Aside from UC Berkeley, where else have you been accepted?

UCLAri · February 7, 2007, 4:01am

All rankings are synthetic. They all have biases. The methodology of the ranking is a bias in and of itself. Any ranking that puts research ahead of teaching will put Berkeley much higher. Any ranking that adds in things like alumni giving and student/faculty ratios will put privates higher.

But what if you’re the outlier? Should we base our model on you?

Do you have data to support this?

sakky · February 7, 2007, 4:22am

Tiny gap? How so? When the percentages are small, jumps in percentages are HUGE.

Turn the numbers around. 90% means 10% don’t graduate. 87% means 13% don’t graduate. That means that a ** 30% increase <a href=“13%%20-%2010%%20=%203%,%20and%203%/10%%20=%2030%”>/b</a>. Hence a randomly sampled Berkeley student is 30% more likely to not graduate than a randomly sampled Caltech graduate.

Berkeley’s size means that it gets hurt less when one more additional students doesn’t graduate. Think about it. Berkeley has 23,000 undergraduates. 3% of them means about 700 students. That represents the extra ‘gap’ that differentiates the overall graduation rates of Berkeley vs. Caltech.

And besides, you missed the overall point. Caltech is SUPPOSED to be hard! It’s entire reputation is based on that fact. The vast vast majority of Caltech grads are majoring in extremely difficult subjects. Yet Caltech STILL manages to graduate a higher percentage of students than Berkeley does.

Uh, so what? It’s all relative. 6 years is a long time to graduate from any school, including Berkeley.

Poor personal fit, lack of funding, whatever it is, they all contribute to more reasons not to go to Berkeley if you have the choice of a top private school. Like I said, regarding the funding issue, why doesn’t Berkeley provide that funding? The worst thing you can do is bring in poor students, and then not support them properly. If you bring them in, you should support them. Otherwise, you’re just forcing them to waste their money and their time.

As far as dissatisfaction with lifestyle, well, it seems to me that fewer people are evidently ‘dissatisfied’ with the lifestyle in Palo Alto, or Pasadena, or Cambridge Mass.

Oh? And where exactly did I “imply” that? Please point to the quote where I implied that.

sakky · February 7, 2007, 4:30am

Like others have asked, I would like to know who among HYPSM you would contend Berkeley is better than, at the undergraduate level. Then I would like to understand why Berkeley loses the cross-admit battle to each of them.

The majority of undergrads at MIT are engineers. Contrast that with Berkeley, where about 20% of the undergrads are engineers. Yet MIT still boasts of a 94% overall graduation rate, compared to Berkeley with 87%. Hence, that almost certainly means that a greater percentage of engineers at MIT are graduating relative to Berkeley engineers, AND a greater percentage of non-engineers at MIT are graduating relative to Berkeley’s non-engineers.

CalX, you are the one asserting that Berkeley was a top 5 undergrad school. Yet don’t you find it interesting that Berkeley has the lowest graduation rate, by far, compared to HYPSM, which others (including myself) would say are the real top 5. Whether it’s because Berkeley brings in lots of poor students, but then doesn’t properly support them, or because of dissatisfaction with the Berkeley lifestyle, or whatever it is, it all seems to me to be just more reasons not to consider Berkeley a top 5 school. {After all, if you’re poor, wouldn’t you prefer to go to a school that will properly support you financially all the way to graduation?}

Excluding Caltech from the discussion (as I never included them in my top 5), Berkeley undergrad loses the cross-admit battle to Stanford and MIT. Seems to me you’re in the minority.

Look, there’s nothing wrong with having a minority opinion. Everybody’s allowed to have their own opinion. But I think you should at least acknowledge that it is a minority opinion. In fact, I think you actually did in this thread - you conceded that Stanford tends to win the cross-admit battle with Berkeley. I think you have to concede the same with regards to HYPM.

CalX · February 7, 2007, 4:30am

The point here is to look critically at the merits of individual factors, and to go beyond stereotypes like the fact that Berkeley’s class sizes aren’t much bigger.

I am only an outlier in the above in that for me the breadth of the college experience is crucial. I think a lot of Berkeley students don’t take advantage of that incredible breadth, but many do, and for those their satisfaction is quite high.

sakky · February 7, 2007, 4:36am

But they are bigger, relative to HYPSM. Whether they are ‘much’ bigger all depends on how you define the word ‘much’. But they are bigger.

Well, then the answer seems to me for the school to implement reforms to make its breadth more available to its undergrads, something that I have been advocating for some time now. For example, let’s get rid of impaction, because that would mean students would be more free to explore majors. Let’s implement more combined bachelor’s/graduate-degree programs so that students can enjoy graduate-level resources. MIT, for example, has a highly successful EECS bachelor’s/MEng program, which is important because EECS is by far the most popular major at MIT. Why can’t we have that with some of Berkeley’s largest majors, like MCB?

UCLAri · February 7, 2007, 4:38am

Even if they’re not much much bigger, they’re still bigger. And far fewer are under 20.

<a href=“http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/peers/current/research_intensive/class50.htm[/url]”>http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/peers/current/research_intensive/class50.htm</a>

<a href=“http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/peers/current/research_intensive/class20.htm[/url]”>http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/peers/current/research_intensive/class20.htm</a>

Again, do you have a source?

I’d argue that outside of actual satisfaction data, that alumni giving might be an interesting proxy.

sakky · February 7, 2007, 4:39am

What does my biography have to do with anything? If you think it’s far-fetched, would you like to meet some of these people who I personally know flunked out? Maybe you could then convince them about how great the Berkeley weeder system is. Maybe you could convince them that piling on thousands of dollars in debt, and then not even graduating was a great thing for them.

Besides, I’ll put it to you this way. What if I told you my biography, and you checked it out, and it turns out that I am everything that I say I am? Would you agree with me then? No, probably not, right? Seems to me that you’re not going to agree with me no matter what I say or do. So then what exactly is my incentive to tell you anything about me?

CalX · February 7, 2007, 4:54am

sakky, this is just spin. 3% means 700, but 87% means ~20,000…

Poor students might get better financial support at some top privates, but there are other factors too, like the fact that they are in an environment where most students are well off and might not feel like they fit in. This was the subject of a recent WSJ article stating the discomfort of those students. In fact their dropout rate is higher than that of the general student population there.

Many students do find the lifestyle at Palo Alto quite boring. Even the Stanford paper had a recent editorial conceding that Berkeley provided more stimulating suroundings.

(TBC)

UCLAri · February 7, 2007, 5:01am

I got the feeling that that article was satirical, personally…but feel free to interpret it otherwise. :p

sakky · February 7, 2007, 3:01pm

How is that just ‘spin’? At the end of the day, a randomly selected Berkeley undergraduate is 30% more likely to not graduate than a randomly selected Caltech undergrad. That’s the bottom line.

I’ll put it to the group this way. What if I were to say that one particular car is statistically 30% more hazardous to drive than another car? I think we would all be asking what is up with that first car. Well, not graduating is basically akin to ‘academic death’, in the sense that everybody goes to college with the purpose of actually graduating, and if you don’t graduate, that means that you basically didn’t get what you set out to get.

So you agree that poor students get better financial support at the top private schools. Good.

And regarding the issue of fitting in, like I said before, if you are poor and you want to break out of poverty, you are going to have to interact with well-off people eventually anyway. Whether you do it in college or later in your life, it’s going to have to happen, unless you want to remain poor forever. Personally, I would say that if there is ever a time in your life to meet people who are richer than you, it’s in college. These are formative years. It’s hard for a poor adult to establish a personal rapport with an established millionaire investment banker. But when they’re both 18 year old kids in the same college, you can establish that rapport.

Besides, while I agree that the dropout rate of poor people is probably higher than the dropout rate of the general population, that seems to be true of both the top private schools and of Berkeley. Heck, even here on this thread, people have attempted to blame the relatively high dropout rate of Berkeley to the number of poor students it has, which therefore strongly implies that poor Berkeley students drop out at a faster rate than the average Berkeley student. So, honestly, how is it any worse for a poor student going to Harvard and dropping out, as opposed to a poor student going to Berkeley, and dropping out? Seems like the same problem to me.

Heck, if anything, Harvard is probably better. Harvard has a 98% graduation rate, or a 2% non-completion rate. Hence, if poor people are dropping out, it’s probably only at a 5-10% rate (because that 2% rate isn’t just poor students, but also includes a bunch of rich lazy students who don’t care about graduating). However, Berkeley’s 87% graduation rate (a 13% non-completion rate) implies that poor Berkeley students are probably suffering from a 15-20% non-completion rate. In any case, it’s probably higher than Harvard’s and that of other top private schools. Hence, the implication is that a given poor student is better off at a top private school than at Berkeley.

sakky · February 7, 2007, 3:06pm

But it’s evidently not boring enough to cause a high dropout rate. Stanford enjoys a significantly higher graduation rate than does Berkeley.

In fact, one might argue that the ‘stimulation’ of Berkeley is a BAD thing. Why? Because it causes too many distractions, therefore causing some students to foolishly focusing on enjoying life, as opposed to actually making progress to their degree. I knew a bunch of students who either flunked out, or nearly did, because all they would do is hang out and carouse every night, whether in the city of Berkeley, or in nearby Oakland and San Francisco. They all regret their behavior now, especially the ones that did indeed flunk out, and they all concede that they should have worked harder.

Again, keep in mind. You’re not going to college primarily to have fun. You’re there to get a degree. If you just want to have fun and you don’t care about getting a degree, then why even go to college? Yet at the end of the day, a higher percentage of Stanford undergrads than Berkeley undergrads will get their degrees.

sakky · February 7, 2007, 3:18pm

Sure, it’s a ranking methodology. Just like USNews is, at its core, a ranking methodology. Just like THES is. Every single study out there is just a methodology. Nor is any study ‘definitive’ - not the RP study, not USNews, not THES, not Shanghai Jiao Tong, not Gourman, not any of them. What’s the point?

The point is not to religiously adhere to any particular ranking or ranking methodology, but to obtain useful information from all of them.

At the end of the day, the RP study is still at least as ‘definitive’ as any of those other studies out there. You say that the RP is not definitive. Sure, it is not. But is THES (a study that you like) definitive? Which study out there is? Hence, the RP study is at least as good as any other out there, and in many ways, it is actually better.

How so? First off, the vast majority of Princeton students are not California-state residents. Hence, they basically would have paid the same whether they had gone to Princeton or Berkeley (because they would have paid out-of-state tuition). So the REAL calculation, for them, is whether they pay basically the same amount to earn $5000 more a year. You’re right, it doesn’t take an MBA to figure out which one is the better deal. Very easy calculation for them.

And you just gave it away right there. If you’re rich, even if you’re from California, you probably don’t care much about the difference in costs between Berkeley and Princeton anyway. If you’re a multimillionaire, saving a 5-figure sum just doesn’t really matter very much.

And again, if you’re poor, frankly, you will probably get better financial aid from Princeton than you will from Berkeley. For example, Princeton has declared that no financial aid they give out will be in the form of loans - it will all be either in the form of grants or work-study. Does Berkeley make that promise? I don’t think so. Hence, if you’re poor, you are actually likely to end up with more debt going to Berkeley than at Princeton. Again, easy calculation. You don’t need an MBA to figure out which deal is better for poor people.

<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/01/q1/0127-aid.htm[/url]”>http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/01/q1/0127-aid.htm</a>

So, REALLY, what you mean to say is that perhaps Berkeley is a prime financial deal for the ** California middle class **. But that represents only a tiny minority of the overall population of the country. Keep in mind. California has only 11% of the nation’s population. And we’re just talking about the middle class of California, so, really, we’re probably only talking about 5-7% of the entire population of the country. If you’re from another state (which is 89% of all Americans), then Princeton and Berkeley will cost basically the same. Even if you’re from California, if you’re rich, you probably don’t care about the cost difference, and if you’re poor, Princeton may actually be a better deal. Hence, really, only a tiny percentage of the overall national population actually benefits from Berkeley.

And, again, why do I talk about the national population? Because, again, Princeton draws from a national population. The vast majority of students at Princeton are not from California. Can you really justify to somebody coming from New York or Florida or Texas why Berkeley is a better financial deal than Princeton for him?

CalX · February 7, 2007, 5:22pm

More spin, sakky, playing with probabilities to manipulate and force-fit data to drive a point. It’s quite disingenuous…

Assume that college A graduates 99% of its students, while college B graduates 99.9% of its students. Well then, a randomly selected student student from college A is nearly 10 times more likely to not graduate than a randomly selected student from school B. But of course that bit of data would be greatly misleading. I love the way you color your arguments with terms such as “death” and “hazardous”.

The fact is, the difference between an 87% and a 90% grad rate is quite marginal, and you know it.

Most of your argumetation is built on tenuous propositions, but unlike you I really don’t have the time to write here.

About your background, I am not asking for your biography, I think if you make such a huge effort to present your personal opinion and anecdotes about Berkeley, a basic and summary background would be helpful.

Ari, you haven’t asked the same of sakki. And I would contend that he might be more of an outlier, given the fact that the student survey at Cal establishes that the great majority of students are satisfied.

You seem to be consistently on the side of Berkeley critics.

UCLAri · February 7, 2007, 5:25pm

CalX,

You’re the outlier in the sense that you’re completely 100% satisfied with everything that Berkeley does, ever has done, ever will do, can do, and may do. Sakky seems to be much more representative of the average student: “Cal’s great, but it can be even better.”

Satisfaction doesn’t mean jingoism.

CalX · February 7, 2007, 5:31pm

Here’s a personal account of the Stanford experience illustrating my point about their environment, from this site’s Stanford board:

One of the main shortcomings here is that you assume that professional advancement is the sole factor guiding students in their choice of colleges. For many who have a more holistic view of their college careers, the quality and richness of their environemnt is an integral and important part. In this sense, Berkeley really stands out.

UCLAri · February 7, 2007, 5:34pm

CalX,

My point is this: There is nothing wrong with criticizing your alma mater. In fact, it’s imperative that alumni do so-- otherwise, it cannot grow. Berkeley, while not my alma mater, affects the state and UC system a great deal.

But you’ll also find that I’m extremely critical of many of UCLA’s policies as well, so I guess I’m just bad all around…

CalX · February 7, 2007, 5:51pm

Ari, I don’t think that sakky is in the “Cal’s great but it can be even better” camp. DRab for instance is squarely in that camp. sakki doesn’t think that Berkeley is a top 10 U/G school, if not top 20. You were wrong in assuming he did at the begining of this thread. “Cal is largely inferior to top private schools” is sakki’s stance.

No, I am not “100% satisfied with everything Berkeley does”, but like the majority of Berkeley students, I was satisfied with the overall experience. I think that Berkeley’s shortcomings are not the fatal flaws that they are portrayed here by sakki, or that those flaws really hinder the overall U/G experience to a point where they merit taking Berkeley off the top 20. I have only been constatnly arguing on the side of Berkeley in the context of this thread, contrast with my neutral stance in DRab’s thread titled “Want to improve Berkeley”.

CalX · February 7, 2007, 5:54pm

Ari, good for you, but I’ve noticed that you’ve also consistently refuted points made by vangie and eastcoastbound who were making points in support of Berkeley. And eastcoastbound was fairly critical of Berkeley in his posts.

UCLAri · February 7, 2007, 6:07pm

Where has he said this, though? You put a lot of words in his mouth.

Based on what I know from DRab, I don’t think he’s any less critical of Berkeley…he’s just less vociferous about it.

Vangie was a ■■■■■. He completely ignored anything that didn’t agree with his views. If you want to know more about this, PM me…but I can assure you that vangie was not nearly as genuine as you might believe.

eastcoastbound and I are arguing more over stats than anything. He says we can’t make a judgment yet (but doesn’t preclude the possibility). I say we can reject the null hypothesis based on the data… but he and I aren’t as far apart as you think. Re-read our posts.

sakky · February 7, 2007, 6:17pm

Huh? How is it misleading. That is EXACTLY what the statistics state. I invite anybody to do the math themselves. Surely we all remember from high school how to calculate base rates.

It is HARDLY marginal. A 3% delta in graduation rates is HUGE when the base rates are small to begin with.

Consider this analogy. I was talking to my friend about GM, and noted how GM’s market share dropped from 25% to 20%. My friend said, oh, that’s just a drop in 5% market share. Uh, no, what that actually means is that GM has lost a full 20% of its previous market share, which basically means that GM is selling 20% less products (and hence means that GM has to get rid of 20% of its production capacity, including workers). These are HUGE changes.

Similarly, if an existing company starts at 5% market share, and moves up to 10% share, it has DOUBLED its market reach. That is EXACTLY what statistics would tell you.

Helpful to whom? Seems to me that others here are perfectly fine in hearing my opinions without needing to know my backgruond. And like I said, you are not going to change your mind anyway, so I don’t gain anything from you. So I ask again, what exactly would I be gaining by providing a biography? Seems to me that I gain nothing at all.

Well, I’ll put it to you this way. Nobody goes to college with the intention of not graduating. Yet the fact remains that Stanford, for all its ‘boringness’, still manages to graduate a much higher percentage of its students than Berkeley does.

Think of it this way. If you don’t actually intend to graduate, then why even go to college at all? If all you want to do is have fun and enjoy a ‘holistic lifestyle’ then just pack your bags and move to New York, Los Angeles London, or San Francisco, and just bum around. The reason why people are spending time and money to go to college is, first and foremost, to get a degree. Having fun is secondary.

So what? What’s the point? What does that have to do with anything? Suppose it’s true that I don’t think Berkeley is a top 10 UG school, how does that automatically mean that I don’t want Berkeley to get better? So then why exactly do I write post after post detailing exactly how Berkeley could get better? If all I wanted to do was criticize, I would do that, and only that. I would never propose any ways for the school to get better.

Let me put it to you this way. Compare how many times you proposed methods for Berkeley to get better to how many times I have done the same? So then, who REALLY wants Berkeley to get better, you or me? Seems to me that you’re not that interested in having Berkeley get better.

Aside from UC Berkeley, where else have you been accepted?

CONNECT WITH US