<p>
[quote]
*bobby100 *</p>
<p>Famous or respected? For undergrad, Cal isn't even close to Stanford. The vast majority of Cal undergrads could never get into Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Show me that stat please so I will believe you. I turned down Harvard, Princetone and Stanford (to name a few) for Berkeley. </p>
<p>What's the average GPA and SAT scores of CAL admits vs Stanford's?</p>
<p>*Which is more well known Stanford or UCBerkeley? *</p>
<p>In countries where I have once lived, I would say that it purely depends upon who you would address this question to. In Asia, particularly in Japan, the Philippines and Singapore, this is how I have observed:</p>
<p>For the upper class, intellectual elite, top students, university proferssors, graduate students aspirants, HRDs of top corporations, etc, ---> I would say Berkeley and Stanford have about the same reputation/prestige. But in the sciences and engineering, Berkeley has a small advantage. This is not to say that Stanford's sciences and engineering depts are not good. Please do not interpret it that way. </p>
<p>For the average guys, CAL-Berkeley has a clearer lead in popularity over Stanford. I think it's because of California. Everybody knows California.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCB is not known at all, while some might even think that Stanford is an ivy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So these people are doubly ignorant- great.</p>
<p>A survey done by Stanford showed that about a third of the students that reported said they were rejected from Berkeley- this was a few years ago and was done for Stanford's new undergraduates during one year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cal isn't even close to Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's about an hour away by car.</p>
<p>Seriously though, I love when people make it seem as if they're miles away in quality. I just don't see the gap as HUGE, sorry.</p>
<p>^ I agree. And just because Berkeley admits more students makes it an inferior school. There's a certain GPA cut-off to get into Berkeley. If you reach the requirement level, you would get an offer, if NOT, then you won't. But this is not to say it's inferior.</p>
<p>I have said from the beggining of this thread that I think Cal is a great unversity. Please don't let this turn to a 'which is better' thread because both are amazing and its pointless splitting hairs.</p>
<p>Yup, both are great schools, if we cast aside personal biases. The parallel to Stanford's claim on HP and Yahoo is UCB's on Apple and Google.</p>
<p>I attended UCB in the mid-1980s and was really awed by the campus atmosphere, both academic and social.</p>
<p>While Stanford is close-by, I visited it only once and the thing that struck me from that visit is the mall right smack in the campus.</p>
<p>But I must admit that the much publicized rivalry is both legendary and healthy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's the average GPA and SAT scores of CAL admits vs Stanford's?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>SAT 25th-75th percentile:
Stanford 1360-1550
Berkeley 1220-1450</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yup, both are great schools, if we cast aside personal biases. The parallel to Stanford's claim on HP and Yahoo is UCB's on Apple and Google
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, two Ph.D. students at Stanford University, California. Stanford is the king of entreprenuership.</p>
<p>As for Apple, there were actually 3 founders--Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne. While Steve Wozniak went to Berkeley, the lead and the visionary one is Steve Jobs, who went to Reeds but dropped out.</p>
<p>Some of Berkeley's distinuguished Alumini:</p>
<p>Tom Anderson - Found of MySpace.com
Donald Fisher - Founder and Chair of "The Gap"
Pradman Kaul - Founder and CEO of Hughes Network System
Dean Witter - Co-Founder of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
Eric Schmidt - CEO of google
Steve Wozniak - Co-Founder of Apple
Gordon Moore - Co-Founder of Intel
Scott Adams - Founder of the Cartoon "Dilbert"
William Hung - American Idol Reject</p>
<p>Some of Stanford's Distinguished Alumni:</p>
<p>Bill Hewlett - Co-Founder of Hewlett Packard
David Packard - Co-founder of Hewlett-Packard
Philip Knight - Founder of Nike
Jim Allchin - Co-Founder of Microsoft
Jerry Yang - Co-Founder of Yahoo
David Filo - Co-Founder of Yahoo
Bud Colligan - Co-Founder of Macromedia
Sergey Brin - Co Founder of Google
Larry Page - Co Founder of Google
Paul Flahert - Inventor of Altavista.com search engine
Jawed Karim - Founder of YouTube.com</p>
<p>
[quote]
Jim Allchin - Co-Founder of Microsoft
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, Jim Allchin is not the co-founder of Microsoft. In fact, he never founded any highly successful company. Instead, he developed the VINES operating system and network protocol for Banyan (which is now defunct), then switched jobs to Microsoft, and is now the President of Platform Products and Services. But he never co-founded Microsoft. He joined Microsoft in 1990, 15 years after Microsoft was founded.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Show me that stat please so I will believe you. I turned down Harvard, Princetone and Stanford (to name a few) for Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If this is true, then you are indeed rare. These 3 schools (especially Harvard) almost never lose the cross-admit battle with anybody, including Berkeley. I don't have the data on me right now, but I seem to recall that the Stanford-Berkeley undergrad cross-admit battle is at least 75% in favor of Stanford (probably more), and the Harvard-Berkeley cross-admit battle is even higher. </p>
<p>Grad school is a different story, particular PhD programs. Berkeley's PhD programs can stand toe-to-toe with anybody.</p>
<p>I think the cross-admit battles exaggerate the university's differences. Hypothetically let's say, Stanford and Berkeley are exactly the same except Stanford has slight better food. Which school would students pick? Almost 100% would pick Stanford, simply because in this hypothetical situation there is no good reason to pick Berkeley. Does that mean there is a large gap between the quality of the two schools? No.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please don't let this turn to a 'which is better' thread because both are amazing and its pointless splitting hairs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry if I contribute to the degeneration, but I just respond to those who head this direction.</p>
<p>
[quote]
SAT 25th-75th percentile:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are these measuring the same thing, as in best single sitting, or best combined, or is one best single sitting, and one best combined? Now, I would expect Stanford's to be higher overall, but I would also expect the both the 25th percentime and 75th percentile to be higher if they're measuring the same thing (and I doubt they are).</p>
<p>Hey sakky, didn't the google guys have the idea of google years before stepping foot on Stanford's campus?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the cross-admit battles exaggerate the university's differences. Hypothetically let's say, Stanford and Berkeley are exactly the same except Stanford has slight better food. Which school would students pick? Almost 100% would pick Stanford, simply because in this hypothetical situation there is no good reason to pick Berkeley. Does that mean there is a large gap between the quality of the two schools? No.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This kind of logic is so flawed - one wonders where to begin.</p>
<p>First, assuming that two schools are IDENTICAL except for the food. Not only is this totally unrealistic -> it basically throws the entire debate out the window - i.e. this basically changes the entire debate from an academic one -> food tastes.</p>
<p>Second, even if we take this unrealistic, ridiculous assumption (i.e. two totally equal schools except one has slightly better food) -> the school with slightly better food will NOT yield 100%. You are making numerous unknowable assumptions even from that point, for a small example:</p>
<ul>
<li>you are assuming that every single person cares about the food</li>
<li>you are assuming that there is a definitive food "winner" here (i.e. that one can actually judge "which food is better")</li>
<li>you are assuming that all food "tastes" are the same (which they are most definitely not)</li>
<li>this goes on and on to the point of absurdity</li>
</ul>
<p>Finally, how can one assume that the food really matters compared to other random things? - i.e if we can assume that a person's school choice can hinge upon something so inconsequential as "slightly better food" than one can easily assume other things:</p>
<ul>
<li>One "likes" blue and yellow better than cardinal colors</li>
<li>One "likes" the name "Cal" or "Berkeley" better than "Stanford"</li>
<li>One "likes" Golden Bears better than "Trees"</li>
</ul>
<p>I mean if you are going to create a hypothetical situation where people pick schools based on slightly better food - you cannot simply state that there are "no [other] good reasons to pick the school with slightly worse food" - you might as well go into a million other tangents - i.e. the POINT? Basically, that even in your own hypothetical situation -> the yield will NOT be 100%.</p>
<p>BUT back to reality.</p>
<p>The two school ARE NOT EQUAL. That is the point. In the real world, cross-admit yields between two schools is the single most telling statistic (if you HAD to pick one stat) as to which school is superior. Plain and simple. Numbers simply do not lie. If year after year, more students who get into BOTH Stanford and Cal -> pick Stanford in higher numbers, it's plain to see that Stanford is a better school. Or are these students (year in and year out) just plain stupid?</p>
<p>Your first point is true and unique to v's alternative situation, but it was just trying to illustrate the potential limits of cross admit/ yield. However, the second and third of the three are present in the real life situation of people choosing schools. While trivial things and all those assumptions are present in v's situation, they can equally be present in real life, and so your pointing them out in his situation doesn't really matter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, the second and third of the three are present in the real life situation of people choosing schools. While trivial things and all those assumptions are present in v's situation, they can equally be present in real life, and so your pointing them out in his situation doesn't really matter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, they are present in real life. So what's your point? </p>
<p>In "real life" more people pick Stanford anyway (regardless if they are infatuated with Blue, Yellow and Golden Bears) - that end result is what really matters.</p>
<p>My point is they aren't at all meaningful in your argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is they don't aren't at all meaningful in your argument.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then perhaps you didn't understand my post. Let me simplify:</p>
<p>1) V argues that if school X = school Y except that X has slightly better food -> 100% will pick X</p>
<p>2) I was simply pointing out the flaw in that thinking (i.e. that 100% will NOT necessarily pick X because of slightly better food)</p>
<p>3) My point of including other "trivial" things simply follows from point no. 2 (i.e. that food just doesn't matter to some people compared to other "trivial" things - such as school colors)</p>
<p>So how is that not meaningful? Please explain.</p>
<p>i'll be waiting for an explanation - will be back.</p>