<p>I think one of the major factors that determine a school's prestige is its selectivity. HYPSMC are prestigious because only a select few can get in. UC Berkeley isn't as selective as the top privates.</p>
<p>Why is the rankings so important to all of you. The quality of the education is what should be important than the education. Do you people really think being ranked 21 is really that bad. And as for the schools that are public in the top 30, I consider them equal. I understand Berkeley has the richest history, but what is important is what it is doing now.</p>
<p>Questions end in question marks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
99% in top 10th of graduating class
100% in top quarter of graduating class
100% in top half of graduating class
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not to nitpick, but this number is a little misleading. UC Riverside is listed at 94% in the top-10% of their and all the UC's have reallllly high numbers. In fact, many of them are higher than places like Stanford, Columbia and other top-10 schools. So I wouldn't put too much stock in this figure.</p>
<p>This is probably because they go to different types of high schools.</p>
<p>Whatever the reason, it is still gives people an inflated picture of admitted student achievement unless taken into context. Not that Cal is the only school to suffer from this, of course. :)</p>
<p>i agree with oxypunk. i like berkeley the way it is. like a lot of you mentioned earlier the university definitely has excellent infrastructure, which provides a lot of resource to its students, just in case you guys are not aware, berkeley just landed a $500 M 10 years deal from BP to create a center for alternative energy research, and no doubt berkeley will be the leader of that area for years to come. </p>
<p>so for undergrads, it is their responsibility to explore these opportunities. it is unique about berkeley because berkeley is a public university which means it has to serve the people of california, so that the students body is naturally more diversed (in term of their socio-economic status and etc. and probably not geographically or racially) than private schools and personal support is less. so individually, one has to spend a lot of effort to choose the right classes (actually in the college of chemistry, your personal faculty advisor will advise you about classes) and put yourself in a good position for future success. i have to say that there are a lot of research opportunity that some undergrads ignore. here, it is their responsibility to obtain such positions, and not be spoonfed with everything.</p>
<p>personally, i find this comparison of berkeley to other top schools pointless. frankly, undergrad education does not mean much in one's professional career. (professional schools, graduate schools, and job experience are much more important than undergrad). my experience and many of my friend's experience is that berkeley has prepared me well toward grad school (great research experience, ability to network with top professor of my field, and have a GPA that actually holds water).</p>
<p>so i think i said before, berkeley is definitely not for everyone. but for those self-motivated, it is a great place to be successful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
just in case you guys are not aware, berkeley just landed a $500 M 10 years deal from BP to create a center for alternative energy research, and no doubt berkeley will be the leader of that area for years to come.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what? This means almost nothing to undergrads. Essentially only those undergrads who are interested in alternative energy research and manage to get a research position will have substantial personal gains from the BP deal. The rest of us will probably get an ego boost. The rest of academia, particularly MIT, may be slightly envious. But so what? When applying to grad schools, professional schools, and probably even jobs, Cal students won't REALLY by accessed by how much research funding Berkeley gets. They'll be accessed on their personal attributes and accomplishments. Sure, those may be affected by the BP deal but probably not very much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so for undergrads, it is their responsibility to explore these opportunities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To a certain extent, yes. But the campus could also do a lot more to help undergrads land these research opportunities. A little more advertising might do the trick. But ugrad research isn't really a priority for the current administration. Like most administrations, it wants to focus on things it cares about. Chancellor Birgeneau has stated that his biggest goals are 1. making Berkeley competitive at the grad school level by getting lots of donors a la BP 2. increasing racial diversity among undergrads and 3. tenuring people who have vaginas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
because berkeley is a public university which means it has to serve the people of california,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What? Why? What's the rationale? What does it mean to "serve the people of California"? Does it mean to bring in underperforming/underprivileged students into engineering in order to increase "diversity," weed them out of the program, expel them from Berkeley, and send them home packing? That's exactly what happened to at least one student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i have to say that there are a lot of research opportunity that some undergrads ignore.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course there are. Just take the case of the grad students. Realistically speaking, probably the vast majority of them need undergrads to do the grunt work. Yet, as far as I can tell, the campus doesn't stress that reality. Why doesn't it? It would help both undergrads and grads.</p>
<p>
[quote]
my experience and many of my friend's experience is that berkeley has prepared me well toward grad school (great research experience, ability to network with top professor of my field, and have a GPA that actually holds water).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have to understand that that is your experience. You have to look, or at least try to look, at the whole picture. Berkeley is failing at preparing many students for grad school. Yes, failing. Now that's not to say that many Berkeley kids can't get into grad school, it's just harder for them to get into a TOP grad school. Why is that? It could be personal factors, but you can't forget the institution.</p>
<p>
[quote]
frankly, undergrad education does not mean much in one's professional career. (professional schools, graduate schools, and job experience are much more important than undergrad).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you not see that in order to get into top grad schools, its pretty much crucial to go to a top undergraduate program? If you're a member of an MIT admissions committee, ceteris paribus, who are you going to take: a Cal grad or a Cal State-Northridge grad? "A Cal grad" is the rational answer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so i think i said before, berkeley is definitely not for everyone. but for those self-motivated, it is a great place to be successful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Essentially you admit that Berkeley is semi-broken. Yet you refuse to want to fix it. Why is that?</p>
<p>dobby, how has Berkeley been "semi-broken", in your own personal experience? Do you think you are going to have a hard time getting into graduate school? Are undergraduate clamoring for research opportunities, marching down to Sproul Hall?</p>
<p>as well, it's a bit preposterous and naive to dismiss the fact that Berkeley was chosen for a half-billion dollar research grant on what will be one of the most strategic and dynamic fields in science, engineering and business in the next several decades. If I were 20 today and a student in college, I would position myself in that field, along with getting great exposure to Asia (and no other college in the US offers a better perspective on Asia than Berkeley does.)</p>
<p>I also wonder why BP chose Berkeley and Illinois, as opposed to any of the 20 schools that are supposed to outclass Berkeley, as revealed by the bible of this board, the USNWR ranking...</p>
<p>This choice is quite revealing in terms of what the industry, professional and scientific world thinks of Berlkeley. It will have a strong impact on the quality of the faculty, and you can bet that there will be an impact down the road in the undergraduate course curriculum, with new classes on the technologies of conservation in various departments as this will be a huge growth area. Berkeley has always been at the forefront, there were courses on new technologies and the internet economy at Berkeley well before most other campuses caught on, it's part of the fact that Berkeley is at the heart of an economy that leads the world (not by accident, as Berkeley itself is a huge engine of that economy.)</p>
<p>CalX,</p>
<p>But who cares if you don't plan on being involved in that field? What does this mean for a history undergrad? </p>
<p>Not everyone wants to mold themselves for the sake of the school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
dobby, how has Berkeley been "semi-broken", in your own personal experience? Do you think you are going to have a hard time getting into graduate school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My personal experience does not matter. The point is, whether I or you or anybody else likes it or not, many Berkeley undergrads are not going to get into top grad schools (meaning Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, CalTech, UCLA, Michigan, and some others) mostly because Berkeley is failing to properly nurture many of its undergrads.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are undergraduate clamoring for research opportunities, marching down to Sproul Hall?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>None that I've seen. But that doesn't mean that more undergrads wouldn't like more research opportunities. Just because students don't march down Sproul demanding full rides doesn't mean they don't want them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
as well, it's a bit preposterous and naive to dismiss the fact that Berkeley was chosen for a half-billion dollar research grant on what will be one of the most strategic and dynamic fields in science, engineering and business in the next several decades.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please point to the exact phrase in which I "dismiss" the BP deal. What I said is that the deal is obviously an impressive accomplishment but it provides no substantial gains for undergrads as a whole.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I were 20 today and a student in college, I would position myself in that field, along with getting great exposure to Asia (and no other college in the US offers a better perspective on Asia than Berkeley does.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed, I'm sure at least one Berkeley freshman has already decided to do that and that's perfectly OK. But we shouldn't pretend that everyone wants to work in that field or that it would even be beneficial if they did so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also wonder why BP chose Berkeley and Illinois, as opposed to any of the 20 schools that are supposed to outclass Berkeley, as revealed by the bible of this board, the USNWR ranking...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you are referring to USNEWS' College Rankings, it should be obvious that those weren't really consulted by BP in making its decision. If they had been, Princeton would have probably been among the finalists. If you're talking about the grad school rankings on USNEWS, then I'd say it's quite possible that BP consulted them and decided that Berkeley was the overall best. Or it may be something else altogether.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This choice is quite revealing in terms of what the industry, professional and scientific world thinks of Berlkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In other words, the deal is an acknowledgement that Berkeley's faculty/grad student are among the best in the world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It will have a strong impact on the quality of the faculty, and you can bet that there will be an impact down the road in the undergraduate course curriculum, with new classes on the technologies of conservation in various departments as this will be a huge growth area.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In other words, you want to trust Birgeneau and hope that undergraduate education, which you believe to be good, gets better in a couple of decades. But what about right now? Why can't Berkeley solve the problems it already has RIGHT NOW?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley has always been at the forefront,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Always? Even back in the 1860s??</p>
<p>
[quote]
there were courses on new technologies and the internet economy at Berkeley well before most other campuses caught on,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You forgot the part about weeding out underperforming first/second years students and then proceeding to expel them if they don't do well in the classes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's part of the fact that Berkeley is at the heart of an economy that leads the world (not by accident, as Berkeley itself is a huge engine of that economy.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While Berkeley may play a relatively significant role in the world economy, it is by no means the "heart" that you describe. Perhaps it is together with MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Cambridge, and some others. But by itself? No.</p>
<p>I was obviously referring to the Bay Area economy, which is a world leader in technology. Berkeley is at the heart of that economy. MIT and Harvard are the engines of the Boston economy, which is far less influential on the global or national scale.</p>
<p>Your personal experience does matter, one of the main function of this board is for current and former students to convey their experience to prospective ones. It is also central even if you want to talk about generalities and debate a broader issue, as one's perceptions of those issues is in good part driven by one's personal experiences. It's a bit hard to make generalities about "Berkeley's problems" if you don't have a frst hand experience of those problems.</p>
<p>You've certainly dismissed the impact of a half-billion research grant by saying it would have no impact on undergraduates. I've said that this area was going to be a key field in the lives of current and future undergraduates, in future curriculums and in the outlook and quality of the faculty.</p>
<p>I've stated that students should position themselves towards that field if those students had aspirations to become leaders and access a fast-growing career, whether for financial or idealistic motives. Those after all are some of the main reasons for going to graduate/professional schools. Berkeley students will have opportunities to distinguish themselves in their application to graduate school by incorporating that perspective in their curriculum or extra-curricular activites (seminars, clubs, internships, and yes, research.)</p>
<p>Do you have indications that Birgeneau is not interested in maintaining undergraduate excellence, or is sacrifying the quality of the U/G experience in faovr of grad depts?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You forgot the part about weeding out underperforming first/second years students and then proceeding to expel them if they don't do well in the classes.
[/quote]
13% of Berkeley U/G students don't actually graduate from Berkeley. A good deal of those drop out because of financial difficulties. The % of students who are weeded out is quite small, somewhere in the single digits. If you can't maintain a 2.0 GPA with the campus average GPA being 3.25, perhaps you don't deserve to be at Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Calx: Berkeley has always been at the forefront, </p>
<p>Dobby: Always? Even back in the 1860s??
[/quote]
At some point, you need to step back and adopt a certain level of maturity in the debate instead of making an argument for argument's sake.</p>
<p>Ari:
[quote]
But who cares if you don't plan on being involved in that field? What does this mean for a history undergrad? </p>
<p>Not everyone wants to mold themselves for the sake of the school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First, the number of departments affected directly or indirectly by this field is quite large. Energy policy is for instance a key driver in political science, and actually has some important ramifications on 20th century history. So even the history dept is not totally shielded from that field. Even further back in history, civilisations were built and wiped out on the way they managed their natural resources, all the way back to antiquity.</p>
<p>Furthermore, any financial windfall on campus will have ramifications elsewhere as it will affect the bottom line, and thus affect the entire university. </p>
<p>As well, if that history major wants to go to graduate school in business, policy/poli sci or law, s/he would greatly benefit from gaining exposure to that field, even if that's not his/her career focus.</p>
<p>This as well is not "molding one's self for the sake of the school", it is understanding a key issue that will indirectly or directly drive the careers and affect the lives of all graduates. One of the main functions of a university is precisely to prepare its students for such challenges. You would WANT a student to gain an exposure and understanding of that field. In this sense, being in an environment at the forefront of research in fields that will drive this century is an invaluable asset that sets Berkeley apart.</p>
<p>Though I agree with what Ari is saying about the lack of correlation between history majors (such as myself) and BP's $500 million I think there is another way to look at this. Maybe the history undergrad isn't benefiting from the alternative energy program, however being a history undergrad at berkeley is something that can hardly be written off. Berkeley has a top 3 (arguably #1) history department, and though I can only speak rankings-wise of it's graduate department, I'm sure this rubs off on the undergrad department as well. Just a thought...</p>
<p>dobby,</p>
<p>first let me assure you BP didnt use graduate school rankings for their decision. at a higher level such as grant proposal, nobody cares which school you come from. it only demonstrates the fact berkeley has the best groups of chemistry, synthetic biology, social scientists, and economists. its the entire package that won us the contract. </p>
<p>as for how is the alternative energy project beneficial to berkeley undergrads. this provides an enormous opportunity for people to involve in this new area. this gives people access to top research and prepare them for any graduate schools. in fact, alternative energy is just a tip of iceberg of many great berkeley programs. undergraduates definitely can tap into these resources if they try. </p>
<p>as for administrative, there are a lot of programs to encourage undergraduate research. go to research.berkeley.edu and sign up to their email list. i usually receive a lot of emails about new research opportunities. also they host workshops etc., which are very helpful. also, you can take extra steps in going to office hours and asking professors for research positions. MCB department even has a handout for this. this definitely applies to all other majors. it is rarely for me to see a person not able to find a good research position, because undergrads are free labor. </p>
<p>i dont really understand how berkeley fails to prepare its undergrads for graduate schools. i only can see undergrads fail on themselves. if they try a little harder, they will find loads of opportunities. losers are always losers no matter where they go. </p>
<p>i can easily refute that schools like MIT or Harvard take berkeley undergrads lightly. this year MIT bio department send out interview invitation to roughly 100 people and 5 of us are from berkeley. many big name grad schools take berkeley undergrads across fields. and if you understand grad school admission, you will see it is the entire package, particular people who write you LOR that matter the most. i have to say berkeley definitely has a lot of good people to write excellent LOR. again, it is how much effort each applicants willing to spend. </p>
<p>so please stop blaming your own school, and ask yourself do you really deserve to be in berkeley.</p>
<p>UCLAri:</p>
<p>i am not sure how the AE program can benefit history major or a lot of other majors. but berkeley has a lot of other great program like this, such as stem cell. and yes berkeley is not good at everything. so i think college candidates should choose school to fit themselves the best. like i said before, berkeley is not for everyone. you need a lot of motivation and hardwork to go through it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was obviously referring to the Bay Area economy, which is a world leader in technology. Berkeley is at the heart of that economy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you sure? Although Berkeley is definetly a part of the heart, but I wouldn't say its AT the heart. Stanford probably has a better claim to being AT the "heart" of the Bay Area economy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You've certainly dismissed the impact of a half-billion research grant by saying it would have no impact on undergraduates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Re-read what I said. I did not say that the BP deal would have "no impact" on undergrads. I said the whatever impact it did have would be limited.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've said that this area was going to be a key field in the lives of current and future undergraduates, in future curriculums and in the outlook and quality of the faculty.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet again, you emphasize the future. What about the present? What about all those 17 and 18 yearolds who are being slaughtered in weeders created at least in part by the past Berkeley-led tech revolutions?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've stated that students should position themselves towards that field if those students had aspirations to become leaders and access a fast-growing career, whether for financial or idealistic motives. Those after all are some of the main reasons for going to graduate/professional schools. Berkeley students will have opportunities to distinguish themselves in their application to graduate school by incorporating that perspective in their curriculum or extra-curricular activites (seminars, clubs, internships, and yes, research.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All of that is true and reasonable. Now for the next step: UC Berkeley should play a more active role in student life. For example, it should make the high school-to-college transition easier. It is unreasobale to expect the vast majority of 17 and 18 year olds, no matter how smart they may be, to make wise academic and life decisions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you have indications that Birgeneau is not interested in maintaining undergraduate excellence, or is sacrifying the quality of the U/G experience in faovr of grad depts?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You could start with the perceived fact that he rarely makes a statement about undergrads unless its related to A) how poor they are ("Berkeley has more Pell Grant recipients than the entire Ivy League") and B) the need for "diversity" ("1/2 of all California kindergartens are Hispanic. As a public university that embraces diversity and inclusion, Berkeley must reconstruct its student demographics.")</p>
<p>So what you have is a situation in which the admissions office is ordered to discriminate against white people in favor of minorities. Let's not even pretend this isn't happening. It so is. </p>
<p>Then you get a whole bunch of poor minorities coming to Berkeley who end up underperforming and/or withdrawing. They typically leave with quite a bit of debt. Why debt? Basically because Berkeley does not have enough money to give dirt poor students full rides (unlike HYPS.) </p>
<p>Why might this be? There's definetly a connection to graduate education - Birgeneau JUST STARTED a campaign to make Berkeley the most financially rewarding place to go to GRADUATE SCHOOL in the world. Yet, he doesn't bring up the issue of funding for undergrads. For undergrads, all he really cares about is bringing in poor black and brown people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you can't maintain a 2.0 GPA with the campus average GPA being 3.25, perhaps you don't deserve to be at Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If that's going to be the standard then I say level the playing field. The reason the average GPA is so high is because quite frankly, theres a lot of crem puff majors out there. And don't even take me for an ECCS/MCB/Haas glorifier. I'm in TWO cream puff majors myself and I will freely admit that one of the reasons I'm able to waste lots of time is because my classes aren't very demanding. </p>
<p>But if a kid from EECS is going to be thrown out of Berkeley because he has a 1.99, then I say that under the current system, a poli sci student should be thrown out of Berkeley because he has lower than a 3.5. Let's face it, EECS is a lot harder than poli sci - especially since at Berkeley the poli sci taught to undergrads isn't very quantitative. A 3.5 in poli sci is pretty bad once you realize that many poli sci tests at Berkeley are exercises in regurgitation.</p>
<p>The point is that students should be treated as equally as possible. American Studies isn't inherently easy - the undergrad program just MAKES itself easy, while the EECS ugrad program, which could probably be easier, chooses to make itself incredibly hard. This state of affairs is unnaceptable. Humanities and social science students such as myself should be held to higher standards than currently is the case because it's simply unfair that I can choose not to show up for class, neglect the readings, and still get a A while an EECS major can be the most dedicated student at Cal and still be expelled.</p>
<p>
[quote]
first let me assure you BP didnt use graduate school rankings for their decision.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But you can't be sure can't you? Well neither can I. In fact, only BP knows what BP thinks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
as for how is the alternative energy project beneficial to berkeley undergrads. this provides an enormous opportunity for people to involve in this new area. this gives people access to top research and prepare them for any graduate schools. in fact, alternative energy is just a tip of iceberg of many great berkeley programs. undergraduates definitely can tap into these resources if they try.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, I never said there weren't any good things about the BP deal as far as undergrads are concerned. What I said is that the deal's impact on undergrads as a whole shouldn't be exaggerated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
as for administrative, there are a lot of programs to encourage undergraduate research. go to research.berkeley.edu and sign up to their email list. i usually receive a lot of emails about new research opportunities. also they host workshops etc., which are very helpful. also, you can take extra steps in going to office hours and asking professors for research positions. MCB department even has a handout for this. this definitely applies to all other majors. it is rarely for me to see a person not able to find a good research position, because undergrads are free labor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All of this is true. But the system can always be improved. Incoming freshmen are by and large probably not even really aware of what research is all about. The campus should take a more active role in educating all its students, not just the ones who sign up for periodical research-related emails.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i dont really understand how berkeley fails to prepare its undergrads for graduate schools. i only can see undergrads fail on themselves.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look closer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
losers are always losers no matter where they go.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am fundamentally opposed to these kinds of attitudes. Essentially what they convey is: "This person is weak, let them die." It is wrong, mean-spirited, and creates social negativity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i can easily refute that schools like MIT or Harvard take berkeley undergrads lightly. this year MIT bio department send out interview invitation to roughly 100 people and 5 of us are from berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, I'm not denying the fact that Berkeley's best undergrads can and have gone on to great things. But it must be acknowledged that many, as in thousands, of Berkeley students don't get much out of their Berkeley education. Partly it's their fault, but we shouldn't pretend that Berkeley has no role in the "failure" of these students. An institution can have an incredibly powerful impact, both positive and negative, on the lives of its members. As I see it, Berkeley is having an overall negative impact on the lives of thousands of its students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
many big name grad schools take berkeley undergrads across fields. and if you understand grad school admission, you will see it is the entire package, particular people who write you LOR that matter the most.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, that's basically it. But please understand. HUNDREDS of Berkeley faculty members will never deal with undergrads. And many of those that do deal with undergrads are often overburdened with surprise surprise...research and grad students!</p>
<p>
[quote]
i have to say berkeley definitely has a lot of good people to write excellent LOR. again, it is how much effort each applicants willing to spend.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is obviously a great deal riding on the part of the student. But what about the faculty member? Many just don't care about undergrads. I'll give you three examples. There is a professor who has office hours 5-6 on Fridays. Why? Probably because he's a young professor with lots of things to do and doesn't want to deal with time-consuming undergrads! There is another professor who, for the last 3 semesters, has posted on her office door at the beginning of the semester: "Office Hours cancelled indefinitely." Another professor claims to have office 1-2. But when I asked her what day, she said "figure it out."</p>
<p>
[quote]
so please stop blaming your own school, and ask yourself do you really deserve to be in berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not quite sure if this is aimed specifically at me. If it is, do yourself a favor and stop taking unwarranted cheap shots.</p>
<p>
[quote]
this year MIT bio department send out interview invitation to roughly 100 people and 5 of us are from berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know as well as I do that gross numbers are meaningless. Ratios and per capita numbers tell the true story. </p>
<p>Berkeley may send tons of people, but the percent it sends is oftentimes lower than the privates, and that's the real rub.</p>
<p>dobby,</p>
<p>In fact, i am pretty sure BP doesnt choose Berkeley based on graduate school ranking. my lab is directly involved in this deal and a few friends of mine are authors of parts of that proposal. i read the rough draft of that particular part of proposal and i talked to one of their representative when they toured our lab last semester. im pretty sure that i know what they were looking for. when you learn about scientific grant proposal process, you will understand what i meant. </p>
<p>again, i dont believe the university has any responsibility to spoonfeed its students with every information. in real life, nobody shoves information to your face. the ability to seek out information you need to succeed is a skill everybody has to learn at some point. it is understandable a freshman can be frustrated, but blaming the university is certainly not a solution.</p>
<p>as for faculty's indifference toward u/g. yes, it exists. berkeley is a researching university. we do research first, education next. this is the attitude of the university since the day it is conceived. but does that mean faculty members are not inaccessable? absolutely not. if you can prove urself to be a worthy undergrad, you can earn their respect and even friendship. it is not that hard, you just have to know what you are talking about. but facultis are required to host officehour by either law or school regulation. you can feel free to report whoever cancel his/her office hours indefinitely.</p>
<p>the indifference of faculty is not unique to berkeley. if you ask around, you will get similar answers from u/g from all the big researching university. this is the sad truth about academia: publish or perish. and their tenure depends on their research, not teaching ability. if you really want find such schools, LACs are your best bet. only trade-off is the LAC students generally lack big time research experience.</p>
<p>Lastly, i stand by what i said. the problem of our society is people tend to blame somebody else for their own problems. if you think you cant succeed in berkeley, why blame the university or so-called "engineering trap". we are all adults, and we should take responsibility of our own doings. if you are weak, there is nothing to do about it but die. if you are not able to succeed in berkeley, there is nothing anybody can do about it. C'EST LA VIE! like or not, UC Berkeley will always be UC Berkeley. fix it or leave it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if you think you cant succeed in berkeley, why blame the university or so-called "engineering trap".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then I question whether or not Berkeley is indeed serving its students. Universities should be evaluated based on the value they provide to their students as well as their research output. </p>
<p>Besides, happy students means happy alumni giving.</p>