Which do you think is better between Rice and CAL-Berkeley?

College Search & Selection
41

<p>
[quote]
FYI, I stand behind everyone of the comments I posted about Berkeley ... everyone of them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
it has become almost impossible to graduate in four years [from Berkeley]

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Over half of the student body graduates in four years or fewer at about 54%. Many students graduate in three years. Many (but not all) who stay more than for years stay longer choose to for whatever reason.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It may be hard for the Berkeley pompom crowd to understand that students who have a choice of schools see Berkeley through very different eyes, including considering the school one they would never attend as an undergraduate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>About 40% of admitted students enroll. I’m sure many of those rejected would choose to enroll if given the chance as well.</p>

<p>These are two easy ones. I thought the burden of proof was on the person making the claims, not the opposition?</p>

<p>How is the students body hopelessly different from the rest of the country? Are you both familiar enough with the student body at Berkeley to judge it and familiar enough with the rest of the country to judge it? In what ways are the students so special here, and are you looking hard enough elswhere to find similar students?</p>

42

<p>By "for" I meant "four" in "Many students graduate in three years. Many (but not all) who stay more than for years stay longer choose to for whatever reason."</p>

43

<p>I would add something else to DRab's comment about 54% graduating in 4 years or less. I have known over a dozen Cal students. Only a third or so took longer than 4 years to graduate. In all cases, they CHOSE to take longer to graduate. They wanted to take more classes and they were having too much of a good time to graduate. They decided to take an extra year to get a double major or to take a slightly lower course load or whatever. In their case, they were attending Cal at a highly discounted rate anyway, so they did not care.</p>

44

<p>To answer the original question, I'd say that you cannot go wrong with Cal or Rice, if academics is what you care about. However, if you want a good overall fit, those schools are so different, it would be wise to visit both campuses and determine on your own which one suits you better.</p>

45

<p>Xiggi notes,"There are two standards for slander: the information has to be false, and there ought to be a malicious intent."</p>

<p>Response: For the record Xiggi, there is one more aspect of slander: it is an oral statement unlike that of libel,which is in writing. Thus, any malicious, false statements made here against an individual could be libelous, although I don't see how one can libel a made up name in a forum.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
Excuse me. This is NOT at all true especially if the applicant wants to pursue his/her career in the Far East. The general prestige of Berkeley anywhere in Asia is about the same as Harvard's, and that means it's even in a small bit more popular and more prestigious than Stanford and MIT both by the ordinary guys walking in the streets and by the intellectural elite circles (HRDs of top corporation, University Professors, etc.). Again, just a bit. Rice is a fine school but it's not well-known in Asia. That alone is a serious thing that needs to be considered.

[/quote]
And none of that has the least bit to do with being well known in academic circles, i.e. grad schools.</p>

47

<p>Xiggi,</p>

<p>Come come now, why are you trying to complicate things, knowing fully well that your simple apology will get you out of this mess. Btw, that was not a “request”!!!</p>

<p>I was trying to help you out before ***** hits the fan…. do realize this is the one of those moments when you can save your face by cutting out your nose!!!</p>

<p>Think, Xiggi, think!!!</p>

48

<p>"Come come now, why are you trying to complicate things, knowing fully well that your simple apology will get you out of this mess. I was trying to help you out before ***** hits the fan…. do realize this is the one of those moments when you can save your face by cutting out your nose!!!"</p>

<p>Get out of this mess? Save my face? ROFL! </p>

<p>I am not used to apologize for positions in which I truly believe. While my opinion about Berkeley will not change, I'm not sure why this matters to you. The fact that the entire planet is not bowing in mindless adoration to the greatness of Berkeley should not stop you from loving the "institution."</p>

49

<p>xiggi,</p>

<p>I think you're missing the point to some extent.</p>

<p>A university, for many many people, is a very important aspect of their lives and self-image. Just look at this site and how many people gauge part of their worth on their acceptance letters.</p>

<p>Attacking a school is almost like attacking a nation or religion. It's a ding on character. People feel like you are, in turn, attacking THEM personally. For the Cal posters, your rather broad and at times harsh statements about Cal are not only flogging something they care very dearly about...they're flogging their own personal egos.</p>

<p>Now, I'm sure you'll respond with, "Why should they care? I'm just some dude on the intarwebs. Stop being such babies!" And yes, in part that is true. But this isn't about logic, per se. It's about emotions, love for something, and egos.</p>

50

<p>UclAri, I'll take that into consideration, but why being such a zealot? </p>

<p>And should my original comments, which were confined to:
[quote]

"If the undergraduate education matters, one schools does indeed shine, and it is not the school where it has become almost imposssible to graduate in four years, where the named professors are omnipresent but do not consider teaching undergraduate a great part of the job, where getting in the right classes is a constant ordeal, where housing is pathetically dismal, where the student body is hopelessly different from the rest of the country, where the imminent budget crush will be both unavoidable and hard felt."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>REALLY cause such an uproar? </p>

<p>Isn't it strange that one can ask "What do you know about Berkeley" but find little reason not refrain to declare Berkeley BETTER than Rice. Does the person knows both Berkeley and Rice? And in the same vein, do the COUNTLESS and REPETITIVE posts extolling the virtues of Berkeley written by poster who know the schools they consider LOWER than their own? </p>

<p>For the record, contrary to the popular belief in this thread, I do not make a habit of criticizing schools. I do, however, resent the fanatical zeal to put a few schools on a pedestal, and especially one theyr hardly deserve. I decry the hypocrisy of Reed regarding the USNews rankings, I decried the obvious lack of standards of Middlebury in reporting their data, and as you said I have often criticizing the UC system's admission policies which have created a student body that has grown so skewed it bears NO resemblance to the local nor national population distribution, and have found no way to correct what I consider egregious mismanagement by clueless apes. And yes, I do consider the current UC system chosen system of admissions an abject failure ... but that is ONLY an opinion. Others have the unalienable right to have a different opinion on this subject, and declare the schools as great as they wish. The result of MY opinion is that I would never have considered applying to a school such as Berkeley--even if was free--as it would represent the absolute worst fit to MY expectations. </p>

<p>So what if my negativism is a bit exaggerated; it still pales in comparison to the blind cheerleading a few schools such as Michigan and Berkeley generate on this board. At times it seems that the slightest criticism is branded as heresy by the Berkeley bona fide descendents of the Spanish Inquisitor General.</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
And none of that has the least bit to do with being well known in academic circles, i.e. grad schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A place where both schols lack? You might want to differentiate between "well known" and "well respected," and both schools do well here.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Isn't it strange that one can ask "What do you know about Berkeley" but find little reason not refrain to declare Berkeley BETTER than Rice. Does the person knows both Berkeley and Rice? And in the same vein, do the COUNTLESS and REPETITIVE posts extolling the virtues of Berkeley written by poster who know the schools they consider LOWER than their own?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My responding to your false criticisms and disagreeing with other criticisms (or the to the extent which you portray them) equates to extolling the virtues of Berkeley? I think you're as able to recognize the Berkeley student body as a school cheerleader on cc. It sounds like you're complaining about the values people hold- that's fine. However, it doesn't make sense to give out false information which misleads people, and you now very well known that at least two of your original claims (that you still stand by) are off.</p>

<p>
[quote]
a bit exaggerated;

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Does this mean often distant from or merely related to the truth? Misleadingly false? In some cases, malicious and unhelpful?</p>

<p>xiggi, it is your opinion that students find it impossible to graduate in four years from Berkeley, but that's not reality, as over half the students do. It is your opinion that nobody wants to attend Berkeley, but about 40% of those admitted end up attending, and I imagine many of those rejected would attend if given the chance. After reading your posts, it's very ironic that you claim to dislike zealousness so much.</p>

52

<p>xiggi,</p>

<p>I'm being a zealot? Wait a sec. How is me explaining the thinking of others overzealous?</p>

<p>
[quote]
So what if my negativism is a bit exaggerated; it still pales in comparison to the blind cheerleading a few schools such as Michigan and Berkeley generate on this board. At times it seems that the slightest criticism is branded as heresy by the Berkeley bona fide descendents of the Spanish Inquisitor General.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>xiggi, you are missing the point very very much. By a huge mark. Nobody's saying that you should be censored. They're disagreeing with you, and quite passionately. Just as much as you're entitled to your opinion, everyone else is entitled to tell you whether they agree or disagree. The road goes both ways, mate.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have often criticizing the UC system's admission policies which have created a student body that has grown so skewed it bears NO resemblance to the local nor national population distribution

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, they do have lots of Asians. But I don't see otherwise why they're so terribly mismanaged as you suggest. Unless you're going on the "publics should be rigidly populated by quotas" line. In which case I have to disagree quite vehemently (and be a zealot, in your eyes, I suppose.)</p>

53

<p>Although both schools have their advantages, Rice has an academically superior student body on paper than Berkeley. Now, Berkeley is a fine institution and I'm sure the University has students that turned down schools like Harvard or Yale. However, if you pick a random kid from Berkeley and a random kid from Rice, chances are the kid from Rice is going to have a higher SAT score and a higher class rank from high school. Now does having a smarter student body make Rice a better institution? Not really. But it does indicate that smart students are attracted to <something> about Rice.</something></p>

54

<p>
[quote]
xiggi, you are missing the point very very much. By a huge mark. Nobody's saying that you should be censored. They're disagreeing with you, and quite passionately. Just as much as you're entitled to your opinion, everyone else is entitled to tell you whether they agree or disagree. The road goes both ways, mate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have ZERO problems with people disagreeing and having strong divergent opinions. I do, however, draw the line when posters cannot make a point without reverting to "ad hominem" attacks, introducing gratuitous claims of slander, or thinking someone "owes" an apology! Examples? </p>

<p>Post 16. "But I come to you to give you a warning"
Post 18. "please stop using so much hyperbole"
Post 18 "you're not too up to date on the current state of Berkeley and funding"
Post 23. "Did you get rejected or something? Or maybe your kid (I thought you were older- but I also thought you were somewhat mature than you're currently acting)."
Post 25. "I wonder which mountain did you grow up?"
Post 38. "Are you just ranting because you had a bad day or something (have your wife given you hard times recently, have you experienced multiple occasions of e.d.?)"
Post 38. "You owe Berks an apology!!!"</p>

<p>I did not miss the point by a wide margin. As I said, Berkely die hard fans simply cannot accept the existence of criticisms without calling it them false statements, or moving the marks such as considering a 50% four year graduation remotely commendable or showing a glaring inability to understand the simplest of statements.</p>

55

<p>xiggi, a lot of us just go to Berkeley- we're not that bright, y'know? Could you explain what you mean in simpler statements? How "it's impossible to graduate in four years" still makes sense with the reality, that more than half the students do it? I'm not saying it is commendable, or that it isn't- I'm just saying it happens, and that it doesn't make sense with "it's impossible to graduate in four years." Could you explain how a 40% yield rate doesn't show that students want to attend? Help us poor public school kids out, xiggi.</p>

<p>
[quote]
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premises about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<ol>
<li> Some of the personal premises may be relevant. 2. Many are not being used to distract the opponent or the audience from the issue at hand, although you are doing somewhat successfully.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>It is quite relevant that you're using so much hyperbole because if you were not, you would have very different claims. I don't know what you think you gain from using obvious and intentional exaggeration. It seems that many of the ad hominem attacks in this thread do not do much to distract from the actual arguments (all of which you have not addressed).</p>

<p>You still have not demonstrated any response showing reasoning or supporting your claims to any real argument.</p>

<p>Edit:
Alexandre, why don’t you remove every part of any post talking about xiggi so he might actually respond to arguments relating to the topic at hand?</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
Having to revert to ad hominem attacks is simply pathetic, yet not surprising.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
I do, however, draw the line when posters cannot make a point without reverting to "ad hominem" attacks

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Post #15 by xiggi: "And, many Cal die hard fans are modern versions of Icarus."</p>

<p>So you are implying that Cal fans are stupid, and blindly go to their deaths because of their own zeal. Why are you attacking Cal fans instead of our arguments? That sounds pretty ad hominem to me. And notice how your ad hominem attack preceded the other posts which you listed.</p>

<p>Post #21 by xiggi: "it may be hard for the Berkeley pompom crowd"</p>

<p>Why call us the "pompom crowd"? Are you suggesting that we cheer stupidly for Berkeley no matter how good or bad it is, similar to the cheerleaders waving their pompoms at football games? Again you resort to attacking us instead of our arguments.</p>

<p>Post #34 by xiggi: "Finding critical reading a bit challenged by, Sansai?"</p>

<p>Besides the fact that this sentence makes no sense grammatically, you certainly could have said "The pompon crowd comprises posters such as yourself ... the ones who never stop waving the darn things enough to face as modicum of reality." But why do you feel the need to add some personal attacks in there as well?</p>

<p>Look, if you are against ad hominem attacks so much the least you can do is not resort to them. If you think in terms of "an eye for an eye," then how are you any better than those whom you deprecate?</p>

<p>
[quote]
There are two standards for slander: the information has to be false, and there ought to be a malicious intent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You said it's "almost impossible" to graduate from Berkeley in 4 years. That IS false since 58% do graduate in 4 years or less, considering the definition for "almost impossible" is very nearly, or very closely approaching 0% probability, which 42%, by no person with any common sense, would agree fits that definition. In addition, the fact that you falsely implied the statistics in order to make Berkeley look worse shows malicious intent. That fits your definition of slander pretty well.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
I do, however, resent the fanatical zeal to put a few schools on a pedestal, and especially one theyr hardly deserve.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here's my opinion: I think Rice and Berkeley, at an undergraduate level, are quite close. Rice is better at offering students some things, while Berkeley is better at offering students other things. To make a valid decision one would need to do more research/visit the schools and consider which school would benefit the individual the most.</p>

<p>I believe this is also fairly close to the opinion of DRab and UCLAri and Alexandre and some other posters on here. I don't see what I just wrote as "fanatic zeal." Instead, I tried to be as fair to the question as I humanly could. I believe you hate those who are "fanatically zealous" because they are being unfair by overcompensating for one school, in this case Berkeley. Yet, if you belittle Berkeley by vastly exaggerating its problems (which I do admit exist) then you are simply being unfair in the other direction, and how is that any better than that "Berkeley pompom crowd" which you seem to despise so much?</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
I have often criticizing the UC system's admission policies which have created a student body that has grown so skewed it bears NO resemblance to the local nor national population distribution

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't find this to be a particularly meaningful statement. The fact is, none of the top ranked schools (of which both Berkeley and Rice are) have a student body that resembles the local or national population distribution. In fact, that's really the whole point of having a selective admissions process - you are selecting for unusual characteristics. If you wanted a student body that represented the population, then you should just admit people randomly. </p>

<p>To give you a case in point, according to the data, 10% of all American high school students drop out. However anybody who goes to Berkeley, Rice, or any college, is by definition a high school graduate. Furthermore, by tautology, 50% of all high school graduates graduated in the bottom half of their class. However, at any top college, I think it's safe to say that, with the possible exception of athletes, the number of students who graduated in the bottom half of their high school class is probably about zero. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>What I'm saying is, simply pointing out that a school's student body is not representative of the population at large is not, by itself, a valid criticism of a school.</p>

59

<p>Unless I'm mistaken, every top university in America is heavily "overpopulated" by both Jews and Asians. Unless you were to actually go back to strict quotas, it's highly unlikely that we'll ever see the day when those two groups are properly represented by strict percentages.</p>

<p>Oh wait, the Ivies already tried to keep the Jews out once. It didn't do them much good.</p>

60

<p>"What I'm saying is, simply pointing out that a school's student body is not representative of the population at large is not, by itself, a valid criticism of a school."</p>

<p>Don't students evaluate the composition of a student body when trying to identify ... the elusive best fit? Don't people pay close attention to the economic or racial diversity when defining a list of candidates? This is particularly acute when students look at out-of-state schools, since the dynamics are very different from in-state students who have a set of benefits--automatic admissions and cheaper costs of attendance. </p>

<p>In this case, when the question was posed about which school was "the best" a student body that is far a cry from any school outside the California public system is very relevant. After all, students should look not only at the reputation or prestige, but at a number of less lofty details such as with whom he'll spend time for 4 years, if there'll be teachers or TAs leading classes, where he might live after the freshman year, etc. </p>

<p>As I said, students who have CHOICES do look at school differently than students who have geographical restrictions. My earlier point, in this regard, was not based on yield, but based on students who simply NEVER considered the school as a POTENTIAL candidate ... they NEVER applied! </p>

<p>The final decisions are extremely subjective and based on individual considerations. By itself, this implies that the repetitive mentions of School XX is best cannot be true for everybody. In the case of Berkeley, a school with many attributes so "different" from about every school in the country, this is especially true.</p>

<p>PS Sakky, there is a difference between ascertaining the degree of "overpopulation" as a criterion when selecting schools and wishing for quotas. "Quota" is a term that is used too often when decrying the alleged and mythical racial discrimination.</p>