<p>And this data is taking into account the same types of students? Berkeley's isn't just talking about graduating seniors and MIT's including those who have been out of school as well? </p>
<p>Sakky, you think a more fair comparison would be against Princeton, but I don't think that's as fair as comparing to Cornell would be. It seems more similar than Berkeley in many ways than Princeton, at least from what I can tell.</p>
<p>Those medical school admission stats for Berkeley are trash: self-selecting, just graduating seniors, etc. Dont pay any attention to them; they're useless. </p>
<p>All it shows is that the privates are better at putting numbers online that make them look good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Those medical school admission stats for Berkeley are trash: self-selecting, just graduating seniors, etc. Dont pay any attention to them; they're useless.</p>
<p>All it shows is that the privates are better at putting numbers online that make them look good.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can engage in self-delusion and think whatever you want to think. Good luck.</p>
<p>Funny how a thread about the cause of Berkeley bashing immediately gets posts about Berkeley's inability to send kids to top schools, rather than a discussion on the topic. Talk about unrelenting bias :p</p>
<p>Berkeley is regarded as the best public school in the nation. Having that stature it's gonna take heat. Why that stature makes everyone feel the need to bash it, I don't know...Especially since most of the time it's people from colleges ranked above Berkeley or from Berkeley that are on the attack. It's as if these people were somehow fooled into thinking that Berkeley was regarded as #1 out of everything and are now taking vengeance.</p>
<p>Because it doesn't have to be that way.</p>
<p>Cal's administration prides itself in a strict "no grade-inflation" policy and set guidelines dictating that median grades in lower-division sci/tech/eng courses must be between 2.5-2.9 to be considered "typical." This is when 7</a> A+'s are handed out in a class of 24 at Stanford.</p>
<p>If grades weren't given out so damn harshly, especially in technical disciplines, Cal's undergrad program could boast much higher admissions rates to top programs and wouldn't be viewed so negatively.</p>
<p>Of course, one of the major indicators of the quality of an undergrad program lies in admit rates to the top graduate programs. Cal does a very poor job in this aspect, so it gets a lot of bashing. The grade deflation doesn't matter for Cal's "top-notch" graduate programs because most students in those programs are receiving their terminal degrees and don't need to go through another painful admissions process (there are job applications, but grades don't matter as much as in university apps.)</p>
<p>Oh, and before someone filed a lawsuit on Boalt Law School for its admissions formulae, Harvard College grads (whose GPAs are already inflated) had points added to their GPAs for admissions purposes, whereas UCB grads received no boost. You'd think a school should be a bit nicer to its undergrads, eh?</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>You can engage in self-delusion and think whatever you want to think. Good luck.
[/quote]
It's incredibly obvious, student. None of the privates have comparable data sets.</p>
<p>I think we should just equalize the playing field by randomly bashing the other top publics. It will make our detractors less pronounced.</p>
<p>I'll start. </p>
<p>Parking spots at UCLA are like the vaginas of there women; always filled or too screwed up to park in.</p>
<p>Er, I imagine this tactic won't result in much of any positive result.</p>
<p>Damn. What can we do then DRab?</p>
<p>I think there are two types of people here:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Some people, I don't think, are really trying to bash Berkeley. We're just trying to point out some of its problems and thinking of ways to improve it and make it better. I suppose this seems to be "bashing" Berkeley because we're pointing out its negatives. I think to be fair, other schools' boards should also have posters point out THEIR negatives...but so far that's not happening. I think that this could be seen as a positive in that Berkeley students actually CARE enough to try to improve it and measure it up against the best, whereas other schools don't really do that.</p></li>
<li><p>I think some students are disillusioned with the experience. This is a combination of 1. high expectations and 2. unfortunate events. Berkeley has a strong reputation and so it elicits some high expectations, as the top public school in the nation. I think some students go into it thinking that, takes some huge classes, meets some unfriendly peers, and starts to have this negative view of the school. I think this is also why I see more Harvard-bashing than say, Yale-bashing. When you're the top public/private school, there are bound to be people shouting "overrated."</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"I think there are two types of people here:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Some people, I don't think, are really trying to bash Berkeley. We're just trying to point out some of its problems and thinking of ways to improve it and make it better. I suppose this seems to be "bashing" Berkeley because we're pointing out its negatives. I think to be fair, other schools' boards should also have posters point out THEIR negatives...but so far that's not happening. I think that this could be seen as a positive in that Berkeley students actually CARE enough to try to improve it and measure it up against the best, whereas other schools don't really do that.</p></li>
<li><p>I think some students are disillusioned with the experience. This is a combination of 1. high expectations and 2. unfortunate events. Berkeley has a strong reputation and so it elicits some high expectations, as the top public school in the nation. I think some students go into it thinking that, takes some huge classes, meets some unfriendly peers, and starts to have this negative view of the school. I think this is also why I see more Harvard-bashing than say, Yale-bashing. When you're the top public/private school, there are bound to be people shouting "overrated." "</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Interesting theory, vicissitudes. We should get all the UCB CC celebrities to have dinner sometime. I can only imagine the conversations and debates you guys would have.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, you think a more fair comparison would be against Princeton, but I don't think that's as fair as comparing to Cornell would be. It seems more similar than Berkeley in many ways than Princeton, at least from what I can tell.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that just proves my point - that to compare Berkeley undergrad vs. HYPSM is basically an unfair comparison in the sense that, quite frankly, Berkeley undergrad is just not as good as HYPSM.</p>
<p>But I agree with Student that it doesn't have to be that way. I believe that Berkeley undergrad COULD be just as good as HYPSM, if some reforms were enacted. It comes down to a matter of how badly do you want the school to improve. </p>
<p>Now, if people say that Berkeley undergrad should be satisfied with just being comparable to Cornell, then so be it. However, I certainly am not satisfied with that. </p>
<p>
[quote]
incredibly obvious, student. None of the privates have comparable data sets.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But why? And who says that, even if they are not comparable, that the 'real' data would go Berkeley's way? I could see that, if the data was comparable, then Berkeley could conceivably be even WORSE off. After all, I would suspect that a lot of Berkeley students who really don't have a chance of getting in anywhere because they have low grades and low test scores simply apply anywhere, and when they don't get in anywhere, they just don't report that they didn't get in anywhere. After all, if your grades and test scores are low, and you got rejected from every graduate school you applied to, I would suspect that you aren't exactly champing at the bit to report in, especially if the process is voluntary and you have had no contact with the administration before. The private schools, I would surmise, might have better tracking of all of their students, including those who aren't that good.</p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that I know that this is happening. What I am saying is that there is no guarantee that Berkeley would look better relative to the private schools if the data was more complete. In fact, Berkeley might actually look WORSE. We simply don't know, and it's dangerous to assume that the data would automatically slant one way or another.</p>
<p>
[quote]
After all, I would suspect that a lot of Berkeley students who really don't have a chance of getting in anywhere because they have low grades and low test scores simply apply anywhere, and when they don't get in anywhere, they just don't report that they didn't get in anywhere.
[/quote]
This is just an example of more meaningless anti-Berkeley speculation that shows your bias. We have no idea how the process of selecting whether you take part in the survey works and the stats of those who do versus those who don't.
[quote]
What I am saying is that there is no guarantee that Berkeley would look better relative to the private schools if the data was more complete. In fact, Berkeley might actually look WORSE. We simply don't know, and it's dangerous to assume that the data would automatically slant one way or another.
[/quote]
It just shows your bias to be on the side of "Berkeley might actually look worse." I wasn't making any statement about whether Berkeley would look better or worse, just that those statistics are useless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is just an example of more meaningless anti-Berkeley speculation that shows your bias. We have no idea how the process of selecting whether you take part in the survey works and the stats of those who do versus those who don't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is this 'anti-Berkeley' speculation? I agree with you that we have now idea how the process of selecting the survey is problematic, but that doesn't mean that the true data is guaranteed to make Berkeley look better. It might make Berkeley look worse. We simply don't know, and that's the point. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It just shows your bias to be on the side of "Berkeley might actually look worse." I wasn't making any statement about whether Berkeley would look better or worse, just that those statistics are useless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And this is where we disagree. I don't think that Berkeley's statistics are any more 'useless' than the data from the other schools. Now all of the students from Berkeley report in. However, not all of the students from HYPSM report in either. Hence, unless somebody can demonstrate to me why the missing data would be skewed in Berkeley's favor, then we simply have to take the data the way it stands.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Interesting theory, vicissitudes. We should get all the UCB CC celebrities to have dinner sometime. I can only imagine the conversations and debates you guys would have.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I wouldn't exactly call us "celebrities" for having thousands of posts on an internet forum. ;)</p>
<p>haha, to me you guys are...</p>
<p>I aspire to reach your pinnacle of success. Hopefully, once I get more acquainted with UCB, I can make as insightful and thorough posts as all of yall.</p>
<p>C******Focused, you won't be doing any climbing up the Berkeley "CC celebrity list" with that kind of handle... For now, you're on everybody's $h!t list! ;)</p>
<p>sakky, about the data: Berkeley is very consistent in terms of not putting enough of a PR effort to "massage" its numbers. Take the single-sitting SATs for example. How stupid is that!?!? And why?!? </p>
<p>It's about 50% administrative arrogance (as in "we are Berkeley, we don't need to tweak the numbers to look good") and 50% is the fact that there is no real PR effort to speak of. No one is minding the ship. Part of it is that it is viewed as "fat", the other part is cultural, as private schools are tighter and "clubbier". It seems in many cases, Berkeley is great despite its administration, not because of it. That's something alumni like me should really work on changing.</p>
<p>About your particular stance, the glass-half-empty position you took above is a sort of Rorschach test of your low image of Berkeley, which pervades your contribution on this board.</p>
<p>Based on the stats available, it doesn't appear that Berkeley produces more dissatisfied students, but those dissatisfied are more passionate and vociferous about their dissatisfaction. Witness the multi-handled poster politeantagonis. It's a function of Berkeley's specific environment, which is more intense and challenging (the other edge of the two-edged blade being more stimulating, diverse, down-toearth, lively etc)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I don't know that these boards should make you sad. I think the purposes of these boards is to hear a wide range of opinions. What is the point of hearing only opinions that are exactly the same as yours? You might as well just have a conversation with yourself. Why even have a discussion board if the board cannot present a wide range of opinions?
[/quote]
One side of the coin is that ignorance is bliss.</p>
<p>The other side is that with some of the highly acidic opinions here on the board, it creates a tunnel vision of sorts that makes even Berkeley's positive developments seem less lustrous, and Berkeley's negative developments the beginning of Berkeley's end.</p>
<p>In fact, since the last time I posted, I've seen only occasional brushes past Berkeley CC posts in Google. And even those brief glimpses have shown me personalities that have cropped up on the Berkeley forums that by comparison make Liberal Censor/Polite Antagonis/Nazi Mods/etc. seem reasonable, civil, and extremely intelligent.</p>
<p>What I've personally found, being away from these boards, is that Berkeley is in less of a dire circumstance than most of the posts here would lead you to believe.</p>
<p>Berkeley's current state is actually more or less the state that the administration wants it to be in. Whether the direction is one one would agree with or not, at least there's a helmsman at the wheel.
The current Chancellor's policies, which at this point are just starting to show their effects, are actually rather heartening.</p>
<p>Of course, in the same token, the administration seems to currently have no desire to compete directly in the same metrics as Harvard, Princeton, and the like.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think we should just equalize the playing field by randomly bashing the other top publics. It will make our detractors less pronounced.</p>
<p>I'll start. </p>
<p>Parking spots at UCLA are like the vaginas of there women; always filled or too screwed up to park in.
[/quote]
Berkeley is not competing with other public schools.</p>
<p>One, it would probably not reflect very well upon Berkeley itself. And secondly, and most importantly, the competition, as said before, is against HYPSM.</p>
<p>Berkeley is among the general public's "elite."
What it is competiting for is whether it will be near the bottom of that public perception bracket or ear the top.
It still is a feather in Berkeley's cap to be among this group. Of course, the administration would hopefully not be content to just let it stay "among" the group.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, that just proves my point - that to compare Berkeley undergrad vs. HYPSM is basically an unfair comparison in the sense that, quite frankly, Berkeley undergrad is just not as good as HYPSM.
[/quote]
In perception, anyway. Universities change at a "glacial speed" as said by Stanford's President (a source which probably doesn't endear to most Berkeley students). It is unlikely that Berkeley actually changed so much to fall from its lofty "second only to Harvard" position (graduate and undergraduate) to today's status in only about 15-20 years. It is mostly that public tastes have changed, and along with them the perceptions of the "quality" of the major universities.</p>
<p>There are some improvements that can be made, but most discussed on these boards are not improvements the administration wants. The administration firmly believes and preaches Berkeley's distinction in being its "sink or swim" policy, and also bureaucracy has simply been accepted as trademark.</p>
<p>You probably won't convince them to abandon sink-or-swim, and there are few practical ways to improve the bureaucracy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, if people say that Berkeley undergrad should be satisfied with just being comparable to Cornell, then so be it. However, I certainly am not satisfied with that.
[/quote]
Amen.</p>
<p>Berkeley isn't quite as terrible as some vocal individuals on the boards say, of course. It's actually surprising that it is running so smoothly considering all the things that you would expect arrayed against it, such as funding.</p>
<p>It has become fashionable at this point in time to bash Berkeley, which has become known more for its liberalism (which is no longer very accurate) than its academics. Whether marketing would help amend the situation...</p>
<p>Well, speaking of Cornell... I suppose we'll have see how their marketing and image consultants do with their reputation. After all, there's no reason for Berkeley to follow suit devoting funds to such an effort if we see Cornell's fall flat on its face.</p>
<p>"C******Focused, you won't be doing any climbing up the Berkeley "CC celebrity list" with that kind of handle... For now, you're on everybody's $h!t list!"</p>
<p>CalX, I would change my username but it took me too much time to earn the prestigious title of a senior member :( But please don't doubt it, I love Cal as much as anyone out there (Perhaps even more, because I come from a **** background...)</p>
<p>Random thought: Do UCBers get bashed for wanting to go Stanford grad school? If so, I'll keep my aspirations silent...I don't want to get lynched :(</p>
<p>"Berkeley is not competing with other public schools.</p>
<p>One, it would probably not reflect very well upon Berkeley itself. And secondly, and most importantly, the competition, as said before, is against HYPSM.</p>
<p>Berkeley is among the general public's "elite."
What it is competiting for is whether it will be near the bottom of that public perception bracket or ear the top.
It still is a feather in Berkeley's cap to be among this group. Of course, the administration would hopefully not be content to just let it stay "among" the group."</p>
<p>Allorion, I was just joking...I have mad respect for other top publics including UCLA and UVA. In any case, I hope Berkeley stays as close to the top as possible or even moves up higher in public perception. Cheers...</p>
<p>I'm with Allorion.</p>
<p>CardinalFocused, if your reasons are good enough . . . i guess it's okay. ;)</p>