Aside from UC Berkeley, where else have you been accepted?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
121

<p>
[quote]
1) a sense of Cal's different mission; it is not trying to be nor can be Harvard;

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, who's to decide what Cal's "mission" is? As I see it, one of Cal's "missions" should be attract ALL of the best high school students in the state. We all know that's not really happening. Top kids from up and down California reject Cal's invitation to come to Berkeley. I find that unaccepable. If you go back and look at the historical records you'll see that Berkeley's early administrators would agree with me and heck, even JFK would. When he visited Berkeley, "Athens of the West," he, a Harvard alumnus, famously said that Berkeley should become the "new Harvard." Now of course, after decades of bad management, Berkeley has given up on that noble goal. Birgeneau recently summed up the current attitude when he said, "It seems to me that the one thing we don't want to do here is to emulate Stanford or Harvard or Yale." In other words: "Although Harvard and Stanford are the best universities in the world, I refuse to even attempt to improve Berkeley to such an extent."</p>

<p>
[quote]
2) the fact that people who go to other schools realize there's room for improvement there at those other schools also. There's this underlying notion that "it's just perfect at Harvard."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Read back a few months. People, incluiding sakky, criticize Harvard quite frequently. But Harvard has a lot less to criticize than Berkeley.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Case in point: my ex-girlfried who used to moan about Berkeley (going to my point about Berkeley's culture of complaint, see post above).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, cultural mannerisms, like stereotypes, usually have some truth behind them. Berkeley fosters a culture of complaint because quite frankly, Berkeley has a lot of things to complain about.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And then she went to Harvard and her conclusion was that she had way underrated Berkeley when she was there.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah well, when people successfully move from bad places to good places, they tend to recall the bad place as much better than it actually is/was. For example, researchers have found that former Guantanamo Bay detainees are more likely than current Guantanamo detainees to think the Guantanamo Bay detention center is a good place. </p>

<p>Now of course I'm not REALLY comparing Berkeley to Guantanamo. The point is that once people have triumphed over an obstable, they are more likely to look back and think the obstacle wasn't really that big of a deal. But we need to overcome that flawed thinking and realize that Berkeley definetly IS an obstacle to thousands of current, former, and future undergrad students.</p>

122

<p>Dobby, don't give me such softballs: who decides what Cal's mission is are the Regents of the UC and the California Legislature and Governor. They have the say. They make the decisions about it as a system. You can find out pretty easily what this mission is. In the state plan for higher education, it is to provide, at a UC, a place for the top percentage (I think its 4% now) of the high school graduates, though no guarantees of being on a particular campus. The purpose is to provide access to a high quality education, as much as possible, to anybody that is qualified. This is thought to be a public good. They opted to -- and succeeded -- making Cal the UCs flagship a top university that is state-funded (now partially) and that maintains on a broad academic basis pre-eminent leadership across a variety of disciplines. No one would argue about the quality of Cal's graduate school on a broad basis; it is par excellence full-stop. </p>

<p>Where Cal's mission creates both confusion and, on your part apparently, disappointment (I assume you went there), is that it offers the promise of this pre-eminence to undergraduates -- access to some of the best minds in the world, not just the nation, and a milieu in which they are overall part of this academic striving at this level. But is a much larger institution on an undergraduate level and doesn't have the same level of resources for the undergraduates on a per-student basis as private schools of pre-eminence. It offers the promise of Harvard's quality, but is a public school with a different mission. In the context of rankings, it has traditionally been a confusing entity for the reasons I said above -- some people expect that it should have a clear undergraduate identity on a par with the top universities in a nation, with which it clearly is on a par on the graduate level, and others want to parse the rankings and decry Cal as a pretender undergrad wannabee GASP state school to the elitist quality of Harvardetal. </p>

<p>Your posting itself suggests that you think Berkeley should be the Harvard of the West, and you quote the idealistic JFK on this score. JFK never sat on the Regents of the UC, my friend, I don't doubt you know. That's an aspirational statement he made, and I think you know what that is, but JFK wasn't literally saying take Cal out of the hands of the state, change its charter make it private, start to raise a bigger endowment for it, and bring it on, was he? So, you are left with an undergrad that's larger than the top private elite, that attracts a lot of stellar students many of whom go on to go head-to-head with the best students in the world and best them (Nobelist Andy Fire, now a professor at Stanford, who was rejected from there as an undergrad, by the way is one example someone cited) and also other students that don't match the quality head-to-head of Harvard's student body for instance but who are fine. What's the problem here, dobby? </p>

<p>Cal's not going to be Harvard; its mission, which we can know because its public record, is clear. In his statement, Birgeneau is realizing Cal's uniqueness which might be encapsulated by the phrase "pre-eminence with a public mission." Birgeneau can't impose quotas for instance on the number of Asian students that come into Cal the way Princeton or other elite universities do. He can't let in prospective students who may be on the bubble in terms of admission but whose parents have donated $100 million to the institution. You sound really bitter that Berkeley will never have an identity as an ultra selective undergrad school and be able to act with the privately-funded nimbleness and social and racial selectivity of a private school. But you know what? Who cares? Berkeley does well perenially for a lot of people who go there, enjoy the experience, take on its challenge and go one to further their elite education at the Ivy League and a host of other great universities throughout the world. Or in great jobs. (I tremendously admire Cal for its public mission and am very proud of it for that reason, but what's interesting is some of the top professors who choose to teach at Cal do so because of its different mission.)</p>

<p>And, sorry, I am not buying your bad management argument. First of all, your measure of bad management is looking for outcomes that aren't even squarely part of the university's mission. The UCs, and Cal in particular, represent pre-eminence in public higher education that other states and countries would would kill to emulate. The putative bad management that you are referring to relates primarily to Berkeley's more challenging and resource constrained mission at the undergraduate level. It's too bad you didn't get the country club you were looking for apparently when you went to Cal. I had a great experience there, and having also been on the private side of the fence, I would argue that because so much of your education is what you make of it in the context of the teaching resources you are offered, even with its resource constraints the teaching by your professors and in the classroom by your peers at Cal puts it on a par with just about anywhere. </p>

<p>When I went Back East, what I found the biggest distinction between students who had come from an environment like Cal's or a private college environment was that some of the products of private colleges had an attitude that could really be summarized as "you need to make sure I understand what it is you are trying to teach me because I pay $30,000 per year here." A fair point on one level, but on another level just spoiled. Granted, these were the bad ones. If you are at Cal and you are an astute player, you can get as good an education as anywhere. But it is more of a challenge. Some people admittedly aren't up for it. If you didn't understand that Cal has its roots in a public mission, maybe now you do. And you most certainly did choose wrong.</p>

<p>Regarding criticisms of Berkeley and thinking Harvard is perfect, etc., your statement number one in which your quoting JFK and his aspirations for Berkeley and decrying the fact that Berkeley hasn't succeeded in becoming Harvard pretty much encapsulates exactly what I am talking about and negates the arguments you make to contrary. You think Harvard is the best thing there is going, obviously, -- and the closest thing there is to perfection. You think it's the model to which Cal should aspire being.</p>

<p>Regarding my ex-girlfriend's experiences, don't write other people's books with your own contents. You have no idea what she thought of either Berkeley or Harvard beyond what I said. Don't impose your sense of the relative quality of these institutions. What you said is not reality for her; it's your opinion based on your experience (again, I am assuming you went there). And by the way, did you go to Harvard to make a comparison?</p>

<p>You obviously didn't like Berkeley (as I said, I assume you went there). Well, why the hell didn't you transfer out? If you didn't understand its different mission and challenges when you were applying, you sure as hell must have when you got there. It's not for everyone, it certainly wasn't for you. You seem to need to have been in a place in which you could identify yourself clearly with the ultra-elite. I think you should have gone to Harvard.</p>

123

<p>UCLAri: I meant to respond earlier to your contention that the excellence of UCs on the graduate level doesn't benefit people in state. Wow, the narrowness of that statement is devastating. (okay, I am being a drama queen for effect by saying that, it was partly tongue in cheek.) But only partly tongue in cheek; it bears examining how devastating this remark you made is.</p>

<p>But really:</p>

<p>1) There is no doubt that the quality of Berkeley, UCLA and other UCs on the graduate level heightens the quality of education, research opportunities for the undergrads as well. It's on that basis that, for instance, Birgeneau is entirely credible to characterize his aspirations and understanding of his role at Cal of supporting what I call "pre-eminence with a public mission."</p>

<p>2) A lot of UC graduates, like yourself, go to UCs for graduate school. Lucky you.</p>

<p>3) Here's the point I really wanted to raise with you: Take the biotech industry, for example. Do you know that recombinant DNA technology, otherwise known as gene splicing was co-developed by UCSF? Did you know that Herbert Boyer, a doctor at UCSF, a UC graduate biomedical school, left the institution to become the founder of Genentech, the first clear-cut example of a company basing a business model on the technology of gene splicing? Do you know that 2/3 of the medicines in the FDA approval pipeline are based on biotech-derived compounds? Did you know that 50% of our nation's biotech companies are within 30 miles of a UC campus, many of them having originated there? There is a huge preponderance right where you are in Biotech South, San Diego. Did you know that UCSF, UCSD, UCLA, etc. have spun off a remarkable number of these biotech firms and account for the preponderant success of the industry here to a great degree? Did you know that the UT Venture Capital effort a few years ago ended up investing most of its money here in the Bay Area -- apparently some in biotech firms -- because it couldn't find so many prospects in its own very fertile backyard in Texas (though that was part of its mission).</p>

<p>Did you know that within the past week and half, UC Berkeley (joined by LBL and UIUC) won a bid against MIT, Cambridge, Purdue, and gulp UCSD to be the recipient of $500 million in research funds for a cutting edge biofuels institute? That this will bring $400 million into the state? That it may well establish California as a center of an industry with not just huge economic, but also world-saving, promise?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_5133092%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_5133092&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Did you know that the UC system as a whole bests MIT, Stanford and a few other powerhouses combined with the number of patents it files every year?</p>

<p>Going further, did you know that Andrew Grove, Chairman of Intel, and chief fundraiser for UCSF's new multi-billion dollar campus by the way went to Berkeley as a grad student, as did Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO? These are but two examples -- and the list would go on and on.</p>

<p>I could go on and on. I think you get my point. In a very narrow and direct educational sense, which I think itself is extremely dubious, you might argue that grad schools give limited value to the citizens of this state. But you would be crazy to overlook the economic benefit to the state. And if you doubt for a second that these things are not viewed as important by people who pay attention, look at how much Massachusetts brags about MIT/Harvard and its benefits for the state or how much Jeb Bush was willing to spend for Florida to convince the Salk Institute to locate a "campus" in his state -- ie, hundreds of millions. He was looking at your city with a gleam in his eye, and thinking "if only?" </p>

<p>Don't sell your own city, or the UC system, down the river my friend. Without the economic vibrancy they have helped create, you might not be where you are, even though you are studying in a field unrelated to science or engineering. The state might not have had the funds for it.</p>

124

<p>BedHead,</p>

<p>
[quote]
Dobby, don't give me such softballs: who decides what Cal's mission is are the Regents of the UC and the California Legislature and Governor. They have the say.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm going to run from here.</p>

<p>But ultimately, they should all somehow be accountable to the taxpayers, right? In theory, at least. But here's where it gets far more complicated than you seem to give credit. Taxpayers want Berkeley to be that hotshot school, but they don't want to pay for it (Prop 13). They also want it to be selective, but they want their kid to go to it (even if that kid's a good-for-nothing.) </p>

<p>And why should undergrad be constrained by the public mission, and not grad? Grad programs seem to have no problem admitting majorities of out-of-staters in lieu of looking for qualified Californians. Does the public mission end at undergrad? If so, why?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You obviously didn't like Berkeley (as I said, I assume you went there). Well, why the hell didn't you transfer out? If you didn't understand its different mission and challenges when you were applying, you sure as hell must have when you got there. It's not for everyone, it certainly wasn't for you. You seem to need to have been in a place in which you could identify yourself clearly with the ultra-elite. I think you should have gone to Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You oughtn't put words in other people's mouths if you damn them for the same. Dobby, even if I may not agree with all of his choices, has never said that he doesn't enjoy Cal. On the contrary: he's passionate about Cal. He has demonstrated, time and time again, that he very much feels that Cal was the best fit.</p>

<p>But if you love something, you want to see it improve. You don't just walk away from it at the earliest sign of its flaws. On the flipside, you don't just stand by and let those flaws ruin it for you-- you work hard to improve it, so that you can make sure that the thing you love is around as long as possible.</p>

125

<p>BedHead,</p>

<p>Ah...I looked back and realized what I wrote was very poorly worded.</p>

<p>I meant, "in-states don't get any advantage in admission to grad programs." I do think that grad programs benefit the state a great deal. I just question whether or not they should be striving for educating the best and doing the best research if they're ALSO part of the same institution.</p>

<p>Your most common response to us has been, "Well, obviously don't like UCs, so stop hating" (in a manner of speaking.) Please, understand that none of us hate the UCs. I wouldn't have gone to two of them, for example...</p>

126

<p>"Dobby, even if I may not agree with all of his choices, has never said that he doesn't enjoy Cal. On the contrary: he's passionate about Cal. He has demonstrated, time and time again, that he very much feels that Cal was the best fit."</p>

<p>Well, I haven't been on this thread enough to see that, nor do I really plan to be. But if Dobby is a committed, passionate lover of Cal, it is not demonstrated in anything he says that I read. He post was really negative and cranky and high-handedly claimed to speak for generations of disappointed students, and if you can't see that maybe it's because you've read other posts by him. But that would be privileged information that is not manifest to me in any fashion.</p>

<p>As for your statement that I put words in his mouth: "Cal is a bad place" and it is an "obstacle" that people must overcome and has been an "obstacle to former students," etc.. UCLAri, you go to a UC for grad school; what are you reading that I am not? Where is the room to see the positive or supportive passion in those statements? Or even constructive criticism?</p>

<p>No, I am not saying stop criticizing or stop hating. That's your prerogative, and there's nothing I could do to stop your criticisms anyway. I am pointing out that, whether justified or not (meaning UCLAri, that I am warranting that there are indeed valid reasons to expect a lot of Cal and criticize it sometimes or maybe even often), the school also in my mind suffers from a culture of complaint. This culture of complaint often derives from a naive expectation that the grass is always greener on the other side in combination with the fact that, yes, Cal is often a tough and challenging place and certainly not for everyone. </p>

<p>And I speak from experience on this and we've had other posters that have attested to their experiences on the "other side." And also from expecting Cal to fit neatly into a category, and adhere to a standard, to which is not even dedicated, nor can be.</p>

<p>In other words, if you end up at Cal and were expecting or hoping for Harvard, you have choices: whine and ***** and moan and be cranky and imply that all Cal grads of all time have been disappointed (because you just know this) that it isn't Harvard; work constructively to help the university improve in whatever little ways you can; leave (which I suggested for Dobby because he seems genuinely unhappy; I didn't realize he is currently a student, and I really recommend it for him based on the posting I saw); criticize constructively, not positing for others how dreadfully or well they felt about their experiences, whether they truly enjoyed it or endured it, but just deal from your own experience; decide to enjoy it; or shut up. It's entirely your choice, and you might choose a combination.</p>

<p>One thing I'll tell you, if you seek not to change your place when you don't like it, or your attitude if you find changing your place is impossible, you have none of my sympathy. And now that I find he is a student still, Dobby really does not from me.</p>

<p>And UCLAri: re-read everything I've written in the past 4 posts and tell me if you think I am really saying that I think people should just love Cal and never criticize it. That's a gross caricature, and distortion, of what I said. Another poster the other day suggested I was talking about stifling free speech, which I found both amusing and bizarre.</p>

<p>Look, I'm off. I've made my points.</p>

127

<p>
[quote]
Dobby, don't give me such softballs: who decides what Cal's mission is are the Regents of the UC and the California Legislature and Governor. They have the say. They make the decisions about it as a system. You can find out pretty easily what this mission is.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hm. Those parties definetly have lots of input. But there are many others in positions of power who also decide what Cal's mission is as far as undergrads are concerned. They include: tenured faculty, department heads, academic senate officials, and UC Berkeley administrative executives. These groups of people, by and large, are not doing very much to improve the undergrad experience as a whole.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In the state plan for higher education, it is to provide, at a UC, a place for the top percentage (I think its 4% now) of the high school graduates, though no guarantees of being on a particular campus. The purpose is to provide access to a high quality education, as much as possible, to anybody that is qualified.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well that's fine and noble. But the real issue comes along where its decided that the Berkeley and UCLA campuses should educated THE MOST kids. I for one think that those campuses have more undergrads than they can handle, Berkeley in particular. Admission numbers need to go down in order for the undergrad experience to improve. The other "lesser" UC campuses would benefit from more students. But of course, many people would be against a decrease in enrollment at Berkeley and UCLA, so it might not be the best solution to the problems those UCs face. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This is thought to be a public good. They opted to -- and succeeded -- making Cal the UCs flagship a top university that is state-funded (now partially) and that maintains on a broad academic basis pre-eminent leadership across a variety of disciplines.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alright, so the public has decided that state-funded education is a good thing. I agree. But where is it written that Berkeley and UCLA should bear the biggest burdens? Berkeley does not have physical room for its current students, much less MORE students. Yet, the admissions people keep driving up the number. Why is that? Do they WANT Berkeley to suck?</p>

<p>
[quote]
No one would argue about the quality of Cal's graduate school on a broad basis; it is par excellence full-stop.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I would. There are many grad programs at Berkeley that just aren't cutting it. They are especially pernicious in the humanities, where underfunded departments force themselves to admit large number of WASPs in order to get the funding they "need."</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your posting itself suggests that you think Berkeley should be the Harvard of the West, and you quote the idealistic JFK on this score.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No no no. I don't think Berkeley should be the "Harvard" of anything. I rather think that Berkeley should be the best Berkeley it can be. </p>

<p>
[quote]
JFK never sat on the Regents of the UC, my friend, I don't doubt you know. That's an aspirational statement he made, and I think you know what that is, but JFK wasn't literally saying take Cal out of the hands of the state, change its charter make it private, start to raise a bigger endowment for it, and bring it on, was he?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, the point is that past administrators, partly influenced by the Harvard-envious Yale founding members, wanted to create the best university in the world. They were actually doing pretty well at that goal for a while and JFK was of course encouraging of what he saw being done.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, you are left with an undergrad that's larger than the top private elite, that attracts a lot of stellar students many of whom go on to go head-to-head with the best students in the world and best them (Nobelist Andy Fire, now a professor at Stanford, who was rejected from there as an undergrad, by the way is one example someone cited) and also other students that don't match the quality head-to-head of Harvard's student body for instance but who are fine. What's the problem here, dobby?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The issue isn't whether or not Berkeley's top undergrads can do just as well as HYPS undergrads. History has proven that they can. What I'm concerned about is the HUGE tail end of Berkeley undergrads who, quite franky, won't get very far in life.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Cal's not going to be Harvard; its mission, which we can know because its public record, is clear. In his statement, Birgeneau is realizing Cal's uniqueness which might be encapsulated by the phrase "pre-eminence with a public mission." Birgeneau can't impose quotas for instance on the number of Asian students that come into Cal the way Princeton or other elite universities do. He can't let in prospective students who may be on the bubble in terms of admission but whose parents have donated $100 million to the institution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alright. So in other words, this is what Birgeneau REALLY wants to do: 1. keep Berkeley's "public" mission by accepting money from taxpayers 2. fail to favor the daughters and sons of those taxpayers and 3. increase the proportion of underperforming, underprivileged black and brown people.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You sound really bitter that Berkeley will never have an identity as an ultra selective undergrad school and be able to act with the privately-funded nimbleness and social and racial selectivity of a private school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think you need to wake up and smell the Canadian connection. Berkeley is certiainly favoring certain social and racial groups in admissions purposes. For example, I know a Hispanic girl who had a 2.5, a 900 SAT, no leadership, and one heck of a sob story. Berkeley let her in. She's now no longer at Berkeley mostly because she just couldn't compete with Berkeley students in MCB. Now she's in debt, at community college, and hating Berkeley. Is it really that far fetched to say that she would have probably done a heck of a lot better at a Cal State? Of course it isn't. Yet, Berkeley continues to use its name to lure unsuspecting young kids like her into its dungeons. I think the practice needs to stop and the sooner the better.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You obviously didn't like Berkeley (as I said, I assume you went there). Well, why the hell didn't you transfer out? If you didn't understand its different mission and challenges when you were applying, you sure as hell must have when you got there. It's not for everyone, it certainly wasn't for you. You seem to need to have been in a place in which you could identify yourself clearly with the ultra-elite. I think you should have gone to Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, the issue isn't and shouldn't really be about dobby, he's doing just fine at Berkeley. The issue is about the thousands of students who are doing extremely badly.</p>

128

<p>"Look, the issue isn't and shouldn't really be about dobby, he's doing just fine at Berkeley. The issue is about the thousands of students who are doing extremely badly."</p>

<p>"Actually, I would. There are many grad programs at Berkeley that just aren't cutting it. They are especially pernicious in the humanities, where underfunded departments force themselves to admit large number of WASPs in order to get the funding they "need." "</p>

<p>"Alright. So in other words, this is what Birgeneau REALLY wants to do: 1. keep Berkeley's "public" mission by accepting money from taxpayers 2. fail to favor the daughters and sons of those taxpayers and 3. increase the proportion of underperforming, underprivileged black and brown people."</p>

<p>"I think you need to wake up and smell the Canadian connection. Berkeley is certiainly favoring certain social and racial groups in admissions purposes. For example, I know a Hispanic girl who had a 2.5, a 900 SAT, no leadership, and one heck of a sob story. Berkeley let her in. She's now no longer at Berkeley mostly because she just couldn't compete with Berkeley students in MCB. Now she's in debt, at community college, and hating Berkeley. Is it really that far fetched to say that she would have probably done a heck of a lot better at a Cal State? Of course it isn't. Yet, Berkeley continues to use its name to lure unsuspecting young kids like her into its dungeons. I think the practice needs to stop and the sooner the better."</p>

<p>Well, dobby, I hate to say it, but your postings have made it entirely about you, and in this latter case, you've brought racist tendencies to the fore. Part of your animosity about Berkeley is informed apparently by a sense of racial superiority. You should look at that.</p>

<p>I am not going to reject your arguments out of hand because you are vulnerable to charges of racism, and I think there's a debate that could be had about the effects of affirmative action without resorting to calling someone a racist. But I think you go beyond the bounds of racial goodwill for that discussion, since for instance your basic evidence for your view (not backed up by any rankings or other evidence you quote or I have seen) that Berkeley's humanities grad programs are suffering in that they are admitting too many WASPs. Ha. I won't even look at the other two statements you made.</p>

<p>There are actually things I agree with you on. 1) I wish the university would cap the number of undergrads at each campus in order to reduce the strain on constrained resources. But, as perhaps inadequate defense, I thought that Merced was opened because it was going to help the system meet its mission during a time of expanding numbers. Either that kind of thing will need to be done, or the mission will need to be changed; and 2) I agree with you that there is a "tail" of students as you call it that may be much better served in many cases by going to a Cal State campus than Cal. By the way, I work in an Ivy League university and believe me, no campus wants to accept students that are likely to drop out. It's a pleasant process for no one involved.</p>

<p>You may claim that it's not about you, but you have articulated a number of complaints based on a number of standards to which you are holding the university. Apart from racial standards (apparently), let me quote for you again your first paragraph:</p>

<p>"First of all, who's to decide what Cal's "mission" is? As I see it, one of Cal's "missions" should be attract ALL of the best high school students in the state. We all know that's not really happening. Top kids from up and down California reject Cal's invitation to come to Berkeley. I find that unaccepable. If you go back and look at the historical records you'll see that Berkeley's early administrators would agree with me and heck, even JFK would. When he visited Berkeley, "Athens of the West," he, a Harvard alumnus, famously said that Berkeley should become the "new Harvard." Now of course, after decades of bad management, Berkeley has given up on that noble goal. Birgeneau recently summed up the current attitude when he said, "It seems to me that the one thing we don't want to do here is to emulate Stanford or Harvard or Yale." In other words: "Although Harvard and Stanford are the best universities in the world, I refuse to even attempt to improve Berkeley to such an extent.""</p>

<p>And then let me quote you later when I called you on it:</p>

<p>"No no no. I don't think Berkeley should be the "Harvard" of anything. I rather think that Berkeley should be the best Berkeley it can be."</p>

<p>Dobby: You can't have your cake and eat it too. In the first paragraph, you criticize Birgeneau for not aiming to make Berkeley like or on a par with Harvard and Stanford, the best universities in the world. When I questioned your assumptions, you rather blithely said that that's not what you said at all. That Berkeley should be the best Berkeley can be. But because in your mind and in these postings your measurement of Berkeley's being its best is defined as being like H/S, and that management is failing because its failing to achieve that standard. Which is it, Dobby?</p>

<p>So, this rather is all about Dobby. You have a fairly inchoate set of concerns/ideas/prejudices/animosities which are rather occult from the standpoint of somebody who's trying to understand exactly where you stand. The end result is that if I criticize a position you take, you move to a different position. But the fundamental position you take is carping and negative. It's not constructive. And it is rather all about Dobby because the positions aren't well defined or staked out and are much more about your disappointment in Cal's ability to reach a standard that you hold out for it. And one to which, if someone calls you out on it, you aren't willing to fess up about. You don't really sound like you're doing that well at Cal.</p>

129

<p>
[quote]
Well, dobby, I hate to say it, but your postings have made it entirely about you, and in this latter case, you've brought racist tendencies to the fore. Part of your animosity about Berkeley is informed apparently by a sense of racial superiority. You should look at that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I fail to see how any of my comments are racist. They may be race-related, in that they acknowledge race-related issues, but do they advocate blanket "racist" policies? No, not at all.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But I think you go beyond the bounds of racial goodwill for that discussion, since for instance your basic evidence for your view (not backed up by any rankings or other evidence you quote or I have seen) that Berkeley's humanities grad programs are suffering in that they are admitting too many WASPs. Ha. I won't even look at the other two statements you made.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never once said the departments in question are "suffering." They are doing relatively good actually. If you want some "facts," take a look around Dwinelle Hall's walls for placement notices. Then compare those to some of the publically available placement notices from HYPS. I've done it and what I've discovered is that Berkeley grad students in the humanities appear to have a harder time getting tenure-track AND tenure at top universities than their HYPS counterparts. Why? Mostly because the Berkeley grad programs in the humanities are extremely large compared to those same programs at HYPS.</p>

<p>
[quote]
When I questioned your assumptions, you rather blithely said that that's not what you said at all. That Berkeley should be the best Berkeley can be.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, I did not say Berkeley should be the Athens/Harvard of the West, the "new Harvard," etc. What I said was that there have been many different historical viewpoints on what Berkeley should be. Consequently, I think the decision on what Berkeley's "mission" is/should be is up for grabs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, this rather is all about Dobby. You have a fairly inchoate set of concerns/ideas/prejudices/animosities which are rather occult from the standpoint of somebody who's trying to understand exactly where you stand. The end result is that if I criticize a position you take, you move to a different position. But the fundamental position you take is carping and negative. It's not constructive. And it is rather all about Dobby because the positions aren't well defined or staked out and are much more about your disappointment in Cal's ability to reach a standard that you hold out for it. And one to which, if someone calls you out on it, you aren't willing to fess up about. You don't really sound like you're doing that well at Cal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, I don't really care what you think about me. What I care about is the betterment of Berkeley. As sakky tells us, there are many ways this could be accomplished:</p>

<p>
[quote]
First of all, I think there is no 'physical' reason that Berkeley couldn't offer the best undergraduate program in the country. The facilities are there, the star profs are there, the strong library system is there, basically, all the 'physical' infrastructure is there. Not only that, but the administrative and managerial knowledge necessary to run a top-ranked program is there. Look at how strong the Berkeley graduate programs are. Clearly, Berkeley knows how to run strong programs. There is no reason that Berkeley couldn't do the same for its undergraduate program. As of right now, the reality is that Berkeley's undergraduate program, while pretty good, is not the best in the country. But it could be. </p>

<p>The first thing I would do is enact a program to upgrade the undergraduate student body. This would comprise several steps. I would compete heavily to try to convince the best high school seniors not only in California, but around the world, to apply to and matriculate at Berkeley. I would greatly and vastly expand the Regent and Chancellor Scholar's program and fill it with perks to aggressively compete for the best students such that more of them will choose Berkeley, rather than HYPSMC. I would start running an Honors College (i.e. a "college within a college") which would be inspired by UCLA's Honors program. I would turn one of the dorms (probably Foothill, or maybe Unit 3) into an Honors dorm. I would offer preferred seating in classes, and special honors-only seminars, to these honors students. I would provide them with preferred admission to any major at Berkeley, including heavily impacted ones like EECS or bus-ad. That's just a short list of perks I would include, there would be many others. But the point is that right now, a guy who gets admitted to both Berkeley or HYPSMC is almost always going to choose HYPSMC, unless money is a problem. I want that choice to no longer be so easy. Berkeley should be able to aggressively compete against HYPSMC for these students. </p>

<p>Along those lines, I would seriously explore more connections between the undergraduate program and the graduate program. For example, how about a combined bachelors/MD program with UCSF? Considering how hard it is to get into med-school these days, guaranteed admission into one of the elite med-schools in the world is nothing to sneeze at. Right now, choosing Harvard over Berkeley is a pretty easy choice, unless money is a problem. However, choosing Harvard over the combined Berkeley/UCSF bachelors/MD program would be a very tough choice. Or how about a joint bachelors/JD program with Boalt? Or how about more 5-year bachelors/masters programs? Berkeley already has a few, but I think Berkeley could use far more. Berkeley's graduate programs are strong, and I think we could leverage their strength more. </p>

<p>Secondly, I would have to seriously consider slashing the enrollments of the 'puff' majors. I am not going to name those majors, but we know what they are. Right now, we all know that those majors are filled with lazy, do-nothing students. Don't get me wrong, not all those students in those majors are lazy. Some of them are very hard working. But we all know that many of them are not. Berkeley is in a budget crisis, and yet Berkeley continues to provide seats for these students - in effect, using scarce budget resources to subsidize laziness. I would probably implement some policies that state that anybody who wants to declare one of those puff majors has to get minimum grades in certain weeder courses, that ensures that only those students who are actually dedicated to the subject will be allowed to major in it. If you don't have those grades, you won't be allowed to sign up for later courses. Berkeley can't be going around wasting money on class seats to students who don't want to work and don't want to study. </p>

<p>The taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing those students who just want to drink and party all day long. Hey, don't get me wrong, I like to drink and party too, but the main purpose of a school is to study and learn. </p>

<p>That's just a short list of the ideas I have been thinking about. I don't think I need to get into all of them at this time. But the point is, Berkeley could do a lot better. It just has to WANT to do better. The present administration (as well as most of the previous ones) seem to not really want Berkeley to have a better undergrad program.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would add: seismic retrofitting, better housing experience, less emphasis on the race and class of undergrads, more oversight over admissions, release of faculty evaluations, etc.</p>

130

<p>I've seen a few Cal fans on CC that claimed they got into Stanford but chose Berkeley over it. But when I digged up their posts, there was no sign they were accepted by Stanford at the first place ("no sign" = zero participation on Stanford board shortly after decision time, no posting on their decision thread...etc). I love how I can practice my investigative skill. :rolleyes:</p>

131

<p>Your quote:
"I fail to see how any of my comments are racist. They may be race-related, in that they acknowledge race-related issues, but do they advocate blanket "racist" policies? No, not at all."</p>

<p>Equating the weakness of departments to the admission of large numbers of a particular racial group, in this case WASPs, is by any measure racist, unless you qualify it in ways that you didn't. These were your own words; re-defining them ex post facto doesn't change their meaning. You don't have to advocate blanket policies to be considered racist. Racist: –noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement. Note: I am willing to believe that you are not racist, but that is generous of me. There are undoubtedly some readers that would take great offense at what you wrote and conclude that you are. And I point this out not because I think you care about what I think but because the kinds of statements you made could, in another context, get you into trouble or cause great misunderstanding.</p>

<p>Your quote:
"There are many grad programs at Berkeley that just aren't cutting it. They are especially pernicious in the humanities, where underfunded departments."</p>

<p>If my paraphrasing of this statement as "suffering" is not accurate enough for you, I am sure you would be considered in a minute minority were this put to a vote of reasonable people. </p>

<p>"Look, I did not say Berkeley should be the Athens/Harvard of the West, the "new Harvard," etc. What I said was that there have been many different historical viewpoints on what Berkeley should be. Consequently, I think the decision on what Berkeley's "mission" is/should be is up for grabs."</p>

<p>I don't think I need to re-visit this. You have a very strong view of what you think the mission of Berkeley should be, and you measured Birgeneau's and the schools performance against that. Dobby, there is en email trail of your statements. Going back and saying black is white doesn't make it so. And my point is that Berkeley's -- and the UC's -- mission which has been formalized and codified through a system of governance does not accord with my impression of what you think the mission of Berkeley should be. You may argue for how Berkeley and the UC can most effectively try to achieve its mission, or you may argue that the mission needs to change, but one needs to evaluate any managers performance on the basis of what they're being asked to achieve, not by what you would ideally like them to achieve separate from their actual job description. Yes, ultimately as UCLAri stated, the taxpayers and voters are part of the decision-making process, but that level of governance is once to thrice removed from UC's system of governance. Am I saying that within the framework of its mission and system of governance that UC can't strive to be better? Not at all. But I am saying, judge it with a recognition that it works with a set of parameters different from other schools. And you would by far not be the first student or alum who is not sometimes extremely frustrated at the limitations of some of those parameters. But they do exist.</p>

<p>A lot of the ideas you presented are interesting and worthy of great consideration. And some of them have been thought of before by many people. I, for one, wondered about the creation of an Honors College, though other schools that have done it have had very mixed records of success.</p>

<p>Why don't you try to work through the system to get them instituted? As an alum, I try to give my time and a bit of treasure to Cal, so I am not asking you for anything I don't do, in a broadly defined way, myself.</p>

<p>Oh, and this conversation is done on my side. Have a good life.</p>

132

<p>
[quote]
Why don't you try to work through the system to get them instituted? As an alum, I try to give my time and a bit of treasure to Cal, so I am not asking you for anything I don't do, in a broadly defined way, myself.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Indeed, the stated goal of at least three current students on this board is to improve Berkeley in accordance to sakky's proposals. If anyone currently affiliated with Berkeley would like to help in this new and ongoing effort, send a PM to DRab. :)</p>

133

<p>
[quote]
Of course, I am not arguing against free speech, if you were suggesting I was in support of that. As I said, Cal would never succeed in what my grad school was suggesting as exemplified by the professor who wanted my buddy to be a better ambassador and wanted to present a certain image to the world (as some schools make active efforts to do and enlist their students).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think you just gave it away right there. In your example, that prof was more concerned about having that guy present a 'proper' image of the school than he was about having problems fixed. The attitude seems to be that it's allright for problems to exist, as long as nobody talks about the problems publicly. In other words, a greater concern for image over substance. </p>

<p>My atttitude is different. I never signed up to be an 'ambassador' for Berkeley. It's not my job, and never has been. Students don't "agree" to become ambassadors for Berkeley (or any other school) when they choose to go there. If Berkeley has problems, then people should talk about those problems. Frankly, that's the only way that problems ever get solved. Granted, talking about problems still doesn't guarantee that they will be solved, in fact, the odds are still quite low. But at least there's a chance. Not talking about problems * definitely * means that they won't get solved. </p>

<p>I would also turn the situation and ask - what's the harm in talking about Berkeley's problems publicly? The only possibility for harm that I can see is that some prospective students might see these threads and decide not to come to Berkeley. However, if there is one thing we can agree upon, it's that Berkeley is not for the weak-willed. You have to be a mentally strong and confident person to do well at Berkeley. So if you're so weak-willed that you're going to be swayed simply by a bunch of Internet discussions to choose against Berkeley, then frankly, you probably weren't going to do well at Berkeley anyway, so it's probably good that you chose not to go. </p>

<p>What these threads should do is spark intellectual interest in any prospectives such that they investigate all of the problems at any school they are considering, including Berkeley. However, if you're so intellectually lazy that you don't bother to do full research on all the schools you are considering, then, again, you probably wouldn't have done well at Berkeley anyway. </p>

<p>
[quote]
while in reality, the Ugrade quality at Cal is probably not up to par with other small privates... I think it goes without saying that Berkeley is, hands down, one of the most recognized and prestigious (as in top3 to top5) institutions on the world scale.</p>

<p>In the US this perception may change. But outside of the US, you'll quite often be hard pressed to find anyone who has even ever heard of Brown, Dartmouth, Upenn, Rice and many other big-name privates we know so well here in the 'States. These names simply do not ring any bells and fade in comparison to more famous institutions. On the other hand, nearly everybody in the world knows about UCBerkeley, Stanford, Harvard, Yale. This may sound far fetched to some Americans but it is a reality. Speak to people from Europe, Oceania, and most especially Asia-- and it becomes quite apparent what the "big universities" are.</p>

<p>This does not make up for Cal's less than stellar Ugrad quality. I AM pointing out that there ARE folks who pick schools based 90% on prestige, and in this category, UC Berkeley has no problem holding its own. Its amongst the most recognized names in the world-- Ugrad or not. That in itself is a huge factor that I think we often overlook.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. But that also means that Berkeley is no position to complain when people choose schools like Harvard, Stanford, or MIT over Berkeley solely for the prestige. If you live by the sword of prestige, you can die by the sword of prestige.</p>

134

<p>
[quote]
I have to give it to you, UCLAri, you're the ultimate winner in this education game: you went to 2 great UCs and paid in-state tuition for them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, to explore this topic further, I would actually say it's my brother who * really * won the education 'game'. He went to Caltech for undergrad, on a full merit ride + stipend, on the so-called Caltech President's Scholarship. Now he's at Stanford on a PhD stipend. </p>

<p>So basically, he's never once had to pay a dime for any of his education. Instead, he * got paid * every time. </p>

<p>Which gets to another point I've been making. People keep talking about how the UC's are such a good financial deal. I would actually argue that a * really good deal * would be to go to a top private school on a full ride. Why should my brother have paid to go to UC when he had the option to go to Caltech and *get paid *?</p>

135

<p>Caltech sucks. Big time. Stanford PhD stipends are overrated. Do the math here people!</p>

136

<p>Sakky, your brother's case is such a rarity, I didn't even consider it; i'm talking about "typical" students. Full ride to CalTech/Stanford PhD...very impressive, but not anymore impressive than the full ride Berkeley/CalTech PhD guy I know. </p>

<p>The quality of the undergrad education at Stanford is not any better than it is at Berkeley. Deal with it. If anything, it's worse....at least in my department. At Stanford, you're buying an affiliation first and foremost.</p>

137

<p>I dunno, Stanford has a higher graduation rate, better med school placement, better law school placement, freedom in choosing majors, more research/internship opportunities, smaller classes, a stronger student body, better advising, better grad school placement, etc.......</p>

138

<p>That's a reflection of Stanford's student body vs. Berkeley's student body....private school vs. public school.....says nothing about the quality of education available. Small class sizes at Stanford? Apparently not the ones I'm taking/have taken. Large faculty to student ratio? Yeah, 40% of the faculty are in the medical school and Stanford is over-run with grad students taking upper-div classes...which are often cross-listed with grad classes (unlike Berkeley, Stanford has thousands of masters students to fill the classrooms with). I could go on and on but I won't because it's 2:15am and I'm getting sleepy. Zzzzzzzzzzz</p>

139

<p>SAKKY: Your quote: "I think you just gave it away right there."</p>

<p>MY QUOTE: "I realized a couple of things: 1) Berkeley people tend to support a culture of complaint, apart from whether it's justified or not; 2) other schools expend effort to try to do what Berkeley could never do: build up a cadre of ambassadors who talk up the strengths. </p>

<p>Now, I wouldn't want a bunch of pollyannish gloss about Cal, but CalX is a welcome voice in this discussion. I am well aware Berkeley's a challenging environment and it's not for everyone. But CalX may be a good, albeit insufficient, antidote to a larger problem."</p>

<p>Sakky, there's nothing I hid. I had two points. I numbered them for accessibility. Expanding on point 2 further so you understand exactly what I was getting at. In my example, there was a fellow student who went from Cal to a small, elite grad school Back East that I'll identify only by saying it is considered the top 1 or 2 schools in its discipline (I work for a university now, and I don't want to be posting related to my day job) and he discovered he had underrated what Cal offered both in terms of professors and fellow students. Because he was a carping type (which Cal tends to breed somehow, or at least support, going to my other point), a professor intervened and told him outside the walls of the university to not go around bashing the grad school, that doing so would not help him or the school. </p>

<p>Now, for the record, you can find posts on CC of me convincing people not to go to Cal as undergrads based on their profile and fit for the school. And in the case of a nephew of mine, I tried to do the same thing (he came to Cal anyway). So you shouldn't think that I am, or am suggesting anybody be, some kind of uncritical ambassador for the school. First of all, my point is: don't be naive. Other schools try to hide dissent and "dirty laundry." It may be that you think they have less to hide, but whether or not that is true, there is an active effort to put a good face to prospective students, alumni, and to build up "brand equity." I am intimately involved with some elements of this at an unnamed Ivy League insitution right now. </p>

<p>Secondly, it is often only by going to see other vaunted "best in the country" programs that you can get a good perspective on Cal and realize its pre-eminent quality on so many levels. There is an element of being naive and an element of the grass is always greener that current students bring to the table. </p>

<p>Thirdly, it's one thing to make criticism that is constructive and strong, and that is well and good. But the purpose of these fora is not per se to do that. These fora are set up primarily for people considering different schools. If all you do is carp and complain and never put the good side on things, even if you claim you see them and claim all you are trying to do is help Cal, you are in fact potentially turning off students who would be good candidates and go to Cal and thrive and enjoy it. Is that helping them or Cal? Is it necessary or good or useful information for them? I am not suggesting stifle free speech -- which was by the way a knee jerk or rather irrelevant accusation given that I don't have a gun and don't control anybody's ability to access the internet -- I am saying apply your words appropriately in appropriate situations. </p>

<p>Finally, the examples given so often by you and posters such as Vicissitudes reflect a disappointment that reflects a standard or ideal that Cal may never be able to or even want to reach. You gave the example of your brother who got what was it a full-ride and/or a stipend at CalTech and then Stanford. And then you assert that, essentially, Cal's cost advantage is overrated. Well, duh. All schools compete for the top students and the "weapon of choice" of the richer schools these days is to essentially buy students; they can afford to do so. Well, bully for those students.</p>

<p>Do you honestly think Cal is going to get into this game at an undergrad level anytime soon? So, what's your point? Yes, this is an area where Cal cannot go head-to-head. You are displaying profound naivete if you think that carping on this point by you on this board is going to make a difference in this regard. It is certainly your right to do so, and it clearly serves some kind of need you have. It does no good. And you can say that knowledge and an open airing of these issues are the first step to improving them. I would say look at Cal's mission, its financial resources, and prioritize among the things that are really doable and that count. Unless you can pony up $10Bn for the endowment, I wouldn't put that as a priority.</p>

<p>The postings above from Vicissitudes and abcd.... perfectly encapsulate what I am talking about in some of the points I made above. I have no idea what V's status (student/not a student/at Cal/not) or whether he considers himself a constructive critic or just a competitor/basher of Cal, etc. Vicissitudes has a strong notion of excellence and defines it in this case at Stanford's superior performance in the areas he names. Abcd.... is pointing out that of course the school's are different -- they have a different mission of private vs. public with all that implies regarding resources and so on. But a couple of things: abcd... has seen both sides of the fence as it were and is pointing out that the school V is holding out as an ideal is overrated in certain ways which he names. </p>

<p>Don't be naive. Berkeley is not going to be Stanford is 20 years no matter how much you carp. It will be Berkeley, excellence defined according to its own standard in pursuit of a different mission from Stanford's, having the professors and the students that allow for a first-rate educational outcome for the student that chooses it and goes there and does well. And it may ultimately go to the conviction that I and abcd... seem to share which is that a lot of the other "excellent" schools are actually in some ways overrated and that, if you are directed and as you say "not weak" at Cal you can avail yourself of the finest education available in the nation. It's just going to be harder, I would argue.</p>

<p>Now you can quote me your stats about Nobel Prizes and this and that to the moon about how Cal doesn't measure up and other places are so ideal. It doesn't matter. I've been there, I've done that. As abcd... and a host of others have too. I know what I know and whether Cal is affiliated with the winning of 60 Nobels or 2,000, it doesn't really change that for me the educational outcome was par excellence. And that it has been and will be for a lot of people.</p>

<p>On these boards, if you really want to help Cal and people, find prospective students, talk to them about what they want and need and counsel them appropriately.</p>

<p>But of course that is entirely your choice. It's a free country after all....</p>

140

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, there's nothing I hid. I had two points. I numbered them for accessibility. Expanding on point 2 further so you understand exactly what I was getting at. In my example, there was a fellow student who went from Cal to a small, elite grad school Back East that I'll identify only by saying it is considered the top 1 or 2 schools in its discipline (I work for a university now, and I don't want to be posting related to my day job) and he discovered he had underrated what Cal offered both in terms of professors and fellow students. Because he was a carping type (which Cal tends to breed somehow, or at least support, going to my other point), a professor intervened and told him outside the walls of the university to not go around bashing the grad school, that doing so would not help him or the school. </p>

<p>Now, for the record, you can find posts on CC of me convincing people not to go to Cal as undergrads based on their profile and fit for the school. And in the case of a nephew of mine, I tried to do the same thing (he came to Cal anyway). So you shouldn't think that I am, or am suggesting anybody be, some kind of uncritical ambassador for the school. First of all, my point is: don't be naive. Other schools try to hide dissent and "dirty laundry." It may be that you think they have less to hide, but whether or not that is true, there is an active effort to put a good face to prospective students, alumni, and to build up "brand equity." I am intimately involved with some elements of this at an unnamed Ivy League insitution right now.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And this is precisely the attitude that I disagree with. The TRUE, LONG TERM way to build brand equity is to simply not have problems in the first place, so that nobody has a reason to complain. If there are problems, then muzzling discussion of them isn't going to help anybody in the long term. </p>

<p>Think of it this way. Let's say that you do put up a 'good front' that hides problems from outsiders. The problem with that is that outsiders then tend to want to come to your school without knowing what the problems are. And then when they arrive and discover the problems, they get disappointed because what they end up getting is not what they thought they were signing up for. Over the long term, that disappointment eventually causes problems for the school. </p>

<p>The best way to deal with problems is to simply get them out there, so that there is nothing to hide. You can see this now with the race for the 2008 Presidential election coming up. Candidates are getting their personal skeletons out there so that they have nothing to hide. It's far better for a candidate's foibles to be known early in the process, then for people to find out about them later. As has been shown time and time again throughout political history, the problem is not really with the initial indiscretions, but with the cover-ups. Taking it back to the example of the schools, it is far better for a school to reveal all its problems, even if it means a loss of some prospective students, rather than for the school to get a bunch of students only to have them find out problems later that would have caused them not to come had they known. In the latter situation, you just end up with a bunch of students and alumni who feel that they've been lied to. </p>

<p>The major issue is that university administrators often times tend to be lazy and not want to fix problems. So rather than fix problems, because that's hard, they would rather just stop complaint about the problems, because that's easy. Hence, to them, the problems can freely exist, as long as nobody complains. </p>

<p>But the point is this. You really want to build long-term brand equity? The best way to do it is to sell a defect-free product. Toyota has a brand name that equates with reliability because, for many decades, they built (and still do build) an extraordinarily reliable product. On the other hand, the American car manufacturers built some terrible clunkers, especially in the 1970's, and all the marketing expenditures in the world couldn't hide that fact. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Secondly, it is often only by going to see other vaunted "best in the country" programs that you can get a good perspective on Cal and realize its pre-eminent quality on so many levels. There is an element of being naive and an element of the grass is always greener that current students bring to the table.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh huh, and what if I was to tell you that I have experience with several other elite schools and I feel confident that I can make a reasonable comparative analysis. Guys like DRab, vicissitudes, and dobby know what I'm talking about. Trust me, while I may be many things, naive is not one of them. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Thirdly, it's one thing to make criticism that is constructive and strong, and that is well and good. But the purpose of these fora is not per se to do that. These fora are set up primarily for people considering different schools. If all you do is carp and complain and never put the good side on things, even if you claim you see them and claim all you are trying to do is help Cal, you are in fact potentially turning off students who would be good candidates and go to Cal and thrive and enjoy it. Is that helping them or Cal? Is it necessary or good or useful information for them? I am not suggesting stifle free speech -- which was by the way a knee jerk or rather irrelevant accusation given that I don't have a gun and don't control anybody's ability to access the internet -- I am saying apply your words appropriately in appropriate situations.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And who are you to decide what is appropriate? I believe the purpose of this forum is anything we, as participants, want this forum to be about, and certainly isn't restricted to just people considering different schools. Just look through the threads of CC to see the diversity of topics that are discussed. Just on the Berkeley section of cc alone, I see some people asking what classes they should sign up for. I see others asking for details about the effort to renovate Memorial Stadium. I see others trying to figure out how to calculate their UC-GPA. I see others asking about information about which dorm/apartment is better. I see one guy looking for anybody else who might happen to be in the BioE 25 class. None of these threads have anything to do with prospective candidates trying to figure out whether they should come to Berkeley. </p>

<p>Oh, but when I say things are critical about Berkeley, ONLY NOW do you go around saying that that doesn't fulfill the primary purpose of CC. Where were you when that guy started a thread asking for other people who were taking BioE 25? His posts also had nothing to do with helping prospective students choose Berkeley. So shouldn't you have gotten in his face about it? Isn't it rather convenient that only when I come along, you start invoking the supposed primary purpose of this board. </p>

<p>Look, CC exists for whatever it is that we want to exist for. In my case, I have used CC to band together with other like minds to hash out ideas for how to improve Berkeley. If CC had not existed, then none of us would have ever met, and our complaints would still be atomized. Because of CC, we can actually take group action to fix these problems. Granted, there is no guarantee that problems will get fixed, even if we take group action. But I can guarantee you that if we don't, NOTHING will get fixed. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Finally, the examples given so often by you and posters such as Vicissitudes reflect a disappointment that reflects a standard or ideal that Cal may never be able to or even want to reach. You gave the example of your brother who got what was it a full-ride and/or a stipend at CalTech and then Stanford. And then you assert that, essentially, Cal's cost advantage is overrated. Well, duh. All schools compete for the top students and the "weapon of choice" of the richer schools these days is to essentially buy students; they can afford to do so. Well, bully for those students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, evidently, not "all" students compete for the top students, or at least, not to the same intensity. </p>

<p>Regarding the notion of 'buying' students, let's not kid ourselves. Berkeley does that too What about Berkeley's scholarship athletes? Isn't that basically just a form of 'buying' students? How is that any different? Let me put it to you this way. My brother is clearly a superstar in science and math. That's why he not only managed to get into Caltech, he got in on a full merit ride. Berkeley didn't even try to get him, by not offering him a dime in merit money. Why is it that he is not deserving of merit money, but somebody on the golf team is? Don't you find it interesting that the merit money at Cal goes not to top students, but to top athletes? After all, Cal is supposed to be a school, whose purpose is supposed to be promoting academic excellence. So if anything, I would argue that my brother is actually MORE deserving of merit money than many of the current Cal students who are now getting it.</p>

<p>But in any case, the point is, we shouldn't kid ourselves that Cal doesn't buy students too. Cal buys plenty of students. Cal just didn't want to buy my brother. Hey, that's fine. But then we have to conclude that Cal isn't always the good financial deal that it is sometimes made out to be. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Do you honestly think Cal is going to get into this game at an undergrad level anytime soon? So, what's your point? Yes, this is an area where Cal cannot go head-to-head. You are displaying profound naivete if you think that carping on this point by you on this board is going to make a difference in this regard. It is certainly your right to do so, and it clearly serves some kind of need you have. It does no good. And you can say that knowledge and an open airing of these issues are the first step to improving them. I would say look at Cal's mission, its financial resources, and prioritize among the things that are really doable and that count. Unless you can pony up $10Bn for the endowment, I wouldn't put that as a priority.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think you deeply discount the potential of alumni/student activism. I'd like to think that my presence on this board has already gotten some things rolling. Might nothing happen anyway, as you say? Of course! In fact, I suspect that it is likely that nothing will happen. But again, if nobody says anything, then I guarantee you that nothing will happen. At least we'll try. </p>

<p>I am not even asking for Cal to necessarily go head-to-head with the top private schools in undergrad. At least Cal can get * closer *. You can set stretch goals, and even if you don't make them, at least you'll be better off than before. That's a lot better than no improvement at all. </p>

<p>
[quote]
On these boards, if you really want to help Cal and people, find prospective students, talk to them about what they want and need and counsel them appropriately.</p>

<p>But of course that is entirely your choice. It's a free country after all....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am well aware that it is my choice, and I will exercise my free choice. And, like I said, I see nothing to be gained by keeping Cal's problems hidden. After all, any matriculating students are going to find out about the problems when they get to campus anyway. So it's better than they know now rather than later.</p>