I turned down Harvard, Princeton and Stanford for Berkeley's Physics programme

[greatestyen]

<p>

greatestyen, I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the graduate programs at Berkeley. If I remember correctly sansai is going to attend Berkeley as an undergraduate so this talk about graduate schools is really pretty useless. Berkeley is better on the graduate level, and not as good on the undergraduate level, probably not as good as Harvard’s undergrad. Sure it’s the same “staff,” but professors are more accessible to grad students (some don’t even teach undergrad), more resources, better student quality, etc.

</p>

<p>vicissitudes, what you say is true. However, it seems as if the thread is now about Berkeley in general and not simply a discussion of the “undergraduate experience” it provides. As I see it, the grad programs fall under the category of “Berkeley in general.”</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>

By the way, “better staff” keeps getting mentioned and I often question what that means. Some people say “this school has more prize winners so better staff” but at an introductory level the material is generally the same, and it really comes down to how well the professor teaches the material not the prizes he’s won, and that kind of quality is pretty hard to measure.

</p>

<p>In this day and age, no it’s not. </p>

<p>Go on <a href=“http://www.ratemyprofessor.com%5B/url%5D”>www.ratemyprofessor.com</a> and compare Berkeley and Harvard profs in general. As I read the pages, it seems as if out of those students at Berkeley who choose to publically laud/belittle their professors (a very fun activity in itself,) are far more pleased with their professors’ teaching methods than students at Harvard who choose to respond. Since I’m sure the vast majority of students at both Harvard and Berkeley know about the site, I’m led to believe that the site offers pretty accurate descriptions of teaching quality.</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>

Do you think I made the right decision?

</p>

<p>

QUESTIONS: Why do some people here think that Berkeley has an excellent programme for grad studies but such is not the case for undergrad studies?

</p>

<p>I think the OP is attending Berkeley as an undergrad, and doesn’t understand the difference between grad and undergrad that well. There is a difference and I think we should be talking about undergrad since that’s what’s pertinent and not grad which doesn’t help when the OP isn’t attending Berkeley grad.</p>

<p>To your last post: yes I have heard of that phenomenon. One theory I have is that Harvard students have higher expectations for the most prestigious University in the world and was let down by the large introductory classes, while Berkeley students expect them. Of course, Berkeley’s staff could in fact be better. It’s hard to say. I myself am of the opinion that Harvard’s undergraduate program is overrated, but probably still better than Berkeley’s undergraduate program. But like I said, I don’t think the difference is THAT big and sansai will probably do fine at either school.</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>

Berkeley is better on the graduate level, and not as good on the undergraduate level, probably not as good as Harvard’s undergrad. Sure it’s the same “staff,” but professors are more accessible to grad students (some don’t even teach undergrad), more resources, better student quality, etc.

</p>

<p>On accessability to profs:: You think Harvard undergrads have it easier than Berkeley students at this? No, you are wrong. Getting a prof’s attention at Harvard is just as “hard” as it is at Berkeley. You must get in line at office hours and wait your turn. Sure, in some classes you get personal attention by default, but that is the case at Berkeley as well and both schools feature both gigantic lecture halls and small seminars. I’m not quite sure on the numbers, but I think they were posted on this thread. It’s not a big difference. </p>

<p>On resources:: This is the most ridiculous claim of all. Sure, Harvard has WAY more money than Berkeley. But can you honestly think of countless resources which Harvard has and Berkeley doesn’t? You might point out such facts like…Harvard has 15 million book whereas Berkeley only has 10. But you know what? At least 4 million of those 5 “extra” Harvard books are now available online. So really, those resources are not Harvard-specific anymore. </p>

<p>On UNDERGRADUATE student quality:: I can’t argue with this one. Harvard’s students are more accomplished. But are they smarter? Who knows. Run some tests.</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>I was talking about Berkeley grad vs. undergrad, but much of that could be applied to Harvard as well.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>accessability: it’s true that professors are accessible at Berkeley. Just go to their hours. Most people don’t even go. But that’s the problem. Most people don’t go. Really it comes down to class time, and Harvard’s (and Berkeley grad) classes are smaller. Smaller classes are better. If you’re in a class with 300 students in front of you you’re more conducive to say, napping. Harvard has large classes too, but fewer. It’s actually not THAT big of a difference in terms of percentage, and I said that the difference between the two schools isn’t THAT big.</p></li>
<li><p>Berkeley has resources too, but they are just harder to access. For example, research is harder to come by. Also, some majors are impacted. I mean, 50% of Haas applicants get rejected, so they don’t have the “resource” of the Haas school.</p></li>
<li><p>

I can’t argue with this one.

</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Good. :)</p>

<p>Anyway, I think the OP can overcome much of what I said above, so I don’t think it matters that much in the end.</p>

[DRab]

<p>CC644622, could you link to your class size stats?</p>

<p>The leiter report gave Berkeley a 100 out of 100 for faculty. Harvard got a lousy 96. Can’t find link . . . anyone have it?</p>

[CC644622]

<p>The stats were done by me, using the data provided by the Common Data Sets (available on those schools websites). On them, they list how many classes have 2-9, 10-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-99, and 100+ students. I just found the percentages at each school and posted them (double checked everything too, so nothing should be off).</p>

[ramsfan]

<p>Here’s the link for the Leiter report: <a href=“http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/bleiter/Undergra2001.html[/url]”>http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/bleiter/Undergra2001.html&lt;/a&gt;. The main reasons why I picked Caltech over Berkeley was better access to faculty and resources and more accomplished (on average) student body.</p>

[Rabban]

<p>

Engineering:

1. MIT/Berkeley

</p>

<p>Sakky: Maybe you remember this. I swear I can vouch for the truthfulness of this. When it comes to “engineering”, MIT/berkeley are only top dogs in the known universe. Stanford is among the distant second group, like Cornell/CMU/Michigan/…</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>

One theory I have is that Harvard students have higher expectations for the most prestigious University in the world and was let down by the large introductory classes, while Berkeley students expect them.

</p>

<p>Do you have any idea how irrational this is? </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.ratemyprofessors.com%5B/url%5D”>www.ratemyprofessors.com</a> does not discriminate against ratings for non-intro classes. Both Harvard and Berkeley’s pages on <a href=“http://www.ratemyprofessors.com%5B/url%5D”>www.ratemyprofessors.com</a> feature both intro and advanced classes. In fact, it seems as if Harvard’s pages mostly describe advanced classes-not intro classes. </p>

<p>Is your defense going to be: “Well, Harvard students probably already knew the subject matter of advanced classes and were dissapointed with how it was taught.”?</p>

<p>If you WERE thinking that, I’m led to conclude that you are out to portray Harvard students as intellectual gods no matter what the facts say. And the fact is that the vast majority of Harvard students are very accomplished and intelligent. However, just because a young adult is very accomplished and intelligent does not mean that s/he has more knowledge in their brain about a given subject matter than Harvard (or Berkeley, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, etc.) professors.</p>

[DRab]

<p>

Sakky: Maybe you remember this. I swear I can vouch for the truthfulness of this. When it comes to “engineering”, MIT/berkeley are only top dogs in the known universe. Stanford is among the distant second group, like Cornell/CMU/Michigan/…

</p>

<p>Distant second group? Like universities in general, the difference between the top few, heck, often the distance between the top 5-10 or 20 is often not that distant at all.</p>

[Rabban]

<p>DRAB: While Berkeley has wonderful liberal art/social science programs (e.g., English, Sociology, Hass, etc.), it is tech programs (hard science/Engineering) that makes Berkeley “World-Class”. :)</p>

<p>The reason, IMO, is that when we start to talk about non-techie programs, then all other liberal-art-oriented-old schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, Chicago… are coming into the picture, becoming a factor or two. Heck, even we might even have to include some LAC programs in discussion. But, engineering is a totally different matter – size, quality, and tradition does matter. There are so many gaps between MIT/Berkeley and the other schools, in terms of faculty strengths, lab/facilities, curriculum, and opportunities for inter-departmental collaborations.-Other schools are simply pale in comparison. I know Stanford put lots of resources and has improved a lot. But still it is not the level of MIT/Berkeley.</p>

<p>Proof: Go to any reputable college web-site for engineering department and read professor’s background. You will see the majority of them got educated either MIT or Berkeley.</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>

While Berkeley has wonderful liberal art/social science programs (e.g., English, Sociology, Hass, etc.), it is tech programs (hard science/Engineering) that makes Berkeley “World-Class”.

</p>

<p>That is a preposterous, stereotypically science-centric claim. </p>

<p>Berkeley English, Sociology, History, Anthropology, German, Gender/Women’s Studies, Psychology, Art History, Regional Studies, Spanish and Linguistics, are but a few of the many “liberal arts/social science programs” which deserve to be recognized as “World-Class.”</p>

[DRab]

<p>I think the Berkeley science and engineering programs are world-class, I really do. However, I’m with greatestyen.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Ok, fine. So are you saying that if the rankings were current, they would be legitimate? I mean, if the current date were…December 2004/January 2005, Berkeley would have the smartest faculty in the world? Is that what you are saying?</p>

<p>If that is what you are saying, could you enlighten me as to what happened a year or so ago to make Harvard go up and Berkeley go down? Lots of Berkeley retirements? Lots of new Harvard profs? Please explain.

</p>

<p>I was not the one that took the position that rankings are sacrosanct. I never said that I agreed with THES.</p>

<p>However, if you are going to invoke THES, then the least you can do is use the most recent one. Otherwise, I should be allowed to use the USNews ranking of 1996, when Berkeley had dropped out of the top 25 completely. After all, what’s fair is fair. If you are allowed to invoke old rankings, then so can anybody else. </p>

<p>

This is true. But I also missed major research areas within the humanities which are stronger at Berkeley:: South East Asia Studies, East Asian Studies, African-American Studies, Chicano Studies, Native American Studies, European Studies, Latin American Studies, Queer Studies, and Women’s Studies, and Folklore. Once those fields are added, I think it’s pretty clear that Berkeley’s departments and therefore faculty remain superior. (Note also that I didn’t list all of the engineering subfields at which Berkeley is superior to Harvard. And unlike so many departments with subfields, I feel that the engineering subfields are MAJOR fields which make Harvard’s programs look even worse when compared to Berkeley’s.)

</p>

<p>And by the same token, you missed every single medical subcategory, which obviously Harvard beats Berkeley on for the simple fact that Berkeley doesn’t even have a medical school. </p>

<p>

By the way, if you are so determined to prove Harvard’s superiority, could you please explain why Harvard undergraduates disproportionally choose Berkeley for grad school? I mean, why leave “greatness” if it’s staring at you in the face?

</p>

<p>I would like to see the evidence that demonstrates that Harvard loses to Berkeley in grad cross-admit. I can tell you right now that Harvard clearly wins in 2 categories - business and law. Cross-admits clearly prefer Harvard Business School to Haas, and clearly prefer HLS to Boalt. I strongly suspect they also prefer the Harvard Graduate School of Education to the Berkeley GSE and the Kennedy School of Government to the Goldman School of Public Policy. </p>

<p>But that’s all neither here nor there. I thought that we were talking about undergrad here. After all, the OP was talking about UNDERgrad, not grad. Why don’t you tell me why Harvard clearly routs Berkeley (and everybody else) in undergrad cross-admit? Are all these new undergrads being stupid?</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Sakky: Maybe you remember this. I swear I can vouch for the truthfulness of this. When it comes to “engineering”, MIT/berkeley are only top dogs in the known universe. Stanford is among the distant second group, like Cornell/CMU/Michigan/…

</p>

<p>I am afraid that I cannot vouch for this. Specifically, I don’t see Stanford engineering as in any way inferior to Berkeley’s. And I doubt that too many other engineers do either. </p>

<p>But don’t take my word for it. Look at USNews, both undergrad and grad. Look at the NRC. Look at whatever other rankings you want. I think you will see that, evaluated in the aggregate, Stanford engineering is in no way ‘distant’ to Berkeley.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

The reason, IMO, is that when we start to talk about non-techie programs, then all other liberal-art-oriented-old schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, Chicago… are coming into the picture, becoming a factor or two. Heck, even we might even have to include some LAC programs in discussion. But, engineering is a totally different matter – size, quality, and tradition does matter. There are so many gaps between MIT/Berkeley and the other schools, in terms of faculty strengths, lab/facilities, curriculum, and opportunities for inter-departmental collaborations.-

</p>

<p>According to USNews Grad rankings, Stanford is #2 in engineering, Berkeley is #3. Stanford has a higher peer assessment than Berkeley does (they have equivalent recruiter assessment). </p>

<p>You also have said that engineering benefits from size. Well, it may interest you to know that Stanford’s grad engineering is actually BIGGER than Berkeley’s. Yep - Stanford has almost double the number of graduate engineering students than Berkeley does (in fact, Stanford has even more grad engineering students than MIT does). Stanford grants more PhD’s in engineering per year than Berkeley does. Stanford engineering has larger research expenditures than does Berkeley ($140 million vs. $120 million). So if what you are saying is correct and size really is important (which I don’t agree with, by the way), then you have to concede that Stanford may actually have the advantage over Berkeley. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/eng/premium/main/engrank.php[/url]”>http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/eng/premium/main/engrank.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Other schools are simply pale in comparison. I know Stanford put lots of resources and has improved a lot. But still it is not the level of MIT/Berkeley.

</p>

<p>While I don’t think I want to spend the time to do a rigorous analysis, I can tell you that there are a number of engineering departments at MIT itself in which there are probably more profs who came from Stanford than from Berkeley. In the largest department at MIT (EECS), I think it is probably about equivalent. So, no, I don’t see any evidence of Stanford being ‘distant’ to Berkeley.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Berkeley English, Sociology, History, Anthropology, German, Gender/Women’s Studies, Psychology, Art History, Regional Studies, Spanish and Linguistics, are but a few of the many “liberal arts/social science programs” which deserve to be recognized as “World-Class.”

</p>

<p>I agree with greatesteyn on this point in the sense that I don’t see that Berkeley tech is significantly more prominent than some of Berkeleys’ non-technical disciplines.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

There are so many gaps between MIT/Berkeley and the other schools, in terms of faculty strengths, lab/facilities, curriculum, and opportunities for inter-departmental collaborations.

</p>

<p>As far as this claim is concerned, I am not aware of any reason to believe that Stanford engineering is deficient to Berkeley on any of these scores. In fact, from a purely undergraduate level, I would have to say that Stanford clearly outclasses Berkeley. For example, I would ask you to compare Stanford’s undergrad engineering labs vs. Berkeley’s undergrad labs, and note just how much better and more modern the equipment tends to be. And in particular, by far the biggest difference is that Stanford undergrads are free to choose whatever major they want. It’s not like the Berkeley system where you have to choose an engineering major when you apply, with only constrained opportunities to change your major later. What if you, as a high school senior, think you like ME but then later decide that you are actually more interested in EE? At Stanford, you just switch over. It’s not that easy at Berkeley. You have to apply to switch, with no guarantee that you will be approved. I’ve known a LOT of Berkeley engineering students who have basically said that if they had their choice, they would have chosen a different engineering major, but they couldn’t switch over. That’s a problem. </p>

<p>But in any case, I believe it is true that Stanford wins the undergrad cross-admit battle even with Berkeley students who are admitted into engineering. Why is that, if Berkeley engineering really is better?</p>

[Rabban]

<p>

Berkeley English, Sociology, History, Anthropology, German, Gender/Women’s Studies, Psychology, Art History, Regional Studies, Spanish and Linguistics, are but a few of the many “liberal arts/social science programs” which deserve to be recognized as “World-Class.”

</p>

<p>They well maybe so. But others might think otherwise and say Harvard’s Yale’s Princeton’s Stanford’s Columbia’s {insert anyold school name} are superior to Berkeley’s. Look, my point is that as far as liberal art/Hum is concerned; there are so many other good liberal arts/social science schools out there that may well be claimed as world-class status. So Berkeley is just one out of many great LA/hum/SS programs.</p>

<p>For engineering, this is not the case. It is well known that HYP and LACs are BIG Jokes when it comes to engineering and only MIT/Berkeley are two distinct shining stars (maybe Stanford :p, in the background). This distinguished superiority separates Berekely from other old schools including HYPAWS… whatnots, results in True, FEW “World-Class” schools in engineering.</p>

<p>

But in any case, I believe it is true that Stanford wins the undergrad cross-admit battle even with Berkeley students who are admitted into engineering. Why is that, if Berkeley engineering really is better?

</p>

<p>As you know, it’s almost meaningless to separate under and grad programs, especially when it comes to engineering education/research. And allow me to remind you once again, as the OP said, it is very true that MIT and Berkeley are top two destinations for engineering Ph D program for most foreign-born BS/MS engineering students. And they also know Berkeley can blow Stanford off the map when it comes to PhD program in true engineering. So the pecking order is really MIT-Berkeley-Stanford- the rest :)</p>