<p>You can’t discuss physics over a cup of coffee with a Nobel Laurate at Berkeley, but the street signs will tell you where they park. LOL </p>
<p>Grow up man. William Hung can’t sing and Berkeley can’t teach. But somehow they both think they are hot shtit.</p>
<p>And I suppose you can discuss physics over a cup of coffee with a Nobel Laureate at Stanford? Highly unlikely. </p>
<p>Why you got to be dissing William Hung? He has a much better attitude than you do. </p>
<p>And what brings you to the conclusion that Berkeley can’t teach? Because we have some classes that are large? That has nothing to do with the teaching abilities of a professor. May I remind you also Stanford also has some really large classes themselves… So you say Berkeley professor’s are more focused on research and not on teaching? I don’t see how Stanford’s is any different? Only difference I see is that Stanford on average has somewhat smaller classes - but that doesn’t suddenly make the professor’s teaching abilities any better (yet many make that association). </p>
<p>And can you be more original that “hot shtit”? You’re starting to sound like a certain hotel heiress.</p>
<p>“And I suppose you can discuss physics over a cup of coffee with a Nobel Laureate at Stanford? Highly unlikely.”</p>
<p>I just did that at the CoHo with Osheroff, who received a Nobel Prize in physics for his investigation of quantum fluids and solids at super low temperatures. Last year he taught Physics 51 which is open to all freshmen. Anyone, even freshmen, can go up to him and talk for a while about reasearch. There’s also student-faculty dinners every quarter where you can invite whichever professor you want over an uber fancy dinner. </p>
<p>Professors here are more accessible than my high school teachers ever were. Also, my classes have about 12 students each. My only big class is IHUM, which every freshman has to take and which has about 100 students. But that’s the biggest class I will ever have to take here. </p>
<p>The only bad part about Stanford I can think of is that everyone is just as smart or smarter than you here. It makes you feel like a dumb@ss because you used to be at the top of your class in high school and now you’re just as smart as everyone else. But that just comes with the territory</p>
<p>rooster,</p>
<p>Among techie and scientist, MIT is cosiderably more glamorous than Stanford.</p>
<p>why are students from stanford on this berkeley part anyway?</p>
<p>I never understood why people necessarily assume just because a school has great research professors that it implies that they cant teach. That makes no sense at all. Also, just because someone does not research does not mean that he/she CAN necessarily teach. I have met some incredible professors at UCLA who are both famous AND can teach. As to Stanford offering a better “teaching” environment, and I have no problems with Stanford at all, I must say that many of the same “problems” with respect to large classes can be found at Stanford as well as almost every major research university. I attended a tour of Caltech and the tour guide said that many of the GE classes are held in large lecture halls as well. And Caltech is tiny!</p>
<p>Stanford is more prestigious than MIT. Upwards of 70 percent of people here got into both schools. Stanford definitely wins over more cross-admits, which is probably the best indicator of prestige. We have the engineering strength of MIT as well as top notch humanities. Who wouldn’t choose this place over that dingy hell hole in Cambridge? :)</p>
<p>Like I said before, most of my classes have 15 people or less. If it weren’t for IHUM, every class of mine would have less than 15 students. Besides, my discussion section for IHUM has about 12 students, so I still get faculty attention.</p>
<p><em>yawns</em></p>
<p>Rooster, why do students who attend both Stanfurd and Berkeley say they value their Berkeley experience more? </p>
<p>And why is Berkeley the only school that beats out Harvard for grad student preferences?</p>
<p>And all this, coming from a public school. Rooster is obviously really worred about Berkeley overtaking Stanfurd, or else why would he be on a Berkeley board with over 30 posts bashing Berkeley?</p>
<p>Berkeley vs. Stanford threads almost always devolve into silliness, usually sooner than later. But saying that 70 percent of Stanford students were also admitted at MIT wins the Egregious Stupidity Award for the day. Maybe the week.</p>
<p>The truth is that the “best” depends on a set of subjective criteria that are going to vary slightly with each student. For some students, U/Chicago will be “better” than either Stanford, Berkeley, or MIT.</p>
<p>Finally, those that are rankings obsessed should consider that they’re letting the opinions of others count more highly than their own.</p>
<p>"The truth is that the “best” depends on a set of subjective criteria that are going to vary slightly with each student. For some students, U/Chicago will be “better” than either Stanford, Berkeley, or MIT.</p>
<p>Finally, those that are rankings obsessed should consider that they’re letting the opinions of others count more highly than their own."</p>
<p>I second that!</p>
<p>"Stanford is more prestigious than MIT. Upwards of 70 percent of people here got into both schools. Stanford definitely wins over more cross-admits, which is probably the best indicator of prestige. We have the engineering strength of MIT as well as top notch "</p>
<p>No, sorry rooster, for many of us Stanford is more famous for its laid back environment. Stanford appeals more to humanities/liberal arts people and people on the street who generally are not techies. Also, it’s easier to get into Stanford than MIT (for engineering/science), so your cross-admit argument didn’t make any solid evidence of prestige. Furthermore in the average, Stanford’s students are not as good as MIT’s, again, in tech fields. As I said before, for techie people, Stanford is not as glamorous as MIT.</p>
<p>There’re three possible reasons for a scientist to choose Stanford over MIT:
<p>So I don’t think prestige plays any factor in the cross-admit decisions.</p>
<p>Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are the four best schools in the nation. MIT and Caltech are too specialized and narrowly focused to be considered to be the best college in America.</p>
<p>Stanford is definitely more prestigious than MIT.</p>
<p>I second that. Stanford really is more prestigious than MIT and Caltech. But it isn’t more prestigious than Harvard.</p>
<p>Remember that nothing in life is static. </p>
<p>No one from Stanfurd, or Harvard, Yale or Princeton has ever impressed me in real life. The only students to ever impress me were from MIT. The students I met at Stanfurd, Harvard, Yale Princeton weren’t special at all, and were inferior to most of the students I knew at Berkeley.</p>
<p>Your personal experiences aren’t representative of anything. I saw an MIT grad who couldn’t find a job and works in a piano store. I saw a Berkeley grad work as a substitute teacher at my school who all the kids abused. I also know a Berkeley EECS grad working at a drive through at Arby’s. </p>
<p>Coincidentally, the superindendant of my school district graduated from Harvard. The CEO of my dad’s company got his undergrad degree at Stanford and graduate degree from Yale. Does this really mean anything? NO! They are just personal observations are a statistically biased estimates.</p>
<p>How about we agree on this… (keep in mind I am in HS)
The IVY-blinded applicant is not attracted to Berkeley, a STATE school. However, Berkeley does attract students that are as if not more qualified for admission as those valedictorians with 1500s. The tuition of Berkeley can be compared to the Ivies and Stanford: one would see that for the price paid, the education is greater at Berkeley. I do not believe that ANY graduation statistics on the percentage of students that enter the labor force truly matter when comparing between the schools. The executives and leaders that attained Ivy educations as listed above most likely got their jobs because they were hard workers.
In conclusion, Berkeley rocks all the Ivies!!!
haha</p>
<p>“Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are the four best schools in the nation. MIT and Caltech are too specialized and narrowly focused to be considered to be the best college in America.”</p>
<p>Didn’t I say: “Many of us – techies”
I’m not talking about ‘average normal’ people here. </p>
<p>And also, California1600 was quite right about impression towards Harvard/Stanford students. They’re quite ‘normal’; On one-to-one basis, you’ll find MIT/Caltech students have much more common sense (but logic is their field anyway) and you’ll find a lot of prodigies in those school. </p>
<p>I didn’t know how Stanford can be more prestigious when it’s easier (academically) to get in. May be the school is richer, or the parents of the students are richer :), is that what you mean?, well …</p>
<p>Of course an MIT grad will not be able to find a job in a piano store LOL ! … I will not hire a barber to fix my plumbing problem :)</p>
<p>Cali1600, if no one you’ve ever met from Stanford impressed you, why do you think it should be part of the West Coast Ivy League?</p>
<p>This is funny. People are actually arguing over which is better between Stanford and MIT. They are both very good. Now I dont feel so bad when people try to say “such-and-such” is better than UCLA. I already know UCLA is the bomb but if people actually try to put down MIT or Stanford then I guess any school is a potential target. I should have realized that when people were putting down Berkeley but I just thought they were sort of jealous.</p>
<p>You’re right shyboy, people have their own markings for bad/good, better/worse category. Every school will be a potential target, the common exception is Harvard, but still, you can find a lot of dumba** from Harvard, don’t you agree LOL :)</p>