BerkeleySenior

Stanford is pretty damn competitive to get into, no doubt. However, transfer students in general are usually not over-qualified...

RedTapePatrol

Stanford's 1.5% transfer acceptance rate is not a reflection of its competitiveness. It is, rather, a representation of the practice of quotas. The number of transfers that are allowed to be accepted are directly related to the number of freshmen admits who transfer elsewhere or drop-out. Stanford uses a variety of different factors when it comes to its consideration for transfer admission, but rest assured that it's not merely based on qualifications.

I do agree, however, that if one was able to be accepted into Stanford, then he/she should have little problem transferring to Cal if so desired. But do take into account that Cal also considers the "need" of such a transfer request. Though unlikely, it's a possibility to be rejected based on the fact that anyone at Stanford is already in possession of all the necessary resources to receive an excellent education, thus negating the actual quantifiable need to transfer.

sakky

Uh, I don't think it's relevant at all, but that's perhaps because your response is unclear. What is 'these company' (sic)? Are you talking about a specific company that you know about?

Ultimately, what matters is whether a BS from Stanford is more marketable than a BS from Cal. Sure, I agree with you that there are lots of MS students at Stanford. But that doesn't matter. What matters is the marketability of the BS programs.

middsmith

The usual suspects like Intel, AMD, Xilinx, Nvidia.
To be honest, if two candidates have equally impressive resume, I dont think employer will automatically pick the Stanford EE over Berkeley EECS. One does not have an advantage over another. To think otherwise is very naive. Most companies are made up of engineers from a lot of lower tier schools so when they find either a Berkeley or Stanford grad, they're very happy.

sakky

I can agree that most established companies probably are indifferent between Berkeley vs. Stanford.

But I'm not talking about that. The truth is, most companies are not "made up of engineers from a lot of lower-tier schools", for the simple reason that most companies (in SV) are startups. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of startups in the Valley, with new ones being founded every week. Like I said, most startups don't have formal hiring practices because they can't. After all, when you're still just two guys in a garage somewhere, you don't have the time or expertise to run a formal hiring screen. At that stage, you end up hiring through your social network, i.e. your friends, something that has been documented time and time again by numerous researchers (i.e. Saxenian). Social networks are, far and away, the most prominent method that startups use to hire.

Furthermore, it is (sadly) indisputable that, for various reasons, there is more entrepreneurial activity around Stanford than around Berkeley. The upshot is that Stanford engineers have greater opportunity to join startups than do Berkeley students via social networks. The Berkeley engineer may be just as good, or even better, than the Stanford engineer, but that doesn't matter if he doesn't even know about the startup when it is young, which is precisely when you want to join a startup. Certainly, the early employees of Google - the bulk of whom were Stanford buddies of Sergey or Larry - aren't complaining. Sure, a Berkeley grad has ample opportunity to join Google now,but you don't really want to join Google now, you'd want to join Google back in 1998.

middsmith

Remember that 9 out of 10 startups fold in a year or two. they have longer working hours, less benefit, lower salary. How many startups actually made it? It's literally one in a million. So going to Stanford doesn't mean that you'll end up in a successful startup.
My uncle's been in the valley way too long and he's addicted to startup. Only one company he worked for actually had moderate success, and that was due to the bubble in the 90s. The rest folded so quickly, he literally had a company dinner on Saturday and then to find out on Monday everyone was laid off. Going to either school will be great for OP. Going to Berkeley means OP will have to work extra hard for a decent GPA.
Personally, as long as Berkeley is cheaper, I'd go to Berkeley.

sakky

Actually, working for a startup almost certainly pays better, on average. As Paul Graham said:

While perhaps 9 out of 10 startups fail, the one that succeeds will pay the founders more than 10 times what they would have made in an ordinary job. That's the sense in which startups pay better "on average."

The Power of the Marginal

That holds not just for founders, but also for early employees. For example, the early engineers at Google are easily worth in the in the 9 figures if they had held onto their stock options, maybe even in the 10 figures. After all, with Google now having a total market cap of nearly $200 billion, even holding 0.5% of the equity of the company - which the early engineers could each have easily received - would be worth $1 billion.

Now of course, clearly not everybody is lucky enough to choose Google. But even if there were 1000 total competing search engines and 999 of them completely failed and Google was the only 1 that succeeded, that would mean that the average stock option payout would be $1 million. Remember - that's just from the stock options; it's on top of the salary that you would also be paid once the company is investor-funded (and Google and others were funded quite quickly). Furthermore, there weren't 1000 competing search engines out there. Not even close. In fact, probably no more than 100.

I would also dispute the notion that you are really working longer hours at startups. What - you think you're not working at long hours at established companies? Trust me, engineers at Microsoft, Intel, (now) Google, and these other big firms work pretty darn long hours. The major difference is that they don't have a chance to become filthy rich. The days of hypergrowth of those firms is long gone.

Lower salaries and benefits are also a point of contention. In my personal experience, startups actually paid the most: often times nearly twice or (in one case) nearly three times what established firms were paying in salary, without even talking about the stock options. That's because when a startup is looking to expand and compete quickly (i.e. when they've just received a large infusion of VC cash and are looking to ramp up fast), one of the most effective ways to do so is to simply overpay salaries to attract people. For example, during the dotcom boom, there was one firm that literally didn't pay any of the technical staff less than $120k just to start, and this was back in 2000 dollars. There were guys fresh out of school who were immediately being appointed to Vice President and Director positions. Heck, one guy hadn't even graduated from college at all yet was offered a Director position. You never have that in established firms.

I think what you mean to say is that the startup lifestyle is riskier in that while the average outcome of joining a startup is clearly better than that of joining an established firm, the variance of the outcome is also far higher. You can end up filthy rich. Or you can end up with nothing as the company goes bankrupt. That is true.

But to that, I have 2 responses: First, let's not pretend that established firms don't have risk. Since you mentioned AMD, let's talk about AMD. Last month, AMD announced they were going to lay off 10% of its staff. Similarly, Intel instituted layoffs in each of the last few years, and may institute another round this year. Oracle has bought numerous large software companies in the last 5 years and after each acquisition has followed a large-scale layoff. If Microsoft and Yahoo had successfully merged, then that would have also meant big layoffs. Hence, we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that working for a large company is particularly safe. They're safer than startups, but not that much safer. You can lose your job at a large company at any time and with no warning.

Secondly, it is precisely when you're young (i.e. when you're right out of school) that you can afford to take on high levels of risk. You join a startup right after you graduate and it fails, so now you're 23 and broke. So what? Most 23 year-olds are broke anyway. Sure, I can agree, when you're older and have kids and a mortgage to support, the risk may be too high for you to take. But when you're young and have no responsibilities, what does it really matter if what you do fails? If nothing else, you can at least tell yourself that you tried. That's a heck of a lot better than spending the rest of your life wondering 'what if?'.

Uh, literally one in a million? Please. Use some common sense and some basic math: do you numbers really work out? Surely we can all think of the following 5 highly successful SV-headquartered tech firms just on the Internet : Google, Ebay, Yahoo, Facebook, YouTube (Ok, now part of Google, but it was a standalone startup recently). And that's just talking about some of the most successful Internet startups, that's not even talking about other successful startups in biotech, enterprise software, telecom equipment, medical devices, semiconductors, etc.

So, we have 5 highly successful Silicon Valley consumer Internet companies. Yet you said that the odds of a startup being successful are "literally one in a million". So that must mean there were 5 million Internet startups created in the Valley, right? Do you believe that? There are only 2.5 million people in Silicon Valley, and obviously the vast vast majority of them do not work in startups, or even in the tech industry in general.

I think a far more reasonable calculation would be as follows: probably at most 10% of the entire population in Silicon Valley works for startups. I think even that's generous, but let's go with it. So, 10%: that's 250,000 people. Obviously many of those startups are not Internet startups (i.e. they are in biotech, medical devices, semiconductors, etc.) So let's say that 1/3 of them were Internet. That leaves about 80,000 people. Let's say the average startup has perhaps 15 people. So we're talking about 5000 total startups. Hence, of those 5000, 5 of them became the superstars (Google, ebay, etc.). That's only one in a thousand, not one in a million. And even of those that didn't become superstars, plenty are still moderately successful.

Look, I don't disagree that startups are riskier, and so the question you have to ask is whether you can take the risk. I would argue that if you are young and free of commitments, you probably can take those risks.

Nevertheless, I think what is quite clear is that Stanford has the edge in terms of employment opportunities. After all, even if you don't intend to work for a startup, the threat that you might can serve as useful leverage when you negotiate with an established firm for better salaries or bennies.

jmilton90

Is this a discussion about Stanford undergrad versus Berkeley undergrad?

If so, it shouldn't be much of a discussion or debate..

middsmith

it's a figure of speech. and it could be true. Why do you bring up 5 companies that made it? obviously the ratio of the really successful startup to moderately successful that still hang around is very small. Do you hear from folded startups? There are thousands that pop up every day and thousands that fold. Anyway, OP should go to Stanford, join a startup, and pray for the next big break. That is if OP thinks he's likely to get

CalX

In terms of quality of life, more specifically the wealth and breadth of the college experience, I would definitely put Berkeley ahead of Stanford.

The one big downside of Berkeley EECS vs Stanford is that the former is a more stressful academic environment. But if you feel confident enough to take that on, then Berkeley would be a better choice.

sakky

Uh, if it was a figure of speech, then why did you use the adjective "literally"? Seems to me that you didn't believe it to be a figure of speech, but that you actually literally believed it to be true.

Because it shows quite simply that if what you say is literally true - which were your words - then 5 highly successful Silicon Valley startups would have to be countered with 5 million failures. Do you believe there are literally 5 million failures? If not, then why did you use the word 'literally'?

Again, see above. Are there really 5 million folded startups in Silicon Valley? There aren't even 5 million total people in Silicon Valley. In fact, there are barely even half that many people.

I don't even think it's a matter of praying for the next big break. Frankly, there are numerous other reasons for joining a startup. First off, many startups actually pay higher salaries than do the established firms. {Note, that's just because there are just lots and lots of startups with a high variance in pay conditions, meaning some will pay better while others will pay worse, so you can simply choose to not work for the ones who pay worse.} That's right - you get a higher salary and you get a shot at becoming rich. Secondly, startups tend to offer far more interesting work. You have far more freedom to do what you want and shape your career than you do in a large firm.

The only issue is the matter of risk, and like I said, if you're supporting a family and a mortgage, then sure, startups may not be the way to go. But if you're young and have no commitments, that is precisely the time that you can take the risk. Your startup folds, so what? Just join another one. Like you said, new startups are founded all the time, so you can always find another one to join.

middsmith

Ok, whatever. OP will choose Stanford like 95% of them. This thread is pointless.

unlimitedx

Cross admit battle between Berkeley and Stanford, Stanford wins 99:1

middsmith

unlimitedx, it's only 95% of the time that stanford wins cross admit (published figure)
Who knows, it might be even higher. In fact, you can say no one turned down Stanford for Berkeley and people will believe you.

unlimitedx

^ link? i saw a published figure and it was 1% of time that Berkeley wins. can't seem to find the link..