<p>“Basically sakky’s point is that Berkeley doesn’t recognize LIFE.”</p>
<p>Precisely – and neither does Stanford. I was pinpointing the girlfriend example because it was weak and didn’t support his point much.</p>
<p>“you are conceding with the other two statements”</p>
<p>No, I wasn’t. I simply found the ‘girlfriend’ example to be particularly ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh really? Would you like to come talk to the guy that this happened to? I happen to know the guy well, and you don’t. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s both. For one simple reason - Berkeley * admits * a higher percentage of lower-quality students. Some don’t make it through. But some do. </p>
<p>I never said that ALL bad students at Berkeley don’t make it through. Again, this often times happens to do with luck. If you just happen to end up choosing classes that are easy, you will probably make it. Heck, you might even end up doing well. On the other hand, you might be a very good student, and do badly anyway. Just ask the people who took Math with Professor Wu. </p>
<p>In other words, the * variability/risk * at Berkeley is higher. You might be a good student at Berkeley and still not make it, because like I said, life sometimes intervenes. Berkeley doesn’t care if something bad happens to you right before the test - you still have to take the test anyway, and if you do poorly, that’s your problem. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course Stanford offers these creampuff majors! But that’s not the point. The point is, you try to do something difficult at Berkeley, and you screw up, that’s your problem. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You guys just don’t seem to remember how painful first loves can be. Either that, or you don’t care. </p>
<p>Think of it this way. What’s so bad about letting a guy like that take a makup exam at another time? Or if that’s not feasible, then give that guy an I (incomplete) grade and letting him take the exam during the next term that the class is taught? Are any of these unreasonable requests? Keep in mind that these aren’t fully formed and functional adults here. These are basically just kids here, of 17-21 years of age. There’s a reason why we don’t let kids of that age drink legally - because we as a society know that they don’t have the emotional maturity to handle it. For most of these kids, this is the first time they’ve ever lived away from home, away from the watchful eyes of their parents. All of them are going to undergo growing pains. </p>
<p>But you guys just don’t seem to care about that. And that is * precisely * the kind of attitude that I find odious. Heck, you guys seem to have absorbed Berkeley’s attitude perfectly - something bad happens to you, you have to take the test anyway, and if you screw up and get an F, too bad, that’s what you get. No compassion, no sympathy. </p>
<p>If anything, this just reinforces my point further - why would you want to go to a school like that if you have a different choice? By characterizing these scenarios as ‘silly’ or ‘ridicilous’, you guys are only proving my point even further. After all, I know that guy who had broke up with his first serious girlfriend in his life certainly didn’t think that the situation was ‘silly’ or ‘ridiculous’. Maybe a thing like that shouldn’t screw you over in school. But what if it does? A lot of things in life that shouldn’t happen, do happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems to me that Stanford is ALSO a top 5 school for CS, so that point is irrelevant. </p>
<p>Again, the question is, given the choice between 2 top schools, why wouldn’t you choose the one that has more compassion? You guys keep talking as if compassion is somehow a bad thing.</p>
<p>Choose Stanford. Stanford, like all other people said, is a more well-rounded university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you keep missing my point, to the level that I suspect that you don’t WANT to understand my point.</p>
<p>Again, the point is, Stanford is compassionate about YOU. Of course Stanford doesn’t care about your girlfriend. I never said they did. Why would they? They care about YOU. Specifically, Stanford is more forgiving about WHATEVER problems you may have. </p>
<p>Besides, even if you find my points to be ‘weak’, so what? At least I have points to be made, even if they are ‘weak’. What exactly are your points?</p>
<p>Sakky, show me in writing where Berkeley or Stanford have policies about postponing tests…where Berkeley takes a tougher stand than Stanford on issues like boy friend-girl friend problems. </p>
<p>Stanford is more forgiving about “WHATEVER” problems you may have.</p>
<p>Whatever? </p>
<p>You don’t know what you are talking about.</p>
<p>There aren’t policies because the exceptions to the normal rule of “take the test on time” as you might imagine are pretty rare. There are people on campus who can talk to professors if you are having a rough quarter for whatever reason and try to work something out, but as you imagine these vary too much on a case-by-case basis to have any set out rules. </p>
<p>I don’t have any clue if this exists at Berkeley, it is entirely possible that it does. I do know that at Stanford people like the Residential Deans can intervene when necessary, perhaps the counselors on campus too (not sure about the counselors, am sure about the Residential Deans). There is a pretty active (and complex) support system in place if a peer, RA, or prof ever notices a student who may need extra help. </p>
<p>I do know that at Stanford a lot of profs are willing to make themselves accessible to students. If I had a tough personal situation I’m pretty sure most of my profs would try to help in whatever way they could. Once more, not being a student at Berkeley, I have no idea if this is the case there, it is entirely possible that it would be.</p>
<p>"Again, the point is, Stanford is compassionate about YOU. "</p>
<p>I know that’s your point, and I disagree with it. It’s almost as if you don’t want to understand that I disagree. The girlfriend example, I’ll simply add, didn’t really help to support your assertion that Stanford is more compassionate about the student. (In fact, the example sorta weakened your case; examples are to support, not to weaken.)</p>
<p>What I think you mean by Stanford’s compassion is that, while at Berkeley they don’t “hold your hand,” Stanford is less competitive, professors might be more available, etc.</p>
<p>And my own point? Without getting too deep into this discussion, I’ll reiterate: neither is superior to the other in CS education. As such, I wouldn’t “recommend” one over the other. Opportunities at Stanford might be easier to obtain, but Berkeley too offers many.</p>
<p>iAppler:</p>
<p>“Choose Stanford. Stanford, like all other people said, is a more well-rounded university.”</p>
<p>Er, who said that? I think they’d be wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s your problem, dstark? You don’t like what I’m saying? Then don’t read it. </p>
<p>If you have a personal problem with me, I would suggest we take it offline. Otherwise, back off.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And how exactly did it weaken anything? This is a guy who suffered a wrenching psychological problem right before an exam. You think it’s easy to deal with something like that? Maybe you’d like to experience it sometime and then come back and tell us how it feels. But Berkeley didn’t care - he had to take the test anyway. THAT"s the point. </p>
<p>And my question is - why? What’s so bad about delaying the test? Is that really prohibitive? Why is that such a problem? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I disagree. I can give you one simple reason. The fact that CS (and EECS) are impacted at Berkeley is, all by itself, a reason to prefer Stanford over Berkeley. After all, you might go to Berkeley, take all of the prereqs to get into the major, and still not be allowed in. I know people who weren’t able to get into the CS major and were thus forced to major in something they didn’t really want. In contrast, at Stanford, you can switch to CS or EE at anytime.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll be happy to do so. Once you’ve shown to me in writing all the things that you have asserted in the past regarding Berkeley. </p>
<p>Oh, can’t do it? So why then are you asking others to do so. You know and I know that such standards of proof are impossibe. I don’t ask you to ‘show me in writing’ everything you’ve ever said.</p>
<p>Marlgirl, thanks for your post. My nephew goes to Stanford. My niece is going to go to Stanford. It’s a great school. </p>
<p>My issue is with Sakky’s blanket statements. Of course, it is a case to case basis.</p>
<p>kyledavid80: Where is your proof that says Stanford is NOT well rounded?</p>
<p>Stanford has well-rounded education in computer science, engineering, medical research, international relations, politics and liberal arts for undergraduates.</p>
<p>If you look at the ranking (I hate to point out the ranking system), Stanford is ranked 4th OVERALL. There is a reason for ranking, though there are many factors that are not relevant to undergraduate education. </p>
<p>Who said that Stanford is the most well-rounded university in the U.S.?</p>
<p>A lot of people on this forum do. I recommend you to read through ALL the posts on this forum and mark down how many times people have said that.</p>
<p>Berkeley is a nice school, but it does depend on which department you get in. For departments other than Computer Science, and possibly School of Haas (I heard that you have to use your freshman’s grades to apply for Haas)… it is easier to get in (please feel free to disagree with me on this part).</p>
<p>In an environment which provides both liberal arts and sciences, I don’t see why Stanford is NOT well-rounded.</p>
<p>Another thing about Stanford is that when you enter as a freshman, you do not have to choose a major. This means that the admission office has to choose “well-rounded” students, not just students for example, who are good at sciences but not languages.</p>
<p>I agree with sakky over the issue of majors. Stanford in this regard, has tremendous advantages over Berkeley. Students, who are all well-rounded students, can choose any majors at any time (
of course, this is a little bit exaggerated).</p>
<p>Now, back to the main subject. This brilliant, and WELL-ROUNDED student got into two brilliant universities, but he now needs to choose between UC and Stanford. You can’t say, neither one is more superior than the other, since he has to choose ONE OF THE TWO. I would say Stanford > Berkeley. Because the fact that you are so WELL-ROUNDED, I would say Stanford offers more choices and opportunities and clubs and… you get my point…</p>
<p>Another thing about Stanford is its campus. I don’t know about you, but I personally do not like to live in an urban area. Well, Berkeley is sort of sub-urban, but oh well. I like Stanford better because it has tons trees and a shopping center (fun time!), and not many urban structures around the campus.</p>
<p>iAppler: you completely misinterpreted what I said.</p>
<p>“Where is your proof that says Stanford is NOT well rounded?”</p>
<p>I never said it wasn’t. I refuted the assertion that Stanford is a more well-rounded university than Berkeley.</p>
<p>“Stanford has well-rounded education in computer science, engineering, medical research, international relations, politics and liberal arts for undergraduates.”</p>
<p>And Berkeley doesn’t?</p>
<p>“Stanford is ranked 4th OVERALL.”</p>
<p>This doesn’t speak of Stanford’s well-roundedness, though I’m well aware of how well-rounded Stanford is.</p>
<p>“A lot of people on this forum do. I recommend you to read through ALL the posts on this forum and mark down how many times people have said that.”</p>
<p>That’s an ad populum argument. It doesn’t matter who says it. (My question “Er, who said that?” was rhetorical.)</p>
<p>“For departments other than Computer Science, and possibly School of Haas (I heard that you have to use your freshman’s grades to apply for Haas)… it is easier to get in (please feel free to disagree with me on this part).”</p>
<p>Yeah, disagreed. Applying to Berkeley with certain majors (like EECS) can prove pretty difficult, though obviously overall Berkeley isn’t as difficult to get into as Stanford.</p>
<p>“Another thing about Stanford is that when you enter as a freshman, you do not have to choose a major.”</p>
<p>For the most part, it’s the same at Berkeley (though for some majors, you’re admitted directly to the college). In fact, at the College of Letters & Science, they encourage you to explore your interests before declaring a major.</p>
<p>“Stanford in this regard, has tremendous advantages over Berkeley.”</p>
<p>I don’t think it’d be a “tremendous” advantage.</p>
<p>“You can’t say, neither one is more superior than the other”</p>
<p>Yes, I can, and I did. You really need to pay attention to all words in a sentence; I said that in terms of education in CS, neither is superior to the other. See:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“I would say Stanford offers more choices and opportunities and clubs and… you get my point…”</p>
<p>You really haven’t researched Berkeley, have you? Choices? If you’re talking majors, no. Opportunities? Again, I’d say no. At Berkeley, though, the opportunities may be somewhat harder to get, but with a school of over 2,000 faculty, 30,000 students, and tons of research and projects, the opportunities are there. As for clubs, there tend to be more at a university when there are more students. According to Stanford’s site, there are 600 clubs; according to Berkeley’s, there are 700. I’m not saying that this should matter at all, but the statement that there are more clubs at Stanford is simply untrue.</p>
<p><a href=“http://stanford.edu/dept/uga/[/url]”>http://stanford.edu/dept/uga/</a>
<a href=“http://students.berkeley.edu/osl/osl.asp[/url]”>http://students.berkeley.edu/osl/osl.asp</a></p>
<p>“I don’t know about you, but I personally do not like to live in an urban area.”</p>
<p>To be honest, the one thing that turns me off about Stanford is that it’s not very urban.</p>
<p>“I like Stanford better because it has tons trees and a shopping center (fun time!), and not many urban structures around the campus.”</p>
<p>Many like Berkeley because it’s in an urban area (Berkeley + Oakland + SF nearby).</p>
<p>To expound on the ‘well-roundedness’ point, let’s look at the NRC rankings (a bit old, I know, but simply for the sake of ‘well-roundedness’):</p>
<p>Universities with Highest Number of Programs in the Top 10
<p>Universities with Highest Number of “Distinguished” Programs
<p>As you can see, Berkeley’s pretty well-rounded. It offers ~300 degree programs (and perhaps more majors than Stanford, though I’m not quite sure). Berkeley is known for having established itself in basically every area. As such, I don’t think Stanford is more well-rounded than Berkeley. Again, though, I wasn’t saying that Stanford isn’t well-rounded.</p>
<p>Yes, yes, yes. 32 programs for 21000 undergraduates in Berkeley; 28 programs for 6500 undergraduates in Stanford?</p>
<p>Of course Berkeley has more programs, considering the fact that it has more students…</p>
<p>One does not have to be a math genius to figure out which university has more opportunities for individuals.</p>
<p>You’re missing the point. The 32-28 difference is simply the ‘distinguished programs’ ranking. But at a larger university, there are more people, more opportunities created, etc. At Stanford, there are fewer people, fewer opportunities, etc. But it’s all proportional.</p>
<p>How is it proportional?</p>
<p>Berkeley needs 102 in order to maintain student-number-to-program ratio.
Of course, there are not just 102 programs, but let’s say there are 204 programs. That is still the same.</p>
<p>Your data clearly corroborate my point.</p>
<p>Small universities provide more opportunities for individuals. During an interview with a college essay book, Holly Thompson, Stanford’s senior admission officer, said so as well.</p>
<p>Of course there are more programs created at Berkeley, but that does not mean EVERYONE has a reasonable share. At Stanford, although there are fewer programs, almost every interested can participate.</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t the small private university have just as many programs? Why not just have fewer students in those programs? That’s like saying, “Well of COURSE LA has a high crime rate! There are so many people!” Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed.</p>
<p>“During an interview with a college essay book, Holly Thompson, Stanford’s senior admission officer, said so as well.”</p>
<p>You just love fallacies, don’t you? Appeal to authority…</p>
<p>“but that does not mean EVERYONE has a reasonable share.”</p>
<p>They do. Sure, it might be harder to get into certain majors, but there’s no reason for you to be automatically turned down.</p>
<p>As an added note, I’m pretty sure that anything you can get at Berkeley, you can get at Stanford (and vice versa) in terms of programs – it just might be in a different form.</p>
<p>iAppler
i agree with you. i think Stanford, because of its size, will offer more chances for each student to thrive.</p>
<p>Berkeley is a good university, but not all the departments are good. Stanford on the other hand, is good holistically.</p>
<p>i would strongly recommend stanford over Berkeley.</p>
<p>Piannoyny: uh, which department at Berkeley is not good? I’d like to know…</p>
<p>And how do you know that Stanford is good all around? Source? General opinion?</p>