Both programs are very good, the specific PI is going to be much much more important than any generic advice you glean from this thread. Separately, the environs are very different. Stanford is pristine, quiet, safe, boring, isolated, VC-oriented. Berkeley is urban, gritty, dense, exciting, outgoing, academic. For most people it doesn’t really matter but if it does for you this could be important.
> Stanford is pristine, quiet, safe, boring, isolated, VC-oriented. Berkeley is urban, gritty, dense, exciting, outgoing, academic.
This is a huge difference IMO. If you want insulation from the world, go to Stanford. If you want to be immersed in it, good bad and ugly, go to Berkeley.
>Both programs are very good, the specific PI is going to be much much more important than any generic advice you glean from this thread.
I completely agree with this- your advisor will be the most influential factor of your phd years, for better or worse.
Also, some programs have a reputation of enrolling a lot more students than there is actually room for, with purposeful high attrition during the first couple of years. I am not sure if Stanford or Cal have this reputation or not, but might be something to look into.
This is a brilliant post. One of the best that I have read in months.
Real question: How do you know? Example: Did you partner get a PhD in Physics at Stanford and you at UCB? Or, did you get masters at Stanford, but PhD at UCB?
Anybody who has spent any time in either place could tell you that the atmosphere is miles opposite. Wrt “choose advisor, not department”, that’s standard PhD advice when you have good options
I live in Palo Alto and previously went to grad school in Berkeley, and I can corroborate. Frankly you wouldn't need to spend more than a couple hours in either location to pick up on those vibes.