<p>sometimes nothing cuts deeper and stings harder than the truth.</p>
<p>"Fiat lux"</p>
<p>Way to go Berkeley. These three nobel prize winners are a major boost to its prestige and perhaps reflects well on top public universities in general, especially the University of California system. </p>
<p>Note: Even though I'm not a Berkeley student and this probably isn't my place to butt in on this dispute, I have to say that sakky is a very eloquent, intelligent and honest writer who clearly isn't afraid to speak his mind on sensitive issues. Any student at any university has the right to criticize aspects of the institution that he feels needs improving. Ignoring the issue or merely labeling the critics as "cal-haters" without thinking of the substance of the criticism will not make the problem disappear.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Excuse me, I've made a mistake. You're the second or third person in a thread to criticize Cal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Second or third? Excuse me. Won't you look back at many of the recent threads bashing Berkeley, where I said nothing at all. </p>
<p>For example, consider this thread, where Byerly pointed out the relatively low NCAA Cal football graduation rate. I said nothing at all.</p>
<p>Or how about this one where vicissitudes infamously compared Berkeley to Merced. Did I say anything? I think not.</p>
<p>In fact, there are actually countless Berkeley threads that bash Berkeley in which I either don't participate, or have actually defended Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What detractors? Nobody bashes our grad programs. What a stand you've taken in defending those lowly berkeley grad schools. What's next, defending water against all those detractors that say it's useless?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nice selective memory. Nobody bashes the grad programs? There are quite a few posts that do exactly that. For example, the_prestige and I debated Berkeley graduate school just recently. Consider post #204 here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I asked you to provide context around when I supposedly alleged that Cal wasn't a 'good' school before, and you conspicuously declined. So I'll ask you for it again."</p>
<p>I've already done that. If you want to refresh your memory I'd suggest you search the archives.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you never did. I asked you to present the data, you declined. Shall I search through the archives where I asked you to present these quotes, and got no answer from you? </p>
<p>
[quote]
"It is not my job, nor is it anybody else's job to talk about every single thing that ever happens with Berkeley or any other subject."</p>
<p>No, evidently its your job to say how horrible berkeley UG is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it's my job to point out things that I think are interesting to them. Other people have voiced their opinions on things that are interesting to them. For example, when vicissitudes made his rather tongue-in-cheek thread comparing Berkeley to Merced, I knew that he was just joking around, but he did have some decent points (although, obviously, not decent enough of points for me to support him). </p>
<p>
[quote]
"You guys seem to just want to engage in censorship of opinions you don't like."</p>
<p>So if we voice our opinion on you its censorship? But when you do the same its what, level headed criticism
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just gave away the game right there. Why are you voicing an opinion ABOUT ME? This is not the "sakky" section of CC. This is the BERKELEY section of CC. *We're supposed to be talking about Berkeley. * We are not supposed to be voicing opinions about you or CalX or vicissitudes or Drab or anybody else. That's not the rules of the game.</p>
<p>Now, if you want to say that these ARE the rules of the game, then fine. If you want to write posts voicing your opinion on me, then fine. Then I and others should have the right to create posts voicing my opinion on you and anybody else. And I'm sure that people like Shiboing Boing would love to use this opportunity to voice his opinion on you. Are you sure you want to go down this road?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why? And who made you the judge? How many colleges have you gone to as an undergrad that make you this expert on UG quality?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I made myself the judge, just like anybody who talks about how great Berkeley is has implicitly made himself the judge. For example, when we all talk about how great the Berkeley grad programs are, who made us the judge of that? After all, how many grad programs have you or anybody else gone to? </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. I've never gone to San Jose State and neither have you, but I think we can both agree that Berkeley is better. But why? If we've never personally gone to SJSU, then according to your logic, we can't even assert that Berkeley is better to SJSU. In other words, nobody can ever judge anything ever. Maybe Berkeley doesn't have some of the top PhD programs in the world - in fact, maybe they are some of the worst. After all, if we have never attended every single PhD program personally, then how would we know whether Berkeley really has top PhD programs or not?</p>
<p>But if you really want to challenge me on the flimsy notion of 'who made you the judge', then I would ask you to challenge EVERY single person who has ever asserted that Berkeley is a good school, because nobody made them judges either. So, with the same intensity that you challenge me, you should challenge others. I particularly would like to see you challenge your own posts where you have yourself asserted that Berkeley is better than school X. After all, who made you the judge?</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, when vicissitudes made his rather tongue-in-cheek thread comparing Berkeley to Merced, I knew that he was just joking around, but he did have some decent points (although, obviously, not decent enough of points for me to support him).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Get your facts straight. The junior member poster known as Jennicker created the Berkeley versus Merced thread and not the honorable vicissitudes:</p>
<p>Don't try to drag the honorable vicissitudes into this! Keep your personal CC vendettas to yourself. :mad:</p>
<p>
[quote]
"We're supposed to be talking about Berkeley. We are not supposed to be voicing opinions about you or CalX or vicissitudes or Drab or anybody else."</p>
<p>Who says? Show me the rulebook.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read 'em and weep.</p>
<p>"General Behavior. Our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place, and one in which members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned by others. "</p>
<p>There it is. You are not supposed to be questioning my motives or any of my personal characteristics, just like I am not supposed to be questioning yours. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the moderators. </p>
<p>
[quote]
That guy is a joke and everyone knows it. I welcome his posts. At least they entertain me. I wish I could say the same for yours. This last post of yours didn't say anything at all. The thing is, if you just came out and said "I don't like Berkeley. I had a horrible time there and I hate it," then I'd say ok, that's your opinion and I'd move on. But you try to pretend that you're impartial and thats what kills me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, it's not my job to 'entertain' you. That's not why I am here. I am here to voice my opinions, and whether you find them entertaining or not is not a concern of mine. </p>
<p>And for the record, no, I wouldn't say that I had a 'horrible' time. There were some good things, there were some bad things. But I know plenty of people who did have a horrible time, and THAT is what I am trying to prevent in the future. </p>
<p>Bottom line, I believe that people should have the right to view a wide range of opinions and then decide for themselves what to think.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Get your facts straight. The junior member poster known as Jennicker created the Berkeley versus Merced thread and not the honorable vicissitudes:</p>
<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...ersus+%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...ersus+</a> merced</p>
<p>Don't try to drag the honorable vicissitudes into this! Keep your personal CC vendettas to yourself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok, fine, he didn't START the thread. But he was a rather participant poster on that thread, as I'm sure you remember.</p>
<p>But that just leads to another question. Why aren't any of you jumping down the throats of Jennicker? After all, she started a thread that in essence bashed Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And for the record, no, I wouldn't say that I had a 'horrible' time. There were some good things, there were some bad things. But I know plenty of people who did have a horrible time, and THAT is what I am trying to prevent in the future.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>sakky, if you care so much about these issues, why don't you come back from Boston and get a job in the Berkeley administration? (or at least try to?) I'm sure you have a decent shot considering your accomplishments....just a suggestion because you seem to know more about UCB than a lot of powerful people at UCB...</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, if you care so much about these issues, why don't you come back from Boston and get a job in the Berkeley administration? (or at least try to?) I'm sure you have a decent shot considering your accomplishments....just a suggestion because you seem to know more about UCB than a lot of powerful people at UCB...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And perhaps I will someday (although not right now, as I have something big going on right now). </p>
<p>However, as it stands right now, I think that at least we can tell prospective students what they can expect to encounter at Berkeley with honest talk. Nobody benefits if certain opinions are suppressed. People should be presented with a wide range of opinions and datasets such that they can judge for themselves what is really going on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"General Behavior. Our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place, and one in which members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned by others. "</p>
<p>I've made a choice to ignore this rule, but thanks for pointing it out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it's not really a 'choice', so much as an obligation here on CC. I could have brought your posts up to the moderators as offensive and gotten them deleted, as I believe they did clearly violate the terms of service, but at this time, I have refrained from doing so because you still have a reservoir of goodwill with me, because we have had honorable debates in the past. Just don't drain that reservoir. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, so its ok for you to say that someone STARTS threads, yet its a no no for me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You were the one who accused me of being the "first" to point out bad things about Berkeley. While I have indeed pointed out bad (and also good) things about Berkeley, I am simply correcting the record by saying that I am far from being the 'first' to point out bad things. </p>
<p>Look, SnuggleMonster, it's one thing to say that you don't share my opinion. That's fine. I don't expect everybody to share my opinion. In fact, CC would be a poorer place if everybody had the same opinion. You can state your opinion and I can state mine. But it crosses the line when people begin questioning other posters' motives, intelligence or any other personal characteristics. I don't question your motives. You shouldn't question mine. We all have opinions that should be expressed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I go to school here too, so isn't my opinion just as valid?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's valid but not to the extent that sakky's is valid because you don't present as many facts.</p>
<p>Dobby, which facts did you find impressive.</p>
<p>Almost all of the facts sakky presents are impressive and usually support whatever he is arguing. The guy knows what he's talking about. You shouldn't be so savage in criticizing him, he offers a pretty accurate assessment of the Berkeley's situation. It's mainly his proposed solutions that should be debated, since they're pretty radical.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ok sakky, do me one favor. Give me the breakdown on Cal's problems. Just the very basic problems. If I want a more in depth evaluation I'll search your archives. I just want to know why Cal, in your eyes, doesn't add up to other elite schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Jeez, Snuggledude, I think you should just search through the archives, because they are all in there. </p>
<p>But, allright, I will enumerate just a few of the reasons why Berkeley doesn't stack up to other top schools, and by that, specifically HYPSM and a few others. Note, this is an abbreviated list.</p>
<h1>1) The long tail end of relatively weak students. The truth is, the average undergrad student quality at Berkeley is not as strong as that of the top schools, and that's for one simple reason - there is a long and rather conspicuous tail end of rather mediocre students. I am convinced that Berkeley should simply not admit these students in the first place, especially the ones who won't graduate anyway. Or if they do get admitted, at least light a fire under their posteriors so that they actually do some real work. Sadly, there are a lot of undergrads who just don't want to work hard.</h1>
<p>Why is this bad for Berkeley? Three main reasons. </p>
<p>A) These students are taking up scarce academic resources. It's sad enough when you can't get a seat in a class that you want when you want it. It's doubly sad when you can't get a seat because it's been taken by somebody who is not really motivated to do anything in the class, but just happened to invoke Telebears faster than you did. </p>
<p>B) These students make profs and staffers at Berkeley highly suspicious. For example, one main reason why the Berkeley curves in many classes (especially tech courses) are harsh is simple - they are trying to eliminate the bad students. If you didn't have bad students in the first place, then maybe you could soften the curve. Furthermore, the use of harsh curves is a blunt instrument that inflicts collateral damage. Not only does it hurt the bad students (which it should), but it also hurts the good student who just run into bad luck or who made some stupid mistakes on the test.</p>
<p>I'll give you an example. I remember the Physics 7C exam in which, out of 5 questions, one of them was basically doable only if you had a certain equation written down on your cheatsheet. If you didn't have the question, you couldn't do the problem at all. If you did, then it was easy. Furthermore, it was a rather obscure equation. The upshot is that those people who just unluckily hadn't happened to have written down that particular equation on their cheatsheet just got a zero on that question. If they had the equation, they would have gotten full points. So basically they got screwed over by bad luck. Furthermore, all that does is simply encourage paranoia among the students. Students then responded by writing down every single equation from their textbook into their cheatsheets, for fear that the one that they don't have is the one that they might need. But come on, this is ridiculous. People should be weeded out of physics based on how well they understand physics concepts, not on who has a better cheatsheet.</p>
<p>C) These bad students also damage the reputation of Berkeley. When employers see these students who are conspicuously lazy or not so bright, they start to think that all Berkeley students are like that. Like I said, I know one guy who to this day is simply a walking embarrassment to Berkeley by constantly saying stupid things and getting into stupid predicaments. It got to the point where my friend's cousin once said "I thought Berkeley was supposed to be a good school" after learning that this guy had been a Berkeley student. Berkeley should simply have never admitted this guy. </p>
<h1>2) The bureaucracy at Berkeley. Need I say more?</h1>
<h1>3) Lack of 4 years of guaranteed housing. While Berkeley now guarantees 2, which is better than in the old days (a decade ago, it was 1 year, before that, it was no guarantee of anything at all), still, Berkeley should be trying to push for 4 years guarantee. That's the way in which you build community within the student body. That's not to say that everybody should live or want to live in the dorm, but everybody who wants campus housing should be able to get something.</h1>
<h1>4 ) Impacted majors. This is something that Berkeley needs to solve quickly. And when I say quickly, I mean that solving it yesterday would have been good. People who want to major in X and who can pass the classes should be allowed to major in X. We shouldn't have the situation where people end up in majors that they don't really want.</h1>
<h1>5) Lack of integration of the grad school and the undergrad program. We all agree that Berkeley's grad programs are great. So why not integrate them with the undergrad program? Many of the elite schools offer formal or de-facto integration of the undergrad and grad program. For example, it is basically understood that as long as you do decently at MIT, you are highly likely to be able to get into one of the master's degree program at MIT. It may not be in the same discipline (because some disciplines don't offer terminal master's degrees), but you should be able to get into SOMEWHERE. For example, I know many MIT science students who ended up staying to get MIT master's degrees in engineering (i.e. chemistry -> chemical engineering, math/physics -> EECS), or in Tech Policy or ESD (Engineering Systems Division) or things like that. I think Berkeley should do the same.</h1>
<p>But I think this gets down to a matter of trust. I think the MIT graduate programs trust the MIT undergrad program to produce top-notch people. I don't know that the Berkeley graduate programs trust the undergrad program. I don't blame them, given the tail-end of mediocre undergrads. </p>
<p>But that's not to say that everything is bad at Berkeley. From from it. I have always agreed that the top undergrads at Berkeley are competitive with anybody and will go on to achieve great things. The research resources are extensive. The Berkeley brand-name is relatively strong. Not as strong as that of HYPSM, but still quite strong, and probably stronger than that of even Caltech. The city of Berkeley is indeed a very interesting city, of which the only real issue I have is the crime rate. Other than that, it is one of the most interesting college towns in the country, in fact, arguably just as interesting as Cambridge, Mass, and certainly more interesting than Palo Alto (although, granted, it's not very hard for any place to be more interesting than Palo Alto). The weather in Berkeley is indeed quite nice. Berkeley does have strong transportation links to SF, which is a great city. </p>
<p>So it gets back to what I was saying before. Berkeley is a great place to go for graduate school, especially your PhD. For undergrad, it's not bad, although there are better places. But still, Berkeley is a better place to go for undergrad than most other places. Like I said, while I think Berkeley has its problems, I still think it's better than, say, UCLA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
3) Lack of 4 years of guaranteed housing. While Berkeley now guarantees 2, which is better than in the old days (a decade ago, it was 1 year, before that, it was no guarantee of anything at all), still, Berkeley should be trying to push for 4 years guarantee. That's the way in which you build community within the student body. That's not to say that everybody should live or want to live in the dorm, but everybody who wants campus housing should be able to get something.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've never understood the reasoning behind criticizing Berkeley undergrad due to the housing crisis. I mean, graduate students have it much worse, yet they somehow deal with it. Why can't the undergrads deal with it? Is it just because of their age? Is a 20-21 year old junior THAT much different than a 22-23 year old grad student?</p>
<p>Berkeley also has the most expensive dorms in the nation!! (according to some recent article)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lack of integration of the grad school and the undergrad program. We all agree that Berkeley's grad programs are great. So why not integrate them with the undergrad program?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's some integration. For example, the German majors probably get just as much attention as the German grad students and the Berkeley German department certainly thinks highly of its undergrad department since Berkeley undergrads are well represented in the German graduate program. I would argue that the same situation is present in most of the humanities departments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2) The bureaucracy at Berkeley. Need I say more?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not as bad as people make it out to be.</p>
<p>i agree with sakky's points, except for the housing issue. what they need to do is bring down the damn prices. other than that, i can say that in my own experience, i have noticed the same things. </p>
<p>and as for the ucb-ucla undergrad comparison, it's so close that i would say that the programs are indistinguishable. grad programs are of course another story...</p>
<p>the undergrad program here has a lot of potential to match the level found at HYPSM, but i don't think this will happen anytime soon.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've never understood the reasoning behind criticizing Berkeley undergrad due to the housing crisis. I mean, graduate students have it much worse, yet they somehow deal with it. Why can't the undergrads deal with it? Is it just because of their age? Is a 20-21 year old junior THAT much different than a 22-23 year old grad student?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The lack of graduate housing is indeed a far worse problem, but I was attempting to restrict myself to only the undergrad program at Berkeley. However, I do agree that if it were up to me, I would fix the grad housing problem first. </p>
<p>To give you an example, MIT guarantees grad housing in your first year. Many Harvard programs, notably HBS, virtually guarantee housing, with HBS even having its own dedicated dorms (albeit with very small rooms). Stanford effectively guarantees housing to all students, grad and undergrad, and in relatively luxurious conditions to boot. For example, the size of the individual accomodations of the campus housing available for Stanford MBA's is literally 3-5 times of what is available for Harvard MBA's. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, if there is one thing that I will say that is bad about the Berkeley graduate experience, it is the housing situation. </p>
<p>
[quote]
and as for the ucb-ucla undergrad comparison, it's so close that i would say that the programs are indistinguishable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The major difference to me is the brand name. I have always agreed that Berkeley has a strong brand name, and clearly a stronger one than UCLA does. Nor do I see that choosing a school for a brand name is a bad thing. People call it 'prestige-whoring' or whatnot, but I simply see it as a form of economic market signalling. You want to signal to the labor markets that you are a good person to hire, and brand-names are a way to do that. Companies spend billions of dollars in marketing and bolstering their brand names because they realize that branding has value.</p>
<p>
[quote]
3) Lack of 4 years of guaranteed housing. While Berkeley now guarantees 2, which is better than in the old days (a decade ago, it was 1 year, before that, it was no guarantee of anything at all), still, Berkeley should be trying to push for 4 years guarantee. </p>
<p>Hmm, sakky this one I haven't seen you talk about really, and it's one I don't agree with. Living off-campus seems to have developed into some sort of culture here. There are many second year students I bump into who live off-campus. There are many first year students I talk to who say they plan to live off-campus. This is despite the fact that both groups should have two-year guaranteed. It seems like many students want to move after a year or two at most.</p>
<p>What I think should actually be done is improve the quality of the housing that is currently available, instead of building more dorms. While I don't personally mind I have heard complaints from others about the quality and cost compared to off-campus housing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never talked about it before because, frankly, it never really occurred to me how important this was, until just lately when my personal conditions changed to make me see just how valuable guaranteed campus housing can be. Having lots of students living close to each other tends to indeed build a strong sense of community, something that I think that Berkeley lacks relative to the top schools. </p>
<p>To give you an example, more than 60% of Harvard MBA students actually live on the campus of HBS. I am quite convinced that this is a major reason for the strong ties that HBS builds among its students. Now, nobody is FORCED to live on campus. You don't have to if you don't want to. But the fact is, the majority choose to because they want to take advantage of the networking opportunities and the convenience of literally living right across the street from your classroom. </p>
<p>That's wonderful community building. Haas, at the very least, should do that too. Heck, I would like for ALL of Berkeley to do that. </p>
<p>I agree that off-campus living is a culture at Berkeley. But I believe that's only because people are forced to go off-campus. You can change the culture around. If more people actually had guaranteed housing, more people would actually take it, and that might actually turn the culture around to value on-campus housing more. Sure, some Berkeleypeople will never want to live in dorms, just like some HBS people would never think of living on campus. But other people at Berkeley want to live on campus and aren't given the choice. I think that's a problem. </p>
<p>Think of it in the sense that impacted majors are bad, "impacted campus housing" is also bad. Some people want campus housing and can't get it.</p>