Berkeley- Too much of Everything

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
21

<p>So baeni, it's OK for california1600 to tout Berkeley every time he gets the chance? </p>

<p>And how am I attacking Berkeley. I repeat my quote from my last post: "I never said that the Berkeley undergrad program is bad. I said it before, I'll say it again, it's pretty good". Is that an attack? Is that 'hating'? I don't think so. I think we should have a balanced discussion about Berkeley's strengths and weaknesses. Berkeley is good at some things and not good at others. What is wrong with saying that, baeni? So basically, if I don't go around saying that Berkeley is great and perfect and there are no problems with it at all, then I must be 'hating'? </p>

<p>And to california1600, really weird that you would accuse me of repeating stuff. Uh, what about you? In how many CC sections have you posted this Times ranking? How many times have you said that Berkeley is great? So what about that repetition?</p>

22

<br>


<br>

<p>The difference is that you have gone and stalked almost all of my posts like a madman. I have not stalked your repetitions like a madman. In case you haven't noticed =)</p>

<p>BTW, I think youre a smart guy. But in a lot of countries, public schools are actually considered to be superior to private schools. Perhaps this is an area that we can look into.</p>

23

<p>Not stalking, eh? That's strange because you seem to reply to my posts extremely often. You you are the one accusing me of stalking? </p>

<p>I am well aware that in many countries, public schools are considered superior to private schools. But that's because in those countries, the public school really are superior to the private schools. In many of those countries, the public schools are extremely difficult to get into, and it is the private schools that cater to those students who aren't good enough to get into the elite public schools. In France, the Grandes Ecoles and the Universities of Paris are extremely difficult to get into. In Germany, the venerable public universities are tremendously selective. Same is true in many countries in Asia. And those public schools get massive public funding, such that they are actually richer than the private schools, even on a per-capita basis. This is not so in the US, where the public universities tend have significantly less money (per capita) than the privates do, and the US publics are far less selective relative to the US private schools. I said it before, I'll say it again, Berkeley takes a lot of students that Stanford doesn't, but not vice versa. </p>

<p>So, yes, I agree that we should look into what happens overseas. The first thing we have to do is realize the differences. You want to look at overseas publics and transfer some of their strengths to Berkeley. Fine. Step 1 - make Berkeley undergrad more selective than Stanford undergrad, or any of the other undergrad private schools. The Grandes Ecoles are more difficult to get into than any private school in France. The University of Tokyo is more difficult to get into than any private school in Japan. Step 2 - pony up the dough. The best funded school in Japan, on a per-capita basis is the University of Tokyo. The best funded schools in France are the Grandes Ecoles and the Universities of Paris. On a per-capita basis, Berkeley is not the best funded school in the nation, and isn't even the best funded in the state of California. </p>

<p>So by all means, let's talk about what happens overseas. You will not fail to notice the differences in how public education is run overseas vs. how it is run here.</p>

24

<p>Even though Berkeley has like 10 times as many Asian-Americans in its graduating class, we STILL have more successful Asians as alumni. Jerry Yang is richer, has more power, and is more charismatic than Moresushi. He is also much more influential and visible. I mean come on....how many of you have used Yahoo before? On the flip side, how many of you have ever heard of Softbank before? </p>

<p>John Cho, Will yun Lee, Gene Kan, etc are just B-movie actors. Why would anybody be proud of actors who don't even make it to the center stage? William Hung, on the other hand, is much more "visible" than any of those actors. Why did you neglect to mention him? Maybe it's because he represents everything that Berkeley stands for--social awkwardness, ugliness, lack of talent, self-delusion, and a lack of shame. Hung, like Berkeley, reaches far beyond it's grasp.</p>

<p>Here are some other Stanford Asian American entrepreneurs:</p>

<p>Chi-Ming Chien BA '95, MS '96 Founder of Dayspring Technologies
Arthur Woo, MS '76 Founder of eRide, Inc.
Guy Kawasaki, AB '76 Founder of Garage.com
Sang Kim, '90 Founder of Global Link Solutions
Michelle Tsui, MS '86 Founder of Director's Cut
Daniel Ko, JD '95 Founder of Patheo
Maryling Yu, '93, AM '95, MBA '98 Founder of Pavia Day
Sunny Juang, MS '91, PHD '97 Founder of SGL
Eugene H. Sakai, AB '91 Founder of Studio S Architecture
Dowson Tong, MS'97 Founder of Taxeasy
Hae Yuon Kim, AB '85 Founder of Tobi Designs
Samer Hamadeh, BS '92, MS '93 Founder of Vault.com</p>

<p>Haha and this is just a sample. These are the people who chose to RECENTLY advertise themselves on Stanford's alumni's site. There are hundreds more out there.</p>

25

<p>^ Never heard of them.</p>

<p>I said famous and visible leaders.</p>

26

<p>Even though they are the bosses of hundreds, maybe thousands, of Berkeley grads?</p>

<p>I guess in the end one thing never changes. You will work for us.</p>

27

<p>LOL!</p>

<p>Jerry Yang still walks with a limp from the beating he took for burping in the presence of Masayoshi Son. </p>

<p>Once again, you deviated from the topic of this forum. It is about cultivating visible leadership in Asian Americans in their respective fields. You lose so ugly, its pathetic.</p>

28

<p>BTW when the clock hits 3, its time to bow to the Shrine of California. </p>

<p>Remember, north, but slightly to the east. And don't forget your incense and vacuum your mat you filthy animal.</p>

29

<p>O.K., sakky & California1600, I have to weigh in here, as I am a UC Berk alum, an educator myself, & was raised in NoCal (in fact near Stanford, ironically).</p>

<p>Calif., I'm glad you love U.C. (I used to, too, & in many respects still feel sentimental about it. I received a quality education "way back when.") I take you at your word regarding the higher quality of student you happen to have met at Berk. vs. the East Coast. But keep in mind that your experience is anecdotal, not universal, & more importantly, would probably be more limited to your field of interest than representative of the entire array of majors.</p>

<p>Second, not everybody shares your priorities as to life-style on and off campus. Does it occur to you that some students do not WANT to party very much (at least, collegiate style parties involving booze, etc.)?</p>

<p>I wish I did not have to agree with sakky that the quality of the undergrad at Berkeley (I am especially speaking of humanities here) has deterioriated in the last few decades, but agree I must. One significant reason for this is the decline in the quality & the offerings & the standards & the atmosphere within many CA public schools. Frankly, compared to many other States, the pre-college public education in this State would be laughable if it didn't have such serious consequences. Budget is partly to blame for this, but I believe that there are political factors that weigh in as well -- given pressures on curriculum, the "social engineering" priorities (<em>versus</em> academics) within the CA Dept. of Education, etc. These perverse (i.m.o.) priorities affect the level of competency of the middle school & high school graduate who applies to U.C.</p>

<p>Whatever the priorities are in the East Coast, overall the public schools there produce consistently better quality of matriculated student than does CA. People who have lived & worked on both coasts readily acknowledge that. In addition to the fact that GC's on the East Coast do have more of an "insider" relationship with Ivies than do most GC's on the West Coast, there is a more overriding reason that it can be so difficult for a W'Coaster to get admitted to an Ivy: that is, the adcoms back there know what the quality of education is in the various N'East & mid-Atlantic & MidWestern States. CA has developed a reputation as a loser of an educational system. I do not believe that my D would have been an early admit to an Ivy, had she applied from a CA public school. It just happens to be that her private h.s. is much better known to the Ivies as to quality, standard of excellence, teacher expectations, demanding level of curriculum, & admission standards than most other public & private CA schools.</p>

<p>Why does the above rambling paragraph matter? Because she wants to hang out with like-minded, like-brained, like-educated students as a <em>freshman.</em> And this is the key. You will get no argument from me as to Berkeley's apparent continued level of excellence in graduate education. Or its great profs on the grad level. Or its status as a research institution. Or its dynamite engineering dept. Or its resources, esp. awesome libraries, etc.</p>

<p>However, you will get much argument from me, Calif1600, as to the current quality of all of its humanities dept's, & as to the current quality of its humanities undergrads. The very dept's in which I took courses have like 1/4 of the courses they had even 10 yrs. ago, & an even smaller percentage than when I was an undergrad.</p>

<p>My D is a humanities student & will likely double major. She wants to be inspired & challenged by her peers, not be always the smartest or most articulate & most well-read person in the lecture or seminar class. She believes that the likelihood that that will happen at an Ivy is greater than at UC Berkeley. I have to agree with her in all honesty. That is, the likelihood of the incoming <em>material</em> being on her level is most certainly stronger at an Ivy at this moment in time. Now, whether that peer material ends up living up to its promise is another question. Maybe those freshman peers will become lazy non-achievers, but hopefully not all of them will.</p>

30

<p>^ I had no idea that Berkeley's humanities departments don't offer as many courses as it used to. I suspect that this is probably true across all universities in recent years. Personally, I don't believe that the Ivies have a monopoly on humanities students with amazing insight and high level. I find that humanities is especially dependent on creativity (unlike UChicago's emphasis on detail inspection research), so as long as she is in a creative environment with excellent students and faculty, she will probably do well. But I agree with you that Berkeley can improve on many aspects. But I think that most of those reasons stem from UC Budget Shortfalls, and since California pays $60 Billion + every year to other states, (UC Budget shortfall is about 14 Billion per year), UC's won't be able to improve until we refuse to pay federal taxes. </p>

<p>Personally, I believe that professors have the greater responsibility of challenging and inspiring students. The English and Philosophy majors I met at Berkeley were of extremely high quality. But I admit that I can't say the same for some other humanities majors. But I think part of it is because some humanities majors are just unpopular, and the few that apply to them have a greater chance of getting in, like the nursing program at UPenn. So for certain majors, I am sure she will be better off at some other schools. I also realize that Berkeley has a lot of diversions/parties/counter culture activities that may distract your D, so I definitely understand that as well. But I really believe that Berkeley provides the best overall experience of any university. And also, for me at least, Im gonna be the governor of California one day, so going to Berkeley was a perfect fit for me. =)</p>

31

<p>West Side,
I don't think my post implied that the Ivies have a "monopoly" on "insight." It's merely a matter of the basic raw material accepted into the same programs that she seeks to excel in -- which require a certain level of literacy commonly not required in the CA public school system. (I have credentials in CA and in MASS.) As to the party topic, my D is very disciplined, so it would be less a matter of the cultural "distractions," & more a matter of cultural preferences. She is not a very California girl, frankly.</p>

<p>Those are just some clarifications. As to your statement about Berkeley or <em>any</em> school, being "the best all-round" or something to that effect, I don't share your viewpoint that there is a single "best all-around" college or U in the country, for grads, for undergrads, or for both. Even a college or U with a sparkling reputation in curriculum may not have the campus culture that a particular student seeks. And most 4-yr institutions are not equally fine in every single major. There are many, many colleges that are "overall" great, that don't even offer majors in particular areas. Many years ago UC Berkeley had one of the lamest music dept's in the country; it has since improved. My D and I researched carefully the curricula of the various colleges she was possibly seeking to enroll in; even those on her "short list" widely varied in what they offered in the very same subject matter. This becomes more important if one is academically precocious, shall we say, in that you know very well what you are likely not just to major in, but to specialize in.</p>

32

<p>Epiphany,
(nice name)
If you don't mind me asking, what school will/did your daughter attend?</p>

33

<p>Thanks, Woodwork.</p>

<p>She's a h.s. senior now; no decision's been made, as she has apps in to several Ivies + one highly ranked LAC. Among other things, she will want to compare finan. aid packages.</p>

34

<p>epiphany, I've been reading your other posts to try and grasp your views more clearly, and frankly I find some conflictions. </p>

<p>On the one hand you say "If you are an Anglo Caucasian or non-first-generation Asian with a solid academic record of between 3.2 and 3.8 uw GPA + respectable e.c.'s & strong recs, one of your biggest challenges in life will be admission to one of the 3 big UCs". </p>

<p>It seems from this that you don't think that UC Berkeley admits <em>enough</em> mediocre students. (Being that whites and Asians are +80% of the student body)</p>

<p>But on the other hand, you believe that Berkeley's student body isn't strong enough to fit your daughter's needs. I find it difficult to believe that the student body of UC Berkeley in your day (when admissions was a joke) is even remotely comparable to the student body today.</p>

35

<p>BigBrother,
You have not read my posts carefully. The quotes you have taken out of context were in response to the issue of admissions for students in the 2.8 category (& occasionally below that). RELATIVE to 3.2-3.8 students with multiple e.c.'s, more impressive accomplishments, AND stronger test scores versus the 2.8's, the group I referenced is not "mediocre," is it? It is the 2.8's that are mediocre.</p>

<p>Your post is insulting. Admissions, sir, was not "a joke" in my day. In fact, today, I would have been ELC, having ranked 4th in my class of 156 mostly brilliant students in a highly competitive h.s. in CA. Rather, admissions "in my day" was based foremost on academic competencies. Let's see, I think that places me in the top 2-3% of my private h.s.</p>

<p>What I'm talking about is today's UC multiple levels of standards, where majority races of non-URM Asians & Anglo Caucasians need essentially to be in the top 10% of their senior class to be admitted to Berkeley or LA, whereas some other ethnic groups can be considerably far down the scale. So yes, I will repeat: if you are a majority race, one of your biggest challenges in life will be admission to UC Berkeley if you are not top 10% of your class. God help you if you're in the 11-12% category. There will be a number of 3.2+ students of minority ethnicity at Berkeley; obviously you will not be among them.</p>

<p>And as to the comment about UCB being inadequate for my D, you are mixing 2 debate conversations: one being <em>admission</em> standards in an earlier thread & different forum, another being the quality of academics in the various undergrad dept's of my D's interest/specialities. Do not confuse the two. </p>

<p>Top 10% + "comprehensive review" (<em>sometimes</em> -- don't misquote me here -- a code phrase for Overlooking Mediocrity on the one hand or Underperformance on another), + ELC. Which is it, UC? It is cherry-picking, versus a more holistic & more uniform approach to achieving diversity WITHIN excellence. My opinion is that UC seeks a lot of diversity + a little excellence.</p>

36

<p>Admissions <em>was</em> a joke back in your day. Until 1964, <em>anyone</em> who met the minimum requirements was in. I’m sure you were a great student, but I’m also sure that the student body back in your day was rather lacking compared to today’s student body (which will be paltry compared to student body ten years from now). </p>

<p><a href="http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/docs/karabel/karabel.html#history%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/docs/karabel/karabel.html#history&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Yet despite Berkeley's impressive record of accomplishment, it would be wrong to romanticize the Berkeley student body in the 20 years after World War II. While the top students were outstanding by any standard, the less adept among them were in fact quite weak academically. In 1947, for example, the mean combined verbal and math SAT for Letters and Science freshmen was 937. 9 In 1960, after a period of rapid population growth in California, the mean SAT for the freshman class as a whole was 1113, as compared to mean SAT scores of 1181 in 1986 (see Table 2). Then, as now, retention was a serious problem; of those who entered Berkeley as freshmen in 1955, for example, only 51 percent had graduated ten years later and 20 percent did not even return for their sophomore year. </p>

<p>Through 1964, sheer eligibility to the University of California guaranteed admission to the Berkeley Campus. The student body in the early 1960s was, by current standards, strikingly homogeneous. Perhaps 90 percent of entering freshmen were white, and most of them hailed from the state's middle and upper-middle classes. A 1964 study of the University of California as a whole revealed, for example, that half of California's families had annual incomes of less than $8,000 although less than a quarter of the families from which students at the University originated had incomes that low."</p>

<p>“What I'm talking about is today's UC multiple levels of standards, where majority races of non-URM Asians & Anglo Caucasians need essentially to be in the top 10% of their senior class to be admitted to Berkeley or LA, whereas some other ethnic groups can be considerably far down the scale.”</p>

<p>99% of the admits at Berkeley are in the top 10% of their classes. Yes, this includes all those weird looking dudes with dark skin. As kludge pointed out on your other discussion, the amount of students admitted with a GPA less than 3.2 are a tiny, tiny fraction of the percentage of the student body, 72 students was the figure quoted. Does comprehensive review make it too easy for a few of these guys to get in? Perhaps. I think the idea of comprehensive review is a great idea, though I have some problems with the way it’s implemented. In the end, all good schools slacken standards when they are looking at minority applications in order to prevent themselves from turning into UC Irvine.</p>

<p>Why target just the UC system? Should Berkeley do pure affirmative action again like your daughter’s ivies? (We’ll have to take this up with the California voters.) Why is considering life story worse than considering skin color alone? </p>

<p>"My opinion is that UC seeks a lot of diversity + a little excellence."</p>

<p>Where is this menace diversity? UC might seek a diversity, but it doesn't get it. All the UCs save Riverside are dominated by two colors of skin, and I think you can guess which two. The state of California is about 40% URM. URMs made up just 16.2% of the admit rate for Berkeley Fall 2004. Is this really enough to significantly damage the quality of the student body? </p>

<p>“And as to the comment about UCB being inadequate for my D, you are mixing 2 debate conversations: one being <em>admission</em> standards in an earlier thread & different forum, another being the quality of academics in the various undergrad dept's of my D's interest/specialities. Do not confuse the two.”</p>

<p>“She wants to be inspired & challenged by her peers, not be always the smartest or most articulate & most well-read person in the lecture or seminar class. She believes that the likelihood that that will happen at an Ivy is greater than at UC Berkeley. I have to agree with her in all honesty. That is, the likelihood of the incoming <em>material</em> being on her level is most certainly stronger at an Ivy at this moment in time.”</p>

<p>With quote number two you explain how in your view admissions standards and quality of education are undeniably related. But now you’re saying we gotta keep em separated?</p>

37

<p>BigBrother:
I am not that ancient. I entered Berkeley considerably after '64. Get your history straight, & assume nothing about me. You do not know me. I was immensely qualified within my senior class for admission to the University of California at Berkeley, as my D is immensely qualified within hers today, in a diff. generation & under diff. circumstances, & with a diff. ethnic mix & under a diff. admissions policy.</p>

<p>Regardless of the paragraph you quoted, my debate with others was in, I repeat, 2 diff. threads, 2 diff. forums. The fact that the two topics did merge at one point does not mean that they were not essentially two diff. topics. You seem fascinated with chasing me down all over CC because you don't like my opinions & can't abide my conclusions. You're not interested in a real conversation with me; you're a flamer & an insulter.</p>

<p>Your comments about dudes with dark skin is stupid & immature, & you know it. Excellence (& the lack thereof) can & should & does cross color barriers; you know <em>that</em>, too. You simply want to tear me down because I disagree with aspects of UC's policy & even more-- aspects of their implementation of (ever changing, ever popularity-seeking) policies over the last couple of decades.</p>

<p>There are degrees of imperfection in college admissions. It is my observation that UC is more imperfect than the Ivies in that regard, & that the Ivies do achieve, overall, both a better balance of ethnicities within all the various levels of competencies AND better overall excellence in the student body taken comprehensively. Although I have said, & still maintain, that some of this is because of the inferior quality of most of CA public education pre-college, it is only part of the reason. It is difficult for any institution to maintain a consistent standard of quality when you continue to shift with every political wind, as opposed to a truly internally generated standard, philosophy, accountability. To some extent, other Publics in other States are also politically accountable; U.C. & Berkeley especially are just more extreme in this respect. </p>

<p>It is also my observation that defenders of UC's admission policies have a tendency to be all-or-nothing, do-or-die rationalizers of every visible UC error in judgement, & that in that effort they become hostile, indignant, & abusive to every person who disagrees ever so slightly, let alone greatly. I have a right to my opinion, however much you may disagree, & your hostility to me will not change that opinion. Don't you have something better to do with your time? (Um, that was a rhetorical question; I don't need your answer.)</p>

38

<p>I’m not about chasing people down, I simply happen to read most of the threads that have to do with the UC system. I’m sorry if you feel that your posts on other forums here don’t have to agree with your posts here. </p>

<p>And I don’t want to tear you down simply because you disagree with the UC policy. I’m not a “do-or-die rationalizer”. Frankly I agree with 75% of Sakky’s criticisms about Cal undergrad. I’m not West Side or California 1600. I disagree with a lot of the UC decisions. It’s far from perfect.</p>

<p>Perhaps the only reason I responded in the first place was your uninformed jabs at Cal’s current student body. That’s a group that includes me, and thus an insult that targets me. But more importantly, it’s the fact that the criticisms you keep making about UC admissions and are simply false and delusional.</p>

<p>“There are degrees of imperfection in college admissions. It is my observation that UC is more imperfect than the Ivies in that regard, & that the Ivies do achieve, overall, both a better balance of ethnicities within all the various levels of competencies AND better overall excellence in the student body taken comprehensively.”</p>

<p>The Ivies might have a great balance of ethnicity and competency, but in the end it’s pretty much a bunch of rich private school kids like your daughter. What kind of diversity is that? Sure there are a few poor kids, but as I mentioned in another thread on this forum, there are more pell grantees at UC Berkeley than at ALL of the Ivies combined. Comprehensive review helps prevent UC Berkeley from turning (back?) into U Virginia; another rich kid elite school (only paid for with taxpayer money).</p>

<p>You still haven’t revealed when you went to Cal, but as a current student, I can speak about the faults of the contemporary Institution today a lot better than you can. People in this forum aren’t applying to Berkeley 1978, they’re applying to Berkeley 2005.</p>

39

<p>I believe the percentage of Private/public in the Ivies is about even. I'd hate to see all those public school kids who go to the Ivies have to live with shame of being thought to have gone to a non-public high-school, comrade Bigbrother. lol</p>

40

<p>Comrade Woodwork, what kind of a number is 50/50 when you figure that an enormous majority of the United States population attendeds public high schools? And even that doesn't tell the whole story, look at the family income breakdown.</p>