<p>^yay! hehe, :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I kinda agree with this. What I really think is happening is that there are hardly any negative comments on the other boards so that makes Berkeley look bad in comparison.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? I have been on this board for all this time and it seems to have gotten more civil. More discussion about some aspects of Berkeley, the administration, how certain things work, and possible ways to make it better. Certainly less "Berkeley bashing" since around...April.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
[quote]
One, it would probably not reflect very well upon Berkeley itself. And secondly, and most importantly, the competition, as said before, is against HYPSM.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>These seem to contradict themselves...anyway, I think we can say that it is certainly reasonable to aspire to HYPSM.</p>
<p>
[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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know...you're saying that Berkeley is not far from the second best university in the nation...funding has been repeatedly cut and that hurts it...impaction has been getting worse...grad school placement isn't that great compared to HYPSM, impersonal beaucracy, etc. Maybe not huge problems affecting most students, but you know, certainly things that some other schools do better at, and things we could try to improve.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe not improvements the administration wants, but if it'll help Berkeley students and make Berkeley a better school, then it's a good idea right? We're not saying implement every idea that we come up with on this board. We just talk about some possible ideas to make Berkeley better.</p>
<p>We probably won't convince them to abandon sink-or-swim, you're right. But it's certainly worth a try. If you just say "you probably won't convince them" and don't even try then you definitely won't convince them. Besides I think it's okay if we hypothesize about what possible consequences such an action could bring.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I really don't think any vocal individuals on these boards have been calling Berkeley terrible. Saying it's comparable to Cornell isn't calling it terrible at all: Cornell is one of the top universities in the nation. I've always said Berkeley is a great school, and even defended it against sternman87 on other boards (troll).</p>
<p>I really haven't seen much actual Berkeley bashing at all on these boards anymore. Perhaps you would like to read some past posts and get caught up. I don't think it's known more for its liberalism than its academics anymore, or maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd. I do think that its athletics is relatively unknown compared to the likes of say, UCLA, which I think is a shame.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?!?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley MORE than makes up for it by bolting the reputation of the undergrad program to the undisputed strength of the grad programs. It's a BRILLIANT PR strategy that I have seen time and time again. I remember strongly back in the day when people complained about the quality of the undergrad program, the administration would respond by simply increasing funding for the graduate programs. The idea was that Berkeley undergrads would be appeased by being in the mere presence of strong graduate programs, and wouldn't care about the shortcomings of the undergrad program. This is false. Berkeley should be making efforts to improve the UNDERgrad program. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I kinda agree with this. What I really think is happening is that there are hardly any negative comments on the other boards so that makes Berkeley look bad in comparison.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It seems to me that that means that Berkeley is just afraid of frank and honest analysis. If we as a group can talk about Berkeley's problems, and other schools don't have such a group, then that's their problem, not ours. </p>
<p>I hardly doubt that there is any real harm in having these frank discussions. Let's face it. Right now, most people who get admitted to HYPSM and Berkeley are going to choose HYPSM, whether we have these discussions or not. Furthermore, I doubt that these discussions will deter people from going to Berkeley in favor of, say, UCLA or some other UC. I have always agreed that Berkeley is, on the whole, better than the other UC's. </p>
<p>Hence, I doubt that these discussions will really convince people to make different college choices than they would have made anyway. The only way I can see this happening is if somebody chooses not to go to Berkeley because of a specific problem within the Berkeley program that has been discussed, i.e. the problem of impacted majors. But then, I would say that that's actually a GOOD thing for that student to go elsewhere. After all, that's what truth-in-advertising is all about. You let your prospectives see all of your problems and then they can make a decision with complete information. The worst case scenario is students matriculate at Berkeley and ONLY THEN find out that they may not get the major that they really want, when they could have gone to some other school and been allowed into their desired major. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe not improvements the administration wants, but if it'll help Berkeley students and make Berkeley a better school, then it's a good idea right? We're not saying implement every idea that we come up with on this board. We just talk about some possible ideas to make Berkeley better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Personally, I am warming up to the recommendation of simply sacking the entire administration. Or keeping them around, but having them administer just the graduate programs, for which they have clearly done a quite good job. I agree that one main problem is administrative culture, in that much of the administration just doesn't WANT to improve the undergrad program.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Right now, most people who get admitted to HYPSM and Berkeley are going to choose HYPSM, whether we have these discussions or not. Furthermore, I doubt that these discussions will deter people from going to Berkeley in favor of, say, UCLA or some other UC. I have always agreed that Berkeley is, on the whole, better than the other UC's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are solid reasons for choosing Berkeley undergrad over the top five private schools, you should not presume that the choice is obvious, even if that's the prevailing notion on CC.</p>
<p>From what I've seen on this board, Berkeley has been losing out to the second tier of private schools (top schools that aren't top 5-10 like Penn, Dartmouth, Duke down on to Notre Dame, Emory or Wash U StL.) The noise on this site about Berkeley, which is quite unique and due largely to the contribution of two or three posters (including you), is a definite factor. Prospective students use this site as an aid to their decision of where to apply and which offer to accept.</p>
<p>Open, constructive criticism of Cal is a great thing and should be encouaged. My problem is that you have a very negative bias against Berkeley, your criticism and attitude reflects that. furthermore, that criticism is unfounded. Your line is that Berkeley undergraduate is poor (USNWR-like top 20 as opposed to top 5) yet the only argument in support of this line, argument that you pound relentlessly, is the fact that the three or four most popular majors at Cal are hard to get in. I have already demonstrated that the great majority of Cal student don't consider that to be a problem at all.</p>
<p>So if you have any other criticism about the quality of the undergraduate experience at Cal, state it and support it. Otherwise you should just say that you don't believe that Berkeley is a top 5 school specifically because it's hard to get in business school or in and out of EECS, that would be the more honest approach, lest your Cal-bashing be dismissed as a personal bias.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are solid reasons for choosing Berkeley undergrad over the top five private schools, you should not presume that the choice is obvious, even if that's the prevailing notion on CC
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think it's quite clear that Berkeley loses the cross-admit battle to all of thes schools. Berkeley's overall yield is about 40%, compared to HYPSM that all boast a yield close of 65%+. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The noise on this site about Berkeley, which is quite unique and due largely to the contribution of two or three posters (including you), is a definite factor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
My problem is that you have a very negative bias against Berkeley, your criticism and attitude reflects that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I've said before, even if I am biased, it's no worse than your bias. You seem to want everybody to turn down all other schools for Berkeley. You praise Berkeley far more than you criticize it. There's nothing wrong with that, as you have freedom of speech as do I, but it just means that if I am biased, I am no more biased then you are. You know what they say about those who live in glass houses. </p>
<p>And so what if the noise about Berkeley is unique? You seem to make it seem as if just because other schools don't have people pointing out their problems, then nobody should point out Berkeley's problems either. What I would say is that those who read these posts and still choose Berkeley will be more informed (and thus, ultimately, happier students) than those who choose other schools because of a lack of information, and that, in the long run, is good for Berkeley. It's far better to find out about problems sooner rather than later. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Your line is that Berkeley undergraduate is poor (USNWR-like top 20 as opposed to top 5) yet the only argument in support of this line, argument that you pound relentlessly, is the fact that the three or four most popular majors at Cal are hard to get in. I have already demonstrated that the great majority of Cal student don't consider that to be a problem at all.</p>
<p>So if you have any other criticism about the quality of the undergraduate experience at Cal, state it and support it. Otherwise you should just say that you don't believe that Berkeley is a top 5 school specifically because it's hard to get in business school or in and out of EECS, that would be the more honest approach, lest your Cal-bashing be dismissed as a personal bias.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? This is my ONLY criticism of Berkeley? I think people like UCLAri, Drab, and vicissitudes are chuckling, because they've all read my posts. In fact, some of the older posters, like kryptic, calkidd, and even rayrayray_222/california1600, if they are still around, are probably also chuckling. The issue of impaction is FAR from my only criticism of Berkeley. It just happens to be high on the list. Go search through some of my old posts, where I discussed many other topics in great detail. </p>
<p>Let me enumerate JUST A FEW of my other criticisms:</p>
<ul>
<li>An administration that is highly unresponsive to undergraduates, and in particular, doesn't care a whit about students who are doing badly (again, do I have to bring up that guy who flunked out and now lives in Oakland where he used to work at Fed Ex?)</li>
<li>Problems in getting classes you want when you want them, which may threaten your graduation, particularly so when talking about getting lab sections that fit your schedule (i.e. OChem lab, physics 7 lab, etc.)</li>
<li>Grading policies in technical majors, especially engineering, that are simply medieval, especially in the weeders.</li>
<li>Low student selectivity, relative to the top private schools. The truth is, there are a lot of undergrads at Berkeley who, frankly, aren't that good and aren't particularly hard working. This not only mars the brand-name of Berkeley (as I have often times been quite embarrassed about some of the other people I have seen who hold Berkeley degrees), but also, through social influences, convinces other students to be lazy and to not value achievement. Like I said, it's pretty hard to make the choice to study when a conspicuous number of people around you are partying all the time and doing nothing.<br>
*Lack of integration of the undergrad program with the grad program, although granted, that is changing slowly. I think that Berkeley could really use a lot more of those bachelor's/master's programs that are so prevalent elsewhere, for example.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>That's just a short list of things I have talked about on other threads.</p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I still think that Berkeley is one of the best undergraduate programs out there, and is arguably the best public school in the US for undergrad. It's just that Berkeley could be SO MUCH MORE THAN THAT. Like I said, I am not satisfied with the notion that Berkeley should be satisfied with being competitive with Cornell. There really is no reason why Berkeley couldn't be completely competitive, at the undergrad level, with HYPSM. If they would just fix these problems, I'm sure Berkeley would be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hardly doubt that there is any real harm in having these frank discussions. Let's face it. Right now, most people who get admitted to HYPSM and Berkeley are going to choose HYPSM, whether we have these discussions or not. Furthermore, I doubt that these discussions will deter people from going to Berkeley in favor of, say, UCLA or some other UC. I have always agreed that Berkeley is, on the whole, better than the other UC's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is something that I have to agree with CalX on. The sad thing is, I'm seeing more and more people turn down Berkeley for UCLA, UCD, University of Chicago, Northwestern, Pomona, just to name a few. Just glancing at some threads around April time will show this (especially on the UCD boards...those people do not like Berkeley). I think the UCLA facebook group called "Berkeley rejectors" has over 1,000 members. sakky, I think sometimes you give high school seniors too much credit. They honestly don't know very much about colleges, and choose based on the tiniest things. I told a friend who already decided to attend Berkeley about weeders, and she said "I don't want to go to Berkeley anymore." I was talking to another friend who turned down Berkeley for Harvard about impacted majors, and she said "huh? What's that?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I would say is that those who read these posts and still choose Berkeley will be more informed (and thus, ultimately, happier students) than those who choose other schools because of a lack of information, and that, in the long run, is good for Berkeley. It's far better to find out about problems sooner rather than later.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, you claim to believe in truth-in-advertising. But if you only inform people of one side, then is that really truth-in-advertising? Let me give you an example. Some months ago there were some threads about weeders at Berkeley, and its cut-throat environment. I had never see anyone talk about weeders at UCLA (at least on their board) and I thought it was unique to Berkeley! That is, until I learned that UCLA also has weeders and it gets competitive too. I know quite a few people who prefers UCLA over Berkeley because Berkeley has a reputation of being "too cut-throat."</p>
<p>See where I'm going here? You try to inform someone who is pre-med about choosing between Berkeley and UCLA about Berkeley. You say Berkeley is very competitive for pre-med, the class sizes are huge, graduate placement isn't as good as HYPSM, etc. He goes on the UCLA boards and sees nothing of the sort. This alone will now make him want to go to UCLA a lot more than Berkeley. He goes to UCLA, only to find out that UCLA is ALSO very competitive for pre-med, the class sizes are also huge, graduate placement still isn't as good as HYPSM, and the professors aren't as good and the student body isn't as strong. So in the end, even though you tried to help him make an informed choice, you made him worse off. He would have been better knowing nothing, and choose based on reputation or (snicker) U.S. News alone.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Open, constructive criticism of Cal is a great thing and should be encouaged. My problem is that you have a very negative bias against Berkeley, your criticism and attitude reflects that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wellll...I don't think sakky's posts have a "very negative bias against Berkeley." Bias tend to imply that the truth is blurred due to personal preferences. I think the problems sakky points out are very real, even if they affect a small portion of the school population. Now, LiberalCensors/CantSilenceTruth, there's a guy who had a very negative bias against Berkeley. Boy he really turned me and a few of my friends on CC off. Everything post was something negative about Berkeley. At least sakky is willing to admit that Berkeley is better than most other schools out there, and when pointing out problems states that they are bad in comparison to HYPSM.</p>
<p>Now, I don't think we shouldn't point out Berkeley's problems just because other schools' posters don't point out theirs. I just think that deterring prospective students from attending is an unfortunate side-effect. And yes I do think these discussions tend to deter students from attending.</p>
<p>But to keep things in perspective, I'm not really sure just exactly how many students would actually change their decisions due to this forum. My guess is, probably not many.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Open, constructive criticism of Cal is a great thing and should be encouaged. My problem is that you have a very negative bias against Berkeley, your criticism and attitude reflects that. furthermore, that criticism is unfounded. Your line is that Berkeley undergraduate is poor (USNWR-like top 20 as opposed to top 5) yet the only argument in support of this line, argument that you pound relentlessly, is the fact that the three or four most popular majors at Cal are hard to get in. I have already demonstrated that the great majority of Cal student don't consider that to be a problem at all.</p>
<p>So if you have any other criticism about the quality of the undergraduate experience at Cal, state it and support it. Otherwise you should just say that you don't believe that Berkeley is a top 5 school specifically because it's hard to get in business school or in and out of EECS, that would be the more honest approach, lest your Cal-bashing be dismissed as a personal bias.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think impaction is just the one topic that we've focused on (for whatever reason) recently. Other problems such as grad school placement (medical schools, law schools), low yield (which leads to a student body that could be stronger), CC transfer, impersonal beaucracy, hard to get research, rampant grade inflation in certain majors, etc.</p>
<p>Hmm, this post sounded pretty negative didn't it? I'll try to end it on a positive note. Just recently Berkeley has improved housing so that students are now guaranteed two years of housing (some older students still gripe about the one year guarantee), and there have been improvements in the food, noticibly that Crossroads now has the nation's first organic salad bar on a college campus! This gives me hope that Berkeley is still trying to improve itself and quality of life for students on campus.</p>
<p>Current administration policy IS actually attempting to improve Berkeley.</p>
<p>However, I do have to agree with Sakky's sentiment that the way that the administration is doing it is not towards undergraduate directly, but more towards improving Berkeley's funding, professors, and name.</p>
<p>There are some improvements directly to undergraduate though, even though it isn't the highest priority on the administration's to-do list. There are attempts to expand student housing (beyond the two years, and failing that, simply having more housing available--current problems in obtaining the various locations have slowed that down though), and in the past few years, impacted majors HAVE opened up to more students (admittedly, partially spurred on by the Regents forcing Berkeley to admit more students overall). Also, there are really no more "scare tactics" other than a simple, "Berkeley is difficult" which is followed by, "But you are all great students" generally in the Cal Day and CalSO and other such. </p>
<p>Perhaps a forced "Cal family" phrase used repeatedly and ingenuinely by some faculty isn't the best way to go about making undergraduates more comfortable, but an attempt, however meager, is there (an improvement to before).</p>
<p>
[quote]
But to keep things in perspective, I'm not really sure just exactly how many students would actually change their decisions due to this forum. My guess is, probably not many.
[/quote]
I actually think the effect that this forum has is far more significant than "not many" due to your exact reasoning above this statement.</p>
<p>I do, however, agree with Sakky that honest, CONSTRUCTIVE criticism... and most key, actual ACTION to improve Berkeley will help Berkeley more than hurt.</p>
<p>What is overestimated is the effect of College Confidential overall. It may seem like the community is huge (and it is... decently large) but in terms of the overall pool of college-bound seniors, it doesn't command the attention of THAT many students (quite a few have no idea what College Confidential is, and yet others pass through only for a specific bit of information and leave... and more have commented that College Confidential is "crazy" / "don't really trust the opinions online" / etc. and don't trust what they read anyway).</p>
<p>If any improvement can be garnered from these discussions, it would be quite worth losing what few students on these forums for that improvement.</p>
<p>Allorion, no actual improvement can really be garnered from these discussions, unless Berkeley's administration is reading our comments and taking our recommendations into consideration, which is a really preposterous notion.</p>
<p>What's not preposterous on the other hand is the fact that prospective students come to this site by the tens of thousands and use the forums as an input for their choice of college. A strong, unqualified and unbalanced indictment by a Berkeley grad or student (the two posters have made hundreds of those, under several handles) is a very damning and powerfully negative item...</p>
<p>Not that we shouldn't discuss Berkeley's flaws, but those flaws need to be put in perspective along with the great points.</p>
<p>I'll address the other points when I get the time.</p>
<p>I suppose the most intriguing question to ask at this point would be directed at the few (and you know who you are) who have 1000s of posts to their name, possibly several handles (so even more), and an average word count of over 500 words / post:</p>
<p>I figure that we (at the point at which one would start college posting) have a good 70-80 years on this Earth. How much time have you wasted posted on this ultimately meaningless forum (in days/years please)? Do you honestly have nothing better to do? Do you wish to be remembered only as an anonymous face on a college discussion board? FFS, GET A LIFE! </p>
<p>I hate to be so harsh, but this seems to be a wasted effort. You obviously have an inordinate amount of free time on your hands. Go use it, for the love of God...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Allorion, no actual improvement can really be garnered from these discussions, unless Berkeley's administration is reading our comments and taking our recommendations into consideration, which is a really preposterous notion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know about that. Because of these discussions I now want to improve Berkeley as a school and do what I can as a student. So, maybe if I get to know a bunch of students who are unsatisfied with say, major impaction, I'll try to organize a protest or something. I think the point is to inspire many students to want to do something to improve the school, since massive student mobilization is usually needed to affect administrative policies. If nothing else I've learned a lot more about how Berkeley works than I otherwise would have.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not that we shouldn't discuss Berkeley's flaws, but those flaws need to be put in perspective along with the great points.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this. I really think sometimes things need to be put into perspective, which is why I have tried to do so and have defended Berkeley on other boards when they come up with ridiculous things like "Berkeley has nothing but 300 people lectures."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suppose the most intriguing question to ask at this point would be directed at the few (and you know who you are) who have 1000s of posts to their name, possibly several handles (so even more), and an average word count of over 500 words / post:</p>
<p>I figure that we (at the point at which one would start college posting) have a good 70-80 years on this Earth. How much time have you wasted posted on this ultimately meaningless forum (in days/years please)? Do you honestly have nothing better to do? Do you wish to be remembered only as an anonymous face on a college discussion board? FFS, GET A LIFE!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what? It's our time and we decide what we want to do with it. Do you know how many people play the Warcraft III/World of Warcraft? There's this guy in college on a Warcraft III forum who has admitted that he has basically stopped going to classes, stopped doing anything, but play Warcraft III for 10, 12 hours a day. He has a bottle which he uses to pee because he doesn't want to leave the computer to go to the bathroom. What a gigantic waste of time! 12 hours a day, every day, on a computer game? And he's not the only one. There are thousands of people who play 4-5 hours of computer games DAILY. I don't spend nearly that much time on CC. Hey, that's the way they decide to spend their time, and I'm not going to stop them. They have the freedom to do that. So if you're telling us to get a life, I think you should REALLY be telling those people to get a life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So what? It's our time and we decide what we want to do with it. Do you know how many people play the Warcraft III/World of Warcraft? There's this guy in college on a Warcraft III forum who has admitted that he has basically stopped going to classes, stopped doing anything, but play Warcraft III for 10, 12 hours a day. He has a bottle which he uses to pee because he doesn't want to leave the computer to go to the bathroom. What a gigantic waste of time! 12 hours a day, every day, on a computer game? And he's not the only one. There are thousands of people who play 4-5 hours of computer games DAILY. I don't spend nearly that much time on CC. Hey, that's the way they decide to spend their time, and I'm not going to stop them. They have the freedom to do that. So if you're telling us to get a life, I think you should REALLY be telling those people to get a life.
[/quote]
Hah, don't compare yourself to MMO players. It just proves my point. Granted, you are correct. With 6 million playing WoW, who cares about a few more wasting time in a forum? Well, my response is this: most WoW addicts play WoW because they have nothing else going for them. It is the ultimate escapism: replace your life (which must not be going very well) with a pristine one following man's dream of magic, dragons, etc. Unlike WoW addicts, however, you all (addressing the group that I originally attacked) are quite articulate, well versed in fact (and fiction in some cases), and can follow/further an argument. You all HAVE something (ALOT!) going for you. So please, help this world. You certainly have it in you.</p>
<p>You know, sakky, I can completely agree with what you stated in this thread. It seems, however, that your goal is to make Berkeley competitive with the top schools by making them more attractive to prospective students. True, this is technically what we mean by "more competitive" in this context, since we are competing for prospective students.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I feel Berkeley should focus on improving undergraduate education generally. While these goals overlap in areas, I believe your criticisms are directed much more toward the former goal than the latter.</p>
<p>I agree with many of your criticisms about Berkeley in that they make Berkeley a less nice place to go to college. The administration really doesn't care about your grades, so long as you're passing (otherwise, you get kicked out). That doesn't make Berkeley's education worse, though. I don't think your college advisor e-mailing you to let you know you're failing would be very helpful to a student. Professors, on the other hand, do care, from what I've seen. Almost every professor I've had encourages students who did poorly on a midterm to come to office hours to discuss improving their performance in the class. That is useful. I don't know if going beyond that to help failing students should be required, though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
* Problems in getting classes you want when you want them, which may threaten your graduation, particularly so when talking about getting lab sections that fit your schedule (i.e. OChem lab, physics 7 lab, etc.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This also has such a negligible impact on the quality of education. First of all, anyone waiting until the spring semester of his/her senior year to take a physics 7-series course is asking for trouble. It's not like advisors don't point this stuff out: "Take this course early because a lot of people like to take it." I've heard that dozens of times. Would life be easier if I never had to worry about getting into a class? Yeah. Would I learn more by waiting to take the class later? No.</p>
<p>
[quote]
* Grading policies in technical majors, especially engineering, that are simply medieval, especially in the weeders.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, doesn't affect quality of education. Affects quality of GPA, certainly, but not education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
* Low student selectivity, relative to the top private schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I won't go here. We've hashed this one out about a hundred times.</p>
<p>
[quote]
*Lack of integration of the undergrad program with the grad program, although granted, that is changing slowly. I think that Berkeley could really use a lot more of those bachelor's/master's programs that are so prevalent elsewhere, for example.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's an argument I could get behind. I believe solid Bachelor's-Master's programs are a good thing, and having them would improve the quality of education at Berkeley. EECS just recently implemented such a program (a year or two ago), which I was happy to see. I don't know how widespread it is in other departments, but considering how little I've heard of such programs, I'd say forming some would be a good thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I figure that we (at the point at which one would start college posting) have a good 70-80 years on this Earth. How much time have you wasted posted on this ultimately meaningless forum (in days/years please)? Do you honestly have nothing better to do? Do you wish to be remembered only as an anonymous face on a college discussion board? FFS, GET A LIFE!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know how sarcastic this was supposed to be (if at all), but seriously, this is long-range, time-delayed talking. If I was talking to friends it'd be the same, just verbal instead of textual. Heck, you only went half-way in your argument, too. This forum may be pointless, but so is life (end of the universe kind of erases the point everything). So, get over it. I think MMO players are making much better use of their time than us, anyway. They're playing a virtual character in a world that does have a point, at least.</p>
<p>I have a great respect for people at Berkeley. I wanted a decent GPA so I elected to not go there.</p>
<p>Heh, getting a decent GPA isn't that hard. I live in a two bedroom apartment with 4 people total (including myself), and we all are 3.0+. Three are EECS, one is physics. Two of us are 3.7+.</p>
<p>It's kind of a shame Mr Payne, where did you end up going? For anything other than premed it really shouldn't dissuade one from going to Berkeley.</p>
<p>The average GPA at Berkeley was 3.24 last year, and climbing...</p>
<p>Now sakky's point as to why in his or her eyes Berkeley isn't a top 5 undergraduate school:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let me enumerate JUST A FEW of my other criticisms:
* An administration that is highly unresponsive to undergraduates, and in particular, doesn't care a whit about students who are doing badly (again, do I have to bring up that guy who flunked out and now lives in Oakland where he used to work at Fed Ex?)
* Grading policies in technical majors, especially engineering, that are simply medieval, especially in the weeders.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The proportion of students who are flunking out is tapering off. The graduation rate is now up to 86.6% and climbing. Most of those who drop off do so for financial reasons. You're right about the State and University needing to help those. But for a candidate who doesn't come from a poor background, why should this mean to him/her that Berkeley isn't a top choice?</p>
<p>Berkeley's model is a bit more European. At most French public universities for example, the majority of students are weeded out. At Berkeley of course it's far less drastic, but it motivates students to work harder. It was a bit too extreme when I attended Cal, when the avg GPA was under 3.0, they were cutting close to the bone. But now, with the avg GPA at 3.24 and climbing, it's not that bad at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
* Problems in getting classes you want when you want them, which may threaten your graduation, particularly so when talking about getting lab sections that fit your schedule (i.e. OChem lab, physics 7 lab, etc.)
[/quote]
If you start knowing what you'll major early and carry a normal load, you're quite likely to graduate in 4 years. If not, well at least you're not paying $35K/yr in tuition. I did it in 5 years, because I really wasn't in a hurry to leave. </p>
<p>
[quote]
* Low student selectivity, relative to the top private schools. The truth is, there are a lot of undergrads at Berkeley who, frankly, aren't that good and aren't particularly hard working. This not only mars the brand-name of Berkeley (as I have often times been quite embarrassed about some of the other people I have seen who hold Berkeley degrees), but also, through social influences, convinces other students to be lazy and to not value achievement. Like I said, it's pretty hard to make the choice to study when a conspicuous number of people around you are partying all the time and doing nothing.
[/quote]
Make up your mind, is Berkeley a medieval torture chamber that grades mercilessly, or is it a party school filled with lazy underachievers?</p>
<p>Do you think that there aren't thousands of students at top privates who coast, given how ridiculously lax the grading policy is there? At Haas MBA, some of the laziest students were Stanford grads who seemed to have acquired bad habits there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
*Lack of integration of the undergrad program with the grad program, although granted, that is changing slowly. I think that Berkeley could really use a lot more of those bachelor's/master's programs that are so prevalent elsewhere, for example.
[/quote]
One argument against that is the need for cross-polination. Another is that it runs counter the precept of meritocracy, getting into grad school is a privilege that has to be earned. I'm DEFINITELY against this for the MBA, 23yr-olds have no business in that program. It makes more sense for engineering.</p>
<p>sakky, all these arguments seem a bit flimsy to me. They really don't account for your view of Berkeley as at the very bottom of the top, rather than at or near the top of the top.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I still think that Berkeley is one of the best undergraduate programs out there, and is arguably the best public school in the US for undergrad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ARGUABLY the best public school?!?! For chrissakes.............</p>
<p>
[quote]
Heh, getting a decent GPA isn't that hard. I live in a two bedroom apartment with 4 people total (including myself), and we all are 3.0+. Three are EECS, one is physics. Two of us are 3.7+.
[/quote]
Post up the stats of those who are 3.7+. IQ, SAT, High School GPA, AP Scores, etc.</p>
<p>Saying that getting a decent GPA is easy at Cal means nothing over a web forum.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's kind of a shame Mr Payne, where did you end up going? For anything other than premed it really shouldn't dissuade one from going to Berkeley.
[/quote]
I go to Cal Poly San Luis as an ME. Took it over UCLA in a coinflip decision. I'm fairly happy with my decision, and extremely pleased with the education.</p>
<p>I'm glad it's working out for you MrP. SLO is a great place, Cal Poly is solid and definitely more laid back than to UCs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Saying that getting a decent GPA is easy at Cal means nothing over a web forum.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, Mr Payne, but would add that it's also quite meaningless in any circumstances unless you define some important terms, such as what qualifies as a decent GPA and what you mean by "easy."</p>
<p>That's why I asked him to post up the stats of the two people who had high GPAs at Cal. That is a far more telling sign than any subjective wording.</p>