<p>A bad experience does not equal a bad school. Give it a rest already.</p>
<p>can'tsilence/politeantagonis, every single objection of yours stems essentially from your personal predispositions which every statistic shows is NOT REPRESENTATIVE. Your writing of pagefuls of complaints (on a thursday night in your senior year at one of the most socially stimulating places in the world) won't change this fact, neither will your fishing for other statements to cut and paste here...</p>
<p>The fact is, as evidenced in the student survey, that for every student who like you, is extrememly dissatisfied, there are 62.5 who are satisfied; the ratio of extremely satisfied to extremely dissatisfied is greater than 13 to 1:</p>
<ol>
<li>How satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of your educational experience? </li>
</ol>
<p>Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Somewhat satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
Value of the education you are getting given how much you have to pay for it 313 (2.7%) 630 (5.5%) 1414 (12.3%) 3010 (26.3%) 3641 (31.8%) 2449 (21.4%)<br>
Availability of courses for general education or breadth requirements 229 (2.0%) 633 (5.6%) 1639 (14.4%) 3397 (29.8%) 4140 (36.3%) 1358 (11.9%)<br>
Your overall UC GPA 1296 (11.3%) 1740 (15.2%) 2415 (21.1%) 2876 (25.1%) 2224 (19.4%) 918 (8.0%)<br>
Ability to get into a major that you want 364 (3.2%) 502 (4.4%) 1103 (9.7%) 2267 (19.9%) 4203 (36.9%) 2940 (25.8%)<br>
Overall academic experience 197 (1.7%) 469 (4.1%) 1192 (10.4%) 3086 (27.0%) 4599 (40.2%) 1898 (16.6%)<br>
Overall social experience 382 (3.3%) 753 (6.6%) 1684 (14.7%) 2960 (25.8%) 3561 (31.1%) 2119 (18.5%)<br>
*Overall UC experience 178 (1.6%) 354 (3.1%) 995 (8.7%) 2878 (25.1%) 4627 (40.4%) 2425 (21.2%) * </p>
<p>And most of those dissatisfied tend to be a whole lot more bent on b*tching (you're exhibit A...)</p>
<p>I find it amazing that in your senior year, you prefer to whine online instead of going out and socializing on a Thursday night. Since you don't seem to be able to socialize with the average cal student, do you realize that there are hundreds if not thousands of conservative white christian Berkeley students out there you can socialize with? Wouldn't having a beer with them and dissing the school, liberals and other personla ideological pinatas be a healthier outlet for your frustrations? But perhaps if you did that, you'd risk hating the school a bit less...</p>
<p>I don't have the time or inclination to refute all the BS you've posted, a problem you don't seem to have as you are unable to go out there and have a socially stimulating life in one of the most stimulating environments.</p>
<p>But let me just refute one point that's indicative of the validity of your statements: class size at Cal, vs Stanford.</p>
<p>And do check this out:
Stanford:
<a href="http://www.studentsreview.com/generated_images/again/196.png%5B/url%5D">http://www.studentsreview.com/generated_images/again/196.png</a></p>
<p>Cal:
<a href="http://www.studentsreview.com/generated_images/again/199.png%5B/url%5D">http://www.studentsreview.com/generated_images/again/199.png</a></p>
<p>those two pie charts show what percentage of students would respectively return to Stanford and Cal, from a site that's gotten a fairly large database of student impressions.</p>
<p>the fact that the proportion of dissatisfied (red segment of the pie) for Stanford is actually LARGER than Cal's. I would suspect a lot of this is due to the factors that the OP singled out: relative lack of social stimulation and diversity, too monolithic a culture at Stanford, too much of a bubble surrounded by suburbia/silicon valley.</p>
<p>Your duty here is to state your personal position as one in the minority of dissatisfied Cal students instead of going on a crusade to slander Berkeley, because your marinal viewpoint is clearly not representative of the typical Berkeley student experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I viewed the graduate school admissions process as a referendum on the value of my degree. Based on my raw numbers, I was completely unimpressed with the results. Berkeley really didn't open many more doors than San Diego State.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you expand on this? Why should you having the "raw numbers" mean automatic admission to HYS law? (This is what you imply and I know you got into Columbia.) Many other factors come into play. </p>
<p>I mean, I'm sorry if I'm incorrect in stating this, but aren't you a WASP? If anything, the top three law schools want to eliminate that kind, not welcome its members into their ranks. Moreover, many many people with great LSAT scores and GPAs are turned down. (<a href="http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Admissions/admis-jdoverview.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Admissions/admis-jdoverview.htm</a>)</p>
<p>Why do you think Berkeley is to blame the most for what you consider to be unimpressive results? </p>
<p>I'm just so bothered by that conclusion. Just take a look at this guy::</p>
<p>I personally know him. He's a great guy. He's was in EECS. He was in Haas. He got Rhodes. He got Harvard. In other words, he triumphed. IN SPITE of "horrible Berkeley." Yet, he doesn't complain about the "horribleness." He takes care of business. Why don't YOU? Did you just not try as hard as him? If that's the case, it's your problem. Not Berkeley's.</p>
<p>Factoring in your income bracket does change things, and yes, I think saying many would have been far more accurate and fair.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess I made a mistake in my statement here. I meant less avaible credit hours a week as it has been difficult to get all my classes. I also probably meant that the resources devoted to classes were less which is not clear. My bad. My first year wasn't bad with more gsi's per student. That has not been the case in recent years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your clarified statements make things far more intelligible. I still question that classes are less available (do you think even Stanford students get into every class they want?), but this is far more clear.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, lets go over ALL of them so you can't use selection bias and OVERGENERALIZE from one sample of my arguments.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This seems fair. However, the problem is that most of your claims are opinion. With these sorts of things, I cannot provide factual evidence to disprove them. Your first claim related directly to something you would call objective, and thus was the easiest to deal with. Ill do what I can. See what you think.</p>
<ol>
<li>a. I dont have statistics on club attendance, but half the clubs is quite a big number. There are more than 700 organizations on campus, and lets just say, for the sake of this post, that 500, perhaps as few as 400 are clubs, youre accounting for 250, maybe 200 of them. That seems quite large. I dont know how many people have even indirect knowledge with that many clubs. While youre probably right, that some, who knows, maybe even many clubs have officers who are merely trying to pad their resumes, youre still speaking for a lot of clubs. Do you think that you have enough knowledge of the clubs on campus to accurately represent them?</li>
</ol>
<p>b. You say they boot you off campus after your first year. I hope by now you know that housing is guaranteed for two years, and for those that are RCSA scholars (is it 5% of students?), for four years.</p>
<p>c. Amount of people on floors vary greatly depending on where you live, as is true for building.</p>
<p>d. You think that the social scene is cliquish- I think that implies exclusiveness, which I dont find present, but this is your opinion, and I cant prove that incorrect. </p>
<p>e.
[quote]
People in clubs are nice but you'll probably never get to know them very well."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This criticism doesnt seem particularly insightful- most people in most schools arent going to get to know each other very well. </p>
<ol>
<li>
[quote]
Huge classes. Even upper division, problems with the budget have made classes generally large, impersonal and boring
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<p>Again, the entire school (overgeneralization, anyone?). Maybe if you dealt with campus wide statistics, wed have something. Id ask you which disciplines, but I dont think you can distinguish between them well enough. Your classes being boring isnt the schools fault, you should have taken something that interested you.</p>
<p>4) Poor quality peers.
[quote]
This is subjective but most of the people you meet will be not smart and many times will slow down the class by asking dumb questions. They are the "cream" of the crop of the 2nd worst high school system in the US, where 1/3 of all students drop out, and it really shows many times.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most people dont even ask question in class. And this statistic of 1/3 dropping out probably doesnt affect the honors and AP kids (those that tend to end up here) all that much. Who do you think is sending kids to Berkeley, the districts with huge drop-out rates, or the ones in more affluent areas with lots of honors and AP classes?</p>
<p>
[quote]
5) Poor opportunities for generalists. If you are very determined and know what you want to be, you might get the internship or job you're going for. If you're tring to figure it out, good luck, because they are a ton of applicants for every position you apply for and getting behind is easy, when everyone else has specialized. Its really a bit more cut-throat environment than I have heard from my other friends at ivies and University of Texas."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not everyone here has specialized. While many people come in with a conception of what they want to do, I dont think this is the case more or less than kids at other schools. The cutthroat nature is overblown a not campus-wide. Getting the best internships or jobs are difficult at any school (and if you are superior to so much of Berkeley, why didnt you get them?) </p>
<p>And as a worst possibility, if transfers can come in and out after two years in most fields, why cant most Berkeley freshman admit take two years of most anything and then take the major classes in the final two years (Ive never heard of this happening, but its doable (although tough) in many fields, and in a handful, not possible). </p>
<p>
[quote]
"6) Many poor quality teachers. This is a research institution and it shows, many professors are just poor quality and seem to care more about research than teaching.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Many poor quality teachers? But not many amazing ones? Perhaps youre trying to say that the quality of teaching is probably lower than it would be if the university cared little about research? Youre right, if so. But how can you speak for so many other professors you havent even heard whispers of with your experience with about 32 of them? And how many of those many were of poor quality? And do you think this stems from the subjects they teach, or the department theyre in at all? And of your 32, how many were visiting, or new?</p>
<p>
[quote]
7) CRAPPY housing. If paying highly inflated prices for really crapp housing is your thing, then berkeley will suit you. After the 1st year of paying for extremely overpriced, unairconditioned housing shared with a great deal of idiots, the University sends you out to live in extremely overpriced, unairconditoned housing. Which is only a slight improvement because some areas of berkeley have very high crime.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, its two years now, and secondly, having unairconditioned college dorms is not that rare (and, as most of the students in the dorms live in the units, the statement is false when it implies that students will live without air conditioning). Certainly some areas of Berkeley have high crime rates.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Perhaps they shortened the semester. Fear not, it wont drop below a certain number of school days each academic year (I think 180 something). I dont understand how a lack of dead days leads to a cheapened academic experience. The way finals weeks work, you will probably have time in between finals to study. The way the semester works, you (as a superior student) should be able to keep up. If you think that a professor gave you a lower grade because of your political ideology, you need to (or rather, should have) talked to an ombudsperson.</p></li>
<li><p>If you think Berkeley dorms have loud music, you havent heard much. When you say the trash, are you referring to people, garbage, both? </p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
The people you meet that aren't students are generally annoying uber-liberals that refuse to tolerate other viewpoints and act particularly righteous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A pretty lofty generalization.</p>
<p>Your positives paragraph seems pretty shallow, but thats fine. Like you say, perhaps it doesnt need enumerating, although people do tend to focus on the negative and ignore positive aspects of a thing. Berkeley graduates what, an average of 6,000 undergraduates yearly over the past 8 years? And in-staters dont pay 10k a year. Sticker price with housing is now more like 25k than 10k without any fin-aid. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Everything else I completely stand by. You can't just pick and choose arguments you want to and say its a pertinent to the whole with non-random selection, especially with a sample size this small.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Youre right, I shouldnt just pick and choose arguments that I want and by hypocritical. I did my best dealing with these things, although many of them are opinion, and there is only so much one can do arguing against opinion.</p>
<p>I think its good that you are trying to use more accurate qualifiers.</p>
<p>"In many cases? How about sometimes? How about its possible? And how about you chose not to escape. Certainly youre correct, there are situations in which one can get trapped at Berkeley, but theyre not yours, and theyre not who youre trying to help. People can transfer. Ive read that a third of college students do. But I guess Berkeley prevents them from doing that, somehow."</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is nothing special about Berkely academics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>[sarcasm]Yeah, nothing at all. [/sarcasm]</p>
<p>What is MIT OCW? Sure, the common core creates a standard expectation across MIT students, and is probably more difficult than the Berkeley breadths and then some. But Berkely compared to what is known as what is one of the most rigorous schools isnt that helpful here. What does it prove? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, I point out the stories Sakky pointed out to about engineering majors being stuck here because of mediocre gpa's. Stuck here not only in the sense of at Berkeley but also in the major. The transfer barrier is also higher for many Berkeley students because you are required to have professor recs as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Qualify this. This happens to some engineering majors. And the transfer barrier . . . do you think its much easier for first year students or second year students at other schools to have meet profs relative to Berkeley? Do you think UT is different in that regard? I dont think that the other UCs are gong to be too different, perhaps some of them, and sometimes to some of the community in a particular program. But this isnt what happened to you- you didnt get stuck here because of a GPA problem or anything like that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of these classes are taught the same at any school;
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, yeah, for the most part.</p>
<p>
[quote]
its the professor and student interaction that are what make the classes unique
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You really should have gone to an LAC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the truth of the matter is a large portion of the campus is apathetic, many teachers do not care, and class sizes are large anyways. That has been one of my main points throughout and has yet to be refuted. Mitigated perhaps. In smaller majors you will not notice this as much, and many people do not care about graduate school admissions so they don't care if a professor evaluates your work, and there are a few professors who care but in general, the trend is to the former rather than the latter because of the UC budget crisis. Of course, its hard to prove this through sound statistical method so I leave it up to people here to decide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How can your opinion be refuted? A large portion of the campus is apathetic, sure. How large? You make it sound like a good 85% minimum most of the time. Again with many teachers do not care. Perhaps they dont, but why not say that many of the teachers that youve had and heard about do not care? </p>
<p>Columbia liberals are the most liberal of the liberals. And if you compare the undergraduate population to a top law school in terms of intelligence, you arent even being remotely fair. Guaranteed professor interaction? May you get your wish. But really, comparing your undergraduate school to a law school doesnt make sense in many ways- do you disagree?</p>
<p>Its Berkeleys fault that its liberal? Hmm. Well, its your fault that your Republican. Perhaps partially. The thing about these ideologies, those that we acquire, we often have little say over them, growing up with them or around them, either supporting them or reacting against them. Youre really blaming the school for its generally liberal students? Really? Just like its Berkeleys fault, to a large degree, that they let in people you feel are unprepared to challenge themselves?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The acrimony which I get here is testimony to that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thats the best proof you got?</p>
<p>And you seem to say that a poorly run club is other peoples fault and not your own, which is quite possible, but if you were such a great club runner, would you not be able to fix it? I wouldnt mind club oversight. Perhaps it would improve the clubs. Why not suggest that to someone at the ASUC?</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you believe your conclusion follows from this excerpt and is logically valid? </p>
<p>Whether or not the club-club should stay open is a matter of debate. The ASUC has club guidelines clubs have to follow to receive funding. You could do something to change those, but youre goal is to cut your losses and spread the word on why Berkeley suck.
[quote]
]The dichotomy is that even though the faculty is probably top 5 or top 3, the students are not. So considering that on faculty alone berkeley should be top 5, the fact that its number 20 indicates that the rank of the student body is much lower. I wish I had taken this into account more when I came here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because US News is the end all ranking? And because the formula is faculty + student body /2 = rank? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Do I overgeneralize?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes</p>
<p>
[quote]
All I've said is that you can have a very bad time at Berkeley and that the two things people come here for which are exclusive to other schools (access to faculty and interacting with the student body) are seriously underwhelming and are big hills to climb. Yes, you can overcome them, but why should a school make it so hard for students to access them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Youve said much more, much much more. You basically said most people should avoid Berkeley, that its students are idiots, and much more, most of which I dont feel like recounting. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's look at other experiences shall we?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, lets look at your handpick bad experiences. These are your friends in the small percentage of upset people. May they find happiness somewhere.</p>
<p>You are so pompous. There is no need for you to insult something you know little about (entire academic disciplines). Really, you have experience (ie taken ONE class) in 3 fields- you called 3 social science fields humanities!</p>
<p>But you stand by each and every part of each and every post you've made, besides your new use of qualifiers, right?</p>
<p>This is so meaningless. Berkeley and Stanford are both amazing schools.
In US, maybe Stanford is a tiny bit more prestigious tha Berkeley. But Berkeley is internationally recognized school, especially engineering/Chemistry/humanities. Trust me on this</p>
<p>When I think of PA/DSP, I picture a sad little boy with a CAL BAnD bASS behind him playing Iron Man, with the rest of the student population giving him an alligator clap.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your numbers are wrong. Assuming you are talking about four-year admission rates and yields, it's more like Berkeley has to admit about 32,000 to get its 20,000-while rejecting about 136,000.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, his numbers are closer to the truth. After all, Berkeley's yield rate is about 40%. Hence, one could say that Berkeley admits about 50,000 to get about 20,000.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm just so bothered by that conclusion. Just take a look at this guy::</p>
<p>I personally know him. He's a great guy. He's was in EECS. He was in Haas. He got Rhodes. He got Harvard. In other words, he triumphed. IN SPITE of "horrible Berkeley." Yet, he doesn't complain about the "horribleness." He takes care of business. Why don't YOU? Did you just not try as hard as him? If that's the case, it's your problem. Not Berkeley's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't find this to be a valid retort. Look, the fact is, there are plenty of people who, as you put it, 'took care of business' while at Berkeley to do very well, yet nevertheless, still complain mightily about the experience. Like Calkidd. Like many other grad students at both Harvard and MIT who did Berkeley undergrad.</p>
<p>Some may say that such people do not have the credibility to criticize Berkeley because they obviously did well. On the contrary, I actually think they have the MOST credibility. After all, they did well at Berkeley, yet they understand the problems. It's like those people who grow up in a poverty-ridden ghetto and rise to success, yet want to go back to reform the ghetto. These people understand that while they may have made it out of the ghetto, plenty of other people didn't, so they want to give others who are born in the ghetto a better chance at success.</p>
<p>However, I personally find that this discussion has been veering off into an unnecessary detour. There's no need to get personal, as I have seen happen a number of times on this thread. I have 2 basic reasons for why I post in the Berkeley section.</p>
<h1>1) ** People need to understand that choosing a college has a lot to do with personal fit. ** But that means that people have to understand the problems of Berkeley. How can anybody ever assess personal fit of a school if they don't understand its problems? In other words, I believe that people ought to be able to read a wide range of opinions, both good and bad, before they make a decision. I have no problem with people writing posts that sing the praises of Berkeley. But they should also be able to defend what they say. Furthermore, they should also have no problem with other people posting negative opinions about Berkeley. That's what free speech and truth-in-advertising is all about.</h1>
<h1>2) ** Ultimately, I want Berkeley to get better. ** But that inherently means that you have to talk about Berkeley's problems. How do you ever get better if you never acknowledge any problems? In order to get better at anything, you have to concede that some things are not being performed as well as they could be and so ought to be changed.</h1>
<p>Getting back to the original topic, I think both Berkeley and Stanford are good schools. I would give the edge to Stanford at the undergraduate level, for 2 main reasons. #1, the student body is better on the aggregate. This is important because the fact is, much of your learning is done outside of the classroom. As a student, you spend maybe at most 25% of your waking hours in the classroom, interacting with profs. Unless you are a hermit, you will spend more of your time interacting with other students, and a lot of learning takes place during those times. This is why it is beneficial to attend a school where the student caliber is as high as possible, because it gives you more opportunities to learn. </p>
<h1>2 - Stanford gives you free choice on majors. One of my biggest beefs with Berkeley is that you don't have complete choice to major in whatever you want, and a lot of students end up majoring in something they don't really want to major in. College is an important time in your life to explore your academic passions. You shouldn't be pigeonholed into one particular major right from the get-go, as seems to happen to some students at Berkeley, especially in the College of Engineering.</h1>
<p>However, that's not to say that Berkeley is bad. Berkeley is clearly better than all other US public undergrad schools except for Virginia, and it may even be better than Virginia (depending on the student in question).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most people dont even ask question in class. And this statistic of 1/3 dropping out probably doesnt affect the honors and AP kids (those that tend to end up here) all that much. Who do you think is sending kids to Berkeley, the districts with huge drop-out rates, or the ones in more affluent areas with lots of honors and AP classes?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>EXACTLY!</p>
<p>I have posted that criticism various times but Polite Antagonis just ignores it. </p>
<p>The fact that California's OVERALL k-12 "sucks" does NOT mean that the "sucky" high schools send very many of their graduates to Berkeley. There are HUGE DISPARITIES in California education. On the one hand you have AT LEAST a dozen schools that send at the minimum 60-70 graduates to Berkeley every year. Under these, there are still MORE schools which send 30-50 and under them many more that send 10-20. I would even venture to say that Berkeley undergrads tend to come from no more than two hundred high schools. What's so special about these schools? It's simple, these high schools that send HUGE numbers to Berkeley are the SAME high schools that send California's HUGE numbers of students to private, prestigious East Coast colleges. This is exactly what happened at my PUBLIC, competitive high schools. Top 1-20 went to HYPSMC and similar colleges. Top 30-100 went to Berkeley (or UCLA. Mostly Berkeley.) Many California schools are like mine. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the hundreds of high schools that give California a bad name are lucky if they send one kid to Berkeley. Most of the time, they send none. Ever heard of efforts to increase Berkeley's racial diversity? HELLO the reason why that's so hard to accomplish without officially using affirmative action is because URMs in California usually come from HORRIBLE high schools in HORRIBLE districts in HORRIBLE inner-city/farming environments. THOSE ARE THE SCHOOLS THAT GIVE CALIFORNIA THE BULK OF ITS "SUCKY" EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.</p>
<p>You know what I'm beginning to think, sakky? </p>
<p>Once upon a post, I stated, in reply to you, that many of Berkeley's upper-div humanities classes feauture many professor-led discussions. You had to "take [my] word" for it. It seems that you didn't KNOW that was the case. Well, it is. Thus, the problems you so liberally acknowledge, aren't Berkeley's as much as they are the problems of individual departments in general and of certain colleges (College of Engineering) in particular. I don't think you will dispute that. Most of the time, your discussion centers on the College of Engineering. Now that's pretty reasonable, considering that it's your college. (right?) But that just doesn't hold when compared across the Berkeley "undergraduate experience." </p>
<p>So I guess what I'm asking you is to maybe stop and reconsider the "problems" not as Berkeley's, but as the COE's, in general. Yes, I acknowledge that other Berkeley colleges make it pretty hard for failing engineering students to transfer. But they wouldn't be failing if the COE wasn't so unnecessarily hard. (It should also be noted that few students (about 1%) are ever put on academic probation.)</p>
<p>This reconsideration will make it explicit for prospective freshmen that PARTS of Berkeley have problems which make (certain) students very VERY unhappy.
Not so for other parts. </p>
<p>Advice for prospective freshmen::</p>
<p>If you want to major in something that will have you studying math, science, engineering, and business to some extend, and you don't' think you have a natural, "superior" ability for those subjects, be aware that Berkeley will academically slaughter you. This will probably translate into social disaster. If that is not the case, you, like the majority of the students in the survey I have posted, will likely be very happy with Berkeley's academics and social atmosphere.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Once upon a post, I stated, in reply to you, that many of Berkeley's upper-div humanities classes feauture many professor-led discussions. You had to "take [my] word" for it. It seems that you didn't KNOW that was the case. Well, it is. Thus, the problems you so liberally acknowledge, aren't Berkeley's as much as they are the problems of individual departments in general and of certain colleges (College of Engineering) in particular. I don't think you will dispute that. Most of the time, your discussion centers on the College of Engineering. Now that's pretty reasonable, considering that it's your college. (right?) But that just doesn't hold when compared across the Berkeley "undergraduate experience." So I guess what I'm asking you is to maybe stop and reconsider the "problems" not as Berkeley's, but as the COE's, in general. Yes, I acknowledge that other Berkeley colleges make it pretty hard for failing engineering students to transfer. But they wouldn't be failing if the COE wasn't so unnecessarily hard. (It should also be noted that few students (about 1%) are ever put on academic probation.)</p>
<p>This reconsideration will make it explicit for prospective freshmen that PARTS of Berkeley have problems which make (certain) students very VERY unhappy.
Not so for other parts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha! Nice try. But it doesn't hold water. </p>
<p>First off, I was well aware that many humanities classes had professor-led discussions. But that's neither here nor there, as you will see below.</p>
<p>I see that you're trying to pigeonhole all of the problems into the CoE, which I think you now agree is where quite a few problems lie. Now, if that were where the only problems were, then I would agree with you. But that isn't the case. In particular, large impersonal lectures with only limited interaction with profs are a feature of many other majors besides engineering.</p>
<p>Don't believe me. Take the biology majors. You think you're really getting lots of small lectures with high levels of interaction? If so, you may want to think again. Or, better yet, go visit some of these bio lectures. Go sit in on, say, MCB 110. Or MCB 130. Then come back to me and report to me on how small and intimate the lectures are.</p>
<p>The same is true of, say, the chemistry major. The Chem 112A and B lectures are some of the largest lectures on campus. Chem 120A and B and Chem 104 A and B, and Chem 125 aren't exactly the most intimate classes either. Far from it in fact. In fact, there are only a few specialized upper-division classes within the Chemistry major that really could be said to be intimate. Most of the upper-division Chemistry classes you have to take are filled with not just Chemistry majors, but also Chemical Engineers, and that greatly decreases the intimacy and personal attention you will get. {Incidentally, this is why I think there really is not much compelling reason to major in Chemistry while at Berkeley - because if you have to take almost all of your classes with the ChemE's anyway, you might as well become a ChemE yourself}. </p>
<p>The same can be said for many of the social sciences. For example, many upper division economics lectures are huge (i.e. Econ 100AB are simply HUGE). Economics is also impacted, meaning that some students who want to study economics are not allowed to get into the major. Other social sciences have similarly huge classes. </p>
<p>So, REALLY, it seems to me that actually, my characterization of Berkeley is far more general than yours is. In other words, it seems to me that actually, it is the HUMANITIES that are peculiar, not engineering. For example, if you major in a science (either a natural science or social science), you will probably get an experience that is closer to that of a Berkeley engineering student than of a humanities student. And the fact is, there are more students at Berkeley who major in science/engineering than who major in humanities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is exactly what happened at my PUBLIC, competitive high schools. Top 1-20 went to HYPSMC and similar colleges. Top 30-100 went to Berkeley (or UCLA. Mostly Berkeley.) Many California schools are like mine.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And then there are others where the top 1-20 go to Berkeley for financial reasons/they like it better (perhaps not as many as there could be, but it certainly isn't a rarity).</p>
<p>It's disparaging Berkeley more than it deserves the way you put it, since it isn't always only the Ivy rejects that go to Cal.</p>
<p>But Ivy rejects do end up at Cal to a very large degree. Very, very few will pick Berkeley over Columbia.</p>
<p>Well, look. At the end of the day, the Berkeley yield rate is only about 40%. That means that 60% of those who get admitted choose to instead go somewhere else. As a point of comparison, Harvard has a yield rate of almost 80%, and YPSM have yields between 65-70%. </p>
<p>Granted, Berkeley has the best yields of all of the UC's. Berkeley's yield is clearly far better than UCDavis's anemic 17% yield. Yet the fact is, it still means that the majority of admits to Berkeley choose to go somewhere else. </p>
<p>You can look up yields here.</p>
<p><a href="http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/cool/index.asp%5B/url%5D">http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/cool/index.asp</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
But Ivy rejects do end up at Cal to a very large degree. Very, very few will pick Berkeley over Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but that needs to be put in perspective. There are a LOT of students at the lower UC's who would rather be going to Berkeley but didn't get in. Hence, you could say that those UC's are filled with lots of Berkeley rejects.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But Ivy rejects do end up at Cal to a very large degree. Very, very few will pick Berkeley over Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have some cross-enrollment statistics? Secondly, wouldn't these people not be "Ivy league rejects" if they got into Columbia?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But Ivy rejects do end up at Cal to a very large degree. Very, very few will pick Berkeley over Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You may be right, generally--but it still happens a good amount of the time.</p>
<p>Case in point, several in the top 2% of my school, myself included.</p>
<p>And on a less voluntary note, many of the high schools that have high concentrations of Asian students, whose parents refuse to consider private school costs. I know one particular school whose massive number of cross-acceptances to private schools and Berkeley are forced to attend Berkeley due to parents.</p>
<p>Stanford booooooo.</p>
<p>We don't like Stanford. ;)</p>