Poll: Stanford vs. Berkeley

[GoldenBear]

Academically Stanford edges Berkeley, scoring a 4.9 to Berkeley's 4.8 in its academic reputation (Rankings provided by US News). Berkeley's engineering department though is better than Stanford's, and Stanford doesn't even have an undergrad business school. And overall the rest of the majors are about equal, with having a better Architecture program and perhaps edges Stanford through the rest.

Stanford has less people and smaller classes.

If you're in-state Berkeley is cheaper, while for out-of-staters it's more balanced.

Athletics wise both teams have had a strong history in the three major sports, football, baseball, and basketball; and I believe all three have won a national championship at one point or another. Stanford though generally has a stronger sports program all around than Berkeley.

Berkeley is more evenly distributed race-wise, while Stanford has a rather high majority of whites.

Setting wise the Palo Alto area is much cleaner and I would say nicer than Berkeley, and the campus is nicer as well.

It is easier to get into Berkeley, and the community college transfer program gives all kids opportunities to do so.

Berkeley is a public school, which operates under the prestigious UC system, while at Stanford you need a special talent not to graduate.

Stanford's mascot is a cardinal, while Berkeley is the..Goldenbear. And we all know a bear can beat the crap out of a cardinal.

 

[OS]

Heh, I went to Cal for a while and even now I'd still have preferred to have gone to stanfurd. Berkeley doesn't really take their undergrad education very seriously.

 

[GhettoFob]

<< Stanford's mascot is a cardinal, while Berkeley is the..Goldenbear. And we all know a bear can beat the crap out of a cardinal. >>



Oski can also beat the crap outta that tree too.

 

[OS]

<< And we all know a bear can beat the crap out of a cardinal. >>



Standfurds team mascot is actually a tree. And there is a video out there of Oskie beating the sh!t out of the Stanfurd tree.

 

[GoldenBear]

<< Heh, I went to Cal for a while and even now I'd still have preferred to have gone to stanfurd. Berkeley doesn't really take their undergrad education very seriously. >>

That must be why their Engineering, Business and other departments are some of the best in the nation..

 

[adams]

<< Stanford's mascot is a cardinal, while Berkeley is the..Goldenbear. >>



Actually, Stanford's mascot isn't a Cardinal, its the color cardinal. They are called the Stanford Cardinal, not the Stanford Cardinals. lol

 

[OS]

<< That must be why their Engineering, Business and other departments are some of the best in the nation.. >>



Many of those are graduate programs, not undergrad. And that's assuming you can get in. What good to the students is a ultra highly ranked program if most of the students can't get in?

 

[snakesnfrogs]

TCTC

 

[GoldenBear]

<< Many of those are graduate programs, not undergrad. And that's assuming you can get in. What good to the students is a ultra highly ranked program if most of the students can't get in? >>

It's undergrad.

And so I assume the programs at Stanford are just a breeze to get in, no?

 

[blues008]

Those US News rankings are pretty much dominated by the amount of money a school has - the only real unbiased fact is the academic index.

 

[GoldenBear]

<< Those US News rankings are pretty much dominated by the amount of money a school has - the only real unbiased fact is the academic index. >>

Princeton is about the richest school there is and their departments are far from the top.

Notre Dame, the school with a deal with NBC, is the same as well.

I'd say most experts would agree along the lines of the US News rankings..who are you to doubt them?

 

[OS]

Like I said, what does it matter if most of the students can't get in? EE, CS, business, all the high demand programs are for all realistic purposes inacessible as a whole. For example, to get into L&amp;S CS, you need something like a 3.7+ gpa in the core classes to get in. I mean having standards isn't bad, but atleast make them realistic.




<< And so I assume the programs at Stanford are just a breeze to get in, no? >>



I wouldn't know, I've never gone to school there.

 

[OS]

<< I'd say most experts would agree along the lines of the US News rankings..who are you to doubt them? >>



Unfounded assertion, where are these experts at?

 

[GoldenBear]

The toughness of getting into a program illustrates how prosperous and competitive it is to get in. How could you possibly use it as an argument that since it's tough to get in, it's not as good?

And, you don't have to transfer into EECS, if you're accepted from high school, you're in the program. There's about 3 people from my high school alone that are there..which triples the number of those in similar programs at Stanford I believe.

And...since you don't know how it compares to Stanford, what are you basing those statements upon anyway?

 

[RichieZ]

I go to the 59th ranked high school in the nation, well I just graduated. And generally the ppl who get into Stanford go there. 9 are going to stanford, over 20 to Berkeley. However 2 ppl who got into EECS went to Berkely instead of Stanford (only ppl who turned it down). Ppl from my school go to a lot of the top schools, this yr 3 to yale, 1 to UPENN M&amp;T, 3 to MIT etc. I think the belief at my school may it be wrong or rite is that Stanford is better for most things except for engineering.

Me? I'm going to McCormick SChool of Engineering at Northwestern, I applied EECS are Berkely and didn't get in. Didn't get into Stanford either. I think I would have gotten into Berkeley College of Letters of Arts and Science. A friend of mine got in (wants to do CS) and I defiently have better scores and extra carricualr stuff than he does. But I don't want to work my ass off for 2 yrs and then still maybe not get in.

 

[GoldenBear]

<<

<< I'd say most experts would agree along the lines of the US News rankings..who are you to doubt them? >>



Unfounded assertion, where are these experts at? >>

Look at other sites and even college discussion forums. After doing much research they tend to agree.

 

[WasabiCat]

<< Actually, Stanford's mascot isn't a Cardinal, its the color cardinal. They are called the Stanford Cardinal, not the Stanford Cardinals. lol >>


errr? their mascot IS a stupid looking tree
just remember this:
bears piss on trees

 

[GoldenBear]

<< Actually, Stanford's mascot isn't a Cardinal, its the color cardinal. They are called the Stanford Cardinal, not the Stanford Cardinals. lol >>

When referring to the school you refer to their mascot in the plural form. When referring to an invidual going to that school, it's singular.

 

[67gt500]

your call dude.

just remember, it isn't really the institution that matters.. it is how you apply yourself.

I know some pretty damn smart people that have come from small state universities. and I know some f'in aholes that have come out of ivy leagues.

 

[RichieZ]

<< And, you don't have to transfer into EECS, if you're accepted from high school, you're in the program. There's about 3 people from my high school alone that are there..which triples the number of those in similar programs at Stanford I believe. >>



YOu're rite, EECS is a program that selects you rite out of high school. They have like 300 slots each yr, this yr 6 ppl from my school got in. Every yr a couple of kids go there. Its funny tho cause once ur in its hard to get kicked out, a good friend of mine has like a 2.8 GPA and he's a Junior now

 

[GhettoFob]

<< bears piss on trees >>



LOL

 

[OS]

<< The toughness of getting into a program illustrates how prosperous and competitive it is to get in. How could you possibly use it as an argument that since it's tough to get in, it's not as good? >>



Well, if your priority in going to school is the prestige and the name, that's fine. My priority in going to school is to get an education and to learn. If I can't get an education in the area that I desire, the program is worthless to me as a student regardless of how it's ranked.




<< And, you don't have to transfer into EECS, if you're accepted from high school, you're in the program. There's about 3 people from my high school alone that are there..which triples the number of those in similar programs at Stanford I believe. >>



Somehow, it strikes me as vaguely unfair that people who already in the university basically can't get into the EE program. Since you aren't in college, you probably don't understand that most people will change their majors atleast once, if not many times, over the course of their college life. The administration should reflect this reality, but it doesn't.



<< And...since you don't know how it compares to Stanford, what are you basing those statements upon anyway? >>



That the situation is unacceptable for any school, let alone a supposedly world class university. If Stanford does the same thing, that would also be wrong.

 

[UCBPride]

stupid poll. Goldenbear, you cant rate college by reputation!!!

 

[monto]

cal sucks, but then again, i'd rather not buy a degree for $25x4

 

[RichieZ]

For checking for bias, do you go to Cal? Where are you going? Cals a really good school, do you have a grades to get (in if ur still in HS)? I kno you post a lot of topics about Cal and i've always wondered