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

College Search & Selection
61

<p>
[quote]
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!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Doesn't Berkeley have one of the largest number of total applications each year of any American school for undergraduate admissions? And I'm pretty sure it is somewhat far from being the largest school.</p>

<p>Are my arguments still so good that you can't respond, xiggi?</p>

62

<p>Was this the type of question you wanted to see addressed, Drab? </p>

<p>"Did you get rejected or something?"</p>

<p>I'm not sure about other simple questions that sought an answer from me. Do you really want to debate .. divergent opinions? At the end of the day, there are elements that make Berkeley unattractive to ME--see my first post in this thread that was posted in answer to the sun versus lightbulb analogy. </p>

<p>The same divergence would be found in debating "facts" ... obviously, you seem to find a 4 years graduation rate to acceptable, while I label the same "fact" almost impossible. We could go down the list with little reconciliation. Example: the number of applications. You'd use the absolute number, and I will segregate out-of-state applicants as a truer picture--since I consider them to be students with a choice. What would be next? Discussing that a State school FIRST priority is to educate its own citizens? Something I would agree with without any hesitation. So, would be we be any wiser after debating this? </p>

<p>We could go on for a various subjects: you'd support the (over)use of TAs and I'd point out that as far as I am concerned rather NEVER see a single TA or FA during my undergraduate studies. Whare would that lead us? A debate about great TA's versus bad TA's, or the fact that TAs are sometimes considered a better option than ex catedra lectures from an absent minded professor? Or would be debate how often TA's display the dual and dubious quality of being very intelligent but barely intelligible. Again, since I do not want to spend a fortune for the right to be taught by another student, I do not consider schools that love a feudalistic system of slave labor MY cup of tea. Liking the system is, however, your right. That does not make my position--or yours for that matter--wrong. </p>

<p>So what is next? The absence of guaranteed housing? The location? The student body? The political values ofboth faculty and students? The value for an out-of-state student who does not benefit from the absence of a true tuition? Should I go on? </p>

<p>Will we ever reach a different conclusion that the school represents a good opportunity for a vast number of Californians and a much less desirable alternative for students who cast a wider net, and compare schools by scratching a bit deeper than the skimpiest of polishing varnish.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never mentioned anything about 'quotas'. That was UCLAri who said that, not me. Perhaps you should be directing this message to him. If you want to debate me, you should restrict yourself to comments that I actually made.</p>

<p>What I am saying is that any top college is, by definition, going to bring in a highly unrepresentative group of people. College students are, by their very nature, more intelligent and more studious than the average person of their age. Nobody is seriously arguing that colleges should admit more stupid and lazy people, although that is what it would take for a college student body to be more representative of the population at large. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your comments regarding your personal fit vis-a-vis the student body are perfectly valid, but they are certainly not specific to Berkeley. Keep in mind that a lot of people, even out-of-staters, LIKE to hang around Californians. They LIKE the culture there. I know some people (not all, but some) at Harvard and MIT who have basically said that the day they graduate, they're moving to California. I would say that the SF Bay Area, and California in general, is a quite nice and desirable place to live. </p>

<p>My point is, personal fit can cut both ways. To give you an example, take MIT. Some people get turned off by the techie MIT environment, so to them, MIT would offer a low quality of life. But some people really really like that environment, so to them, MIT would offer the best quality of life. </p>

<p>Look, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to say that Berkeley is better than Rice or vice versa. I agree with you that it is largely a matter of personal fit. </p>

<p>But I do have to agree with others here that if you don't want to engage in ad-hominem attacks, then you should refrain from doing the same. There is no need to fight fire with fire.</p>

64

<p>All I know is, Berkeley is Better.</p>

65

<p>"I never mentioned anything about 'quotas'. That was UCLAri who said that, not me. Perhaps you should be directing this message to him. If you want to debate me, you should restrict yourself to comments that I actually made."</p>

<p>Indeed, I messed up and picked the wrong ID, after making sure to add a PS for the correct poster. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Feel better now? </p>

<p>This said, and after checking you are indeed the person who wrote the comment about Californians, I can see why California is a great destination in general. We were, however, talking about the specific destination, namely Berkeley and the live at the school during the four years it'd take to graduate. See how nice I played here.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
Do you really want to debate .. divergent opinions?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To some extent, at least insofar as it is relevant here. Honestly, I’m not interested in going into extensive conversations on many of the sub-topics, but I think we can cover a lot easily and quickly, and if grand topics come up, related or unrelated, obviously we could start a new thread for them if we wish to continue. I’ll try to be brief and only mention topics relevant to those that have already been mentioned.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The same divergence would be found in debating "facts" ... obviously, you seem to find a 4 years graduation rate to acceptable, while I label the same "fact" almost impossible.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I find it acceptable? I wouldn’t mind it to be higher, and I don’t find it unacceptable, but I find it to be factually accurate, and I find over half the student body graduating in four years or fewer to be completely inconsistent with the view that it is impossible to graduate in four years, regardless of the fact that many (but obviously not all) could do it but CHOOSE to stay longer.</p>

<p>
[quote]
We could go down the list with little reconciliation. Example: the number of applications. You'd use the absolute number, and I will segregate out-of-state applicants as a truer picture--since I consider them to be students with a choice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the absolute number is an important number; as are others, such as out of state applicants. There is no reason to assume that I hold a position or another without good reason- that isn’t fair, and is an uncalled for straw man. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So, would be we be any wiser after debating this?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I figure dialogue is better than merely stating an opinion unsupported by facts that clearly show it to be incorrect. There will be legitimate disagreements, and there will be different opinions about the same phenomena. Clear examples of unsubstantiated claims include holding the view that it is impossible to graduate in four years or fewer when in fact over half the students do so, as well as claiming nobody wants to attend (as many apply, and of those about 40% who are accepted enroll) are clearly wrong. Even if they don’t want to attend, or not as their first choice, it seems many still want to do so more than other alternatives. I wouldn’t mind a hire yield, but I can recognize that 40% is pretty good- not great, and not terrible, but good. I think part of the reason it is 40% and not hire is in part because of misconceptions, for example, how long it takes to graduate, but his is another issue.</p>

<p>
[quote]
We could go on for a various subjects: you'd support the (over)use of TAs and I'd point out that as far as I am concerned rather NEVER see a single TA or FA during my undergraduate studies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, why do you assume I support certain things? I do support your feelings about the subject and wish you the best in that regard.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Liking the system, is, however, your right. That does not make my position--or yours for that matter--wrong.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, but this issue didn’t even explicitly come up. It may have had you actually explicated what you initially said, but until your most recent point it had been unstated. Anyway, you keep assuming you know my positions, when in fact you have idea. Are you familiar with the straw man tactic?</p>

<p>
[quote]
So what is next? The absence of guaranteed housing?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Two years worth, four years for regents and chancellors scholars, and I imagine disabled students get special arrangements, as other groups might as well. Some students get housing in years beyond the first two (which are guaranteed). I repeat, there are 2 years of guaranteed housing. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The location?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, people tend to find the Bay Area dreadfully boring and unlivable.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The student body?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They are generally good to very good, some exceptionally great and some average, as well as a small slice of mediocre students (which I hear about but rarely encounter).</p>

<p>
[quote]
The political values of both faculty and students?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Super liberal? Welcome to much of higher American education, xiggi. I bet you didn’t even know that there is a visible (and sometimes not, but present) contingent of either the very conservative or the very religious on campus? Are you familiar with the political leanings and climates of other schools? I think that Berkeley isn’t that exceptional with this regard and that while it is on average quite liberal, it is similar to many other top schools, there are at least a dozen schools which are on average exceedingly more liberal, and that much of the idea of Berkeley as liberal stems from 1) its reputation and past and 2) the area in general (the city of Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Should I go on?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, because you’re talking about real things now, and not just being silent. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Will we ever reach a different conclusion that the school represents a good opportunity for a vast number of Californians and a much less desirable alternative for students who cast a wider net, and compare schools by scratching a bit deeper than the skimpiest of polishing varnish.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You’ve said Berkeley is good in the past, with such statements as “Berkeley is a great school, but is is far from being among the best in EVERY department.” Now you’re saying its quality is merely superficial, merely on the surface. Could you clarify?</p>

<p>
[quote]
We were, however, talking about the specific destination, namely Berkeley and the live at the school during the four years it'd take to graduate. See how nice I played here.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This niceness is admirable, and I respect it. As you know, you were right all along that not all students graduate in four years, and that a significant portion (about 30%) graduate in 4-6 years, but it’s most fair to say 4 (as it is for most other top schools). </p>

<p>The truth is, as you’ve said, that not all students graduate in four or fewer years- about 30% of the students who end up graduating from Berkeley within 6 years (which is a little under 90%), which means between 4-6 years to graduate for whatever reasons. This could be a quarter to two additional years of time.</p>

<p>One think you claimed was that the student body was hopelessly different from the rest of the country? How is the student body hopelessly different from the rest of the country? I disagree, and think that at the very least a great deal of the student body is like a lot of the country. Why do you think the Berkeley students are so special and different?</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
This said, and after checking you are indeed the person who wrote the comment about Californians, I can see why California is a great destination in general. We were, however, talking about the specific destination, namely Berkeley and the live at the school during the four years it'd take to graduate. See how nice I played here

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was talking about California in general. But if you want to get into specifics, I would say (and I think many would agree) that the Bay Area, is one of the nicest places in California, and the city of Berkeley is probably the 2nd nicest place in the Bay Area, after SF itself. The only serious problem with the city of Berkeley is the crime, but even that is not as bad as, say, Oakland. But even so, the city of Berkeley is a quite nice place to be. Certainly better than, say, Fresno or Bakersfield. </p>

<p>Now I agree with you that the undergraduate program at Berkeley has some problems, and the 4-year graduation rate is a problem. But I'm just pointing out that the city of Berkeley, and the Bay Area in general, is an attractive draw. People consider that to be a plus in Berkeley's favor. </p>

<p>I have always considered Berkeley to be a premier place for graduate school. Perhaps that's when you should consider going to Berkeley. For example, I knew a guy who got into Stanford, Carnegie-Mellon, MIT, and Berkeley for his PhD in computer science - and chose Berkeley, partly because he felt that Berkeley was the best location for him - better weather than Cambridge Mass, and a more interesting place to live than Palo Alto or Pittsburgh (especially Palo Alto - as Palo Alto is not exactly the most interesting place in the world). Obviously this wasn't the only factor - Berkeley also had more research and more profs that he liked, and this is vitally important if you are getting your PhD. But it is true that the location is a draw.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
We could go down the list with little reconciliation. Example: the number of applications. You'd use the absolute number, and I will segregate out-of-state applicants as a truer picture--since I consider them to be students with a choice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How are in-state applicants students without a choice? I know many, many Californians who didn't apply to Berkeley. Top reason: they don't think they would get in.</p>

<p>Besides, to take the OOS applicant number you would have to consider a number of factors influencing that number. For example, UC Berkeley is mandated to take in mostly Californians. State Residency is listed to be more important than standarized testing scores. Because of that Berkeley can only allow a small portion of the undergraduate population to be from out-of-state, and out-of-state admissions become very selective. If the OOS admissions were as selective as the in-state admissions, you bet many, many more people would apply from out-of-state.</p>

69

<p>I'd pick Rice.....the residential colleges and smaller classroom sizes I think would foster a better undergraduate expierence for me personally.</p>

70

<p>"I think the absolute number is an important number; as are others, such as out of state applicants. There is no reason to assume that I hold a position or another without good reason- that isn’t fair, and is an uncalled for straw man."</p>

<p>DRab, please realize that I did not "put words in your mouth" or assumed your position to make ... my point. I used them as an example to show where our positions COULD be different and NOT really worth debating. If we happen to agree on a few points, so much the better. </p>

<p>By the way, regarding this: "Super liberal? Welcome to much of higher American education, xiggi. I bet you didn’t even know that there is a visible (and sometimes not, but present) contingent of either the very conservative or the very religious on campus?"</p>

<p>A few years back, we had a discussion about the "sizeable" Republican club at Berkeley. Some posters mentioned it to be one of the largest on any campus in America. Here's a link to the original thread and post 5. <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=1067479&highlight%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=1067479&highlight&lt;/a> I am, however, afraid that the link to the College GOP has changed to <a href="http://berkeley.collegegop.org/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://berkeley.collegegop.org/&lt;/a> and that the picture of the assembly is now at <a href="http://berkeley.collegegop.org/pages/about-us.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://berkeley.collegegop.org/pages/about-us.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>On the other hand, the Sowell links are still working:
<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/choosingcollege/sowell-choosing/chpter02.html#TEACHING%20VERSUS%20RESEARCH%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.leaderu.com/choosingcollege/sowell-choosing/chpter02.html#TEACHING%20VERSUS%20RESEARCH&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

71

<p>"We'" as in you and I had that discussion? I do not recall, but perhaps we did. I think the thing that thread shows most is that your hatred for Berkeley is old and deep seeded, for whatever reason(s).</p>

<p>Ever heard of a red herring? While your final link is relevant to a part of the conversation, you leave much of it untouched, including your misconception about housing.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You’ve said Berkeley is good in the past, with such statements as “Berkeley is a great school, but is is far from being among the best in EVERY department.” Now you’re saying its quality is merely superficial, merely on the surface. Could you clarify?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Care to make sense of this seeming inconsistency?</p>

<p>
[quote]
One thing you claimed was that the student body was hopelessly different from the rest of the country? How is the student body hopelessly different from the rest of the country? I disagree, and think that at the very least a great deal of the student body is like a lot of the country. Why do you think the Berkeley students are so special and different?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you ever going to address this one?</p>

72

<p>Drab, are you deliberately dense? You know darn well what I mean when I wrote "we had a discussion on CC." It means "we" as the members of CC. Why you find it needed to bring up such silly detail is truly mindboggling. </p>

<p>Further, do I really need to spell out why I view UC-Berkeley student body different from other schools, except other UC schools? Does 40.7% Asian plus the additional percentage hiding in the 8% undefined compared to 2.9% Black student ring a clearer bell? </p>

<p>I'm happy for you that you think "that at the very least a great deal of the student body is like a lot of the country." I see it very differently.</p>

<p>For the record, here's what I know about the housing at Berkeley. All incoming freshmen have been offered a one-year housing guarantee since 1992, and incoming transfers since 1995.</p>

<p>HOUSING TYPES
Off-campus housing 66%
Residence halls 22%
Cooperatives 4%
Fraternities or Sororities 6%
Family housing 1%
International House 1%</p>

<p>Please forgive my glaring misconception!</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
40.7% Asian

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wait wait...so this is different from most universities how?</p>

<p>Damn Jews...I mean Asians.</p>

74

<p>
[quote]

*posted by: sakky *</p>

<p>Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford all have yield ratings of over 65% (and Harvard's is nearly 80%). Berkeley's yield is about 40%. Furthermore, HPS beat Berkeley on cross-admit data. So at the undergraduate level, Berkeley is not considered as desirable as HPS. This point is further reinforced by the revealed preferences ranking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What exectly is your point for bringing this out to me and to the discussion. Having a higher yield doesn't necessarily make the school more selective. What if the University of Florida has a higher yield than CAL-Berkeley, would that make U of Florida more selective than Berkeley??? </p>

<p>Berkeley is as selective as most of the most selective universities in the USA, and anyone who has been admitted in that school can honestly say to himself that he is as smart as those guys who got into Harvard, Princeton ant the like.</p>

<p>BTW, I don’t have the data of SATs and GPAs of Berkeley, HPYSM, Ivies, Chicago, Northwester and Caltech. It would help us assess these schools’ selectivity if you can provide them here.</p>

75

<p>
[quote]

sakky</p>

<p>Again, from all my travels in East Asia, I have never seen any evidence that would lead me to conclude that Berkeley is considered more popular or more prestigious than Stanford or MIT, not even by a small bit.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, the topic is between UC Berkeley and Rice, so why are you dragging MIT and Stanford into this discussion? Is Rice equal to MIT and Stanford in prestige?? </p>

<p>OK, on the issue between Berkeley and Stanford, that’s a very close call, but I would still stand by my previous statement that based on anecdotal experience, UC Berkeley has a very slight edge, in the Far East. </p>

<p>I have lived in the Far East almost all my life and the only time I was not in the Far East was when I studied in boarding school in England. </p>

<p>I had moments where my classmates and I discussed this kind of things in school. Our teachers discuss this kind of things to us too. I have had moments where some faculty members of some of the most prestigious universities in the Far East encouraging us to go to top schools in the US and usually the 3 giants: Harvard, Berkeley and MIT (HBM) come on top of the league. I’m sure Stanford has been mentioned but not as frequent as HBM. </p>

<p>I’ll give a random sample in the Philippines.</p>

<p>High school: International School Manila
Harvard: 12 applied, 7 received offers (including me) and 3 enrolled (excluding me)
UC Berkeley: 24 applied, 3 received offers and 3 enrolled (including me)
MIT: 4 applied, 0 received offers<br>
Stanford: 1 applied (me, 1 received an offer and no one enrolled)
Michigan: 17 applied, 13 received offers, 5 enrolled
UCLA: 27 applied, 9 received offers and 3 enrolled.
Princeton: 2 applied, 2 accepted (including me) and 1 enrolled.
Yale, 7 applied, 3 received offers and 2 enrolled.</p>

<p>High School: Philippine Science High School (top 1 high school in the Philippines)
MIT: 3 applied 2 accepted, 1 enrolled.
UC Berkeley: 5 applied, 2 accepted, 1 enrolled.
Dartmouth: 1 applied, 1 accepted, 1 enrolled.<br>
No one applied to Stanford, Yale and Princeton</p>

76

<p>
[quote]

*posted by: mikenthemaddog66 *</p>

<p>If you want jobs in Asia go to Berkeley, they view it as Harvard's equal. Rice is 50% texans, and berkely is 40% asian, so take a look into the percentages, which one do you like better?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is I guess the best advice so far. Why? Because the threadstarter is going to work in Asia where Berkeley is really a BIG deal there. As to Rice? I'm not sure if my high school teachers and our application advisers have ever mentioned that name to us. </p>

<p>Another thing. My older brother has been connected with Toyota for more than 4 years and even he was bent on going to Haas Business School for his MBA. The top honchos at Toyota have gone to Berkeley and they're encouraging other people to do the same. Take note: he got offers from Wharton, Northwestern, Chicago, MIT-Sloan, Michigan-Ross, and Columbia among others.</p>

77

<p>
[quote]

*posted by: elsijfdl *</p>

<p>lol... for those of us who want to go work for misinformed eastern companies, this should be taken into serious consideration

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Misinformed? Wow, dude, are you saying that the top executives and HRDs of Toyota, Sony, Vodafone, Bank of Tokyo, Nippon Tel, Nippon Steel, Honda, Nissan, Toshiba, Tokyo Electric, NEC, Canoon, San Miguel Corp among others are misinformed??? The HRD heads of these companies are western educated.</p>

<p>L.o.L</p>

78

<p>
[quote]

posted by: xiggi</p>

<p>Finding critical reading a bit challenged by, Sansai? The pompon crowd comprises posters such as yourself ... the ones who never stop waving the darn things enough to face as modicum of reality. And, as far, as mountains go, you might try to climb one on occasion ... the view is usually much better than one enjoyed from a cave.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have had the chance to choose schools to go to and I picked the best, for me. Have you had the same privilege?? Because if not, then I think we both know who between the two of us is looking on things from a cave... </p>

<p>lol...</p>

<p>
[quote]
That is why universities have not cornered the market on excellence in undergraduate education.

[/quote]

your confusing us with your subject...
if that refers to the universities in general, the why are you not saying the same thing for Harvard, MIT and Stanford then? These schools have excellent undergrad and grad studies...</p>

79

<p>"Quote:
posted by: elsijfdl </p>

<p>lol... for those of us who want to go work for misinformed eastern companies, this should be taken into serious consideration </p>

<p>Misinformed? Wow, dude, are you saying that the top executives and HRDs of Toyota, Sony, Vodafone, Bank of Tokyo, Nippon Tel, Nippon Steel, Honda, Nissan, Toshiba, Tokyo Electric, NEC, Canoon, San Miguel Corp among others are misinformed??? The HRD heads of these companies are western educated.</p>

<p>L.o.L"</p>

<p>If the top executives of these companies prefer berkeley's undergraduates to harvard's, as you asserted i don't even think i need to argue as to why they're misinformed.</p>

<p>You are the prime example for the explanations in the other thread as to why there is so much anti-berkeley sentiment on these boards, because people like you come here and say that berkeley beats harvard in things like prestige.</p>

80

<p>
[quote]

If the top executives of these companies prefer berkeley's undergraduates to harvard's, as you asserted i don't even think i need to argue as to why they're misinformed.</p>

<p>You are the prime example for the explanations in the other thread as to why there is so much anti-berkeley sentiment on these boards, because people like you come here and say that berkeley beats harvard in things like prestige.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>YOU are inventing stories. In the Far East, we call that -- lying. Yuck! Where and when did I say that those companies prefer Berkeley's undergrad grads to Harvard’s? I have been quite honest since the start that Harvard still has an edge overall, but when it comes to the engineering, tech and sciences, ( chem and physics for example), Berkeley has slight edge (for both undergrad and grad). </p>

<p>Also, those companies don’t usually hire undergrads from US schools. They usually source out from Asian schools (U of Tokyo, Kyoto, NUS, UP, UHK, etc). There are a few exceptions though thus I said "usually". Your US degree is given more importance when you start to climb the ladder and that you need to have further training (master's degree).</p>