<p>Okay, then at least you aren't just some Californian who thinks it'd be great to have "a change."</p>
<p>Tell you what. You stop telling people that UCs are the devil, and we'll stop thinking that you're just an East Coast shill.</p>
<p>
[quote]
viccissitudes tells you that the typical class sizes at Cal and Stanford are quite close. This is not true!! And he also wants you believe this holds more generally, between large state U's and privates. He does this with a number he concocts from the Common Data Set. Well as Disraeli once said, "There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So now you are saying that the statistics that the universities themselves publish are lies. Well, I'll leave it up for the readers to decide. Do you trust Stanford University, and The University of California, Berkeley more, or an anonymous person on an online message board, who may not even attend a UC or have had any direct experience with them?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So WHY is the number viccisitude contrives misleading? If you go to page 24 of the Cal 2004/2005 Common Data Set report you will see "All unit-bearing classes at Berkeley are tracked as primary courses, and reported here under class sections". In other words, Cal can puff up their numbers to be anything they want just by adding more 1-unit seminars that meet once a week (if that) and EACH of these courses will appear in the stats just like a real class with 4 units that meets 3 times a week.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hah! And you don't think that's happening at other schools? You don't think Stanford has any 1-unit seminars? You don't think Harvard or Cornell do? So how does these statistics skew in favor of Berkeley?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now ask yourself: with (15+7 = 22) classes enrolling a total of less than 66 kids but listed as 22 classes in the Common Data set (a quantity equalling the 22 or so classes actually enrolling the thousands of kids taking Econ this semester), how relevant is the existence of these small classes to the experience of the average Cal student taking an Econ class? The answer is they aren't. At Cal, most kids don't take these small classes very often if at all. The Econ majors are in classes with around 100 kids, and that's once they get thru the pre-major classes with several hundred. And it's the same for other common majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you are arguing that Berkeley has many very small classes, which don't affect very many students but skew the data. Okay, let's take a look at all the classes at Berkeley and Stanford with 9 or under:</p>
<p>Classes with 9 or under:</p>
<p>Stanford: 32.1%
Berkeley: 31.2%</p>
<p>Nice try, but your theory doesn't hold up. At nearly every subdivision, if not every, the statistics look almost the same. So if you want to say that all those tiny classes that most people don't even take because they are so small skew Berkeley statistics, looks like there are even more of these classes at Stanford skewing the Stanford statistics.</p>
<p>What's the bottom line? Class sizes at Berkeley and Stanford, percentage-wise, are not very different. About 30% of the classes at both are under 9, about 75% at both are under 30, and about 5-7% at both are over 100. Both universities have large intro classes and many small classes, seminars, and upper division classes. Students should know that classes at elite private universities are probably a bit smaller on average, and definitely smaller when it comes to LACs, but between a relatively large private university (like Stanford or Cornell) and a large public university, the difference isn't as large as you would think, so don't be deterred from some great schools like the UCs SOLELY based on class size.</p>
<p>
[quote]
vicissitudes knows this if he/she is a Cal student. He knows the number he was able to cook up using the Common Data Set stats doesn't represent the reality of him/her or friends.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If I really know that the numbers don't represent the reality at UC Berkeley, why would I defend them anyway? Am I just so miserable at Berkeley with my huge classes, that I want to trick high students into coming here to suffer with me? No, I want to give high school students a wide and fair look at all the universities available so they can make educated, informed decision for themselves.</p>
<p>But what's your motive for posting? Do you even attend a UC or have any experience with one?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Understanding why his claim is wrong is <em>important</em> because this forum is for the benefit of HS students trying to make a huge decision on their future. If you don't know any different from personal experience (since you're still in HS), you can end up assuming it isn't that different in terms of class size whether you go to state or a private, so why not save some bucks? If this leads you to Cal (the top-rated public in the country and a dam*ed good school by any measure) maybe it's not such a bad thing, but there are plenty of other situations where the impact could be pretty negative.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree it's important. It's very important for high school students to get the big picture. To do that, we must be fair to all the options: public and private universities. Biases like the ones futurenyustudent holds against certain institutions, without presenting good logic/support to back them up, are dangerous in misleading potential applicants, and deterring them from some great schools that they otherwise might have been very happy at. I know when I was a high school student I was a bit turned off by a lot of bashing of Berkeley that was happening at the time, but most of it is untrue or wildly exaggerated.</p>
<p>Look, I'm not here to cheer for Berkeley or UCs or whatever school I like. I'm just trying to make things fair and rid readers of misconceptions and biases. For example, I would easily tell almost every high school student to choose Harvard, Yale, Stanford (yes Stanford), Princeton, Columbia, Cal Tech, over Berkeley in a heartbeat. I think that's fair, and most people would agree. I would also tell many people to consider choosing other excellent schools like U Chicago, Northwestern, Duke, U Penn, Brown, Cornell, over Berkeley, depending on their situation and what they like. I would even tell some people to consider schools like UVa and UCLA over Berkeley, which are very respectable peer institutions. It depends on the person, of course.</p>
<p>To be fair, I have my gripes with the UCs, and I think there are definitely some things they could be doing better. The 58% 4-year graduation rate is still too low for me, even if many people do indeed choose to stay (I've seen this). Major impaction is a problem (although it affects a small minority of students). I think the campus is over its carry capacity, to be honest, and it would be a good idea to stop admitting so many students and let them sift through down to the lower UCs, which are underadmitting. But let's not kid ourselves either: there are many problems that are also present at other schools. Cornell could care to be more selective; Harvard could concentrate a little more on undergrads (believe it or not many undergrads complain about this). What many people need to realize is the problems some people point out at certain colleges exist at nearly every college. So when you say something like "large public universities have huge intro classes," well that's great, but so do most other universities.</p>
<p>What I would not do is allow posters here who, for some reason, have decided to hold their own personal biases against certain schools, mislead and deter students away from some great schools. We should encourage students should try to have many options as possible, not say "UCs are not good schools and I wouldn't even consider them." That's great, and it's your opinion, but it doesn't contribute to anything. Look, if you don't feel like contributing, then don't bother posting here, or else you would just be trolling. Take your prejudices out somewhere else. Realize that the UCs are in general, good school, that many people like, but some people don't. Just because you lie in the minority who don't doesn't mean everyone shares that opinion, so telling us how much you dislike the UCs isn't really helping anyone. If you want to provide some positives and negatives, or compare/contrast them to peer institutions, that would be much more helpful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree it's important. It's very important for high school students to get the big picture. To do that, we must be fair to all the options: public and private universities. Biases like the ones futurenyustudent holds against certain institutions, without presenting good logic/support to back them up, are dangerous in misleading potential applicants, and deterring them from some great schools that they otherwise might have been very happy at. I know when I was a high school student I was a bit turned off by a lot of bashing of Berkeley that was happening at the time, but most of it is untrue or wildly exaggerated.</p>
<p>Look, I'm not here to cheer for Berkeley or UCs or whatever school I like. I'm just trying to make things fair and rid readers of misconceptions and biases. For example, I would easily tell almost every high school student to choose Harvard, Yale, Stanford (yes Stanford), Princeton, Columbia, Cal Tech, over Berkeley in a heartbeat. I think that's fair, and most people would agree. I would also tell many people to consider choosing other excellent schools like U Chicago, Northwestern, Duke, U Penn, Brown, Cornell, over Berkeley, depending on their situation and what they like. I would even tell some people to consider schools like UVa and UCLA over Berkeley, which are very respectable peer institutions. It depends on the person, of course.</p>
<p>To be fair, I have my gripes with the UCs, and I think there are definitely some things they could be doing better. The 58% 4-year graduation rate is still too low for me, even if many people do indeed choose to stay (I've seen this). Major impaction is a problem (although it affects a small minority of students). I think the campus is over its carry capacity, to be honest, and it would be a good idea to stop admitting so many students and let them sift through down to the lower UCs, which are underadmitting. But let's not kid ourselves either: there are many problems that are also present at other schools. Cornell could care to be more selective; Harvard could concentrate a little more on undergrads (believe it or not many undergrads complain about this). What many people need to realize is the problems some people point out at certain colleges exist at nearly every college. So when you say something like "large public universities have huge intro classes," well that's great, but so do most other universities.</p>
<p>What I would not do is allow posters here who, for some reason, have decided to hold their own personal biases against certain schools, mislead and deter students away from some great schools. We should encourage students should try to have many options as possible, not say "UCs are not good schools and I wouldn't even consider them." That's great, and it's your opinion, but it doesn't contribute to anything. Look, if you don't feel like contributing, then don't bother posting here, or else you would just be trolling. Take your prejudices out somewhere else. Realize that the UCs are in general, good school, that many people like, but some people don't. Just because you lie in the minority who don't doesn't mean everyone shares that opinion, so telling us how much you dislike the UCs isn't really helping anyone. If you want to provide some positives and negatives, or compare/contrast them to peer institutions, that would be much more helpful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I basically agree with almost all of this. The second paragraph is a bit too broad for me personally, a bit too unnuanced. The 58% 4-year grad rate doesn't bother me so much. Other than that, this is pretty good.</p>
<p>woah, I just started this as a fun little thread, which complemented the UC system and now its exploded into huge debate.</p>