<p>Wow, someone <3's UCB. cough, cough.</p>
<p>I think there's a more prominent "someone's sick of PA."</p>
<p>Someone's just tired of generalizations and the relentless negativity on this board. </p>
<p><3 has nothing to do with it. Cal's just an institution like any other university. Good stuff, bad stuff, good people, bad people. Lots of opportunities to change the world a little bit if you get out of your room and look for them.</p>
<p>Broad strokes of the ****ed off nature over and over and over and over again by the same two or three people are tedious and after a time, a little annoying.</p>
<p>Still waiting for PA's definition of "talented students" though. I'm actually quite interested, but maybe he doesn't know how to think in positive terms? At least give me a hypothetical student, even if you can't think of one Cal student that would fit the bill.</p>
<p>" Compared to the top private schools? Then, no Cal undergrad is not that good."</p>
<p>Ok, good, we're back to where we started, which was me warning people to realize that you are coming from a place that doesn't view Cal in the light that I think most people do. Obviously there is nothing wrong with your opinion about Cal. To each their own. But what I'm suggesting is that most people come from a mindset that Cal is a good school, so they should know that they aren't starting from the same perspective as you when they listen to your advise.</p>
<p>Again, I would say that if we are looking at Cal undergrad from the context of all of US public schools, then Cal is indeed very good. This is especially so if we are just looking at only the California public schools, where Cal is clearly the best. </p>
<p>So, yes, I agree that if your other alternatives are the other UC's or the Cal States, then it is usually a no-brainer to choose Cal unless money is a factor. The only possible exceptions I see are maybe UCLA and UCSD, and even so, I still think that Cal has a decisive edge.</p>
<p>So if Cal is content with simply being the best undergrad public school in the state, or arguably in the country, then, fair enough, it has accomplished that task. </p>
<p>However, I think very few people are satisfied with that. I certainly am not. I want Cal to be the best undergrad program, public or private. And that, sad to say, is not the case. </p>
<p>But it could be the case. The Berkeley doctoral programs are arguably the best around, public or private. The professional programs are not as good as the doctoral programs, but are still better than the undergrad program. Hence, there is no reason why the undergrad program couldn't be made better. I am growing convinced that it's not a matter of "can't", it's really a matter of "don't want to". Seems to me that a lot of people simply don't WANT the undergrad program to get better. </p>
<p>So the point is, when looked at from the standpoint of the top private schools, the best that can be said is that Cal undergrad is only 'pretty decent'. I actually think that's a quite charitable characterization. </p>
<p>So to sum up, I don't think that Berkeley undergrad matches up well with places like HYPSM, nor with the elite LAC's. However, Berkeley undergrad decisively defeats all of the other UC's, is probably better than Michigan, and is a strong competitor (and arguably a winner) against Virginia.</p>
<p>I strongly disagree with your assessment of the quality of the undergraduate education at Cal, based on my experience.</p>
<p>But I'm going to try to reason here, let's see if we can get some constructive discourse going; </p>
<p>from your perspective/experience,</p>
<p>1-WHY do you say that the quality of the UG education at Cal is subpar? Please provide short analysis and reasons. I'm extremely interested in the subject. No I don't think Cal is perfect for everyone, although it was d@mn close to perfect for me, and I would like to work towards improving it.</p>
<p>2-If you are saying that the quality of UG education at Cal can be vastly improved, what changes do you propose? </p>
<p>TIA.</p>
<p>Hmmm. Still waiting, PA.</p>
<p>here it is again, every year, there is another Stanford vs. Berkeley thread that goes on and on. If you're a prestige whore, go to Stanford. If you want a good education, it's a wash between the two. In the end, go explore the campuses yourself and see which one you prefer. </p>
<p>If you go to Berkeley, you're going to have world-class faculty (most of whom got their BA/BS at obscure liberal arts colleges and public universities) and top-class grad students (most of whom got their BA/BS at obscure liberal arts college and public universities) teaching you.</p>
<p>If you go to Stanford, you're going to have world-class faculty (most of whom got their BA/BS at obscure liberal arts colleges and public universities) and top-class grad students (most of whom got their BA/BS at obscure liberal arts college and public universities) teaching you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1-WHY do you say that the quality of the UG education at Cal is subpar? Please provide short analysis and reasons. I'm extremely interested in the subject. No I don't think Cal is perfect for everyone, although it was d@mn close to perfect for me, and I would like to work towards improving it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The biggest problem that sticks out at me is the problem with the impacted majors. This mitigates one of Berkeley's strengths which is its great breadth of available majors. Who cares whether Berkeley offers lots of majors if you can't get into the major that you want? </p>
<p>This problem is most acute within the College of Engineering. The CoE requires you to choose a specific engineering major when you apply, with only constrained opportunities to change to another engineering major later. Seriously, come on, what's up with that? How many 17-year old high school seniors not only know that they want to be engineers, but the precise type of engineering discipline that they want? That is completely unreasonable. </p>
<p>The fact is, most incoming students have only a vague idea of what they really want to major in. The most that students usually know is that they are "science-y" or "artsy", but they usually know very little beyond that. The first few semesters of college are therefore supposed to be a time to explore and try on different majors. </p>
<p>But the ability to do this at Berkeley is greatly restricted, especially for the engineers. If you come in as a ME major and find out that you like EECS more, you can't just switch over. You have to apply to switch to EECS, which is far from assured. You might get it. You might not.</p>
<p>The problem is most acute for those students who are doing poorly, especially if they are engineers. Like I said before, I never worry about the students who do well. The question in my mind has always been about the students who do poorly - what about them? In the case of poor-performing engineers, they really get the shaft. For example, if you are an EECS student, and you do poorly, you're basically screwed. You can't move to another engineering discipline because you won't have the grades to do so. And here's the worst part - you may not have the grades to switch to L&S either. Since you're an old-timer, Calx, you may not be familiar with this new rule at L&S, which I consider to be one of the worst new developments ever for the Berkeley undergrad program.</p>
<p>"Please note: Grade Point Average is also a significant consideration for admission to the College. Students who meet all other criteria and have a 3.0 or higher GPA are more likely to be approved."</p>
<p>I think we both know there are a LOT of engineering students who have nowhere near a 3.0. </p>
<p>The upshot is that a lot of engineering students find themselves stuck and can't get out. They are performing poorly, so they want to leave engineering. But they can't leave engineering because they are performing poorly. It's the perfect Catch-22. The very reason why you want to leave is also the very reason why you are forced to stay. </p>
<p>At the same time, you also have other students who are in L&S and want to switch over to engineering. So they do decently in the engineering prereqs and try to switch over, and are denied. For example, I know one guy in L&S who wanted to get into ME. He got a 3.3 in the prereqs, but was still denied. A 3.3 is pretty darn respectable. But it wasn't good enough to get him into ME.</p>
<p>I personally think what Berkeley should do is vastly increase capacity in all of the impacted majors. If lots of students at Berkeley want to study engineering, then why shouldn't Berkeley try to accomodate them? It is what the students want. If more students want to study Economics than there are spots available, then the ultimate answer is to create more spots. </p>
<p>I can understand that there can be a lag time between supply and demand, but I can hardly believe that there can be this much of a lag. For example, engineering has been impacted for at least a decade, and probably for several decades. So has CS. Economics has been impacted for the last few years, and will almost certainly be impacted for the next few years. Hence, Berkeley knows where the impaction is happening. The question is whether Berkeley wants to do anything about it. The answer seems to be 'no'. </p>
<p>I think Berkeley could adjust its resources by reducing or shutting down unpopular majors and devoting those resources to the impacted ones. A lot of students who can't get into Econ end up majoring in PEIS. Here's an idea. Instead of that, why not just take some resources from PEIS and use them to create more Econ seats? Is that such a radical idea? If lots of students want to study Econ, why not accomodate them? Why force them to go to some other major that they don't really want to be in, but that apparently has more resources than it needs? You should be trying to match resources to the demand. We should not have a situation where some majors are oversubscribed and others are undersubscribed. Resources should be optimized to accomodate as much demand as possible. </p>
<p>The point has been raised by Drab that perhaps certain majors just want to remain highly selective and exclusive and that's why they don't expand in spite of the high demand for spots. First off, I don't think this is the right way to go. For example, MIT EECS doesn't worry about exclusivity. Any undergrad at MIT can study EECS. Stanford engineering also doesn't worry about this. And Stanford undergrad can become an engineer.</p>
<p>But anyway, even if exclusivity is the goal, they are doing it in a completely wrong-headed fashion. Like I said, right now, Berkeley has engineering students who are doing poorly but aren't being allowed to leave engineering, and at the same time Berkeley has non-engineering students who are trying to get into engineering and who have done reasonably well in the prereqs, and still can't get in. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture? Wouldn't it be optimal to just let these guys trade places? Let a poorly performing EECS student go to L&S in return for allowing one L&S student who has done reasonably well in the EECS prereqs to get in. This way, both students win. Both students get to study what they want. Right now, as it is, both students lose. The poorly performing EECS student doesn't get to leave EECS. And the guy trying to get into EECS is unable. Why does that have to be the case?</p>
<p>Hence, if Berkeley refuses to match resources with demand (which is the best solution), then Berkeley should at the very least implement a swap system where students can swap seats in various majors.</p>
<p>Here's something to think about: what makes an education a "good" one? </p>
<p>*What is the role of having brilliant professors?</p>
<p>*What is the role of having challenging classes?</p>
<p>*What is the role of having well-designed classes? (From my experience not related to the brilliant professor part -- you can have a brilliant professor who hasn't revised their syllabus in 10 years, or doesn't have a coherent design to the class)</p>
<p>*What is the role of having well-taught classes? (See comments above)</p>
<p>*How do you factor in the post-graduating prestige/networking/job opportunities aspects?</p>
<ul>
<li>How important is it for your peers to be engaged in the material, intelligent, able to challenge your assumptions, and driven by ideas (as opposed to grades -- or not really academically engaged at all)</li>
</ul>
<p>*How important is it for your professors/GSIs to teach you to write well? Think critically? Apply different frameworks to new contexts?</p>
<p>*Would you rather have a well-rounded, "liberal artsy" education or very intense and in-depth education in a specific field (eg, biomed engineering or biochemistry.)</p>
<p>*At a more specific level, how important do you think individualized education is? Do you believe that one-on-one relationships lead to a more in depth education? </p>
<p>*How do you best learn? In a passive way (lecture) or interactively (harder given the faculty-student ratios here. Sections are a start but not the same experience you might get at another institution.)</p>
<p>From what I have observed, defenders and critics of Berkeley (or other large institutions) have different beliefs about the importance of these factors. In my opinion, Berkeley's limitations are related to its size and cannot really be overcome as long as 200-500 person classes are common.</p>
<p>Talented students are motivated for one. That already cuts the student population in berkeley by less than half. Talented students are smart and self-improving. That cuts down the population even more. People at Berkeley just join their own little clique, never challenge themselves and live in their own vacuous bubble. Its why so few Berkeley undergrads go on to do anything really meaningful. The Berkeley experience doesn't create mature adults, it creates economic middlemen and generic statistics. Terrible school. Sakky has mentioned that a lot of Berkeley undergrads behind closed doors at grad school have a lot of bad things to say about Berkeley. This has been reinforced by my conversation with friends at top undergrad schools who have met GSI's, Law school studnets and whatnot from Berkeley. A lot of them talk about how crappy Berkeley is. I'm just spreading the word. </p>
<p>I disagree with Sakky about the public school thing. I feel that UVA and UT are better schools than Berkeley. For one they have nicer undergrad populations being in the south, and two they don't have a lot of the administrative bullcrap Berkeley puts its students through (crammed, impacted classes and majors, poor advising, lack of a common gsi/professor review site so you know what kind of professor you're getting), and most of all there are more options for housing. Berkeley is a crappy school, and I stand by my statements. </p>
<p>And I have no problem dealing with all the pro-ucb'ers. They're attempts to pigeonhole people as trolls and ignore substantive ideas is what makes the Berkeley experience so terrible. Liberals who preach tolerance but hardly if ever practice it. Enjoy your intellectual incest for all I care, if I dter one student from coming to Berkeley I've done my job.`</p>
<p>You first paragraph seems really substantive, buddy. What if I make up statistics which oppose yours? Are mine more correct?</p>
<p>You wnat a bubble? Check out isolated liberal arts colleges. Also, do you really think that you know your professors well enough to call them hypocrites? You are ridiculous. I hope people can tell when you actually make sense, or see when you are giving your opinion, and when you march around your opinion as fact (as you so often do).</p>
<p>You can't prove it either way Drab, because noone takes statistical information about the things I talk about, so you can't prove that Berkeley is good or bad either way. Smart peopel can tell soon enough as they come to Berkeley. Its a lame, stupid school filled with jerks and selfish californians.</p>
<p>Just go to studentreview and read all the negative reviews about Berkeley. Its almost half of the total reviews out there. ALmost all the positive reviews talk about the faculty, which I admit is great (if you can get in contact with them and not some idiot visiting professor or lecturer), and about positive social experiences judged from the vantage point of Berkeley as high school redux: that is sticking to your own clique of groupthinking friends and going to parties and getting drunk. </p>
<p>Berkeley sucks, its a sorry excuse for a school.</p>
<p>Indeed, it can't be proven either way, but you present it like it's some sort of factual evidence. Berkeley sure does suck, mhmm, it's sientifically proven, buddy, and not just your obnoxiously presented opinion. And citing some website where people with your views get to vent anonyously as proof (if all of the students who posted actually go or went to Berkeley)? Bravo.</p>
<p>Another problem that I have is that I think that the quality of the student body needs to be improved. While I agree that the top Berkeley students can compete with students from any school, it is also true that the average Berkeley student is just not as good as the average student at places like HYPSM. </p>
<p>Personally, I think what Berkeley should do is simply stop admitting the worst students. And to that, I would simply appeal to the graduation rate. About 15% of Berkeley students never graduate. Hence, if that is the case, then why even admit them at all? Why admit students who aren't going to graduate anyway? You're just wasting everybody's time. </p>
<p>Now obviously you never can know for sure who is going to graduate and who isn't. But I'm sure that, with the reams of student info that Berkeley has, you can figure out a lot. For example, just go back through all of the student records in the last 20 years to find out which students have flunked out, and determine some correlating characteristics of these students, and simply admit fewer of these students in the future. For example, if it is discovered that a particular high school produces an unusually high number of students who flunk out of Berkeley, then the answer is to simply admit fewer students from this high school. The same thing with transfers - if one particular CC produces lots of transfers who come to Berkeley and flunk out, then just admit fewer students from this CC. Some might say that this idea is cruel, but I would actually argue that this idea is actually highly compassionate. You don't want to admit students who will flunk out. That badly hurts the student. </p>
<p>Now I agree that not every student who doesn't graduate is the result of flunking out. Some drop out because of financial difficulties. But that leads to another idea. Either Berkeley should offer better aid to these students such that they can make it to graduation. Or if Berkeley doesn't do that, then don't admit these students. Again, I would say that it is quite cruel to admit students but not give them enough financial resources to get them to graduation, such that they have to drop out while in the middle. If you're not going to support them all the way to graduation, then the better answer is to simply not admit them at all. The worst thing to do is to have them come and spend time and money at Berkeley, and then find out that they can't complete the degree. </p>
<p>However, I fully recognize that admitting fewer students is politically unpalatable. Hence, my other idea is to institute an honors college. UCLA has an honors college, so why can't Berkeley? I would base it on the Regent/Chancellor Scholar (the RCS) program, but greatly expand it, with the following characteristics.</p>
<p>*Continuing students are eligible to get into the honors program. I would envision that the top 1% of all Berkeley continuing students would be invited. This mitigates the problems of the RCS program which is that RCS is based on high school performance, such that students who don't get RCS, but perform extremely well while at Berkeley, never become eligible for RCS.</p>
<p>*The benefits would be greatly expanded over and above what currently exists in RCS. For example, I would take one of the nicer dorms like Foothill and convert it to a pure honors dorm, for only honors students. Note - you wouldn't HAVE to live in this honors dorm, but you would have the option.</p>
<p>*Campus amenities. I think that honors students should have greatly expanded privileges on campus. For example, they could have 24-hour keycard access to all of the libraries (similar to what many graduate students have now). They might have their own dedicated locker on campus. One of the things I have always found useful in any college experience is just to have a place to temporarily store your bag or your books so you aren't always hauling everything around all day long. Having your own locker would have been a real boon. Perhaps also having their own little dedicated lounge, with a microwave, a coffee machine, and a TV. The idea, of course, is to offer a place where the honors kids can network with each other an establish a sense of camaraderie. </p>
<p>*The ability to choose whatever major you want. This would be huge. If Berkeley could create a system where honors kids would be able to bypass all of the 'impaction' problems and have full rein over all of Berkeley's resources? Granted, the honors kids are supposed to be very good students which means that they should have little trouble with getting into impacted majors, but that just means that this feature isn't hard to offer. After all, if they aren't going to have much trouble in getting into impacted majors anyway, then why not allow them free rein into any major? </p>
<ul>
<li>Perhaps the biggest fish of all - deep ties to the graduate programs. Berkeley has top-notch graduate programs, so why not leverage them to improve the undergraduate experience? I'm thinking specifically of BS/MD, BA/JD, or BS/MBA programs. Just think of a combined BS/MD program with UCSF Medical. That would be by far the most prestigious combined program in the country. You would have the best premeds in the world killing themselves to get into this program. Or if UCSF is too ambitious, then how about a BS/MD program with UCDavis Medical? This would still be one of the best combined programs around.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>The same with a BA/JD program. A program that guarantees your admission to Boalt would be a huge boon. Same with a BS/MBA program, where Haas guarantees you a spot in the MBA program after you have worked for x number of years. The same idea goes with BA/MS or BS/MS programs. Berkeley already offers a few (notably in EECS), but should offer many more. </p>
<p>It should be noted that these are not radical ideas. Lots of schools offer BS/MD programs, including prestigious ones like Northwestern and Rice. Penn offers submatriculation into many of its graduate programs, including the Wharton MBA program and the UPenn Law School. Harvard has a number of AB/AM programs. MIT has an extremely well established SB/MEng program in EECS. Several elite business schools like Chicago will offer guaranteed deferred admission to its top undergrads through its GSB Scholars Program. </p>
<p>I believe Berkeley can do this. Berkeley can offer programs to not only get more of the best students to come, but also provide enriched opportunities to those students who are here. For example, right now, very few undergrads are going to turn down Harvard for Berkeley unless money is the issue. But if we sweeten the pot, things may change. For example, if we offer an expanded honors program, then we may get more. And especially, if we offer a combined BS/MD program with UCSF, I am convinced that quite a few people would turn down Harvard for that. The same is true if we can offer a combined BS/JD program or things like that. </p>
<p>The point is, if Berkeley wants to be competitive at the level of HYPSM, then Berkeley has to compete for the top students, which means that they have to be given a compelling reason to come. This is especially so for OOS students. Berkeley may still be able to compete for some of the better California students via instate tuition (although as I have said on other posts, the top California students who are also poor are in many cases better served by going to HYPSM because of the better financial aid there). But when you're talking about the top OOS students, Berkeley really has nothing to offer that would make them choose Berkeley over places like HYPSM. I propose to change that. Let's sweeten the pot to get better students. </p>
<p>The problem that I have seen is that the administration doesn't seem to be very interested in getting better students. I don't understand why. The Berkeley doctoral programs are very interested in getting the very best students from all over the world, and they do. Why can't the undergrad program be like that?</p>
<p>Please, its easy to tell if they've gone to Berkeley. You can tell when they mention specific things about telegraph and frat row. At any rate, there's so little information about what the college experience is like people just have to rely on anecdotal information for an idea of what the experience at Berkeley is like. Just read the reviews and come to Berkeley and you will realize there is truth to much of what is written.</p>
<p>Even you, who listed the positive things about Berkeley, made little mention of the student body, only about the opportunities and lectures and whatnot here. IF you do anything with the student body that is meaningful, like a service project or a research project, you will meet the people I'm talking about. Selfish, stupid, and incompotent. Sure, if you're only looking for friends to play games with and nothing more, Berkeley will probably be "good" for you. </p>
<p>I think there's a point that we're talking from different contexts, I merely think the aggravation with the bureacracy, uneven academics, and poor social environment is not worth going to Berkeley for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Talented students are motivated for one. That already cuts the student population in berkeley by less than half. Talented students are smart and self-improving. That cuts down the population even more. People at Berkeley just join their own little clique, never challenge themselves and live in their own vacuous bubble. Its why so few Berkeley undergrads go on to do anything really meaningful. The Berkeley experience doesn't create mature adults, it creates economic middlemen and generic statistics. Terrible school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This comes down to a matter of perspective. I would hesitate to characterize Berkeley as 'terrible'. After all, it's still better than the overwhelming majority of public schools out there. Berkeley has problems indeed, but far less than most other public schools do. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I feel that UVA and UT are better schools than Berkeley. For one they have nicer undergrad populations being in the south, and two they don't have a lot of the administrative bullcrap Berkeley puts its students through (crammed, impacted classes and majors, poor advising, lack of a common gsi/professor review site so you know what kind of professor you're getting), and most of all there are more options for housing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know about that. I wouldn't characterize a school as 'better' or 'worse' simply by the niceness of the students. Many Harvard students can be cutthroat jerks, but nobody disputes that Harvard is a great school. Columbia too is full of pushy jerks, but that's really a feature of New York more than anything else. </p>
<p>I would also say that if by UT you mean UTAustin, I would say that they are pretty darn bureaucratically inefficient too. </p>
<p>What I do agree with is that UVa has a very well run and efficient undergraduate program. Berkeley has lots of resources, but don't use them very effectively to give undergrads a tight experience. UVa has fewer resources, but uses what it has more efficiently. Hence, it's not clear to me which one is really better. I think it's more accurate to say that they're better for certain people. For those people who are highly aggressive and can piece all the resources together themselves, then Berkeley is better. For those who want their education prepackaged, then UVa is better. Hence, I don't see that one is truly better than the other on an aggregate level.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're a prestige whore, go to Stanford. If you want a good education, it's a wash between the two. In the end, go explore the campuses yourself and see which one you prefer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh come on, now. Prestige is not the ONLY reason to prefer Stanford over Berkeley. There are many reasons. </p>
<p>For example, I happen to think that having complete freedom to choose your major is, by itself, a highly compelling reason to prefer Stanford over Berkeley. If you come in thinking you want to study English but then find out you actually want Computer Science, nobody is going to stop you at Stanford. But there is a good chance that you won't get into either the EECS or the BA CS program at Berkeley, and thus be forced to major in something you don't really want.</p>
<p>I can visit a college for a day and write reviews of similar caliber. </p>
<p>I think that the student body could be better, sure, and more interested in intellectual things to a greater degree that they are, but that's not how society or the student body is. But why do'nt you compare it to other places? If Berkeley is so filled with idiots, how about similar schools? I don't think that everyone is going to get a Rhodes or a Nobel prize, but that doesn't mean the majority (you haven't dealt with even a quarter of the students in a substantial way) are "selfish, rude, stupid, and incompetent." If you couldn't find smart people, that's primarily your fault, not the school's. I have intelligent, competent, polite friends who do more than drink and go to games. If you put a caveat next to every thing you talk about, saying "those that I've encountered," or something like that, instead of trying to say the small portion you've met reprsented the whole population, while I would still generally disagree, would be far more accurate. I don't think that the academics are that uneven, or that the social environment is that poor. The bureacracy issue is somewhat overblown, but granted, somewhat problematic.</p>