Berkeley Bashing

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
61

<p>
[quote]
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?"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, the fact is, you probably weren't going to get the Harvard girl no matter what.</p>

<p>As far as Northwestern, Chicago, or Pomona, I can definitely see some good reasons for somebody to choose them over Berkeley (and vice versa). Hence, I am not surprised to see people choosing those schools over Berkeley. </p>

<p>Now, as far as UCLA and UCD, I think the yield ratings speak for themselves. Berkeley's yield (40%) isn't great, but it's better than UCLA's and UCD's. Hence, I don't think that people turning down Berkeley for those other UC's is a serious problem. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, I think that plenty of other posters here have posted plenty of positive material about Berkeley. I highly doubt that anybody here on CC reads solely my posts and my posts only. </p>

<p>Secondly, it's not my job to be writing posts about other schools, especially schools that I know less about. I know Berkeley well, so that is what I am going to write about. If those other schools don't have somebody with my perspective on them, then that's really their loss. Think of it this way. My posts are ultimately meant to foster debate and to encourage people to dig for information for themselves. That is why I include so many weblinks in my posts - so that people can see the data for themselves and form their own opinions. </p>

<p>If somebody is so close-minded and lazy that they are willing to choose a school based simply on a bunch of anonymous Internet posts, without bothering to do any of their own research, then frankly, I don't know that they should be going to Berkeley anyway. After all, if nothing else, we can all agree that Berkeley is a school that demands that you do your own legwork if you want to succeed, because nobody is going to hold your hand. If you refuse to do your own legwork, then you're probably better off not choosing Berkeley in the first place. </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! </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...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Starbird, I'll happily compare my biography against yours and we will see who has made better uses of our time. </p>

<p>Besides, think of it this way. How many people spend time watching American Idol? Or Desperate Housewives? Or professional wrestling? Or watching sports over and over again? Or gossiping about the details of the lovelives of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, or Jessica Simpson? That's pretty much wasted time right there (and hey, I happen to LIKE doing all of those activities, and yet even I admit that they are all wastes of time). At least here we are engaging in healthy debate. Spending time posting on CC is far more constructive than what a LOT of other people are doing, trust me. </p>

<p>Think of it this way. Think about all the time that people around the world wasted talking about the Michae Jackson trial. Or the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. Or whether Brad Pitt would break up with Jennifer to be with Angelina. Or Tom Cruise's couch-jumping. Or the Kobe/Shaq feud. Or Terrell Owens dissing Donovan McNabb and the Eagles. Or the whole Bennifer saga. Or Britney and KFed. Or Lindsay Lohan's clubbing and anorexia and catfights with Hilary Duff. TV channels and magazines devoted HUGE resources to these stories, and honestly, does any of that stuff really matter?</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"Encouragement", eh? So what about a guy who was desperate for help in his physics 7B class and showed up for office hours. The main issue is that the guy didn't know multivariable calculus, and specifically surface integrals, and that's because multivariable calculus is not a prereq for 7B. Now I see that you have to take math 53 concurrently with 7B, but this wasn't true in the past.</p>

<p>So he shows up to office hours, and the problem is clear - he understands the concepts but he just can't do the integrals (because he hasn't had the class). So the prof basically berates him by saying that if he can't do the math, then maybe he should drop the class.</p>

<p>Now, what's up with that? It's not his fault he doesn't have the math background, as the class never said that you needed to have the math background. Furthermore, he knows full well that he can't do the math. That's why he showed up to OH's. He wouldn't show up if he didn't think he had a problem. The prof could have taught him how to do surface integrals. Why not - there was nobody else in OH, so what else was he going to do with his time? Or if he didn't want to do that, he could have simply told him to read certain chapters of a math book in order to get the math background. Instead, the prof simply chose to berate the student. How does that encourage anybody? </p>

<p>Now, it should be said that the story had a happy ending. That student was able to find a math book himself, learn the calculus he needed, and do very well. But no thanks to the prof. The prof wanted him to drop the class. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? Who said anything about waiting until senior year. Keep in mind that the Physics 7 series is a PREREQ for many other classes, especially in engineering. </p>

<p>Let me give you an example. Take ChemE 140. ChemE140 is the gateway class to all other ChemE classes. But to take ChemE140, you have to have taken Physics 7B (which can be done concurrently). To take Physics 7B requires that you have passed 7A. And to take 7A, you have to have passed Math 1A.</p>

<p>So think about the following sequence for a regular student. First semester, he takes Math 1A. Second semester, he takes Physics 7A. Third semester (or, the first semester of sophomore year), he takes ChemE 140 and Physics 7B. But here, you see that he HAS to take Physics 7A and 7B in those semesters indicated, otherwise his courses are off-track. For example, if he couldn't get Physics 7A in his second semester, then he is not prepared for ChemE140. And without 140, you can't take any of the other ChemE courses. Furthermore, 140 is taught only once a year. So if you miss it, you have to wait for a whole 'nother year to pass by. </p>

<p>Hence, the point is, plenty of people who are taking physics really only have ONE SHOT at getting their physics classes if they don't want to have their graduation delayed. That's right - ONE SHOT. If they miss it, too bad, their graduation is delayed. And that's a problem when these physics classes have lab scheduling conflicts. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, doesn't affect quality of education. Affects quality of GPA, certainly, but not education.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I think it DEEPLY affects education in many pernicious ways. I will just name a few. Those who are right on the border of passing and failing will care more about getting a good grade than about actually learning the material. In general, it simply makes people more worried about getting high grades than about actually learning the material.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example, from OChem lab (Chem112AB). Lab grading in the old days was performed (and may still be) determined by your technique and your yield. If the TA saw you performing something wrong in the lab, or coming up with low yield of your final products, then your lab grade would be docked.</p>

<p>However, Chem112 (especially 112A) is also a notorious weeder. And students know it. So students in the lab simply learned not to ask for help or not to want the TA to be around them at all, for fear that the TA would see you doing something wrong and dock your grade. For example, some students would deliberately choose the corner lab bench as far away from the TA's desk as possible so that the TA could not really see what he was doing. Some students would even strategically position their lab equipment in such a way as to actually block their experiment from the line of sight of the TA. </p>

<p>The problems even extend to safety. I know a guy who, in the lab, accidentally spilled some compounds that contained mercury. Mercury is a rather dangerous chemical. So the student dutifully told the TA what he had done. The TA then proceeded to severely dock that student's grade. So the student then later bitterly said that next time he spills something, he's just not going to say anything. Furthermore, he told all his friends, who told all their friends, and pretty soon, nobody was reporting their spills or accidents. You spill something? You break some glassware? Either try to clean it up yourself quietly, or if you can't, just walk away as if nothing had happened. Better that than getting your lab grade docked in a weeder class where every single point counts. So eventually, the lab became a morass of dangerous open chemical spills that nobody was reporting. Think about how dangerous that is. Somebody could accidentally put their hand in one of these spills, or breathe something dangerous in, or accidentally ignite something. But nobody wanted to report any spills for fear of getting their grade docked.</p>

<p>Now, if the grading was less harsh, then that sort of activity would be less incentivized. People would have less reason to hide spills if the grading was easier because it would matter less. But people in Chem112A will say to themselves "I am not going to report a spill if it potentially pulls my grade down to a C or worse, why should I?". </p>

<p>
[quote]
Make up your mind, is Berkeley a medieval torture chamber that grades mercilessly, or is it a party school filled with lazy underachievers?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's BOTH. I think y'all should have picked up on this fact. Some majors are ridiculously hard. Some are ridiculously easy. There is no general pattern that can be made. And this is a bad thing because it means that Berkeley graduates both extremely hard working and extremely lazy people.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, but so what? Just because other schools do something bad, that means that Berkeley also had to do something bad? </p>

<p>What saves those other schools is that they have higher initial selectivity, which compensates for their lack of rigor. And in the case of certain schools like MIT and Caltech, you have BOTH high initial selectivity AND rigor. </p>

<p>Berkeley has lower selectivity but somewhat makes up for it with rigor. But I say SOMEWHAT because, quite frankly, as we all know, there are certain majors that are just not very rigorous at all. </p>

<p>Consider this. Have you ever noticed how many Cal football players are majoring in one of the 'Studies' majors? For example, look at the Cal football players who were named to the Pac-10 All-Academic team in 2002. If you don't count Chris Manderino (who was an undeclared freshman), then of the 10 Cal players on the first or second All-Academic Team, notice how a whopping FOUR of them are majoring in American Studies! Another one (Frederickson) is majoring in Film Studies, and another 1 or 2 is majoring in Religious Studies (depending on whether you want to count Ryan Jones, who apparently declared both English and Religious Studies). Hence, depending on whether you count Jones, that means that 60-70% of the declared Cal majors on the All-Academic Team were majoring in one of the 'Studies'. I think you have to admit that that's a LOT of 'Studies' majors. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.pac-10.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/112002aad.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.pac-10.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/112002aad.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
ARGUABLY the best public school?!?! For chrissakes.............

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course arguably. Because some people prefer the more LAC-ish style environment of Virginia. And I can see why. </p>

<p>Now, that doesn't mean that all or even the majority of people would prefer Virginia to Berkeley. The point is that Virginia offers a dramatically different style of education. The profs are not as renowned, the research is obviously not as deep. But the lifestyle and undergrad environment is more tight-knit.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
as we all know

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think this is false. I think a lot know exclusively from hearsay, many largely because of your posts, and that doesn't strike me as very deep knowing (if any knowing at all). And then there are those who don't even know from you or experience, who don't know this possibly true state of affairs to any degree. While you could say that these people just don't know the truth or reality, and that may be the case, what is also true is that "as we all know" isn't very accurate, and as I've said before, a disingenuous rhetorical strategy.</p>

65

<p>Drab, are you honestly trying to say that a lot of students/alumni simply don't know that there are certain majors at Berkeley that are just not very rigorous?</p>

66

<p>Again, of lot of their knowing is hearesay or essentially ignorance, often preconceived notions (for instance, English or philosophy just can't be difficult, as they are in the humanities (or philosophy some say it is social science), even if you have to write ridiculously long papers or deal with tough grading or read long and difficult text. But we have arrived again at the sakky difficulty fork. If they don't know it, they're ignorant of it and it exists. If they know it, it clearly exists. Either way it exists, and it doesn't matter whether they think it is the case and it actually is the case, they think it is the case and it is not the case, they do not think it is the case and it is the case, or they do not think it is the case and it is not the case, does it, sakky? About how many is "a lot?" So let's assume it exists, and I think that it does, that there are some not very rigorous majors at Berkeley. How much of "we all" would have to know for it to be an honest rhetorical strategy?</p>

67

<p>It's total BS to dismiss majors at Cal because their name includes "Studies". Film for example is not necessarily easy. It's one of the top film studies programs in the US. Like every major on campus. American Studies is a cross-disciplinary major that encompasses social sciences and humanities like sociology, anthropology, poli sci, history, litterature and so forth. Every one of those majors at Cal is top notch. I had a harder time with my humanities classes at Cal than with most technical classes.</p>

<p>As far as the football team, the average GPA is now over 3.0 and their graduation rate is over 80%. Cal has one of the most academically rigorous football programs in Division 1. Those kids do nothing but work out and study. They often choose Berkeley over other top football programs because of the quality of the education and diploma. They can't coast like they do at Stanford, where being in the bottom 95% o a typical class gets you a B.</p>

<p>IMHO Virginia is not one of the top two public schools in the US. I would put Michigan above it.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
As far as the football team...and their graduation rate is over 80%.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here are the NCAA figures:</p>

<p>Overall Cal student-athlete graduation rate for all freshmen in ALL SPORTS who came in during 1998-99 (the latest year where there is data): 59%
4-year average for all sports: 67%</p>

<p>For just football:
freshmen who came in during 1998-1999: 25%
4-year average: 41%</p>

<p><a href="http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/inst2005/107.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/inst2005/107.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Explanation of the various terms is here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2005/d1_info.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2005/d1_info.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I don't know about you, but a Cal football graduation rate of 25%, or 41%, or even the 47% "Graduate Success Rate" is not exactly something to brag about. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It's total BS to dismiss majors at Cal because their name includes "Studies".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps you'd like to explain how to people who have THEMSELVES majored in AS have dismissed it as easy. Are you saying that you know more about their own major than they do? </p>

<p>For example, consider andrewtx's post #12 here:</p>

<p>"But as a general rule? I'll admit it, American Studies is pretty fluff if you don't take the right classes."</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=56085%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=56085&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

69

<p>Your football graduation data is outdated. It reflects the state of the football team in the late 90s/eraly 0s and the lack of commitment to academics from the previous head coach, who was totally inept. Under Tedford, every single senior on the team has graduated except for a handful who were a few units short and went on to the NFL, and the dropout rate has been very low. I know those figures as a fact, because I follow the team very closely and support the program. There are no press releases confirming this yet (the Berkeley athletic dept PR is pretty lame) but in due time the more current data will be out.</p>

<p>From the passage you've quoted from that student, his previous sentence said:
"Though it is considered a fluff major, once you get into the seminars, they can be very rigorous..." </p>

<p>If you consider some social science/humanities majors to be easy at Cal, then you shouldn't assume that those same majors will be harder at other top schools, particularly when the grading standards are much more lax elsewhere.</p>

70

<p>
[quote]
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?"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course people would pick Harvard over Berkeley, except maybe for financial reasons. Chicago is excellent too.</p>

<p>However, picking UCLA and UCD over Berkeley? uh why? I had a hard time deciding because I got a full ride to UCD, but yeah...here I am. I also got into UCLA...Also, POmona is a good school but it doesn't exactly have name recognition, and Northwestern is good, but not that good So maybe they picked the school for other reasons? maybe financial? (Which is why I was considering UCD...)</p>

<p>In the end, who cares who picks what college. Will this matter ten years down the line? Probably not.</p>

71

<p>Quote:
"In the end, who cares who picks what college. Will this matter ten years down the line? Probably not."</p>

<p>Who cares who picks what college? A lot of people! Most people deep down really care a lot about the name recognition/prestige of their school, despite what they say outwardly about it not really mattering. Why do you think there are so many debates about the prestige of the Berkeley degree?</p>

<p>Will this matter ten years down the line? Probably not. Schools matter most in opening up opportunities/career options. However, after you get in the door, school name means very little. Your performance on the job matters most in whether you advance and are succesful at what you do. Your school name becomes "important" only as a bragging right or trophy of your accomplishments. It's something you'll have the rest of your lives (to some, this means a lot). </p>

<p>Despite what people say, I would say that people choose a college based on these 3 main criteria, in order of importance: (1) Prestige/Name Recognition of School for bragging rights (2) quality of the education (3) scholarships/financial aid. There will ALWAYS be exceptions of course. </p>

<p>Regarding Harvard, l'd say most would choose Harvard over Berkeley (even if they had to go into huge debt to go to Harvard) simply for the prestige.</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
Your football graduation data is outdated. It reflects the state of the football team in the late 90s/eraly 0s and the lack of commitment to academics from the previous head coach, who was totally inept. Under Tedford, every single senior on the team has graduated except for a handful who were a few units short and went on to the NFL, and the dropout rate has been very low. I know those figures as a fact, because I follow the team very closely and support the program. There are no press releases confirming this yet (the Berkeley athletic dept PR is pretty lame) but in due time the more current data will be out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then we'll just have to wait for the data to come out then, won't we? However, as it stands, the official Berkeley football graduation rate, according to NCAA data, is unimpressive. </p>

<p>Yet, even if you're right, so what? The players from the 1998-1999 incoming class were part of CAl too. You can't just sweep them under the rug just because they came in under the "old" regime. They too represented Cal on the football field and elsewhere. So, if nothing else, you have to concede that Cal did a poor job in hiring and recruiting football players and coaches in the past. If nothing else, I think you must concede that hiring Tom Holmoe was a terrible choice, and Cal should be rightfully punished for making that terrible choice. You can't just sweep it all under the rug. </p>

<p>
[quote]
From the passage you've quoted from that student, his previous sentence said:
"Though it is considered a fluff major, once you get into the seminars, they can be very rigorous..."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But what did he say? He said that IN GENERAL, American Studies is pretty fluff. That's the key statement. Sure, you can always make a major hard if you want. But the point he is making that you don't have to. And I rather doubt that all of those football players were going to make it hard on themselves. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If you consider some social science/humanities majors to be easy at Cal, then you shouldn't assume that those same majors will be harder at other top schools, particularly when the grading standards are much more lax elsewhere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody is saying that there aren't creampuff majors at other schools. But so what? Because other schools have creampuff majors, that means that Berkeley should too? So if your friend jumps off a bridge, that means that you should also jump off a bridge? </p>

<p>Like I've always said, if Berkeley fixes its problems and other schools don't, then Berkeley will be better than those other schools.</p>