Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I know that there is some kind of rivalry between Berkeley and Stanford.
I've talked to few Berkeley people
and read few posts here on Berkeley,
and they seem to acknowlege that there is a rivalry between Stanford and Berkeley.

How do you Stanford people feel?
Do you think it's jealousy on Berkeley's
part or do you'll consider them a rival?
If you do, how did it get started?
(Is it like Yale vs Harvard type thing?)

Just out of curiosity..
thannks.

By Feuler (Feuler) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit

I have heard this too... I think Berkeley refers to Stanford as the "Junior University" (for those unaware, the full name of Stanford is Leland Stanford, Jr. University). I think there's a big football game they play or something.

I don't think Berkeley can even begin to compare to Stanford with regard to, say, academics, though.

By Calbears2007 (Calbears2007) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 11:02 pm: Edit

Well, I must say, undergrad wise, Stanford academics probably is better than Cal largely because Cal has so many times more students than Stanford. Obviously, there will be not a lot of individual attention. However, you saw the newest US News Rankings (I usually don't base my whole opinion on rankings, but they do give a slight hint), in fields such as engineering Cal is right behind Stanford, (It has been MIT, Stanford, Cal for the past few years now) and I do think Cal has one of the top chemistry / chem E programs. Basically, I think the biggest reason why Cal's undergraduate program isnt as good is due to the size of the class. However, if you look at it another way, if you don't get individual attention, that means you must know how to do things yourself and maybe without assistance (a skill that may come in handy later on).

But in general, I respect Stanford a lot in terms of academics and I will seriously consider Stanford as a possibility for grad school. As for the rivalry, I think it is basically limited to football (sorry Stanford fans, but I think the axe will stay at Cal for a while ;D) and basketball, and I think for the most part, academically, both sides show mutual respect for the other.

Also, I think wat Feuler means is that PRESTIGE-wise, Berkeley cannot compare to Stanford, but academic wise, we are not necessarily all that far off.

By 08pride (08pride) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 03:42 am: Edit

I think it is basically limited to football (sorry Stanford fans, but I think the axe will stay at Cal for a while.

Stanford football is way underrated this year. We will begin by upsetting USC. Then we will move into the top25 and spank Cal in the Big Game.

By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 07:03 am: Edit

Stanford is called Leland Stanford Junior University because it is named after Leland Stanford Junior, not because it is a Junior University. (sigh...)

I don't care too much about this rivalry business. Like said by 08pride, it's just a football thing.

By Calbears2007 (Calbears2007) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 02:12 pm: Edit

hahahaha "We will begin by upsetting USC."

Feel free to say "just kidding" any time...being underrated implies that you actually have talent. Obviously, Stanford does not have anyone good this year, so therefore, they did not underrate Stanford

USC with Leinart at QB and Williams at receiver (assuming he comes back but even if he doesnt USC is still one of the best) and Cal with Rodgers and MacArthur...like i said, the axe stays.

Hopefully this year we play better than last year...because last year's big game...honestly I dont think its something to be proud of...we played horribly until we picked it up a bit in the fourth.

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 02:33 pm: Edit

I'm Cal Class of 2008. And yeah, I think that there's a rivalry outside of the football field (and let's face it, it's pretty one-sided on the football field). On the other hand, the Cardinal basketball team could most likely spank the Cal team any day of the week.

In terms of academics, I think comparing between Stanford and Cal is like comparing apples and oranges due to obvious reasons, but many folks do because of their proximity to each other as well as the fact that they are the two top schools west of the Rockies.

In my observation of my plethora of Stanford-bound friends, they are just as excited about the rivalry as Cal students. Berkeley students do tend to get really irked when Stanford students do get occasionally go into their "holier-than-thou" condescending attitude (and you can't deny that some Stanford folks are like that). Other than those select few, however, I believe that the rivalry is friendlier than most people think.

By Irock1ce (Irock1ce) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 10:47 pm: Edit

Berkeley is super liberal (at least it feels like it.. think Green or Socialist party) Stanford has traditionally been only Democratic party. Thats why we clash.

By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit

"as well as the fact that they are the two top schools west of the Rockies."

Is it just me, or does it seem like Caltech always gets ignored?

By 08pride (08pride) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 12:35 am: Edit

"Obviously, Stanford does not have anyone good this year."

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!

1. We have Mark Bradford. Haven't heard of him yet? You will. He became our leading receiver as a TRUE freshman last year. He had the best numbers for a true freshman in Stanford's history, and will destroy the Pac-10 this year.

2. We have nine returning defensive starters. 9!

3. Our TE, Alex Smith, is ranked as one of the most prolific TE's in the Pac-10.

4. According to some preseason sources, our secondary ranks 19th in the nation, and our linebacking corps ranks 24th.

We will be better this year. If not this year, than definitely in the future. Our starting QB is a sophmore. 45 players of the 96 man roster are either redshirt or true freshman. Cal people, keep talking sh*t. You won't be able to for long.

By Amylase (Amylase) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 08:58 pm: Edit

yeah, Caltech is also an excellent west coast school, but many people just seem to ignore it, may be because it is so small?

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Yeah, it's small (population-wise) and also really specialized, hence it often times gets ignored.

By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit

MIT is really specialized but doesn't get ignored. I think it really boils down to size.

By Silmon77 (Silmon77) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 07:55 pm: Edit

I dunno much about college football, But my history class TA last year was Alan Smith, one of the top 3 ranked football players in AZ, who was selected by ESPN along with other top high school players in the the nation to announce their college plans on TV. He decided to go to Stanford (I think on an athletic scholarship) and "be on the winning team" (his words). So don't dismiss Stanford's talent pool just yet.

By Ghostman (Ghostman) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 09:09 pm: Edit

cal isn't on the same level as stanford academicall for two umbrella reasons:

1. There are far more students at Cal than at Stanford (undergrad). In other words, the student: professor ratio at Cal is much higher. There is more attention given to undergrads at Stanford. Lots of kids at Cal end up having to take summer classes because gen-ed classes fill up during the year.

2. Funding. Stanford's endowment is somewhere over 10 billion now, having far more financial resources. Cal's budget is dependant on state funding.

By Ghostman (Ghostman) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 09:10 pm: Edit

oh ya, I'm a stanford student and I have nothing against Cal. I think it's an inferiority complex thing on Cal's part.

By Khan (Khan) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 09:22 pm: Edit

The Cal-Stanford rivalry began long before Stanford even became a prominent university (in other words in the days when Cal was more prestigious than Stanford). So, I wouldn't go so far as to attribute it to an inferiority complex (although I could see why someone nowadays could draw such conclusions).

My point is, Cal-Stanford rivarly is deeply rooted in the history of both schools- we are cross town/bay rivals of old. Stanford might have the upper hand at the moment, but give Cal some more time, and they'll be back on top!

By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:02 pm: Edit

It's true that the Kal-Stanfurd rivalry began when Cal was more prestigious than Stanford, but I'm sure that the Berkeley students felt and acted superior to the Stanford students in much the same way that Stanford students act and feel superior to Cal students today.

By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:54 pm: Edit

If back then Cal was clearly superior to Stanford, for what reason other than football would the two have become rivals? If the rivalry was really academic, wouldn't Cal have chosen a better school to be its rival?

By Rtkysg (Rtkysg) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 03:52 am: Edit

Back then, Berkeley's status was slightly above Stanford's. The only reason why it didn't have another rival is because there was no equivalent school other than Stanford in the West Coast (Caltech, back then when NASA enjoyed its winning years, had surpassed Berkeley's prestige but too specialized and no sport such that it was regarded a nerdy school).

By Khan (Khan) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 10:57 am: Edit

Also, the key to having a good rivalry is the proximity of the schools to each other. If the schools are too far apart, the rivalry kinda loses fervor (it becomes more difficult for teams to play each other, pranks to be played on each other, etc. etc.).

For example, think back in high school... High schools have cross-town rivals (not cross-state, or cross-country). A lot of times, the rivalries are manifested in the sports events, but becomes prevalent in other areas as well like academics.

Think of all the great college rivalries. They are between schools that are relatively physically close to each other: Harvard-Yale, Michigan-Ohio State, UCLA-USC, etc. including Cal-Stanford.

Even if CalTech was a bigger school and had a sports team, it would have been a bad choice for a rival because Cal and Caltech are physically so far apart from each other. (Students would have to drive 6 hours or take a plane in order to steal their mascot!! ).

Stanford was the logical choice back then. During those times, the university size for both schools were a lot more similar I imagine. I doubt anyone would have questioned the choice of rival back then.

Not to drag this out, but one might argue that Caltech's rival is M.I.T., simply because they are two top-notch technical schools. If this is true, it's purely academic, and I don't think it has the same kind of mystique, tradition, and fun that a good, historical rivalry (athletic, academic, and cross-town) has.

The feeling I get from Stanfurdites from this thread is that Cal is SOOOO below Stanfurd- why even bother? If that's true, that is just really sad. There's a lot of fun to be had in a college rivalry, and if your attitude is such, I think you'll be missing out on a lot.

By Mysticwistful (Mysticwistful) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 01:40 pm: Edit

Berkeley was founded by Yale alums who chose blue as the school's color. Stanford's first president was from Cornell who chose red as Stanford's color. How is it that Cornell beat Yale so badly out in the West?

By 9806sunrise (9806sunrise) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 06:39 pm: Edit

BUMP

By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 01:06 am: Edit

"Berkeley was founded by Yale alums who chose blue as the school's color. Stanford's first president was from Cornell who chose red as Stanford's color. How is it that Cornell beat Yale so badly out in the West?"

Well, I don't really agree that Stanford>>>>>Cal but for argument's sake... a better analogy would be 'How is it that minority-oppressing robber-baron railrood tycoons beat Yale so badly in the West'.

By Deferreddude (Deferreddude) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 10:30 am: Edit

UC Berkeley has a rich history of opressing Chinese-Americans too. That's the sad fact of this country's bigoted and shameful past.

By 9806sunrise (9806sunrise) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 07:18 pm: Edit

thanks for the replies