<p>For those of you that are saying it raining all the time:</p>
<p>You don't know what you're talking about. Right now we're having more rainfall in the Bay Area in over 50 years. Normally it rains less than half this much.</p>
<p>Its either rainy and/or windy at Berkeley throughout most of the school year. The only really pleasant weather happens in the summer.</p>
<p>And Berkeley Parent, maybe if you had attended the school you wouldn't have such rose-colored glasses about everything pertaining to Berkeley. Its a mediocre experience, especially for those who care about academics. Are there nearly enough professors for everyone to have an experience like your son? No, not by far; and many people who have worked with professors have told me what a grind it is and how they get treated like grunt-workers.</p>
<p>Polite antagonis, you're meterology is off, ridiculously so.</p>
<p>"Its a mediocre experience, especially for those who care about academics"</p>
<p>That's funny!</p>
<p>So there is quite a lot of discussion about aspects of Berkeley that aren't great and yet that no one does anything about. I'll be going there next year but it would be great if I knew about these things going into Cal. Would anyone care to enlighten me? Thanks<3</p>
<p>There are many good things at Cal and there are many bad things. The bad things, in my opinion, are the bureaucratic tangles you get into when money or official documents etc. needed. Its frusterating when you have to wait in a line for 1/2 and hour just to find out you've been in the wrong line. Luckily, I rarely have to go through things like that, so its not a major complaint. Also, some of the professors and GSIs are hit or miss when it comes to being good, engaging teachers. But I've had way more good ones than bad ones so I just chalk that up bad luck. There are also some complete tools on campus, but again, there are complete tools everywhere, and I don't think Berkeley has any sort of monopoly on them. Hmm, what else? Well, alot of the classes are really difficult, but I don't think that will shock and prospective students. Other than that, I really dig the place. I don't think Berkeley is for everyone though, and you should make sure you know what kind of environment you're getting into before you come here so you don't end up like politeantagonis.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Youre quite a man, Sakky. Youll show you cant be pushed into saying anything nice about Berkeley. Youre back with your slurs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? Shall I enumerate all the ways in which I personally counted off all of the good things about Berkeley.</p>
<p>Looks like according to you, one is never allowed to say anything bad about Berkeley at any time, because Berkeley is clearly immaculate. And if one does ever point out anything bad about Berkeley, that person is obviously biased because you refuse to acknowledge that there might actually be some merit to it. </p>
<p>Who's the biased one now? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure, Berkeley is a fairly decent school, and not more.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, taking my quotes out of context. The context is that Berkeley is a fairly decent undergraduate school, relative to schools like HYPSM. It's like when people say that, say, Kerry Collins, former quarterback of the Oakland Raiders, or Alex Smith, current 49ers QB, are bad. In fact, Collins and Smith is one of the best football players in the world. After all, not only did Collins make it to the NFL, but he actually became a starting quarterback, and had formerly made the Pro Bowl and in one year took the Giants to the Superbowl. Alex Smith was actually drafted #1. </p>
<p>But yet I think we can all agree that many Bay Area football fans believe that Collins and Smith suck. That's because they suck relative to other NFL starting quarterbacks, and that frame of reference is obviously implied. Shall we go around correcting all of those fans by saying that Collins and Smith are actually one of the greatest football players in the world (which they are, if you want to compare them to the average person in the world)? I turn on ESPN and I see announcers and pundits saying that this player is no good, that player is no good, etc. etc. Shall we correct them? No, I think the frame of reference is implied and understood. Kerry Collins and Alex Smith are bad players, relative to the standard of an NFL starting quarterback. If you want to compare them to somebody in the Arena Football League, then they are obviously great. But who wants to make that comparison? </p>
<p>
[quote]
And then you enter the realm of athletics where you lose even your phony veneer of impartiality with your gratuitous comment about cheating and Cal football.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? How's that? I'm just pointing out that Berkeley has a bunch of really bad years before Tedford came along. Are you saying that this is not true? That Cal football was great during the Keith Gilbertson or Tom Holmoe years? Are you saying that the Cal football team didn't land on probation because of academic improprieties? That none of this ever happened? </p>
<p>Look up the Cal football records in past seasons and you can see for yourself. We all have the rights to our own opinions, but we don't have the rights to our own facts. The fact is, Cal football was bad through the mid to late 90's, and did land on probation. Anybody who is interested in Cal athletics ought to know that. Unless you are saying that people should not be given the facts. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You represent a certain psychological type that finds solace in trashing the institutions that nurtured you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If that's true, then I could just as easily say that you represent a psychological type in constantly praising your institutions, and deliberately ignoring the bad stuf. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What is doubly sad is the number of people you mislead on this board with your nonstop assaults on Berkeley
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I could just as easily say that I find it triply sad about the number of people that you mislead on this board with your nonstop praising of Berkeley. After all, you're just going to convince people to come only to find out the bad stuff after they have matriculated.</p>
<p>Look, I think my position is highly balanced. Berkeley has some good things. Berkeley also has some bad things. I have discussed the good things many times. In particular, I have many many good things to say about the Berkeley graduate programs, and I am happy to endorse them. The undergrad program is a bit of a mixed bag. My endorsement of it is therefore highly conditional. I'm not saying that I never endorse it. Rather, it depends on a person's particular personality, cost, and most alternatively, alternatives. If the alternatives are the other UC's, then I would lean towards Berkeley. If the alternative is a less strong private school that isn't giving extensive aid, then I would once again lean towards Berkeley. For example, I suspect that Berkeley is probably a better financial deal than is Cornell, for somebody in-state and without financial aid. </p>
<p>However, against HYPSM, that's a far more difficult argument to make. Unless cost is a main driver, I can't in good conscience advise people to take Berkeley undergrad over HYPSM. I can't. Because from what I have seen, Berkeley undergrad isn't as good. That's not bashing. That's an honest assessment of the facts the way I see it. </p>
<p>You on the other hand, can't seem to take the fact that there are some schools that might actually be better than Berkeley undergrad. If that's what you believe, then fair enough. You have your opinion, and i have mine. But there is no need to denigrate other people's opinions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you most need to know is that there are a couple of regular posters on this site who have a pathological animus toward Berkeley. Ignore them and look forward to having a great college experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hope that wasn't a shot at me.</p>
<p>I would also further point out that there are some posters that seem to have a pathological infatuation for Berkeley, such that they will never acknowledge that any school might be better at anything. Rayray_222/Westside/california1600 was one of those people. </p>
<p>I believe that all potential students need to understand both what is good and what is bad about a particular school before deciding what to do. Read everybody's posts, and make up your own mind.</p>
<p>"Look up the Cal football records in past seasons and you can see for yourself. We all have the rights to our own opinions, but we don't have the rights to our own facts. The fact is, Cal football was bad through the mid to late 90's, and did land on probation. Anybody who is interested in Cal athletics ought to know that. Unless you are saying that people should not be given the facts."</p>
<p>Why the HELL would ANYONE care? That was a past administration and a coach that is long gone. This year we have a chance at a national title and the Heisman Trophy. And to prevent probation in the future, Tedford has implemented strict academic standards for the team, not to mention our star runningback reportedly has a 3.1 GPA. Stanfurd will continue to be our b!tch on the gridiron in the foreseeable future, and maybe the hardwood too.</p>
<p>As far as academics go, I can't speak for math and the hard sciences, but every professor I've had so far has been excellent. Often times, the lecturers REMIND the students to come to office hours, as was the case in my Japanese class. In another of my classes, some of leading-edge researchers on campus are brought in to talk about their work, such as Tyrone Hayes in the IB department. It sounds to me that some of the posters here had no initiative in finding out who the best professors were, what the best classes were, and what to do in their spare time. I'm only here because I'm procrastinating on writing my paper. But you sure as hell won't find me here on game-days, or after I've graduated, for that matter.</p>
<p>For a thread that intends to discuss positives about Cal, it's bogged down by personal jabs and comparisons to the Ivies. I would hope that inability to pay attention to the topic doesn't apply in class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why the HELL would ANYONE care? That was a past administration and a coach that is long gone. This year we have a chance at a national title and the Heisman Trophy. And to prevent probation in the future, Tedford has implemented strict academic standards for the team, not to mention our star runningback reportedly has a 3.1 GPA. Stanfurd will continue to be our b!tch on the gridiron in the foreseeable future, and maybe the hardwood too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why anybody should care is that al Cal, these things come and go. Gilbertson was bad. Steve Mariucci added some excitement in the 1 year that he was coach. Then he left for the 49'ers. That started the Tom Holmoe era, which was bad. Now, Cal is in a strong patch again. But if and when Tedford ever leaves, then Cal may turn bad again. </p>
<p>Any serious student of Cal football history has noted the highly cyclical nature of the team. That's why people should care. In particular, I think current students who are football fans are a bit spoiled in the sense that they weren't around during the bad years and hence don't understand how bad things can get. To ignore that cyclical history is to simply take a selective view on history.</p>
<p>The same is true of Stanford. It wasn't that long ago when Stanford football was better than Cal's. It also wasn't that long when the Stanford basketball team was ranked #1 - in fact, the last Pac-10 team to be ranked #1. The point is, both Cal and Stanford football/basketball are highly cyclical. In a few years, Cal might be bad again and Stanford might be good again. I don't want that to happen, but I acknowledge the possibility.</p>
<p>My problem with your "fairly decent" comment was that, personally, I think Cal is better than that no matter what you're comparing it to. I wouldn't argue with someone that said HYPSM+a few others are better than Berkeley, but I do think its better than just fairly decent. Berkeley is a good school in any context, and if you can't even admit that without a qualifier then I think you loose credibility on these boards.</p>
<p>Hey, I think 'fairly decent' is quite a charitable statement, particularly when compared to HYPSM. I have been sorely tempted to use far more aggressive language in that context, simply because, again, I don't think Berkeley measures up to HYPSM at the undergraduate level. Yet I choose the phrase 'fairly decent'. I think that's pretty good.</p>
<p>Again, compare this context. Let's say that you're talking about the Raiders. One guy says that Kerry Collins sucks. Another guy says that he's actually one of the greatest quarterbacks in history. Strictly, speaking, the 2nd guy is technically correct in the sense that any NFL starting quarterback is one of the greatest quarterbacks in history, in the sense that 99.9999% of all quarterbacks in the world will never make it to the NFL, much less actually start. However, I think that from most Raiders fans would tend to agree far more with the first statement that Collins sucks. Raiders fans all understand intuitively that Collins is worlds better than, say, the average high school football team quarterback. But the fact is, Collins has not helped the Raiders to win, and in that contest, that's why he sucks in the eyes of the fans.</p>
<p>If you think that berkeley is only a fairly decent school, then I can't argue with you, but it really puts everything you've said before and will say in the future into a new context for me.</p>
<p>Like I said - 'fairly decent' within the assumed context. Just like saying that Kerry Collins 'sucks' within the context that the conversation is usually within (i.e. not being compared to guys from the Arena Football League, a context in which Kerry Collins obviously looks like the second coming of Johnny Unitas).</p>
<p>Look, if you can't see that there is an implied context in any conversation about anything, then I really don't know what to tell you.</p>
<p>polite antagonis...</p>
<p>...where is it said that Berkely Parent did not attend Cal? I would be careful about making such generalizations...</p>
<p>cheers,
CUgrad</p>
<p><em>sigh</em> ... in all of Berkeley Parent's post he/she talks about his/her one son who went to Berkeley. If he/she went to Berkeley it would've been too long ago for it to be relevant.</p>
<p>Don't worry your lack of critical thinking skills will fit into Berkeley nicely if you're coming here.</p>
<p>Polite Antagonis,</p>
<p>I don't understand why you attack my critical thinking skills...</p>
<p>I quote, </p>
<p>"And Berkeley Parent, maybe if you had attended the school you wouldn't have such rose-colored glasses about everything pertaining to Berkeley."</p>
<p>Were those not the words that came out of your mouth? If you don't want people to call you on your faulty logic, then perhaps you should be more careful when you go on one of your attacks...</p>
<p>oh...and your critical thinking skills and reading comprehension are top notch. Again, I quote,</p>
<p>"Don't worry your lack of critical thinking skills will fit into Berkeley nicely if you're coming here."</p>
<p>You'll notice my tag is CUgrad, not "CU thinking of attending Berkeley."</p>
<p>Keep trying to validate yourself...</p>
<p>Cheers,
CUgrad</p>
<p>My point about Berkeley grad remains true which was the only point of substance being debated. </p>
<p>I felt like throwing in an insult because of the condescending tone.</p>
<p>I hardly need validation from an annonmyous forum poster.</p>
<p>I know this is an old topic by now but communist smurf is right, the weather is usually not that bad (probably much better than most places). I live in Northern CA and this is the rainiest I've ever seen it; it's the first time I've actually seen April showers.</p>