bilbobaggins wrote:A few things:
UCSF and Berkeley have cross-over curriculum and are very closely linked when it comes to the Med School. Berkeley has a clinical program that overlaps with the UCSF med school. I knows people in these programs, so any BS about what I've just said will be firmly rejected.
Rankings are generally stupid. Making a big deal about them is also stupid. But, if you're going to engage in it, be ready for some facts that firmly support UCB over Caltech or Chicago. There are some worldwide rankings that come out with UCB on top:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.c ... id=4339960
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEEACT_-_P ... 8Top_50.29
There are others that come out with Caltech of Chicago on top.
It's really a dumb argument either way and it seems to be coming from someone who is insecure about his or her not getting into Boalt and perhaps going to Caltech as an UG. You also seem insecure about being a science major.
I agree its a dumb argument either way and that arguments reduced to rankings, especially just one, aren't very good. The argument was being made dumb one way, so I am really just making it the other to balance it out, like the scales of justice. Crackberry is pretty strong in his/her opinions, and I respect that. I do think other opinions can be valid, and a lot of it comes down to what you value and individual preferences. I don't necessarily think that Cal Tech or MIT are better than Stanford or Berkeley, either, but I do think valid arguments can be made as to why they are better, at least for what they attempt to do.