<p>
Research universities aren’t all just about undergraduate students…</p>
<p>I bring this up a lot, but Cal and Stanford have comparable engineering rankings, if you want to use that as a general comparison, and Cal’s a heck of a lot cheaper (for now, lol).</p>
<p>This statement is virtually useless because it’s one person, and there’s no credibility to what I’m about to say, but had I gotten into Stanford (I did not), I still would have picked Berkeley because for engineering, the price difference isn’t worth the marginal difference in prestige.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that’s true, i forgot about berkeley’s graduate programs (which from what i’ve read are top notch)</p>
<p>i meant for undergrad though…</p>
<p>*i’m not sure if it’s accurate to call berkeley a peer if what is meant is merely a type of peer. For example, it could be argued that SHYPCM are true peers with themselves (in both of the aspects listed above) whereas berkeley is only a half-peer. Since this is the case, i don’t feel it’s fair to call berks a ‘peer’ with the ivies. But perhaps i’m taking the language too litterally?</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>I think if you wanted to take language literally, you’d not put MIT and Caltech in the same sentence as Harvard, etc. Exceptionally different undergrad bodies. Exceptionally different in terms of many strengths (e.g. which has the best law scools? Which rules in engineering?)</p>
<p>If you want to restrict not to “one of the aspects above” then let’s not restrict to “both” of the aspects listed above – let’s be complete and consider the whole picture, or else we might as well do away with the term “peer” entirely.</p>
<p>Also, this entire thread is LOL. Most people at all prestigious schools across the nation, Ivy League or Berkeley or anywhere else, are really not that smart in the scope of things. There are some academic machines in both. But at both, those academic machines almost always pale hugely in comparison to the faculty found at the schools. Seriously, I bet most of you have no idea how far away you are from fathoming how smart the Berkeley faculty are…it’s a little funny when people go “Oh Berkeley is ranked higher because of research! Oh but Cornell’s undergrad population is stronger!”</p>
<p>You will likely not understand, for another 10 years, without putting every ounce of your energy into it, why the faculty here are so bright. In terms of the trivial measures you know, like undergrad achievements, there are plenty of insane undergrads at all the places on the list. The only thing to be said is Cal is lax in admissions because it’s committed to California, not just to academics, for undergrad admissions. That’s one sentence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two schools which are world renowned for research, offer tons of insane classes, seminars, etc and the opportunity to try your own hand at research. Honestly, I don’t understand what this even means. In a lot of ways, there’s actually no difference. Sure, in specific instances, X opportunity may be easier at another school. But in a lot of cases it just doesn’t matter, and you should choose based on something other than the department strength.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually the C stands for Columbia. You know, the best school in new york which has the most nobel prize affiliations and the school our current president went to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually the C stands for Columbia. You know, the best school in new york which has the most nobel prize affiliations and the school our current president went to.</p>
<p>Equally questionable then, why include Columbia in the list? Why put MIT and Columbia in the same list? Doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>If you want to talk about the faculty, you should include Berkeley on the list for sure, since that’s the primary thing you put in favor of Columbia. See what I mean? What you include on a list is kind of arbitrary. Go chat with someone on the MIT forums and they’ll tell you their admissions process and school are different. Yet people on College Confidential lump HYPSM together in some sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, last time I checked, athletics were indeed an admissions criterion at Cal, and a strong one at that. </p>
<p>[Cal</a> football: A report on the “special admits” | College Hotline](<a href=“http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/09/10/cal-football-a-report-on-all-the-special-admits/]Cal”>http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/09/10/cal-football-a-report-on-all-the-special-admits/)</p>
<p>[Admissions:</a> Who makes a habit of special admits? : Fanblogs College Football Blog](<a href=“http://www.fanblogs.com/ncaa/007731.php]Admissions:”>http://www.fanblogs.com/ncaa/007731.php)</p>
<p><a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?;
<p>At California, one of the country’s most selective public universities, Golden Bear football players were 43 times more likely to gain special admissions than non-athletes from 2002-04</p>
<p><a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>How dare you people call me a liar and a ■■■■■. Shame on you fools for judging me. I am exactly what I said. I’m grown man who has studied in UPenn, Duke, and Princeton. Just because my years online indicate otherwise doesn’t automatically make me a liar. </p>
<p>Secondly, I work in the school’s district. I work with my son’s counselors on a daily basis. I have no reason to explain any of this to you ingrates.
Your inability to support your own alma mater and attack me is a low blow and proves to me that you’re not at all elite after all.</p>
<p>Goldangealarea, just shut up before you make yourself look like more of a fool than you already are.</p>
<p>^ Berkeley is more prestigious than Duke.</p>
<p>How dare you adopt multiple identities to make yourself look badass on an internet forum. Get a life.</p>
<p>@GodAngealArea: I myself believe in giving people a chance to defend themselves. But it will require a modicum of disclosure on your part. These questions shouldn’t take very long for you to answer as they relate directly to your own academic experience and current employment. So, here we go:</p>
<p>1) Walk us through your undergrauate/graduate experience at Cal, UPenn, Duke, and Princeton. I am assuming that you either have dual masters degrees, a masters and a J.D., an M.D., or a Ph.D. and some Post Doc. (or possibly some other degree combination) by the number of your affiliations (although I admit that you could have had other reasons for taking coursework, such as certification, CEUs, etc.). In what field did you receive these degrees/certifications/CEUs - possibly biotech? When were these degrees earned? Where/with whom you did you perform your research (labs, institutes, etc.)? Who was/were your thesis advisor(s)? Who made up your thesis/dissertation committee?</p>
<p>2) Currently, what position do you hold in your school district that would expose you to your son’s counselors on a daily basis? (Please explain why, with your advanced degrees from such outstanding research universities, you are working close enough to have daily contact with high school counselors). I’m not saying this is an impossibility. There very well could be some plausible explanation. It would help with your credibility to be able to provide an answer to this question for us.</p>
<p>and,</p>
<p>3) Explain to us, after having attended such outstanding research universities and having already gone through the process of determining the best fit for yourself, why would you be returning to the college search and selection forum on cc and asking such infantile questions and posting remarks which would show you to lack the education you worked so hard to attain? If you were truly interested in determining the current quality of various institutions for your son’s benefit couldn’t you have simply opened a USN&WR College Issue and found all the pertinent information there? After all, didn’t your counselor already inform you that this ranking system was best and most accurate of all rankings?</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1014282-isnt-hypsm-subjective-acronym.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1014282-isnt-hypsm-subjective-acronym.html</a></p>
<p>"Secondly, I work in the school’s district. I work with my son’s counselors on a daily basis. I have no reason to explain any of this to you ingrates.
Your inability to support your own alma mater and attack me is a low blow and proves to me that you’re not at all elite after all. "</p>
<p>How come you wrote “my counselors” earlier, now it’s my son’s counselors?
If you’re not going to explain it then leave. Who cares if we’re elite in your eyes? Seriously, find a hobby you’re better at (if you have one) than ■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>@indiscreetmath: It’s a misdirection technique which I was exposed to frequently when I dealt with high-achieving sales reps in the advertising industry. It goes something like this: “If the shaky foundation of your lies is knocked out from under you, feign indignation and hope that no one notices the glaring fault(s) that was/were uncovered.” It is part of the “He who protests the loudest is right” axiom. It usually lasts until some form of irrefutable proof is given. At which point the perpetrator holds up their hands and says, “Hey, I was only kidding. Didn’t you know I was only putting you on?”</p>
<p>That’s pretty much every ■■■■■ I guess; he’s just trying to go as far as he can until it becomes completely pointless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gold: I hope your son is not at a private school, since the expensive counselor is giving your bad intel. Although I guess it depends on your definition of “easy” approximately 40% of the top four % of high school grads are rejected by Cal every year. (Sure, 60% are admitted, but I would only put that into the match category, not ‘safety’ category, as in “easy”.</p>
<p>Good point, bluebayou. Not to mention, for certain majors it is far from “easy” to get accepted to Cal…</p>