Berkeley- Too much of Everything

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>Berkeley was recently ranked #2 by a London ranking firm that placed emphasis on quality of faculty and department, rather than US New’s rankings which emphasizes alumni donation rates and other forms of funding. </p>

<p>Berkeley is in the middle of the Bay Area, the most beautiful and visited tourist city in the United States. </p>

<p>Berkeley is number 1 in departments that are ranked in the top 10. That means, you can close your eyes and pick any course when fulfilling your requirements, and you will most certainly be getting the best professor in that chose field. Its quite an amazing experience once you graduate, and you realize that your peers from other schools recall quite boorish points of view when it comes to perspective taught by their professors. Its sad in some ways. </p>

<p>Berkeley has a top ranked football team. That means you can go into the midwest and talk trash with the best of the cornhuskers. LOL!</p>

<p>Berkeley has too many parties and things to do. I can tell you that after visiting and attending some of the elite Ivy Leagues and Midwest schools, it is deathly boring there. </p>

<p>Berkeley changes you as a person, in your perspective, and in your maturity, like no other college experience. Ask any of the Berkeley graduates who refuse to move away even after 40 years of living here. </p>

<p>Overall, its too much of everything.</p>

2

<p>man i wish i could go to this school. its like right next door to my house.</p>

3

<p>I hope you get in too. =)</p>

4

<p>Im #18 out of 401 (crap i need sleep, wrong thread)</p>

5

<p>too much but not in a bad way :)</p>

6

<p>Once again with the cheerleading, rayray222 - oops - california1600, as you are now calling yourself? </p>

<p>Curious, if you really like Berkeley so much, then why did you admit in the old CC site that you would have chosen Stanford if you had gotten in?</p>

<p>By that I'm not saying that Berkeley is a bad school. On the contrary, it's quite good. But I don't think that it should be overhyped.</p>

7

<p>^ Sakky of course. I agree with you. If I applied in the 1960's - 1970's I would have chosen Berkeley over Stanford at the time. Its all relative. But sakky, if u ever do go to another school for graduate school, you will completely realize why I posted this post. Berkeley really is very very different in many respects that I never realized until I graduated and saw the rest of the world.</p>

8

<p>Sure, it's all relative. And there was a time not that long ago when Berkeley undergrad was clearly better than Stanford undergrad. </p>

<p>But that's not the point. The point is to ask why is it that Berkeley undergrad didn't keep up with Stanford undergrad. Let's face it - Stanford undergrad got better. Berkeley undergrad didn't get better, and in fact, probably got worse. Still good, just not as good as it was in the old days. The Berkeley PhD programs maintained their quality, but the Berkeley undergraduate program for the most part didn't. And if you care about Berkeley, if you truly care about Berkeley, then you should try to get Berkeley to improve its undergraduate program. Otherwise, you even conceded yourself that if we could go back in time to when you were a HS senior and you were admitted to Stanford, you would have gone there instead of Berkeley. So you have to ask yourself what happened to have compelled you to make that choice.</p>

9

<p>^^ I admit that Berkeley admits probably the most transfer students out of any university in the US. However, even considering the lower quality of graduates, I still agree with that viewpoint. </p>

<p>UC Berkeley is the flagship of the greatest public system in the world. Even our fourth/fifth ranked UC's have departmental superiority over the lowest ranked ivies. This is such a phenomenom, that its rather unheard of. Frankly ,it should be impossible. but it did.</p>

<p>I like the fact that Berkeley cares about everyday Californians. That it gives a chance to the poorest, most disadvantaged potential students who may not have had a good high school, but were determined after enrolling in JC. I can't be elitist in that regard, so it really is a dilemma, considering your viewpoint.</p>

<p>However, if you see the Berkeley campus, after this year, funding has skyrocketed. A lot of construction is going on right now, the most I've seen in the past 10 years combined, happening all at once. Sakky, I think that the changes are already in place, whether US News changes its ranking criteria again or not.</p>

10

<p>Funding has skyrocketed, or are you finally seeing the funding that was allocated during the late 90's going towards construction? </p>

<p>If funding is really strong, then why is it that UC administrators and the state government are on record as lamenting painful UC budget cuts? Are they lying? To quote UCBerkeley Chancellor, Robert Berdahl:</p>

<p>"Governor Schwarzenegger just [as of Jan, 2004] cut all current year funding to outreach, potentially threatening our commitment to ensure educational opportunity to all Californians. Members of the legislature and the administration are talking about drastic cuts and questioning the importance of the University to the state. More and more, phrases like "restricting enrollment," "massive fee increases," and even "privatization" are in the air...During this crisis, as during others, we will have to do more with less. We have made painful cuts, and know that we will have to make more - and we will always try to protect educational quality and access when making key decisions."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/e-newsletter/caa_connection_2004_01SE.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/e-newsletter/caa_connection_2004_01SE.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So if funding really is strong, then what the heck is Berdahl talking about? Is he a liar? Look, California1600/rayray222, you have to admit that UC budget cuts have recently taken place, and furthermore, you have to acknowledge that this has to hurt the academic quality of Berkeley, if you want to preserve any shred of your credibility. </p>

<p>And furthermore, I've said it before, I'll say it again, what exactly does departmental superiority mean for undergraduates? So a school might have a strong department, meaning that that department produces a lot of research. As far as undergraduate education is concerned, so what? High departmental rankings help PhD students because it means that there are lots of research opportunities for them to partake in. But only a small percentage of undergraduates participate in research. What about the vast majority of undergrads who don't participate in research? What does the high departmental ranking do for them? So maybe you get to take a class with a prof who has published a lot of things. That doesn't mean that you as an undergraduate are going to be able to learn a lot from that person. </p>

<p>You have to admit that many profs at Berkeley are not good classroom teachers, particularly to undergraduates. Some are, but many are not. A lot of them don't want to be teaching undergrads (they'd rather be doing research), or some of them want to teach undergrads, but are just not good at it. The point is that department rankings don't actually mean a whole lot to most undergraduates. </p>

<p>What is important to undergraduates is teaching quality. That's what the LAC's specialize in, and that's why they are considered to be so good for undergraduates. </p>

<p>I'll put the same question to you that I have asked before. If you believe that academic quality only has to do with departmental quality, then you have to agree that all the elite LAC's suck. So come right out and say it - I want you on record as saying that you believe that the elite LAC's are some of the worst schools in the world because none of them have any highly ranked departments. What are you afraid of? Come right out and go on the record as having said it. You believe the elite LAC's are terrible schools, right? </p>

<p>Furthermore, you say that Berkeley cares about everyday Californians. Oh? I can put you in contact with quite a few 'everyday Californians' who were admitted to Berkeley and then dutifully flunked out because it was too hard. How does that help people to admit them only to stick their academic record with a bunch of bad grades and then throw them out? Those people would be far better off if they had attended an easier school in the first place. Think about it, not only will they never be able to graduate from Berkeley, they now have difficulty getting into any other school because no school wants to accept a transfer student who flunked out of his previous school. If they had gone to an easier school from the beginning, they'd be college graduates now. Instead, Berkeley ruined them. So how exactly does it help everyday Californians to damage their futures in that way? Everybody is better off if Berkeley simply doesn't admit those students who aren't going to graduate anyway. Who exactly is helped by the present situation of Berkeley admitting all these 'everyday Californian' students only to flunk them out? </p>

<p>Lastly, if you really like Berkeley so much, then I would ask you to explain your comment that you made in the old CC site that you would have chosen to go to Stanford if you had been admitted. Why is that?</p>

11

<br>


<br>

<p>Listen, what does emphasizing Berkeley's excellent departmental rankings have to do with Stanfurd? Yes, I did say what u said I said, and I still think it. So what? If anything, it shows that I am willing to say and speak the truth, which would give more weight to my criticisms of lower ranked Ivy Leagues and their child like dependency on Ivy League status instead of academic excellence? </p>

<p>Departmental rankings help out tremendously when applying to MA and PhD graduate schools. Recommendation letters are many times one of the most, if not the most important factor in graduate school acceptances. Having a reputable person vouch for you gets your extremely far, and Berkeley professors are the best. </p>

<br>


<br>

<p>I do not know enough about the LAC's to comment on them. Harvey Mudd is top notch in engineering, and this particular inner circle departmental ranking would put a Harvey Mudd student up there with the Cal Tech's, Berkeley, MIT, and Stanfurds. </p>

<br>


<br>

<p>I am not worried about my credibility. I would rather be judged on IQ and ability to solve problems. But in regards to your comment, I said that funding THIS YEAR has increased. Wait until the year end alumni donation reports. I am speaking of real time, as in this year, this second. </p>

<p>There are many charismatic professors who cannot do research at all. There are absent minded, not so people friendly professors who are brilliant in research and will tell you about back door meetings they had with the White House. I would choose the latter professor, and so would every single top university that could afford the latter type of professor. </p>

<p>What I am saying is that perception of Berkeley is going down because of the biased US News ranking. But the students of Berkeley like yourself, are much more of a higher quality and talent than the rankings reflect. Much more in so, than the ivy league students I have met and worked with in investment banking. It would be nice to realize this, and wake up collectively. The public school bashing has gone too far, and if you don't realize the inherent bias regarding that, then you have proven to be even more thick headed than I.</p>

12

<p>If departmental rankings really help out for admission to MA and PhD programs, then why are Berkeley graduates ending up at such luminary graduate schools like SF State or the University of Nevada-Reno? I guess something went wrong there. Hmmm....</p>

<p>Secondly, oh, so I see that you admit that it is possible that the LAC's might indeed be very very good schools, and if that is true, then that calls into question your tight binding of departmental rankings and school quality (because few if any LAC's have highly prominent departmental rankings). So you must concede that departmental rankings are perhaps not all they're cracked up to be when it comes to undergraduate education. </p>

<p>Thirdly, oh, so we are only talking about funding for "THIS YEAR"? Pardon me, but I think most people who are going to be attending Berkeley will be doing it for more than just this year, but for several years. And those funding cuts that Berdahl was not lying about just might hit during subsequent years, isn't that right? </p>

<p>Thirdly, let me propose the following situation to you. Let's talk about professors who clearly clearly don't want to have anything to do with undergraduates at all, because they feel that they are just wasting their valuable research time. These profs snarl at you when you come up to them, clearly put absolutely zero effort into their teaching style, including deliberately just reading the book aloud, word-for-word, during lecture, and clearly don't care if you lived or died. Believe me, some Berkeley profs are just like that, and you know it. Tell me again that you would choose such a prof to teach you? </p>

<p>Also would every single school in the country choose such a prof if he was prominent in research. Really? Tell that to the LAC's. Oops, I guess you forgot about them again, didn't you? </p>

<p>Finally, again, you blame everything on the supposed bias of USNews. Again, why would you think that USNews would be so biased against Berkeley undergrad, but still have such high regard for Berkeley grad? If USNews really hated Berkeley, then wouldn't they want to give low rankings to both Berkeley grad and undergrad? Why only undergrad? </p>

<p>Furthermore, you are presuming that absolutely no decline in the Berkeley undergrad program has happened. So any decline in the ranking just has to do with supposed bias only, and doesn't have anything to do with any real problems in the program, right? It all has to do with just bias in the rankings - nothing else, is that what you're saying? I think you are the one thick-headed if you think you can blame all the problems of Berkeley on bias.</p>

13

<p>^^ Berkeley is a public institution. Berkeley is like Larry Bird. Grew up without the advantages of a large city, expensive stadium, yet still managed to become a legend. </p>

<p>While Berkeley undergraduate is not perfect, the students it produces are in my experience, extremely high quality and on par with the upper tier of ivies. This result sometimes gets lost in your rantings, while they are legitimate, but do not provide the entire picture of Berkeley.</p>

14

<p>But we're not talking about that. At least I wasn't talking about that. I never disputed that Berkeley is a pretty good school that produces pretty good graduates. The question is whether that means that you, as a HS senior, should choose Berkeley. In particular, the fact that people who make it through Berkeley might be good doesn't exactly help those who flunk out. </p>

<p>And I think it is most odd to complain that I am not providing the whole picture of Berkeley. After all, were you? Did you start talking about the downsides of Berkeley, until just recently? I don't think so. Look, if you are going to talk primarily about the positives of Berkeley, then to be balanced, I have to concentrate on the negatives. Note, that I never solely concentrate on the negatives, because I have always said that Berkeley is a pretty good undergraduate school. But there are negatives, and they should be acknowledged.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I would ask you to look into the history of Berkeley, especially vis-a-vis Stanford. Berkeley and Stanford were born at about the same time (actually, Berkeley is older than Stanford), and Berkeley achieved prominence at an earlier time than Stanford did. For the first half of its history, Berkeley was a far richer and more well-established institution than Stanford, which during its early years suffered from tremendous financial problems and lack of respect. Stanford administrators during the early days even shuddered at the prospect of competing against the then far-stronger and better-funded Berkeley. Berkeley's golden age truly was during a period of time from the late 40's to the early-to-mid 60's, when the state lavished funds on it and Berkeley seemed to win every single Nobel (I am exaggerating, but you get my point). </p>

<p>Yet the fact is, Berkeley didn't maintain its strength, and Stanford surpassed it. It wasn't that long ago when Stanford was basically a regional backwater of little consequence. Now, they're one of the indisputably elite schools in the world, both undergraduate and graduate. Why can't Berkeley do that? The Berkeley undergraduate program is good, but I would hesitate to call it elite. Yet, it's not like Berkeley doesn't know how to build elite programs - look at the Berkeley PhD programs which are elite. So if Berkeley can build elite PhD programs, why can't it build an elite undergraduate program too?</p>

15

<p>^^ Berkeley wants a lot of undergraduates because part of our universities philosophy is to get a lot of people to to enjoy the Berkeley experience. Its a really unique city, university. I have never seen another place like Berkeley in all my travels across the entire world. That experience in itself, and getting as many people to enjoy it and experience it is one of the unsaid reasons for Berkeley's burgeoning undergraduate program, and large number of acceptances for transfers. College is the most life altering experience of your life, much more than graduate school is.</p>

16

<p>Look, I'm happy that you enjoyed your experience at Berkeley. But that by itself, you must agree, does not by itself mean that the Berkeley undergraduate program is great. I don't want to keep harping on this point, but you said it yourself - you would have preferred to go to Stanford. Hence we both believe that Stanford has a better undergraduate program. And I believe that to be true of a lot of Berkeley undergraduates - they'd rather be at Stanford but either couldn't get in or couldn't afford it (some people indeed have picked Berkeley over Stanford, but not a lot). </p>

<p>And so the question to me is why can't Berkeley build an undergraduate program that is as good as Stanford's? Furthermore the sort of hyping of the overall Berkeley rankings doesn't really help. You know and I know that the ranking you are using is graduate-school dominated (after all, where are the LAC's in the ranking?). Berkeley graduate school is obviously good. But you didn't go to Berkeley graduate school, you went to the undergraduate program. And most people here on CC are not talking about Berkeley graduate school, they are interested in the undergraduate program. So we should be concentrating on the undergraduate program. And you have yourself admitted that you would have rather gone to Palo Alto for undergrad, which means that the Berkeley undergrad program needs to get better.</p>

<p>Now don't get me wrong, again, I never said that the Berkeley undergrad program is bad. I said it before, I'll say it again, it's pretty good. But we both know that the undergrad program is severely lagging the graduate programs. The question that I have always had is why can't Berkeley make its undergraduate program as good as its graduate programs? You never hear the Berkeley PhD programs going around making excuses about why they aren't fully competitive with programs at other institutions like Stanford. They just go out there and compete, and win. Why can't the Berkeley undergrad program be like that?</p>

17

<p>Sakky. You must have read Karl Roves strategy on tricking the American public with repetition. Thats rather un-Berkeley of you.</p>

18

<p>sakky, why do you have to jump out and attack berkeley EVERY SINGLE TIME ???? Berkeley hater or what?<br>
Everytime, anybody says anything good about berkeley, i will find you very very long reply. It's just funny and pathetic.<br>
Berkely is great, don't hate.</p>

19

<p>Maybe he is just being honest and is not trying to make Berkeley seem like something it is not. o.O</p>

20

<br>


<br>

<p>Masayoshi Son >>>>> Jerry Yang.
John Cho, Will yun Lee, Gene Kan, Norman Mineta... all successful Asian Americans who went to Berkeley for undergrad. Where are the Stanfurd Asians? Oh yea, there aren't any. They are leadership challenged.</p>