<p>Berkeley is extremely good for a state school. It is seriously mind blowing, considering the quality of education for a public institution.</p>
<p>More evidence of Polite Antagonis' racism: </p>
<p>
[quote]
Certain professors are easier (test only what is in the book assigned) and better (taught the class many times so can really get to the crux of what needs to be understood). I took chem 3b twice, once with Jain and once with the jewish guy and there was a huge difference. Jain had never taught the class before and was on some sort of probation for failing too many chem 112a students or something (my memory of this is really foggy). Jain ended up giving too many A's so he would get booted back up but his bad teaching and unrepresentativ tests was bad for learning. The jewish guy wasn't easy by any means but he was fairer and a great teacher.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why does he have to be "the jewish guy"? If he's a good, fair teacher, why can't you refer to him by his name like you did with the other professor? </p>
<p>Racist.</p>
<p>I forgot his name, the only fact I can remember is that he was jewish. I remember Jain's name was because he was so annoying.</p>
<p>Its well known people remember negative campaign messages more than positive campaign messages. This is the corrolary for a jaded senior referring to a class he took 3 years ago.</p>
<p>But you're right. I'm a racist. Oh man, you got me there, I called one of the best professors I ever had as jewish. You better watch out if I'm ever in your neighborhood, I might just compliment people from Mexico as hard-working and asians as family-oriented. You better watch out, I'm a menafce to society!</p>
<p>Yes, racist indeed. But selectively so. </p>
<p>Notice for example your interdistinctions between Hispanics but lack thereof between Asians. You imply that "Mexicans" are the epitome of a "hard-working" group. But it is a verifiable fact that UScentric American citizens like yourself class all Latin American immigrants (incluiding the "hard-working" ones) as "Mexican" in spite of the fact that the "hardest working" (most employed) Latin American nationality has been shown to be...Argentinians. Dissimilarly, you clearly state your belief that "Asians" are very often family-oriented. Well, I'll have you know that the Japanese, in general, are not. Why don't you differentiate among Asians like you do among Hispanics? Racism, I say. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But you're right. I'm a racist. Oh man, you got me there, I called one of the best professors I ever had as jewish.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not like the same German students who worshipped their Jewish professors in 1929 didn't turn their backs on them in 1933 and conspired to burn not only their books but their flesh. Besides, why must you remember his jewishness in particular? Couldn't you remember his stature? The nature of his hair? The sound of his voice? On the flipside, do you remember your Buddhist professors because of their Buddhism? And on the flip side of that, do you remember which of your professors were Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim? If you don't, then you are guilty of having a special obsession with Jews. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Its well known people remember negative campaign messages more than positive campaign messages. This is the corrolary for a jaded senior referring to a class he took 3 years ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In light of all the charges you've made against what you perceive to be "the majority" of Berkeley professors, this is irrelevant. The reality of the situation is that you have claimed that most Berkeley professors from whom you have taken a class do not care about their students. Does that mean that you remember most if not all of the horrible professors' names but none of the rarer, precious good ones? Apparantly it does. </p>
<p>Everyone can see how false PA's explanation of why he calls his former Jewish professor "the jewish guy," truly is. I mean, there are TONS of students who are in weeder majors (where "horrible" professors suppodedly abound) and take astronomy with one man and WILL remember his name: Alex Filippenko, an ultrapopular professor. If PA had taken him, s/he would have remembered him and hoped that every professor would approach His greatness. PA might even measure "the jewish guy" against Filippenko and hoped "the jewish guy" would turn it up a notch and become another Filippenko. The same would arguably happen to any other Berkeley undergrad in a weeder major. Again, since these students are engaged with a "hostile" faculty, it is to be expected that they remember any good professors they may have had. (This is why so many students in weeder majors take, love, and recommed Filippenko-they remember him and wish other professors were that cool.)</p>
<p>Thus, Polite Antagoni's "I forgot" explanation becomes laughable. IF s/he did forget, then clearly s/he is not as "intelligent" as s/he implies and is thereby unfitting to belittle the intellectual capabilities of Berkeley undergraduates, for an "intelligent" student in an "intelligent" major would surely remember his or her pleasure object-a good professor. </p>
<p>If Polite Antagonis is not racist than I'm not annoying to him/her.</p>
<p>Do I really care if you think I"m racist? No. Why? Because you're a fool who argues over picayune details; most if not all of my generalizations have been stated as tendencies among racial groups and minorities, not statements of absolute fact unlike the last one where I stated to **** you off.</p>
<p>This is why you should learn to read and why I suggested you learn how to use hooked on phonics. </p>
<p>Moron.</p>
<p>I identified him as jewish because thats the easiest way for other students to identify him compared to Jain. THere is only one jewish professor teaching chem 3b. There are several white professors; there are all about the same height and you sit like 100 yards away from him when you go to class so how are people suppose to remember him. Yeah, I could've described him in other ways, but most likely people will be able to more easily identify him since he has the only jewish name. </p>
<p>Moron.</p>
<p>People remember things in details about things they dislike much more than about things they like. Its a provent statement in the field of pyschology rendering your arguments spurious if not downright incorrect.</p>
<p>Moron.</p>
<p>A simpler explanation is that you are an idiot and fail to see equally plausible explanations of action and would rather debate picayune details and make absurb attacks about racism because you suffer from cognitive dissonance and like most sheep are unable to deal with it. Hence, you resort to generic ad hominem attacks from having to deal with the truth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A simpler explanation is that you are an idiot and fail to see equally plausible explanations of action and would rather debate picayune details and make absurb attacks about racism because you suffer from cognitive dissonance and like most sheep are unable to deal with it. Hence, you resort to generic ad hominem attacks from having to deal with the truth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or it could simply be that I am deliberately out to annoy you and don't believe any of what I say. You'll never know, for your views appear to be truly static. After all, I've implied in previous responses to you that I am not a man. Yet, you continue to refer to me as such.</p>
<p>I might add that since I appear to be incredibly disaggreable to you, in accordance with the psychological "proof" you are evoking, you should remember my comments more than anything on this forum. Thus, I can conclude that either I am not really annoying you by calling you a racist or your memory power is really low. Either way, you're still sexistly referring to me as a man. I am a woman. Your treatement of me is analogous to your labeling of your professor as a "jewish guy" rather than as just another man whose name you don't remember.</p>
<p>Referring to a generic person as a he is the standard historically though it may be less true today.</p>
<p>There is a point that perhaps I should be more precise.</p>
<p>I shoudl say certain derivatives of east asian cultures tend to value education very highly such that in America, children of these cultural derivatives are taught to overvalue brand-name institutions like Harvard and Yale at the expense of almost-as-good institutions like the University of Chicago or Duke. As such these progeny when they enter college are likely to apply in larger numbers for top schools even if they are reaches because of pressure to do so from parents. There is a cultural difference there that may be hidden in the statistics of Berkeley that makes the application pool different from other schools.</p>
<p>I could, but its too much trouble, so I don't.</p>
<p>Ah Ok. Well at least we're getting somewhere.</p>
<p>is berkeley that bad? ****...</p>
<p>This topic makes me worry about Cal, really.</p>
<p>If you really care, look at other schools. Take up statistics from other schools in America, from U Va, Mich, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Northwestern, whatever, that are supposed to be of similar quality to Berkeley. Do you know how hard it is to get into graduate school? Educate yourself and don't read into this what you think is there without being unaware of the processes involved. Worry all you want, but educate yourself first, please.</p>
<p>Who said Berkeley students were underrepresented at top law schools? Harvard accepted 811/7046 applicants for 2005, and 557 enrolled. Out of those, 43 were from Berkeley.</p>
<p>Harvard - 232
Yale - 126
Stanford - 91
Princeton - 65
Duke - 55
Penn - 53
Brown - 51
Columbia - 44
Berkeley - 43</p>
<p>Those are the top schools sending students to HLS. I'd say that's pretty impressive for Berkeley.</p>
<p>Wrong. If you checked more closely, you'll see that the the numbers you gave add up to more than 550.</p>
<p>And it doesn't say which class so I'm guessing that means overall representation for the each of the 3 years of law school. That means Berkeley sneds about 14 students a year.</p>
<p>I guess in relation to other big schools it doesn't look that bad, but only part of these students were graduating seniors when they got into harvard law and you don't know how many repeat applications they are in the bunch.</p>
<p>I know that Harvard's undergrad sends 5% of its students to Harvard Law each year so that's about 75 people. Times 3 would approximately equal the numbers given by the stats above. </p>
<p>I would bet a great deal of money that most of Harvard's students are coming straight out of undergraduate wheras a significant portion of those 14 or so students a year are not.</p>
<p>Polite Antagonis said in Post 16: </p>
<p><<berkeley's students="" aren't="" great.="" its="" academic="" program="" is="" sporadic="" in="" quality,="" has="" no="" problem="" giving="" undergrads="" bad="" grades="" with="" arbritary="" professors,="" and="" getting="" a's="" while="" pulling="" a="" normal="" workload="" requires="" lot="" of="" work="" because="" it.="" addition="" the="" size="" classes="" makes="" great="" teacher="" recs="" all="" more="" difficult;="" most="" if="" not="" undergraduate="" programs,="" jobs,="" internships,="" activites="" are="" impacted="" much="" than="" they="" at="" comparable="" public="" universities="" private="" colleges.="">></berkeley's></p>
<p>My S may not be a great student but he's had no problems maintaining an A average his first year while taking four classes each semester, being selected as the only freshman for a paid internship, getting two leadership positions in two different campus organizations, and getting to know and work with a couple of professors well enough that he'd feel comfortable asking for letters of rec, being selected to attend a conference back east (expenses paid), etc...</p>
<p>Yeah, this is just one kid, but he's not an extraordinary student, he's not a Type A personality at all, and it's just not that hard to get involved and be successful at Berkeley. Opportunities abound.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who said Berkeley students were underrepresented at top law schools? Harvard accepted 811/7046 applicants for 2005, and 557 enrolled. Out of those, 43 were from Berkeley.</p>
<p>Harvard - 232
Yale - 126
Stanford - 91
Princeton - 65
Duke - 55
Penn - 53
Brown - 51
Columbia - 44
Berkeley - 43</p>
<p>Those are the top schools sending students to HLS. I'd say that's pretty impressive for Berkeley.</p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, obviously the unfair part of the comparison is that Berkeley simply has many many more undergrads than do any of those other schools on the list. Berkeley has about 23k undergrads, compared to 13k at Penn and from 4-8k at those other schools mentioned. </p>
<p>The one statistic that really strikes me from that list is that Stanford has more than twice the representation that Berkeley has at HLS, despite having less than 30% the undergrad population. Hence, on a per-capita basis, Stanford has 6 times the representation that Berkeley does. One could say that the other schools might send a lot of kids to HLS just from a pure geographic standpoint (i.e. people get used to the Northeast and don't want to move). But you can't really say that about Stanford students.</p>
<p>However, to be fair to Berkeley, Berkeley has more students in HLS than other big public schools such as UCLA or Michigan, despite the fact that those schools have even more students than Berkeley does. Hence, Berkeley is obviously doing quite well relative to the public schools. Heck, on this score, it edges out UCLA and routs Michigan and the other UC's . And of course with the CalStates, there is clearly no comparison.</p>
<p>You base that on what, PA? Gut feeling? And the Harvard statistics? Where are those?</p>
<p>
[quote]
* This year there were 3 admits to MIT from the EECS department. Last year, there were also 3. There are about 1,000 students in EECS, so that represents the top 0.3%. And EECS is one of Berkeley's strongest departments.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait a minute now. I disagree with this. There are only about 300-350 graduates of EECS every year, and about 100 graduates of the BA CS program (if you want to count them). Still, it's not close to being 1000 graduates every year. </p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EECS.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EECS.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/CompSci.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/CompSci.stm</a></p>
<p>In response to mom's thread, I'm guessing he's in a soft major right now so its easy to pull off straight A's. </p>
<p>For the opportunity thing:</p>
<p>"being selected as the only freshman for a paid internship"</p>
<p>Yeah, the ONLY freshman. As I've said in previous posts you have to work that much harder because there are so few positions for talented people.</p>