@scrambro: More on *Campus Architectures & Environment (S > C > B): Each college has its own character and aesthetic complexity of the architectural structures and environmental landscape, and it’s virtually impossible for me to make a “fair” judgment. So I picked one of my major departments for evaluation - math (the time I spent the most). See for yourself:
*B: Evans Hall (home of economics, statistics, and mathematics departments). You can just google images of it or simply click the following link:
https://cn.bing.com/images/search?q=uc+berkeley+evans+hall&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&pq=uc%20berkeley%20evans%20hall&sc=0-22&cvid=3C36189D92FB473F9FCBFDFFF8C1B5B6&first=1&cw=1358&ch=708
Here is a quote I found on the website which I couldn’t agree more,“…the building gets poor reviews because of its dark, closed-in design, its massive scale, and its unfortunate location spoiling the main east-west axis of the campus and what was intended to be a spectacular view out to the Golden Gate.”
You can also google math dep’t images of S and C. Again, hard to make a comparison. So I also consider the interior design factor and improvement potential => S > C.
@CalCUStanford great! A little context. And your personal experience at Evans is informative. Thanks!
But as far as your argument, I know Evans well. It is about the worst building on campus. And it is ironic that Wurster Hall, the home of the school of architecture, is hideous. That being said, UC Berkeley has a collection of structures that are unparalleled and have been preserved over 100 years because of their beauty. Doe Library, The Hearst Mining Building, South Hall, Wheeler Hall, The Campanile, and Sather Gate have been on campus forever, and have been restored because their architecture is timeless.
Stanford has the memorial church and the quad which are, no doubt, gorgeous. Their visual arts center is very nice. Hoover tower is fine, if you’re an art deco fan. Aside from that, Stanford has pumped hundreds millions to replace old, unattractive buildings with modern structures, that look good now, but how will they be perceived in 100 years?
If this is a debate about which school has more money to rebuild old outdated structures with modern buildings, then S>>>>>>B, obviously.
But Stanford has no reason to restore their old buildings, because no one will miss them. So they just do it. Berkeley obviously would replace Evans and Wurster if they could afford it. But fortunately, those are mere specks of dust on an unmatched collection of beautiful structures. B>S, and it’s not even close.
*Acquired Qualities (as in my case):
@B: grit
@C: street smart
@S: team collaboration
And finally, with no ranking! Peace. 
@UCBUSCalum : I didn’t know until now you could have UG and MBA students sitting together and have different grading policies @Haas. ><
Speaking of Haas, it has one of the best financial engineering programs (MFE) in the US/World. And how can you forget the “Linda factor?”
@scrambro: I actually like the Wurster’s exterior design. The building has been designed to blend in with its surroundings if you really look closely.
Cont. on post #25 due to a computer glitch a moment ago:
Almost everything you said was right in addition to "Evans Hall factor. But both B and C have campus space constraint + S has bountiful resource ($) dedicated to campus expansion plan => better overall outlook and therefore S has an edge in this category.
BTW, Evans Hall could be demolished in the near future. https://www.dailycal.org/2020/05/19/uc-berkeley-proposes-defunding-4-projects-allocating-money-to-replace-evans-hall-in-absence-of-prop-13-funding/
@CalCUStanford agree that S has the edge in the category of resources and space. And potential. If that is the category we are talking about, then they are the clear winner.
But I was discussing campus architecture, with the assumption that we were looking at current structures, not potential. Stanford has the potential to surpass everyone in the world in this category. But they will first need to construct buildings and features that stand the test of time, like UC Berkeley has. They have limited success so far with this, and are often referred to as a high end Taco Bell with their endless Spanish/Latin-influenced architectural styles. We can discuss this again in 100 years when they figure it out.
@scrambro: I’m talking about a continuous, progressive, rolling-based projection while you’re engaging in a frozen, still form of snapshot at a particular time point. Haven’t you ever felt "there is actually no now or present. All moments that exist are just relative to each other within the three spacial dimension. Your sense of the present is just reflecting where you are at that instance. " And “past, present, future may exist simultaneously” according to one theory in physics.
Two years ago when I visited the “farm” again for the first time after graduation, I noticed the Terman Engineering Center with rigid space-age designs were long gone, instead replaced by a newly built Jen-Hsun Huang Engineering Center that’s focusing on uniform aesthetics and space flexibility, in my humble opinion. Moreover, with a strategic location, it is “connecting engineering faculty and students more closely with colleagues in biology, chemistry and physics, as well as with medical researchers and physicians at Stanford’s medical center.”
https://cn.bing.com/images/search?q=Jen-Hsun+Huang+Engineering+Center&FORM=HDRSC2
Sidenote: Here is an anecdote about “the dark side of Evans Hall”:
https://www.dailycal.org/2014/10/29/haunted-locations-campus/
@CalCUStanford If your intention initially was to focus on “what could be”, then that’s something entirely different. And again, I agree that Stanford has a leg up in this category, due to money. Stanford wins the money war every time. Congrats, Cardinal!
My grave error may have been misinterpreting your category of “Architecture and Environment” to point to aesthetics, as there is no other category that points to this metric, which is valued in many college comparisons. In the classic sense, Berkeley accomplishes this in spades. You seem value the utilitarian qualities of a building, and are willing to accept a basic sense of aesthetics as long as space and practical requirements are satisfied. If the heptagonal( or whatever it is) entrance to the Jen-Hsun Huang building was replaced with a geodesic dome, or was eliminated altogether, I don’t think there would be one tear shed on the farm. And a diatribe about Doc Brown’s space-time continuum doesn’t change the fact that Stanford CONTINUES to struggle in its search for an architectural identity.
I admit it - Evans factor really plays an important role when giving an personal assessment in campus architecture category (B vs. S vs. C).
This subjective ranking actually lines up pretty well with my priors, except for the school resources part, where I would expect C to have a bigger edge over B.
Actually, they may have been roughly level in the late '90’s, but C has gotten richer since then while B has seen a relative decline in state funding.
Other than the funding (and the quality of the lower 25% in undergrad), I have heard that there actually isn’t as much difference between a Cal/UMich and Columbia/Cornell as the marketing hype may make you believe.*
- But in the non-HYPSM Ivy/equivalents league, there is a qualitative difference in the UG education between Dartmouth/Brown/Rice (who are closer to undergrad-focused LACs than a Columbia/Cornell) and Cal/UMich.
^ Addendum: I’d add the U of C and Caltech as qualitatively different as well.
On the point of evaluating graduate programs as an undergraduate and undergraduate programs as a grad student:
When I was an undergraduate, I had a lot of contact with grad students in my major field, and took several courses that were graduate program courses. I had a really good idea what their experience was like (which contributed greatly to my going to law school). When I was in law school, my sister was an undergraduate at the same university, and I knew several other undergraduates well from shared intellectual interests. One of them was a more-mature student who had started college elsewhere and then dropped out for several years, so she had a lot of perspective on her current undergraduate program. I also got to know faculty members who thought a lot about undergraduate education. I felt I knew a lot about what the undergraduate experience was at that university at that time.
Not everyone is in a silo all the time.
Re: architecture. I HATE the Taco Bell architecture at Stanford, as well as the limited-access, Valhalla style of Columbia. Berkeley is one of my very favorite campuses, thanks in large part to its heterogeneity and accessibility.
re #31 the social atmospheres at two of the named schools that I’m familiar with are a lot different, due to campus-centered college town vs. school in the big city.
FWIW I did undergrad and grad at the same university, and the two experiences were humongously different. The extrapolations about undergrad I would have made based on my grad experience alone would have been highly inaccurate. To the extent that OP TA’d the same courses as a grad student that he/she took as an undergrad, that would offer a fairer framework for comparison, than I had at least. IMO.
@monydad: Fair. So the comparison should be between Cornell vs. UMich and Columbia vs. Cal.
@PurpleTitan in post #31: I believe Cal’s 4-year graduation rate back in the early 2000s was significantly lower than the present one. In fact, some of my friends (STEM majors) had actually dropped out or on academic probation due to academic rigor.
An interesting link on Cal’s academic probation can be found here:
https://opa.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/ProbationRates.pdf
So were these Cal’s dropouts or students on probation (bottom 25%) less competitive than the private elite ones? I always notice the private institutions tend to have high rates of retention and graduation. Why? Because of a more selective student body or less academic rigor classrooms?
In addition to my own past experience, I also found an interesting post by D. Maydan @Qxxxa for his similar exp at Cal/Stanford:
Dror Maydan for “Which university is more difficult: UC Berkeley or Stanford?”
“So were these Cal’s dropouts or students on probation (bottom 25%) less competitive than the private elite ones? I always notice the private institutions tend to have high rates of retention and graduation. Why? Because of a more selective student body or less academic rigor classrooms?”
Mostly the first. And a third thing: more resources and better advising. Students at failure of dropping out at elite privates would receive more help and maybe be guided to easier majors.
@PurpleTitan: Great addition - “more resources and better advising.” In my opinion, it’s really a mixed of the three.