<p>Berkeley is so full of these undergrad hating, cellar dwelling, nerdy research types that nobody should ever think of going there (there are so many dense people on this board that I should note, that sarcasm is intended)...</p>
<p>Cheers,
CUgrad</p>
<p>I think that I would probably agree with you if you elaborated a bit more. The cyncism is OK. But there would be more power to your punch - and a punch may be what they deserve - if you were just as, if not more, articulate than they assume they are in outlining your point. CC could use this kind of input. There is no cynic or Kynic behind what I am saying. As a start, I think that the most obvious, but unstated fact about the college/university in our time is the power it holds in shaping the decisions and anxieties of teenagers and their families. This institution, one that prides itself in its capacity for reflexive action and critical thinking, fails to evaluate the consequences of this power. I am not talking about ideology and political correctness, but its role in shaping this game that CCers like me are required to play. For example, 100 years from now the general public will laugh at the idea that aptitude/intelligence was measured by the SAT, not unlike how we now look with amusement at the way they once measured it by feeling the shape of the human skull. Cheers, Brian</p>
<p>i can't imagine any way you could have made that more confusing, brian. what exactly were you trying to say?</p>
<p>filippenko's a great guy--he's so wonderfully excitable, but so ridiculously smart at the same time.
it's really very silly of people to assume EVERYONE at large universities ignores undergrads...</p>
<p>Sorry; I did not go the site posted - my firewall for some reason blocked it - so I spoke with the information posted. My mistake. Cheere again</p>
<p>Brian, </p>
<p>i agree with what your saying, but arguing with the vocal and often rabid berkeley critics on this board is like chasing your own tail...I'd rather post the link and let it speak for itself than give additional fodder to those who would rather spin and manipulate data and facts about Cal. I've seen the same data posted ad nasesum, but the simple fact remains, undergraduate quality at a university is impossible to quantify and individual experiences are so vastly different from one another, whether within or among universities that it's just stupid to debate the merits of say Duke vs. Berkeley...they're both great, that's the point. People need to talk to actual students, visit the schools and form there own opinions. Sure CC is a great place to start, but I think we can both agree that the vast amount of posts about a school such as Berkeley are posted by maybe five people (out of an undergrad population of 20,000+ plus countless alumni). For those Berkeley critics who like to talk stats--this is the same as taking a pearsons correlation with two data points...</p>
<p>I don't mind arguing quantitative points. For instance, a student who is worried about class size and would rather not take classes with more than 100 students would be better off at a school like Pomona, versus a school like Berkeley. I agree, Berkeley has its faults, and it certainly isn't Harvard in terms of per capita resources for undergrads (again, a quantitative piece of data that can be backed up facts). But what really bugs me is when people--and the Berkeley critics are so vocal about this--argue about qualitative points and spin data such that there is some proof to their opinionated point, i.e. whether faculty care about undergraduate teaching.</p>
<p>As someone who teaches at the University of California (not Berkeley, but that's not the point) I take great offense to this. Sure, there are faculty who are jaded and would rather not teach, and sure we joke about the quality of undergrads--but it's just that, a joke. Everyone of us not only take teaching very seriously--most faculty see it as the most important part of their job--but we take great pride in the fact that we are at a public university and serving the students of California. My last point to illustrate why this is important--Berkeley has more "economically disadvantaged" students (what this means, I'm not exactly sure) than all of the ivy league schools combined. To me, this speaks volumes about the role and mission of a place like Cal (despite it's faults) and is what makes it a much more important University (a qualitative point, my opinion) than any of those blue blooded schools back east...and I'm a product of one of those schools, so I'm allowed to make fun of them :)</p>
<p>Cheers,
CUgrad</p>
<p>Every large university has those types. You trade off the proportion of good faculty for great research opportunities.</p>