<p>Oh my goodness.. that's very sad to hear... GO BEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>People's Park, while an admirable attempt to create a pleasant open space, has become a farce sadly. It's a drug pit and a crime den nowadays. Someone should go in and clean it up once more. Make it safe for people to walk by in the evenings and safe and clean to play in for the kids. Just a personal opinion.</p>
<p>I think the liberal atmosphere attracts not only a lot of top-notch professors (who tend to be liberal themselves), but also a lot of students that are intrigued by the political activism at Cal. For example, i was first drawn to Berkeley after reading about its history and the "Free Speech Movement." I applied and after getting in decided to go. I always wanted to go to a college where free speech would be fiercely protected and where new ideas and political activism would be prevalent on the campus and i found that at Cal. I dont know if i, or many others, would be as attracted to the school without the level of social activism that Cal has. I got admitted to Georgetown and many other schools, but i didnt find them to even compare to Cal, in terms of political activism and intellectualism and this ultimately led me to choose Cal over the other schools. The politics of the schools makes it a very vibrant and intellectually stimulating school. I truly believe that the liberal reputation of the school has increased the quality of the professors that teach here, the students that choose to attend, and the lecturers and guests that it attracts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but many high profile professors have said in interviews that they've basically taken pay cuts to teach at Cal because of its unique social atmosphere, so I think its a net gain.
[/quote]
Gain in terms of professors--however, it's far better to attract the strongest student body possible as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think it's had a serious effect on the education quality at Berkeley. It's probably due to other factors.
[/quote]
I never said it had any effect at all on educational quality. What it has an effect on is the perception of that quality.</p>
<p>It's hard to take a university's academics seriously when you think of "crazy liberals" and "hippies" as being the student body of the school.
Misinformed? Yes, of course, but that perception lingers to the detriment of public sentiment towards Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the liberal atmosphere attracts not only a lot of top-notch professors (who tend to be liberal themselves), but also a lot of students that are intrigued by the political activism at Cal...</p>
<p>The politics of the schools makes it a very vibrant and intellectually stimulating school.
[/quote]
Hmm... indeed. Though most don't realize it.</p>
<p>Like with any university or... pretty much anything... Berkeley has its problems. No more than, however, any other elite school.
Where Berkeley is maligned is in its public image, rather than some tragic flaw that people seem to shake their head at when comparing Berkeley to private institutions.</p>
<p>I think the "crazy liberal atmosphere" has actually created a better reputation for Cal. When people think of Berkeley, they think of intelligent students who fight for the rights of others and are constantly debating and are very concerned with world and social affairs. I dont think any school can boast a reputation like that. Most people think of Berkeley students as very smart because they are so knowledgeable and conerned with the world.</p>
<p>I agree with ab-med and G&S, Berkeley's vibrant image is a net positive, particularly since many of its top competitors are so stuffy or plain. The school's maverick reputation is in large part supported and it's also beneficial. It's a competitive advantage, as is the location to a large extent (though housing prices are a negative.)</p>
<p>As well, in the next few years Cal Football is going to be huge. We're basically going to be a top 10 team for the next five years. This will attract more conservative students to campus and will help boost the national reputation of the school beyond academia, the cultural realm or industry.</p>
<p>DRab, you're right about the work on Berkeley's image being more than half the job. A lot of the other 50% though is also somewhat related to image, involving things like looking at the metrics to climb up the USNWR ladder, improving the donor rate or switching to the same SAT accounting methodology used at other schools (apples vs apples.) Berkeley has always done well despite of itself, but it can do even better if it makes an effort. </p>
<p>I would like the broader campus community to apply some of the approaches that have made Haas successful. Haas has a sense of community, high satisfaction and donor rates. There are some stupid things being done on campus, like gutting Bowles Hall's traditions by kicking sophomores out because it was deemed too rowdy (thus killing decade-old traditions), or designing the new dorm cafeteria to be huge instead of fostering a more intimate experience.</p>
<p>We have professors at Haas who are paid millions of dollars to consult with industry about assessing organizational and cultural issues and implementing improvements. Those kind of resources can be turned inwards and put to very good use. It's a bit like for the football stadium renovation project, the former dean of the civil engineering dept (the world's best) is in charge of the technical aspects of the remodelling, so you know that the job will be exceptionally good.</p>
<p>We also have a lot of young talent, like the young alum that did the video below based on samples from the longer video (which was pretty decent but not memorable)
PC/windows media player
<a href="http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/%7Epatrick/berkeley-ad.wmv%5B/url%5D">http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~patrick/berkeley-ad.wmv</a>
MAC:
<a href="http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/%7Epatrick/berkeley.mov%5B/url%5D">http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~patrick/berkeley.mov</a></p>
<p>We can build a great multimedia portfolio that will help convey Berkeley's tremendous qualities.</p>
<p>PS: about "24", the writers are Cal grads.</p>
<p>PPS to CST: the State has been run by republican governors for a while now (who have appointed the Regents.) From your persective, is Cal beyond rescue, or do you like the idea of trying to improve things (although in your case, it seemes to have been a bad fit right from the start.) Just trying to be constuctive here...</p>
<p>I'm just glad they pulled that ad with the girl that said: "It's okay to be weird at Berkeley, because we are all weird together." I like that one though. Really gets down to the roots of what the school is about.</p>
<p>I never saw the ad that Andrewtdx is refering to, but the ad in the link CALX provides is pretty awesome. It has a different image of Berkeley besides "weird" in it.</p>
<p>Liberals are a dying breed, despite your dream of turning America into the same kind of basketcase France has become. Conservative thinktanks are the main gruntworkers in designing social policy in America, not Ivory tower academics.</p>
<p>24 is a bad show that tries to get you addicted to pyrotechnics and quick-edits so you don't realize the show has no substance. </p>
<p>Nobody likes liberals and their ideas have little substantive value. Indeed, it is a main reason why the intellectual community at Cal is neither as vibrant or engaging as you say. Liberal groupthink permeates the campus along with a large asian community taught from birth to be selfish and pursue 6-figure careers (while ignoring civic duty) despite a lack of talent on the part of many.</p>
<p>Berkeley will never climb USNWR undergraduate ranking unless their is a serious shakeup of the methodoly.</p>
<p>Indeed, it is likely that Berkeley's undergrad student body will continue to decline in quality as California democrats keep screwing up the education system with bilingual education and increased funding for pre-school education. It will also decline because California democrats will continue to shove California's growing population into the same 8 or so UC's, just as it has over the last 25 years; despite a need to build more.</p>
<p>The state did not truly begin to have problems until the state irresponsibly spent the surplus it had from the tech boom years and decided to lock in the spending under both a gerrymandered democratic legislature and democratic governor. Indeed, there has been a history of strong Public Governance in Cal that is almost solely associated with intelligent conservative rule. Things did not begin to hit the crapper until California turned blue and destroyed itself from within.</p>
<p>Arnold is not a conservative and even if he was, he did not win election on a conservative platform; he won it because he's arnold. Because of this none of his conservative policies had legitimacy and that is why California continues to be a public basketcase.</p>
<p>If you weren't a frenchman living in a bubble, both when you were at Berkeley--International House being an insulated propaganda house for international students--and afterwards at a graduate program highly irrelevant to the undergrad experience you would realize that.</p>
<p>And all the shows that will have huge legacies 25 years from now (such as the Simpsons) are written by Harvard grads.</p>
<p>Take that in your crack pipe and smoke it buuuuudy.</p>
<p>Actually CST, liberal ideas are overwhelmingly supported by the general population. For examlpe according to Time magazine (article published in June 2004), 83% of Americans believe that the gov't should guarantee universal health coverage for all citizens. When asked what is more important: social spending vs. military spending, 72% said social spending. 78% believe that abortion should remain legal (this is an amazingly high number for the US, considering that we are, by far, the most religious first-world country). 89% of Americans say that there should be more gun control laws. 69% say that minimum wage should be increased. 76% say that taxes should be increased on the wealthy and ultra-wealthy and that taxes should be decreased on the lower and middle classes. 58% say that there should be no kind of school prayer- of any kind- at a public school. Bush's latest approval ratings show him at 29% and the congress' approval rating is pretty close to that. </p>
<p>Listen dude, thats pretty overwhelmingly liberal, if you ask me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And all the shows that will have huge legacies 25 years from now (such as the Simpsons) are written by Harvard grads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's also the reason why The Simpsons is no longer funny. Seriously, that show jumped the shark after season 10 or so.</p>
<p>No, everyone hates liberals, even themselves. And all CST's points are coherent, well stated, and well substnatiated, too!</p>
<p>Write that letter yet, CST?</p>
<p>he sounds like anne coulter</p>
<p>Yes, but 10 good seasons is a huge milestone for any show, considering most shows only last 5-7 years in the firstplace.</p>
<p>And yes, people do hate liberals. Its one of the main reasons why Bush one the election. Hatred of the liberal base pushed huge conservative victories in the last 25 years and will continue to do so in the future. Berkeley represents the very core of the base which is so odious to Americans. </p>
<p>ab_med>>> Read any democratic propaganda recently? If you cut down the population to registered voters, the share shrinks considerably, and even more to those that vote and Republicans are about dead even with Democrats.</p>
<p>Bush's approval ratings are low because he is a bad president, not because of his conservative (indeed he is quite liberal and has alienated the intellectual conservative base in many ways).</p>
<p>If you ask the right question people will tell you what you want to hear. The number of americans who support third trimester abortions drops well below half. The number of Americans who oppose parental notification aren't a majority either. On a whole slew of liberal issues, Americans, and more importantly, those who vote much more conservative than you make them to be.</p>
<p>Indeed, many Americans (and voters in modern democracies) display a great deal of stupidity and inconsistency. If you ask Californians whether or not taxes should be raised to pay for social programs, most will say no. When you ask them, whether we should spend more money on schools, they say yes, but are unwilling to raise property taxes to pay for them.</p>
<p>Indeed, liberal ideas reinforce mass stupidity, and as California has amply demonstrated in the last 15 years, the size of government is best left small.</p>
<p>At any rate, the odiousness of Berkeley rests upon several tenets.</p>
<p>The low quality of the peer group. Yes, it is 11th or so in terms of the quality of the student body, but this statistic is based upon Freshman admits. Considering the large number of transfer admits and the poor retention rate, this number is largely inflated.</p>
<p>In almost every metric Berkeley except reputation, Berkeley does poorly. Class sizes are large, spending per-student is low, and--perhaps most damning of all--alumni contributions are low, indiciating the value most Berkeley students assign to the quality of their education at Berkeley. Either the students who attend Berkeley aren't successful (which is a great percentage of them since a significant plurality fail out), or they judge the Berkeley experience as unworthy of contributing back to the school.</p>
<p>Berkeley has one, sole redeeming factor. The quality of its faculty which is world-class. However, even though Berkeley has more nobels than top institutions like Yale, none of its nobel prize winners teach undergraduate classes. Indeed whether you get to be taught by world class faculty is dependent upon the personal preferences of the professors themselves, who in most cases opt not to. </p>
<p>Who can blame them? The quality of Berkeley students is so low, that even if you are selected for an undergraduate research position, all you do is grunt work anyways because professors can't expect for you to be intelligent enough to actually contribute meaningfully. If you want to get there you have to work for every inch, which for many other people, they thoguht they were doing in high school anyways. But, nope, you gotta start all over again and work your way to the top through a massive bureacracy and poor networking and advising. Yay for the Berkeley experience! Sorry to keep you pro-UCB'ers down but the truth needs to be out there.</p>
<p>Yeah, one should be positive and act constructively with their lives and not ***** about things, but this board isn't a pyschological critique of me (in terms of actions, I moved past Berkely a year ago), but there are those who will have to decide whether Berkeley is worth it, and for many people, it most certainly is not.</p>
<p>Of those that voted, what was the percentage of the American population that voted for Bush, and how many people comprised that percentage? How about for that Democratic candidate? And to think, I though everybody hated liberals! And it is not as if this counterexample which shows how you're incorrect in your statement necessarily shows who hates which party, but it's something, I guess.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The low quality of the peer group. Yes, it is 11th or so in terms of the quality of the student body, but this statistic is based upon Freshman admits. Considering the large number of transfer admits and the poor retention rate, this number is largely inflated.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Transfers make up what, a fifth of the population of undergraduates. That is certainly significant. The transfer I have met have generally been fairly smart, perhaps I've just been lucky.</p>
<p>What is a poor retention rate, 90something percent?</p>
<p>Yeah, its only about 95% freshmen retention rate a few years ago, now up to 97%. Disgusting! And a six year graduate rate of only 86% or so. OMG. I think these could be better, certainly, and the administration is changing things to increase the graduation rate, but I think that many factors partially explain why Berkeleys graduation rate is only (yeah, only compared to those of schools with about 96%, which isnt that many) 86% percent. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley has one, sole redeeming factor. The quality of its faculty which is world-class. However, even though Berkeley has more nobels than top institutions like Yale, none of its nobel prize winners teach undergraduate classes. Indeed whether you get to be taught by world class faculty is dependent upon the personal preferences of the professors themselves, who in most cases opt not to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yep, Nobles are the only world-class faculty on the faculty. Theyre one example, certainly, but dont be so narrow-minded. And also, I do know of Nobel laureates who have taught undergraduate classes, as Ive heard about it in econ and physics. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Who can blame them? The quality of Berkeley students is so low, that even if you are selected for an undergraduate research position, all you do is grunt work anyways because professors can't expect for you to be intelligent enough to actually contribute meaningfully. If you want to get there you have to work for every inch, which for many other people, they thoguht they were doing in high school anyways. But, nope, you gotta start all over again and work your way to the top through a massive bureacracy and poor networking and advising. Yay for the Berkeley experience! Sorry to keep you pro-UCB'ers down but the idea needs to be out there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your proof doesnt lead to your conclusion at all. I thought you said you did well in logical things? And what of those who do substantial research as undergraduates? Some do within the sciences, sure, its not every other student, but it happens, but are you unable to think outside of that discipline? Yeah, I you dont respect the social sciences or humanities much, even though you double majored in the social sciences, but take a look around and notice those two huge fields and yeah, undergraduate here contribute to them. For instance, ever heard of the Haas scholars? Ever realize that Berkeley sends the most overall students to PhD programs out of any school in the country? And since many PhD programs essentially require actual research experience or scholarship, many of those students have to be doing it. Just because are you were able to get is grunt work does not mean that that is all that is available. Certainly, theres more of that to go around than future Noble prize winning research where you co-write a paper with the leading prof in the field, but what do you want? Youre Mr. Grades tell me how good I am compared to other people. Dont you want to know who can scratch and kick and win in your race of life? Why are you complaining if you think it is as you see it (which is part of it, but youre missing a lot)?</p>
<p>Yeah, send email to a professor or applying for a position is definitely equivalent to trudging through deserts of bureaucracy. Couldnt have summarized it better myself.</p>
<p>What you post here is a reflection about something about you. The same can be said of anyone else. Your crusade for those who might be brainwashed but those "pro-UCBers" (am I a part of them, or not, I forget?) definitely says something about you, just like your hatred of liberals, your dislike that Yale Law does not give out grades, ect. They're reflections of you in some way, just like this post is a reflection of me in some way, just like person x's post is a refleciton of them in some way. How? Sometimes it's hard to say.</p>
<p>Prof. Seaborg used to teach an undergrad class to students of multiple disciplines (something about chemistry for lay people or something like that). Now the reason Prof Seaborg doesn't teach the class anymore is because he passed away.</p>
<p>effelguy:</p>
<p>Glenn Seaborg used to teach Chem 1, even late into his career. Obviously, with his name on the Periodic Table, he didn't have to teach anything, but he wanted to teach the Frosh class. He always said that if he couldn't get freshmen interested in Chemistry, then he didn't belong at Cal.</p>
<p>btw: he as also a fabulous teacher, and did the best Big Game lecture. :)</p>
<p>I know I decided not to go to berkeley because of the comments on this board, Cal seemed just so much more inconvient for my goals than UCLA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know I decided not to go to berkeley because of the comments on this board, Cal seemed just so much more inconvient for my goals than UCLA.
[/quote]
You made your decision on the basis of the opinions of online personalities?</p>
<p>I was strongly deterred by Berkeley initially by Sakky and LiberalCensor/PoliteAntagonis/CantSilenceTruth's comments initially, but I took them and everyone else with a vast cupful of salt.</p>
<p>If it was personal fit, that's one thing. However, I have my doubts you'll find that UCLA is less "inconvenient" than Berkeley, especially with the far larger student body.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's vibrant image is a net positive, particularly since many of its top competitors are so stuffy or plain. The school's maverick reputation is in large part supported and it's also beneficial.
[/quote]
I enjoy your posts, CalX, however, I must respectfully disagree here. Now, I think that Berkeley's atmosphere is indeed a great positive, but I don't think people see it that way.</p>
<p>People see the elite private colleges as arrogant and whatnot, but they also see Berkeley as incredibly hostile to non-extremist positions. What needs to be amended is not the atmosphere, it's the perception and interpretation of that atmosphere.</p>
<p>Public relations campaigns are in-line for this...</p>
<p>
[quote]
DRab, you're right about the work on Berkeley's image being more than half the job. A lot of the other 50% though is also somewhat related to image, involving things like looking at the metrics to climb up the USNWR ladder, improving the donor rate or switching to the same SAT accounting methodology used at other schools (apples vs apples.) Berkeley has always done well despite of itself, but it can do even better if it makes an effort.
[/quote]
There must be a fine balance between tailoring for US News rankings and retaining academic quality at the same time (perverse how it is a trade-off, one or another, isn't it?). However, there must be more lean towards US News ranking methodology, I agree, since with higher ranks comes stronger applicants.</p>
<p>Interesting how Reed college's spurning of US News though, gave them the best of both worlds--liberty to run the university to its own goals along with healthy public perception.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We have professors at Haas who are paid millions of dollars to consult with industry about assessing organizational and cultural issues and implementing improvements. Those kind of resources can be turned inwards and put to very good use. It's a bit like for the football stadium renovation project, the former dean of the civil engineering dept (the world's best) is in charge of the technical aspects of the remodelling, so you know that the job will be exceptionally good.
[/quote]
Someone needs to convince the administration of this. While the business dean is also the provost of something or other, most business professors are given little say or eartime for financial aspects of the university's running.</p>
<p>Many things can be streamlined, and a greater portion of the funds privatized (or rather, allocated more aggressively). I wouldn't expect the necessary steps to be greeted with great enthusiasm by the student body, however, which generally opposes tuition raises and has a vested distrust of privatization.</p>
<p>What needs to be done is attempt to gain a sympathetic regent or have a strong student regent installed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Liberals are a dying breed, despite your dream of turning America into the same kind of basketcase France has become. Conservative thinktanks are the main gruntworkers in designing social policy in America, not Ivory tower academics.
[/quote]
If you prefaced all of your past posts with such statements, I would have considered your posts with less credibility.</p>
<p>First off, CalX is from France, from what I've gathered, and I think he knows well the well-intentioned but ill-advised social and economic reforms of that country. I doubt he's really lobbying for the same with America.</p>
<p>Also, don't you dare profane "conservative" with the "thinktanks" of today. I'd say that the more accurately labeled neo-cons have drifted long past conservative and have ditched their constituency.</p>
<p>I'd say, considering how things are run now, that true conservative thinktanks aren't getting much say in matters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nobody likes liberals and their ideas have little substantive value. Indeed, it is a main reason why the intellectual community at Cal is neither as vibrant or engaging as you say. Liberal groupthink permeates the campus along with a large asian community taught from birth to be selfish and pursue 6-figure careers (while ignoring civic duty) despite a lack of talent on the part of many.
[/quote]
Really now?</p>
<p>I'm probably best considered moderate, conservative fiscally and leaning liberal socially (though more libertarian socially than anything else).
I don't hate liberals.</p>
<p>I think liberal ideas are often the most admirable, in intention if not in method of execution. An extreme example would be universal welfare, "cradle to the grave." Not practical, feasible, or particularly appealing in execution, but it gives an ideal and a morality that the country should strive towards and when possible, act upon in a practical manner, perhaps falling short of but keeping the ideal in mind.</p>
<p>Liberal democracies are what, in political science, American and Western European countries are labeled as. While it is not the use of liberal you are using, specifically, it is telling in suggesting what liberal ideas are.</p>
<p>Also, I wonder if you don't think the modern Republican party (since you have not really been talking about traditional conservatives, I direct you toward our batch of neo-cons) has that "groupthink" as you enjoy calling it. I believe they call it, "Republican lockstep." Political parties and factions, as James Madison warned us, are ever such. It is hardly a matter of liberal or conservative.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley will never climb USNWR undergraduate ranking unless their is a serious shakeup of the methodoly.
[/quote]
Or allocates more resources towards pleasing US News. It is a fine balance, and requires no shake-up--merely a realignment of interests.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Indeed, it is likely that Berkeley's undergrad student body will continue to decline in quality as California democrats keep screwing up the education system with bilingual education and increased funding for pre-school education. It will also decline because California democrats will continue to shove California's growing population into the same 8 or so UC's, just as it has over the last 25 years; despite a need to build more.
[/quote]
California in its top schools has no trouble competing or easily surpassing most states. Its top public schools easily rival or surpass competitors in other states.</p>
<p>Where it gets tricky is the lowest common denominator, which isn't a huge pool for Berkeley in the first place. You do have aspects of truth in your argument, in that a large influx of illegal immigrants of low socioeconomic class has caused problems. However, that's less of an issue overall than the growing population.</p>
<p>You're right. The mandate of the UC system is to serve the top 12.5% of the students in the state. As the population expands, the UCs have had to continuously boost the size of the campus populations.</p>
<p>I don't see our state Republicans coming up with solutions quickly either, however. It is a lethargy common among all state legislatures.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Arnold is not a conservative and even if he was, he did not win election on a conservative platform; he won it because he's arnold. Because of this none of his conservative policies had legitimacy and that is why California continues to be a public basketcase.
[/quote]
And Clinton won the presidency, not because he was a liberal, but because of triangulation and appealing to the moderate. Why can't more politicians appeal to the moderate at times besides election chasing after the median voter theorem?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And all the shows that will have huge legacies 25 years from now (such as the Simpsons) are written by Harvard grads.
[/quote]
God save us in a world where the Simpsons is reverantly described as a "legacy" and Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, and the like are less influencial than television sitcoms.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And yes, people do hate liberals. Its one of the main reasons why Bush one the election. Hatred of the liberal base pushed huge conservative victories in the last 25 years and will continue to do so in the future. Berkeley represents the very core of the base which is so odious to Americans.
[/quote]
I'd say that assertion holds water in the era of Humphrey's "return to normalcy" after Wilson, or Nixon and Reagan after F.D. Roosevelt. But that was still more backlash than hate.</p>
<p>Bush's victory is far more telling of the disorganization and lack of platform of the Democratic challengers than any great mandate for modern-day Republicans.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bush's approval ratings are low because he is a bad president, not because of his conservative (indeed he is quite liberal and has alienated the intellectual conservative base in many ways).
[/quote]
Bush is not conservative, or liberal. He's a neo-con, and rather indicative of the poor choice voters have been the modern Republican party and another party that is poorly organized and has no real platform.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you ask the right question people will tell you what you want to hear. The number of americans who support third trimester abortions drops well below half. The number of Americans who oppose parental notification aren't a majority either. On a whole slew of liberal issues, Americans, and more importantly, those who vote much more conservative than you make them to be.
[/quote]
These issues are quite moderate. Read Politics of Polarization. America is moderate, not liberal, not conservative. Admittedly, though, it has more stoic conservatives than stoic liberals.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Indeed, many Americans (and voters in modern democracies) display a great deal of stupidity and inconsistency. If you ask Californians whether or not taxes should be raised to pay for social programs, most will say no. When you ask them, whether we should spend more money on schools, they say yes, but are unwilling to raise property taxes to pay for them.
[/quote]
American government is already set up as strongly as efficiently as it can be without risking tyranny. It is a balance of Hamilton and Jefferson.</p>
<p>Of course the base will be ill-informed. Pity no one is any longer interested in doing what F.D. Roosevelt did and tried to explain it, large words and all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Indeed, liberal ideas reinforce mass stupidity, and as California has amply demonstrated in the last 15 years, the size of government is best left small.
[/quote]
Yes, small government calls for the creation of a Homeland Security Department. Our dear modern Republicans have taught us this lesson well, haven't they? Though perhaps not in the way they wanted to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The low quality of the peer group. Yes, it is 11th or so in terms of the quality of the student body, but this statistic is based upon Freshman admits. Considering the large number of transfer admits and the poor retention rate, this number is largely inflated.
[/quote]
There are still as many exceptional students in raw numbers as there is in any elite institution you can name.</p>
<p>I do believe you're right that there is a rather large disparity between top and bottom of the barrel though. I disagree that the retention rate is all that high though. With as much disparity as there is, there should be a far lower graduation rate if the student body quality is truly that divergent. It just shows that Berkeley has far more coddling than you give it credit for--or the student body is better than we both believe.
I personally believe in the more-coddling theory, but I'll keep an open mind and see if I'll be proven wrong in my four years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In almost every metric Berkeley except reputation, Berkeley does poorly. Class sizes are large, spending per-student is low, and--perhaps most damning of all--alumni contributions are low, indiciating the value most Berkeley students assign to the quality of their education at Berkeley. Either the students who attend Berkeley aren't successful (which is a great percentage of them since a significant plurality fail out), or they judge the Berkeley experience as unworthy of contributing back to the school.</p>
<p>Berkeley has one, sole redeeming factor. The quality of its faculty which is world-class. However, even though Berkeley has more nobels than top institutions like Yale, none of its nobel prize winners teach undergraduate classes. Indeed whether you get to be taught by world class faculty is dependent upon the personal preferences of the professors themselves, who in most cases opt not to.
[/quote]
One, the reputation in the US isn't as great as you're making it out to be, and second, the conditions are not as terrible as you are making them out to be.</p>
<p>Again, if anything, I think the percentage that fail out is far too low, all factors considering.</p>
<p>Also, check the Nobel Lauretes and MacArthur Geniuses and whatnot. Then, check the class schedules. Notice that many undergraduate classes are taught by said NL and MAGs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who can blame them? The quality of Berkeley students is so low, that even if you are selected for an undergraduate research position, all you do is grunt work anyways because professors can't expect for you to be intelligent enough to actually contribute meaningfully. If you want to get there you have to work for every inch, which for many other people, they thoguht they were doing in high school anyways. But, nope, you gotta start all over again and work your way to the top through a massive bureacracy and poor networking and advising. Yay for the Berkeley experience! Sorry to keep you pro-UCB'ers down but the truth needs to be out there.
[/quote]
Just grunt work? Some of the descriptions of the daily schedules of some of those students helping with those research projects look like they're given quite a bit of responsibility. Of course, it varies, but it certainly isn't universal. Besides, if you're so sick of it, design your own research project and get a faculty sponsor.</p>
<p>If you aren't personable enough to do that, that's a skill you'll have to learn at one point or another.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, one should be positive and act constructively with their lives and not ***** about things, but this board isn't a pyschological critique of me (in terms of actions, I moved past Berkely a year ago), but there are those who will have to decide whether Berkeley is worth it, and for many people, it most certainly is not.
[/quote]
One thing that I don't quite understand is why you have such trouble stomaching Berkeley students.</p>
<p>Can you say, "Well, the last time I went to a major invitation-only Republican fundraiser with armed guards, guestlist..."? Guess what, I can--and it was a personal invitation to me by the host of the event, not to my parents, and I sure as hell wasn't a volunteer, server, or whatnot.</p>
<p>I enjoy talking and socializing with Berkeley students just fine. I don't find Berkeley's atmosphere stifling, either.</p>
<p>A question has been bugging me, in light of this context.
Why weren't you able to take it?</p>
<p>I didn't want most of this post to become political, but most of yours was political, thus necessitating such a response.</p>
<hr>
<p>I didn't even realize there was a limit to length of post. Wow, that's one long post...</p>