitimate claim at being a top 10 undergraduate institution.</p>
<p>I could agree in theory that it might be better in terms of enhancing the overall quality of the student body to bring in hard-working transfer students, even if those transfer students are not necessarily inherently superbright. </p>
<p>However, the theory breaks down in 3 practical respects</p>
<h1>1 - Honestly, it's really not that hard to get a 3.8 in a CC. I say that not to be mean-spirited, but to make what I believe is an indisputable observation that CC grading is far far easier than Berkeley grading.</h1>
<p>I'll put it another way. I happen to know quite a few people who flunked out of Berkeley. After expulsion, they were advised that, perhaps, they could work their way towards becoming readmitted, provided they do certain things, one of which was to do well at a CC, then later doing well at so-called Berkeley "Concurrent" Students (where you take Berkeley classes, but as a non-degree student). Do well enough, and maybe they would be let back in. These students had absolutely no problem in completing the first step - whipping out straight A's and A+'s in practically every CC class they took. But then when it came to the Berkeley Concurrent classes, once again, they started getting the same bad grades that got them thrown out of Berkeley in the first place. </p>
<p>Now you might say that maybe that's just anecdotal, and certainly not all transfer students get thrown out, and some obviously do extremely well. However, I think that illustrates quite vividly the difference in grading standards. Hence, a 3.8 at a CC is, to me, not a particularly strong mark of quality. True, it's a lot better than getting bad grades at a CC, but it still doesn't by itself prove that you are ready to take on the challenges of Berkeley. Again, those guys got top grades at CC, then tried to take real Berkeley classes, and their grades fell off the cliff (again).</p>
<h1>2 - A strong social component exists to whether you choose to be a motivated student or not. Modern economists and sociologists would call this "social capital". The fact is, human beings are social creatures and tend to copy what they see around them. When you see people around you studying and working hard, then you will tend to want to study and work hard. On the other hand, when you see people who are partying and drinking all day long, and never doing any coursework, then you will tend to want to do that too. No person is an island. We are all influenced by our surrounding social pressures. That's precisely what happened to those guys I know. They went to CC's near their home, so living at home, they were subjected to their family pressures to study. But when they came back to Berkeley, once again, they fell into that social trap of partying and drinking and lounging around all day - that same trap that got them thrown out in the first place.</h1>
<p>I bring that point up because I'm sure it didn't happen to just them. I'm fairly sure that other transfer students complete their CC work at home, transfer to Berkeley, see those students who party and lounge around all day long and decide that they want to do that too. It's very hard for me to believe that the only people who do this are those guys that I know. I don't know THAT many people, so if I happen to personally know a bunch who behave this way, I have to believe that there are many more that I don't know about. </p>
<h1>3 - So you may ask, if these guys end up being bad students at Berkeley, why wouldn't they have been bad students at the CC? Well, that leads to my last point, which is Berkeley caters to a certain type of personality, but not others. The fact is, the education at Berkeley caters to the intellectually strong, confident, aggressive and well-prepared student. If you happen to be such a student, then I agree that you can get a fantastic undergraduate education at Berkeley.</h1>
<p>Yet the fact is, not everybody's like that. Not every student has that sort of personality or maturity. In particular, those guys I mentioned don't. Whatever else you might say about the CC's, at least the classes are relatively small and rarely will you feel that you are being condescended to. Not so at Berkeley. I vividly remember one guy (who eventually flunked out) who said that every time he tried to get office-hours help from a prof or TA, they refused to provide any useful help, the reasoning being that he was clearly so unprepared that he was beyond their help. Instead, they berate him for his poor preparedness and tell him to drop the class. Now it was true that he was not well prepared and was behind in the class, but that's precisely why he was looking for help. So here's a guy who is looking for help, but instead of actually giving him help, they just spend time telling him how far behind he is, but that's something he already knew, and that's why he was seeking help in the first place! It is precisely this kind of attitude among the faculty that serves to discourage students. The strong students get a good education, whereas the weaker students get thrown to the dogs. </p>
<p>Now, you might say that on the whole, it may be good that Berkeley adopts such a Darwinistic attitude. However, I would argue that if you really believe that you should not serve those weaker students because they don't have the kind of personality that is worthy of Berkeley's pedagogical attention, then fine. Don't admit them. A student who comes to Berkeley and is flunked out is worse off than a student who was never admitted in the first place. I believe that if you're going to admit a student, you should try to take care of them. If you're not going to take care of them, then don't admit them. </p>
<p>Again, I would point to the Berkeley graduate programs and remark that you don't see a large percentage of Berkeley graduate students flunking out. By and large, the Berkeley graduate schools admit students who can actually handle the program at all 3 levels - intellectual, psychological, and sociological. They don't do it by just handing out "easy" degrees, for I think we can all agree that the Berkeley graduate programs are extremely rigorous. They do it by admitting only those students for which they can truly support. </p>
<p>Now to Alexandre. I would agree that MIT and Harvard aren't exactly perfect when it comes to support either. However, the bottom line, to me, is that they graduate a far higher percentage of its undergrads than does Berkeley. Even MIT graduates a higher percentage of its students than does Berkeley, and yet nobody will ever accuse MIT of being an easy school. So yes, we can say that Harvard and MIT have bureaucratic problems, but at the end of the day, they're obviously doing something that is better than what Berkeley is doing. I personally think it's a combination of factors - Harvard and MIT admit a higher average quality student, and Harvard and MIT, while not perfect, support their students better than does Berkeley. But it doesn't really matter what it is. For whatever reason, Berkeley's graduation rate is not as high as it should be.</p>
<p>The real point, again, is not to bash Berkeley. I maintain that a top 20 ranking is not bad. But Berkeley could be better. As it stands, I believe that, overall, Berkeley undergrad is a top 20 school , but probably not a top 10 school. Berkeley grad, on the other hand, especially PhD, takes a backseat to no-one.</p>
<p>Sakky, Cal graduates 85% of its students. Harvard graduates 95% and MIT graduates 90%. I don't see a huge difference. It's not like Harvard and MIT graduate 100% of their students and Cal graduates 60% or 70%. The primary difference is that Cal has a slightly weaker student body, and a slightly larger number drop out because they cannot cope. I do not think it has anything to do with bureaucratic red tape. At any rate, I agree that Cal is not quite as good as Harvard or MIT at the undergraduate level, but to compare it to Vanderbuilt or Emory is also wrong. I would say Cal is on par with the likes of Cornell, Chicago, Penn and Johns Hopkins at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>lol GentlementandScholar - agreed with the med school percentage thing</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
By and large, a top graduate program will automatically mean a top undergraduate program. The curriculum is almost identical, only slightly less in-depth and the professors and environment are usually the same.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>LOL, at UCBerkeley, this is definitely not the case, you ask the undergrad chem majors at UCBerkeley how impersonal and crowded their undergraduate experience was. I would rather go to Stanford, CalTech, or even University of Pacific.</p>
<p>Lol, ha ha, hardy har har, ask an undergrad at stanford or harvard how impersonal their undergrad experience was. I've gotta let you in on a little secret...LOWER DIVISION CLASSES AT ANY RESEARCH UNIVERSITY ARE GOING TO BE IMPERSONAL. Now, considering that you're only a highschool student I'll excuse the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, but please do some research before you start applying to schools, because I wouldn't want to see you heartbroken when you enter your firt class at HYMS and find 300 other kids and a prof. that doesn't even WANT to know your name and would rather be doing research. If you want small, personal classes then go to Pomona or some other LAC, cause you're not going to get it at a big research institution.</p>
<p>next year at Duke (a top research University) my classes would have anywhere from 250+ people (first year class) to 15 (seminar)</p>
<p>I'm sure it varies between classes and school, but there are big impersonal classes wherever you go</p>
<p>The largest class I am going to have is filled with 35 of us.</p>
<p>Checkmate. :)</p>
<p>wow dude thats awesome</p>
<p>I just realized that there are three lecture groups, so its about 80 people per, still pretty big (bigger than HS atleast)</p>
<p>I grew up at Stanford, I'd think I'd know a lot more about it than you. Have you even sat in a Stanford lecture hall? I've have since I was seven, I was there when Condoleezza Rice was provost, if you can remember that.</p>
<p>I don't have to ask a student, I have myself, my father, my mother, my oldest sister, and Dr. Charles Olgetree, previous professor at Stanford, U of Michigan, and now Harvard Law.</p>
<p>I've sat in UCBerkeley's since my grand father was previously a chem professor there and my mom was in grad school. I can tell you that 200 is a lot different than 500 students.</p>
<p>When you grow up on a college campus, you grow too fast, so I know a lot more than you think I may know. And weren't you the one cheering I hate UCBerkeley?</p>
<p>Also, I think that's a preassumption that all first year experiences at a national university will be the same, I know that Dartmouth and UCBerkeley are not going to be nearly the same, neither will WakeForest and University of Michigan, or CalTech and Purdue. Even UVA vs. UCBerkeley is different w/ UVA's first year program.</p>
<p>Cre8tive, you paint a very different picture of Stanford than my friends who studied there. They all talked about the frequent freshman/Sophomore lecture with 100+ students, broken down into smaller, TA led discussion groups. Sounds like most other research universities to me. I agree that Caltech and Purdue cannot be compared, but comparing Michigan to Wake is a joke, Michigan is generally considered much better. Wake's Peer Assessment score = 3.4, Michigan peer assessment score = 4.5. Compare Michigan to Chicago or Cornell or Penn, but not to Wake.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I said they wont be the same in contrary to the idea that the first year experience will be the same. Wake Forest to Michigan is probably the wideset gap I can think of at this time.</p>
<p>What picture of Stanford did I paint...my one note is that a subdivided class of 120 the same as 350-500 person lecture. And I don't think it unreasonable to believethat you'll get a better first year experience at Stanford than UCBerkeley, I do think its cowardly to believe that all research universities are the same when they range from under 1,000 up 30and 40,000.</p>