What is UC Berkeley like? - Please answer(:

[MNTwins]

<p>Ha… this is a fun thread to read, but I’ll take Wisconsin over Berkeley and Michigan anyday. GO BADGERS!</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>^^^Of course you would. If i were instate to Wisky, I’d take it too!</p>

[sakky]

<p>

But sakky, we cannot assume that everyone at Cal would want to go to Yale law school or Harvard med school,

</p>

<p>Nor can we assume that everyone at UVa will want to go to Yale Law School or Harvard med school or anywhere else. </p>

<p>

You have to consider that Cal offers 300 different undergrad programs whilst UVA’s aren’t even 1/3 of that. The right thing to do then is to base it on the number of applicants of those schools.

</p>

<p>Unfortunately, we have no easy way of knowing that figure. Hence, our best proxy is indeed the total number of students at the school. </p>

<p>

Cal is in the West Coast whilst UVA is just within the same region as where Harvard med or Yale law are - East Coast.

</p>

<p>I doubt that that makes much difference, for the fact is, the difference between California and New England is not much different from that of Virginia and New England. Either way, it’s one very long plane ride, or one very long drive. </p>

<p>

I made that statement in response to the comparison between Berkeley and schools OUTSIDE of HYPSM. Of course, HYPSM will attract the best students regardless of the program, because their reputation has transcend above anything in the academic world. HYPSM has the best faculty, students, facilities, connections and opportunities. But what about schools below HYPSM? I think it’s where the program strength will take place.

</p>

<p>But then you have to ask the question of why are HYPSM able to attract the best students regardless of individual program strength, or more relevantly, why can’t Berkeley rise to that level of prominence? Like I said before, faculty eminence seems to have followed rather than originated prestige as in the historical case of Princeton, which was a highly prestigious school decades before it became a prominent research center with top faculty. </p>

<p>

And, about Chicago’s econ. I believe I once read about their yield by someone who posted it on CC last year, and I remember the guy from Chicago econ mentioned that about 47% of their class has been admitted to HYPSM. I couldn’t find the post now. But if that was true, that’s surely a pretty strong case that indeed, program strength matters to some top students.

</p>

<p>That immediately elicits the following questions: (a) how anybody would actually know that 47% figure, but more importantly (b) how does one then account for all of the students who did turn down Chicago for HYPSM, and hence would not be accounted for within that 47% figure.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I prefer both a top researcher and a top teacher. I’m sure you do too. I don’t think these two things are mutually exclusive. We don’t always get this, but this is what I prefer.

</p>

<p>Hey, I’d prefer to be dating both Jessica Alba and Scarlett Johansson at the same time, but those two desires tend to not only be mutually exclusive, but individually exclusive as well, as it is practically impossible to be dating either one. </p>

<p>However, it is a well-established phenomenon that strong teaching and strong research are indeed mutually exclusive at the top research universities, for professors are under strong pressure to publish at the expense of teaching. </p>

<p>Again, from Sowell:</p>

<p>*At a top research university, where the professor knows that “publish or perish” are his career choices, it is unrealistic to expect that most will make teaching their top priority. To some, teaching is purely incidental. *</p>

[sakky]

<p>

But sakky. I’m a computer science grad from a prestigious university in England and I chose it over some ivies because it’s one of the best for computer science institutions in the world, yet I don’t work in the computer/IT industry. But back when I was choosing schools where to take up my course, I was looking at those schools that have a pretty strong comsci program, that’s why I applied to MIT, Berkeley and CMU. I didn’t apply to Stanford because I prefer Berkeley’s comsci and I thought I’m going to get an acceptance from either MIT or Berkeley, which did not happen. So, in short, whilst I am not connected to the industry that I have been trained for, it doesn’t erase the fact that many prospective students or people, myself included, would look at the program strength aside from the overall university strength regardless of which career path they would end up doing after college.

</p>

<p>Given the way that university funding works in the UK, I might have done the same, as almost all British schools charge only a nominal price for British citizens. </p>

<p>Secondly, I think it goes without saying that you should have applied to Stanford, for if you’re not an instate applicant, you can never really know if you’re going to get into Berkeley. </p>

<p>But most importantly of all, we have to be careful not to fall into the solipsistic trap that everybody, or even most people, are like you, and is why it is important to rely on facts. The fact is, Berkeley has a yield of ~40%, which means that a strong majority of Berkeley admittees clearly prefer to go elsewhere. The fact is, Stanford easily outmatches Berkeley in the cross-admit battle despite the rankings of the individual programs being highly comparable between the two. {Stanford wins because of its edge in overall prestige, but that begs the questions of why it holds that edge and why should that edge matter.} I strongly suspect that the majority of Berkeley CS undergrads would prefer to transfer to Stanford if they could, but very few Stanford CS undergrads would want to transfer to Berkeley, even though the program rankings barely differ. {Graduate students are an entirely different story.} </p>

<p>But again, like I said, most incoming undergrads don’t really know what they’re going to major in anyway. That’s the whole point of allowing students years to shop around the various majors. MIT - a predominantly engineering oriented school - nevertheless does not require that students declare their major until the end of the second year. Why provide this privilege at all if most incoming students know exactly what they want to major in?</p>

[sakky]

<p>

This is why I specifically noted the difference between “better” and “academically stronger.” Is Yale a better choice at the undergrad level? Perhaps. Is it academically stronger? Absolutely not.

</p>

<p>

But for pure academic heft, the difference between the top publics and the Ivies is minimal-to-none, and there are many individual departments and programs in which a top public like Berkeley or Michigan will absolutely blow most Ivies out of the water. The mistake a lot of Ivy kids and especially Ivy wannabes make is to conflate pampering, privilege, and difficulty of admission with academic quality. It just ain’t so.

</p>

<p>I actually tend to agree with the sentiment expressed in the above quotes. the difference in academic quality amongst the top schools, whether publics or Ivies, probably is indeed minimal.</p>

<p>But that’s been precisely my point in my latest posts of this thread: the overwhelming majority of undergrads don’t really care about academic quality per se. Why would they? They won’t be pursuing their academic discipline as a professional career anyway. Who cares how strong the academic quality of your political science education was if you’re just going to become a manager at Round Table Pizza or an investment banker at Merrill Lynch as happened to two of Berkeley’s poli-sci grads?</p>

<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/PolSci.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/PolSci.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Like I said before, what matters to most undergrads is that they obtain a decent job, or they gain admission to a professional grad school with which they then leverage towards a decent job. They don’t care about ‘academic quality’ per se, and never will. More mundane and pragmatic considerations are on their mind. Who cares how strong your education in French Literature was if you’re not going to use it?</p>

[dstark]

<p>Sakky, that is Sowell’s opinion. It’s not a fact.</p>

<p>And post #126 is just an opinion. I don’t agree with it. Many students want to go to schools where they will be challenged.</p>

<p>“But that’s been precisely my point in my latest posts of this thread: the overwhelming majority of undergrads don’t really care about academic quality per se.”</p>

<p>I don’t think that is true for students at many schools. I don’t think that is true at Berkeley. It wasn’t when I went there, anecdotes not withstanding. Students were proud of the academic quality. The students I talk to today are proud of the academic quality of the school.</p>

[RML]

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>Take this Berkeley student’s case as an example: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-berkeley/824509-aside-uc-berkeley-3.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-berkeley/824509-aside-uc-berkeley-3.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

CalBear2009</p>

<p>Applied: UCB, UCLA, UCD, UCSB, UCSC, Amherst, Williams, Sarah Lawrence, Bowdoin, Haverford, Bard, Reed, Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown, Columbia, Cornell, San Francisco State, San Jose State</p>

<p>Accepted: UCB, UCLA, UCD, UCSC, Sarah Lawrence, Harvard, Yale, Columbia (School of GS), Cornell (College of ILR), San Francisco State, San Jose State</p>

<p>Rejected: UCSB, Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, Haverford, Bard, Reed, Dartmouth, Brown</p>

<p>Attending: UCB (until Tuesday… then I graduate).</p>

<p>Still wondering about UCSB… W T F?

</p>

<p>

blueducky </p>

<p>why didn’t you go to Harvard?

</p>

<p>

CalBear2009</p>

<p>For my major (British History) it was a toss-up between the two (Harvard - Cal). Harvard has an ensemble cast (Ferguson, Armitage, et al.), but Cal has the Center for British Studies (and Vernon, Laqueur and Shagan). In the end, I was more interested in studying under Vernon. I’m looking at the Ph.D. program at Harvard (as well as Cal), but will take the year off to write my Rhodes (and other) applications. I got the Haas Scholar’s Grant at Cal this year, so I spent all summer in Europe conducting research for my honors thesis… so I didn’t have time to study for the GREs. Interested in Irish history… R.F. Foster teaches at Oxford… also, Joe Lee teaches at NYU, so there are a few other possibilities… Hopefully they pan out.

</p>

<p>See? This is just one of the many students/people who chose school based on program strength or faculty strength. I’m sure there are a lot more other then her. I would turn down Yale for Berkeley computer science in a heartbeat. I’m sure there are a lot of people who are just like me.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Hence, Berkeley has fewer undergrads sent to Harvard Business School than does Virginia on a per-capita basis. Similarly, Berkeley sent 16 undergrads to Yale Law, compared to 10 from UVa, but that’s a ratio of only 1.6:1.

</p>

<p>It is dumb beyond belief to be comparing the number of undergrads that go to Prestigious Grad School X – even if you think you’re “correcting” it by putting it on a per capita basis. The correct calculation is what % of those from Berkeley who APPLIED to Harvard Business School got in compared to what % of those from UVA who APPLIED to HBS. DItto for Yale Law or whatever other program you’re interested in. The actual raw numbers are irrelevant. </p>

<p>The logic of trying to compare an East Coast and a West Coast school by looking at the number of students who get into an East Coast grad program is goofy. A great chunk of the West Coasters are never going to consider an East Coast grad program in the first place.</p>

[RML]

<p>

by: RML</p>

<p>But sakky, we cannot assume that everyone at Cal would want to go to Yale law school or Harvard med school…

</p>

<p>

by Sakky:</p>

<p>Nor can we assume that everyone at UVa will want to go to Yale Law School or Harvard med school or anywhere else.

</p>

<p>That’s why we have to base the numerator on the number of applicants to get a clearer picture of which school sends more students to top professional schools. I remember this topic has been debated several months ago and it appeared that based on the number of applicants, Berkeley would do well against the lower ivies. UVa wasn’t even considered or mentioned. </p>

<p>As for the better feeder school to top professional schools between Berkeley vs UVa, here’s what I can say about that. </p>

<p>There are over 200 undergrad majors at Berkeley [Academic</a> departments & programs - UC Berkeley](<a href=“http://berkeley.edu/academics/dept/b.shtml]Academic”>http://berkeley.edu/academics/dept/b.shtml) whilst there are only 44 at UVa [Degrees</a> & Programs, U.Va.](<a href=“http://www.virginia.edu/virginia/degrees/]Degrees”>http://www.virginia.edu/virginia/degrees/) so it is not right to base the denominator on the total population of the school, because the more diverse the programs are, the more diverse the directions and goals of the student body. For example, Berkeley has Buddhist Studies, Astronomy, Disabilities Studies, all sorts of engineering and other programs I’ve never heard in my life. Why would you expect all these grads to join Harvard Med? These people won’t go into Harvard Med. If I’m an EECS grad, for example, I wouldn’t want to go to Harvard Med. If I wanted to attend Harvard Med, I would not have majored in EECS. I would have majored in premed or biology, but certainly not in EECS. </p>

<p>In addition to that, not all pre-law majors would have the same career goals or interests. Some pre-law majors would want to take up further studies on their major, so they would apply for MS or PhD instead of heading to HBS. Some pre-law would join in the finance/banking industry. Some of them would go into business. Thus, again, it is not right to include them in your statistics because they’ve never wanted to join law school in the first place.</p>

[dstark]

<p>“The logic of trying to compare an East Coast and a West Coast school by looking at the number of students who get into an East Coast grad program is goofy. A great chunk of the West Coasters are never going to consider an East Coast grad program in the first place.”</p>

<p>The East Coast people haven’t figured that out. And they think they are so smart. lol</p>

[RML]

<p>

I doubt that that makes much difference, for the fact is, the difference between California and New England is not much different from that of Virginia and New England. Either way, it’s one very long plane ride, or one very long drive.

</p>

<p>I would really think that it would make a difference. I think we would be seeing more Stanford grads making into Harvard Med or Yale Law than Princeton, if Stanford is in the East Coast and Princeton is in the West Coast. Let’s be realistic. Many students wouldn’t want to travel that long just to attend law school when they can attend law school right on their own backyard especially when they don’t have enough funding for another years of schooling. And, many Berkeley grads aren’t that rich to attend Harvard Med or Yale law. The statistics would show that a sizable proportion of Berkeley students aren’t from the rich families. </p>

<p>

But then you have to ask the question of why are HYPSM able to attract the best students regardless of individual program strength, or more relevantly, why can’t Berkeley rise to that level of prominence?

</p>

<p>Frist of all, HYPSM is HYPSM.</p>

<p>Second, I believe funding has played a major reason why that has happened. If Berkeley’s endowment is as large as HYPSM, I’m sure Berkeley would blow some of them away. But funding has always been a huge problem of Berkeley. As a result, it can’t compete with any of them on issues such as scholarships, facilities, housing and so on. But if Berkeley has money, I’m sure it would steal many type “A” students from enrolling in HYPSM. Like I said, I would rather go to Berkeley than Yale. I wouldn’t mind going to Berkeley even if Princeton offered me a slot. And, if I can study in Berkeley for a FULL RIDE and be staying in a luxurious university housing, the more that I would not be thinking twice for not enrolling in Berkeley comsci.</p>

[RML]

<p>

But that’s been precisely my point in my latest posts of this thread: the overwhelming majority of undergrads don’t really care about academic quality per se. Why would they? **They won’t be pursuing their academic discipline as a professional career anyway. **Who cares how strong the academic quality of your political science education was if you’re just going to become a manager at Round Table Pizza or an investment banker at Merrill Lynch as happened to two of Berkeley’s poli-sci grads?

</p>

<p>Sakky, so what do you propose should a chemistry major, for example, be studying in college? </p>

<p>The students wouldn’t know for sure where they’re going to end up after leaving university. All they can do is dream, and work for that dream. If they knew all along what they would end up after college, perhaps they wouldn’t even spend so much on reviewing and studying their lessons anymore. </p>

<p>Some students don’t know what they would want to become or what they would do for their career. But many students do. </p>

<p>Many students usually have goals. To be honest, I cannot imagine someone will graduate at the top 10% of his HS without a thought about what he wants in his life. I’m sure every HS grad must have heard of any career. That’s why people study aeronautics to become a pilot, or dentistry to become a dentist, architecture to become an architect, premed to go to med school, prelaw to go to law school, and so on. </p>

<p>If those students shift majors later on because they found out that they’re not academically fit for their originally-chosen programs, or they later realized that they don’t like the program they’re taking, etc., it shouldn’t mean that they would shift into a mediocre program and be taught by a so-so faculty. I think this is what you are trying to say here. Just because some students shift courses… all schools should not improve their departments. I think you failed to realize that at one way or the other, these students would still end up doing a major. So, it’s not right to **propose<a href=“because%20that’s%20what%20you’re%20doing%20now”>/b</a> that just because some students shift majors, those students should be attending on a so-so program.</p>

[interestingguy]

<p>It is dumb beyond belief to be saying something is: “dumb beyond belief.”</p>

[interestingguy]

<p>

Quote:
Originally Posted by RML
Second, I beg to differ that selectivity is the main driving force for school prestige. There are thousands upon thousands of very selective university all over the world. Do you think selectivity is conclusive to HYPSM? No. Peking U is quite selective. Tokyo U is quite selective. Those Indian schools are extremely selective. Heck, there are even quite selective schools in Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh or South Africa. But do they ever come close to HYPSM in prestige? No. Therefore, your assumption that SELECTIVITY is the main driving force for school prestige is INconclusive. </p>

<p>Your American-centric view of the world is extremely insulting to those of us who are more global-minded. An IIT or Peking U degree will be a lot more revered in Asia than a Yale or a Princeton degree. This is a FACT. As far as the top British universities like Oxford and Cambridge, ONLY Harvard would be considered to be even on par with regards to American universities.

</p>

<p>RML is an international student who studied at Cambridge.</p>

<p>I grew up abroad and the general consensus there is that HYPSM have surpassed Oxbridge in both prestige and selectivity. And I have actually visited Beijing University. Many of the students I met there wish to apply to HYPSM for grad school, or at least HSM. </p>

<p>Not surprisingly, very few people from my country have ever heard of Duke.</p>

[RML]

<p>^ you have no knowledge of what you are talking about. lol</p>

[interestingguy]

<p>

HYPSM are not the top schools in each field, as one would expect if they were truly a cut above. Taking the schools you mention as examples, why choose HYPSM over Duke for BME, marine biology, anthropology, public policy, or environmental science?

</p>

<p>Let’s just say, hypothetically speaking (or not), that I am smarter, better looking and happier than you, but you happen to be taller than me. Am I still not truly a cut above you?</p>

<p>More to the point: except for public policy and (possibly) anthropology, the remaining majors you name are niche specialties. They are not the sort of academic disciplines upon which the reputation of universities rest.</p>

<p>As for public policy, Duke is definitely NOT stronger than Harvard (JFK school) or Princeton (Woodrow Wilson school). And Yale’s and Stanford’s public policy programs which are tied to top 3 law schools are just as good, if not better. Granted, MIT’s policy program is narrowly focused and tied to technology, but that doesn’t necessarily speak to its quality.</p>

<p>While it’s true that Duke is known for its BME, it is very weak in the broader category (mechanical engineering) under which BME falls. Not to mention that it’s unfair to compare BME programs since some HYPSM schools don’t offer it (Princeton) and others offer it under a different name: biomechanical vs. biomedical engineering (Stanford).</p>

[interestingguy]

<p>

^ you have no knowledge of what you are talking about. lol

</p>

<p>I am speaking from my own experience. How can I have “no knowledge” of my own experience?</p>

<p>Maybe I was wrong about your personal history?</p>

[interestingguy]

<p>

Quote:
Care to name any Michigan alumni currently in the NBA? </p>

<p>Jamal Crawford
Juwan Howard (I can’t believe he’s still playing!)

</p>

<p>I meant this as a rhetorical question. (Maybe I should have labeled it as such for everyone’s benefit?) </p>

<p>My point is that the rare defection to the NBA does not account for the 38% graduation rate of Michigan basketball players.</p>

<p>But I am glad you brought up these two high profile Michigan athletes. Here are some interesting tidbits about them:</p>

<p>“Crawford attended the University of Michigan, where he was given a six-game suspension by the NCAA for violating rules on amateurism and extra benefits received by Seattle businessman Barry Henthorn.”</p>

<p>[Jamal</a> Crawford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Crawford]Jamal”>Jamal Crawford - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>“Although the Fab Five final four appearance have been forfeited,[3] [Howard] was not among the players called before the grand jury (Robert Traylor, Webber, Rose, Maurice Taylor, and Louis Bullock)[4] in the University of Michigan basketball scandal and was not found to have received large amounts of money.”</p>

<p>[Juwan</a> Howard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juwan_Howard]Juwan”>Juwan Howard - Wikipedia)</p>

[interestingguy]

<p>

Quote:
As for admissions, did it ever occur to you that Michigan enrolls a whopping average of 21 scholarship football players and 3 basketball players per entering class? There are also scholarship athletes in other sports, but most of them have stats pretty much in line with the rest of the student body. That’s out of an entering class of something like 6,300. Pretty trivial </p>

<p>I believe the issue is that while there may be only a handful of scholarship football and men’s basketball players admitted every year, they are arguably the most visible of any of Michigan’s (or Cal’s) students. Let’s face it. No other student appears on TV every autumn Saturday as the football players do. No other student has a chance, if they’re stars, to be offered contracts worth 7 figures from just the signing bonus alone without even having to graduate at all. Even a guy who earned a 4.0 in EECS from Berkeley would not be paid even a miniscule fraction of what Marshawn Lynch earned in his first year in the ‘workforce’ without having even bothered to finish his degree. </p>

<p>The point is, whether we like it or not, the athletes are high profile representatives of the school. Schools should therefore rightfully cognizant of what sort of image it wants to present.

</p>

<p>Exactly. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, the high profile representative you named, Marshawn Lynch, does not project a very wholesome or positive image for Cal:</p>

<p>“On January 25, 2007, Lynch was accused of sexual assault by his former girlfriend.”</p>

<p>“During June 2008, Lynch was investigated for his involvement in a hit and run accident that occurred in Buffalo on May 31, 2008. His 2008 Porsche Cayenne struck and injured a female pedestrian before leaving the scene.”</p>

<p>“Three days after his 2009 Pro Bowl appearance, Lynch was arrested on February 11 in Culver City, California. Lynch and two companions were sitting in a running 2006 Mercedes-Benz when police approached; after smelling marijuana, the police searched the car and discovered a loaded gun that was determined to belong to Lynch.”</p>

<p>[Marshawn</a> Lynch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshawn_Lynch]Marshawn”>Marshawn Lynch - Wikipedia)</p>