Don't you think it would be better for the CAL Colleges to separate ways?

[g1a2b3e]

<p>

@vicissitudes

I agree that the "best talent" probably won't leave just because the UCs take a few more students. However, I also agree that if the UCs such as Berkeley take in many more students, the quality of the student body will decline and in turn, the education offered at the school will decline.

That's assuming that Berkeley could not take in more students right now and still have "quality" students. I think that's wrong. There are many qualified students who could go to Berkeley but don't.

[quote]

Why not? So you're saying that the opinions of 23,000 undergraduates at Berkeley and the 6,600 undergraduates at Harvard don't matter? Are they just stupid for preferring Harvard over Berkeley? The obvious reason seems to be that Harvard simply offers a better undergraduate education, so everyone wants to go there.

[/quote]

This is a fallacy. Their opinions cannot be used to come to a conclusion that Harvard is better; their opinions are irrelevent. A billion people could think Harvard is better; that is not useful in determining if it is actually better. Perhaps that can serve as a starting point leading to actual substantive debate material, but not as the material itself. </p>

<p>That could change, however, if the people in question were "experts"; I don't think that is the case here. I wouldn't say all those students made educated decisions guided by a comprehensive approach and reasonable deliberation. Perhaps they even made their school decision regardless of which school offers a "better undergraduate education"; how can we say that was the variable in their school choice? Even if it was a variable, how can we isolate it?

[quote]
And I wouldn't say acceptance rate is completely irrelevant. Sometimes it's not as accurate because of the different sizes of the schools or the different admissions criteria, but they're still somewhat useful in determining the strength of a school. Is it just coincidence that the top schools are also the most selective?

[/quote]

You consider them top schools BECAUSE they are the most selective. That is begging the question; your argument: Top schools are the most selective, therefore the most selective schools are top schools.

[quote]
Look at it this way: what if a school accepted 100% of its applicants? Yes, even the girl with the 1.2 GPA and 320 SATs could get in. Would good students really want to go to a school like that? Could that school really be good, with these students abounding on its campus?

[/quote]

Yes...many objectively good students attend community colleges that have 100% acceptance rates. And many are known to have high academic standards and provide good preparation for transferring or vocations.</p>

<p>It is clear from your latest post that you have inherent biases that you can't seem to step out of: privates better than publics, low acceptance rate=good school and that others agree with these preconceptions.</p>

[Allorion]

<p>
[quote]
UC ITSELF IS POLITICAL IN THE SENSE THAT THE CITIZENS OWN IT!!! And that concept is ********. Taking more students IMPROVES a public university that has as its purpose to provide a good education to as many citizens as possible. I don't buy your "best talent leaving" idea either. Not all students simply judge a school by how many people it rejects--not to mention, increasing the applicant base would keep the admissions numbers the same while still providing a good education to more citizens.

[/quote]

Yes, I'm sure that the citizens of California gather and decide UC policy collectively... Your idea is idealism--the citizens may "own" the UC system, but they sure as hell don't make decisions for it. They can, at best, influence decisions; there is no actual control on the citizens' part.</p>

<p>It's easy to simply say you don't believe arguments. I don't buy your argument that taking in more students improves a school. I could call what you're doing is ignorantly sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "LALALALA... THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH ANYTHING IN UC! YOU CAN'T MAKE IT BETTER!"</p>

<p>Yes, take in more students, reduce endowment per student, make larger classes--would you say that's brilliance on your part? All you need to do now is convince everyone else that they've been going wrong on K-12 education advocacy... instead of smaller class sizes, we should have LARGER class sizes.</p>

<p>Besides, unless you would like to force students to apply to the UC schools, how do you "increase the applicant base?" Increasing the number of admits? Hmm... it might be function of name and prestige perhaps...</p>

<p>The goal of either public or private institutions is to both educate students and increase opportunities for their students. Are you telling me that public institutions do it better or match up to private institutions at least in the second one at the moment? That's a function of name as well, isn't it?</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's assuming that Berkeley could not take in more students right now and still have "quality" students. I think that's wrong. There are many qualified students who could go to Berkeley but don't.

[/quote]

There are many qualified students who are admitted to Berkeley... and don't go. At the moment, Berkeley has already taken in more students than it should. We'll never agree on this, since we each have differing opinions on what we label as a quality student body.</p>

<p>Is it terrible? Of course not. Is it great? Well, it certainly can be better.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is a fallacy. Their opinions cannot be used to come to a conclusion that Harvard is better; their opinions are irrelevent. A billion people could think Harvard is better; that is not useful in determining if it is actually better. Perhaps that can serve as a starting point leading to actual substantive debate material, but not as the material itself.

[/quote]

So... graduating from Harvard as opposed to Berkeley, in reality, does nothing in terms of opening opportunities? If you are getting an interview, will Berkeley match up to Harvard's clout? If you are attempting to get your opinion heard, will being quoted as a Harvard graduate not instantly assign more weight to your opinion than the Berkeley name?</p>

<p>Is it fair? Is it correct? Maybe not, but it is the way things work. Perception is its own currency. It is the same way with everything, from colleges to the open market.
It doesn't matter if brand B is basically the exact same thing as brand A--brand A will be the one bought if it has the name and brand loyalty.
Idealism is nice, but reality must be taken into account.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is clear from your latest post that you have inherent biases that you can't seem to step out of: privates better than publics, low acceptance rate=good school and that others agree with these preconceptions.

[/quote]

It is clear from your latest post that you have inherent biases that you can't seem to step out of: you will never admit to anything public universities have a problem with as a problem. You'll merely write it off as, "public universities have a different purpose than private," instead of ever thinking that they can improve their ability to execute their mission in providing services to the citizens of the state.</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>
[quote]
That's assuming that Berkeley could not take in more students right now and still have "quality" students. I think that's wrong. There are many qualified students who could go to Berkeley but don't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So now that Berkeley takes in more students, those qualified students who didn't want to go to Berkeley will want to go to Berkeley? It seems like those students would want to go to Berkeley even less because more people means bigger classes, less personal attention, longer lines. So the top students who get in elsewhere would want to go to those places even more, meaning Berkeley has to accept even more underqualified students to replace them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is a fallacy. Their opinions cannot be used to come to a conclusion that Harvard is better; their opinions are irrelevent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not a fallacy at all. I never said their opinions can be used to come to a conclusion that Harvard is better, but I think it is a good indication. Just because you can't come to an end-all conclusion from one factor, that factor is irrelevant and should be tossed out the window? I think the fact that tens of thousands of prospective students prefer Harvard over Berkeley is a good indication that it is, in fact, a better school. If Harvard is in fact a worse school than Berkeley, why would tens of thousands of students rather go there? Are they just all blinded by prestige?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You consider them top schools BECAUSE they are the most selective. That is begging the question;

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I see you've studied your AP Language well, but you sure have a penchant for drawing my conclusions for me. I don't consider them the top schools because they are the most selective. I just think there is a correlation between selectivity and the strength of the school. Is it possible for one school to be less selective and stronger than another? Of course. But the trend is that better schools tend to be more selective. I'm not saying that the school is better because of being more selective, nor am I saying that the school is more selective because it's better. There's just a correlation between the two.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes...many objectively good students attend community colleges that have 100% acceptance rates. And many are known to have high academic standards and provide good preparation for transferring or vocations.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, most of the good students do have good preparation for transferring, usually to a more selective school like a UC. But why do they want to transfer if the 100% acceptance rate community colleges are so good? Well, the fact is that they're not. Not compared with the mroe selective UC schools. So the top students from CCCs transfer to UCs. The UCs get the better students and the CCCs get the not-as-good students.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is clear from your latest post that you have inherent biases that you can't seem to step out of: privates better than publics

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think you have been reading my posts very carefully, then. I have said that the quality of the Berkeley graduate programs are top, comparable to those of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. If I'm inherently biased that privates are better than publics, why do I admit that Berkeley's graduate programs and the top private schools' graduate programs are about the same in quality?</p>

<p>Another example: I think Oxford and Cambridge are probably the best Universities in England. They're both public schools, yet I am admitting that they are better than all the private Universities in England. Why would I say that if I really inherently think that private schools are public schools?</p>

<p>
[quote]
low acceptance rate=good school

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Once again, I don't think lower acceptance rate automatically means better school, but I think there is a correlation. For example, I think for the class of 2009 Georgetown had an acceptance rate of 21% while Cornell had an acceptance rate of 26%. But I still think Cornell is a better school than Georgetown (not just because it's an Ivy). Why would I say that if I really inherently believe that low acceptance rate = good school?</p>

<p>
[quote]
and that others agree with these preconceptions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think some people do agree with what I've said, while others do not. That's why we have a discussion board. If everyone agreed there would be nothing about which to discuss.</p>

<p>p.s. sorry for saying some of the same as what Allorion said; we posted at the same time.</p>

[g1a2b3e]

<p>In response to Allorion:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, I'm sure that the citizens of California gather and decide UC policy collectively... Your idea is idealism--the citizens may "own" the UC system, but they sure as hell don't make decisions for it.

[/quote]

Clearly you don't understand representative democracy. The UC is a public trust administrered by the UC Regents, who are appointed by the Governor, an elected official, and confirmed by the state Senate, composed of elected officials. Look up "public trust."

[quote]

It's easy to simply say you don't believe arguments. I don't buy your argument that taking in more students improves a school.

[/quote]

I explained my reasoning for not buying the argument. It begins with "Not all students..."; I urge you to go back and read it.

[quote]

Yes, take in more students, reduce endowment per student, make larger classes--would you say that's brilliance on your part? All you need to do now is convince everyone else that they've been going wrong on K-12 education advocacy... instead of smaller class sizes, we should have LARGER class sizes.</p>

<p>Besides, unless you would like to force students to apply to the UC schools, how do you "increase the applicant base?" Increasing the number of admits? Hmm... it might be function of name and prestige perhaps...

[/quote]

This is a slippery slope fallacy. You are making many conclusions without explaining why they are likely. You made many assumptions that require justification before I should even respond. Who said that taking in more students wouldn't also entail more professors? Are you saying that any student increase necessitates larger class sizes? Clearly that is false.

[quote]

The goal of either public or private institutions is to both educate students and increase opportunities for their students.

[/quote]

Another erroneous assumption. You need quite a bit of justification to prove to me that a private institution's goal is not to make money, like any other business. You are assuming far too much without providing justification--and it isn't my job to disprove all these possiblities; the burden is on you.

[quote]
At the moment, Berkeley has already taken in more students than it should. We'll never agree on this, since we each have differing opinions on what we label as a quality student body.

[/quote]

You continue to come to conclusions without any justification.

[quote]
It doesn't matter if brand B is basically the exact same thing as brand A--brand A will be the one bought if it has the name and brand loyalty.

[/quote]

I see that you are continually making points about name reputation being important, so what? You must not have understood at all what I was claiming in my posts.

[quote]
you will never admit to anything public universities have a problem with as a problem. You'll merely write it off as, "public universities have a different purpose than private," instead of ever thinking that they can improve their ability to execute their mission in providing services to the citizens of the state.

[/quote]

In the particular areas that were brought up, yes, the "problems" were more a result of mischaracterizing the UC, a public university system, as a private system. Comparisons were made that were not relevant; conclusions were formed around false premises that fundamentally misunderstood the core differences between UC and privates. I have explained my reasoning for this in the previous posts.</p>

[g1a2b3e]

<p>In response to Vic:

[quote]

So now that Berkeley takes in more students, those qualified students who didn't want to go to Berkeley will want to go to Berkeley?

[/quote]

That's a completely separate issue and argument; I wasn't addressing that.

[quote]
It seems like those students would want to go to Berkeley even less because more people means bigger classes, less personal attention, longer lines.

[/quote]

Same error as Allorian. More students in no way necessitates "bigger classes, less personal attention and longer lines"; never did I say more students but no increase in accommodations, no increase in professors, etc.

[quote]

It's not a fallacy at all. I never said their opinions can be used to come to a conclusion that Harvard is better, but I think it is a good indication.

[/quote]

I urge you to step out of stubborness and try to look at what you are saying. You just contradicted yourself. It doesn't matter if it is only one part of a much larger argument; using that premise in your argument constitutes a fallacy. Further, you haven't presented any substantive material as I urged you to do so, material that may be implicated by what students supposedly think. You have left me with the premise that because so many students think ____ that (the conclusion) Harvard is better.

[quote]
But the trend is that better schools tend to be more selective. I'm not saying that the school is better because of being more selective, nor am I saying that the school is more selective because it's better. There's just a correlation between the two.

[/quote]

Fine, **then you have not shown at all why making Berkeley, for instance, more selective, would make it a better school.<a href="Or,%20vice%20versa,%20that%20making%20Berkeley%20less%20selective%20will%20make%20it%20a%20lesser%20school.">/b</a> I win that argument then. Thanks. Unless of course you would like to make a conclusion and provide actual, relevent evidence?

[quote]
But why do they want to transfer if the 100% acceptance rate community colleges are so good? Well, the fact is that they're not.

[/quote]

Nice try. They transfer because they want BAs and community colleges don't provide them.

[quote]
If I'm inherently biased that privates are better than publics, why do I admit that Berkeley's graduate programs and the top private schools' graduate programs are about the same in quality?

[/quote]

Sorry, let me correct myself. You have biases of private undergraduate education being better than public undergraduate ediction, not based on much justification, at least considering you haven't provided much here.</p>

<p>Your mention of Cambridge and Oxford again reveals your inability to understand the distinction of the UC system.</p>

[katsy23]

<p>I'm just curious, which of the Ivies would you pass up for Berkeley?</p>

<p>I seem to know a lot of people who would rather get in and go to an Ivy for a crappy major (as opposed to an almost equally amazing education elsewhere in something they are interested in and can get admitted into).</p>

[Allorion]

<p>
[quote]
Clearly you don't understand representative democracy. The UC is a public trust administrered by the UC Regents, who are appointed by the Governor, an elected official, and confirmed by the state Senate, composed of elected officials. Look up "public trust."

[/quote]

Oh? And does that mean that the people are that reflective of it?</p>

<p>There's a reason the Framers put into place a representative democracy, and it wasn't to make it more representative of the people. The people have little enough say in it, isolated as it is, with the regents having set terms of office, and the other regents being the governor and his staff.</p>

<p>People don't elect governors by individual UC policies.</p>

<p>And accuse ME of not understanding representative democracy? I'm sorry, but I do have to have pride come in here. You presume to accuse a WTP competitor in Unit 1, of the 2nd CA team, and one who is integrally involved in state politics and political parties of not understanding representative democracy?</p>

<p>If you want a debate about representative democracy and public trusts, bring it on. I'm afraid you don't know who you are dealing with in that aspect of knowledge.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is a slippery slope fallacy. You are making many conclusions without explaining why they are likely. You made many assumptions that require justification before I should even respond. Who said that taking in more students wouldn't also entail more professors? Are you saying that any student increase necessitates larger class sizes? Clearly that is false.

[/quote]

Of course--if we attempting to make an airtight philosophical argument. But we aren't--we are merely looking at what is most likely going to happen.</p>

<p>Tuition does not at all cover the cost of each individual student, and with the political atmosphere, are you expecting more funding from the state? If there's less funding per student, more need to spend money housing students... somehow the number of professors will increase? Fallacies are wonderful things in a logic and philosophy debate. This, however, is something applying to policies and social effects.
Merely pointing out that you cannot do a logic proof on the argument does not null it--unless, of course, you would like to decide that most social sciences, such as political science and economics is all a complete waste of time... after all, there's so many "fallacies" in those!</p>

<p>You're avoiding the issue.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Another erroneous assumption. You need quite a bit of justification to prove to me that a private institution's goal is not to make money, like any other business. You are assuming far too much without providing justification--and it isn't my job to disprove all these possiblities; the burden is on you.

[/quote]

Really now? I thought, for some reason, with so many people disagreeing with you that the burden would be on you.</p>

<p>But in any case... stereotypes usually have a basis in truth. For some reason, even though the goal of private institutions is to make money... they open more opportunities for students? Alumni networks and actually helpful career offices are nothing to scoff at. You want me to "prove" it using your logic arguments?</p>

<p>I won't bother, because it is impossible to "prove" either way, since there are no mathematical or logic relationships in career offices. You're taking the concept of logos and using it as a paper shield to avoid points of contension.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You continue to come to conclusions without any justification.

[/quote]

Ahem:

[quote]
UC ITSELF IS POLITICAL IN THE SENSE THAT THE CITIZENS OWN IT!!! And that concept is ********. Taking more students IMPROVES a public university that has as its purpose to provide a good education to as many citizens as possible. I don't buy your "best talent leaving" idea either. Not all students simply judge a school by how many people it rejects--not to mention, increasing the applicant base would keep the admissions numbers the same while still providing a good education to more citizens.

[/quote]

If I might offer... hypocrite?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I see that you are continually making points about name reputation being important, so what? You must not have understood at all what I was claiming in my posts.

[/quote]

And I contend against your amorphous idea that somehow the university is "serving the people of California" by going in the direction that you say it should.</p>

<p>To better serve the people of California is to create university that has a large name, because as in business, prestige is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. Prestige attracts funding, funding allows for greater improvements and hiring of more professors, such improvements attract the best students, and so on and so forth.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In the particular areas that were brought up, yes, the "problems" were more a result of mischaracterizing the UC, a public university system, as a private system. Comparisons were made that were not relevant; conclusions were formed around false premises that fundamentally misunderstood the core differences between UC and privates. I have explained my reasoning for this in the previous posts.

[/quote]

Really now? So instead Berkeley shouldn't spend so much money and effort contending against the top private institutions and should instead be competing against other public institutions?</p>

<p>It shouldn't be striving to offer the best education and resources possible to motivated California students who might not be willing to or have the means to attend a private university? It should instead rest its laurels on being the best public institution?</p>

<p>Somehow, I don't think that is quite as noble a goal.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sorry, let me correct myself. You have biases of private undergraduate education being better than public undergraduate ediction, not based on much justification, at least considering you haven't provided much here.

[/quote]

You can't prove that logically, for one, thus it is a fallacy... however, using such methodology, as I said, is pointless in our situation.</p>

<p>Besides, does he? It is a useful thing to call your opponent biased... politically and in an argument an excellent choice, actually... however, it can just as easily be said you are biased towards public institutions. And it also begs the question--why is it necessarily that is he biased, not that he recognizes something that you do not?</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>
[quote]
Same error as Allorian. More students in no way necessitates "bigger classes, less personal attention and longer lines"; never did I say more students but no increase in accommodations, no increase in professors, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, you could increase accomodations, professors, amentities, etc., but from the way that the UC budget has been repeated slashed in the past few years, I'm going to say that that is not going to happen any time soon.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/uc2025/funding.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/uc2025/funding.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Since 1970, the portion of the state General Fund going to the University of California has fallen by half, from 7% to 3.5%. Over the first four years of the 2000s alone, UC's state funding fell by 15% while the University was accommodating a 19% increase in student enrollment."</p>

<p>The reality is, if the UCs are going to take in more and more students, the situation will probably get worse, not better. The class sizes will probably get larger, not smaller.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You just contradicted yourself. It doesn't matter if it is only one part of a much larger argument; using that premise in your argument constitutes a fallacy. Further, you haven't presented any substantive material as I urged you to do so, material that may be implicated by what students supposedly think.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How does using that premise constitute a fallacy? All I am saying is that I think most Berkeley and Harvard students would rather be at Harvard than Berkeley. Is that fallacious? I also said that I believe this is a good indication that Harvard offers a better education (undergrad, at least) than Berkeley's. This is based on the logic that prospective students are rational beings, with some knowledge of the two schools, and that since the demand for Harvard is so much higher than the demand for Berkeley, one can only conclude that part of the reason for that is that the quality of the product is higher. Higher quality product leads to more demand. Did I say that higher demand for Harvard automatically means Harvard is better? No. I'm saying it's a good indication that Harvard is probably better. That's not a logic fallacy; that is just logic.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Fine, then you have not shown at all why making Berkeley, for instance, more selective, would make it a better school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't say that making Berkeley more selective would make a it a better school. I just said that better schools tend to be more selective. </p>

<p>However while I am on this topic, I do think that if Berkeley were more selective that would indirectly make the undergraduate education at Berkeley better. Why? Because if Berkeley were more selective, it could admit a stronger class. If Berkeley only has to admit, for example, 70% of what it has to admit now, that means Berkeley could effectively cut out the bottom 30% of the student body at Berkeley. That means that the average student at Berkeley is stronger, and that the student body, on average, is stronger. What does this have to do with the education at Berkeley? Well, at college, you tend to learn a lot from others, through discussions in the classroom and out. If you're surrounded with dumb students who do nothing but waste the professor's time in class with dumb questions, then you're probably not going ot learn much. If you're surrounded by smart students, who provide valuable insights in class, then you're going to learn more.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Nice try. They transfer because they want BAs and community colleges don't provide them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay you're right. But why don't they just transfer to a Cal State? They can get a BA there too. The fact is that the strongest students out of CCs generally transfer to Berkeley and UCLA, then the pretty strong ones transfer to the lower UCs, and so on. The top students tend to go for the better, and more selective colleges. In fact, I suspect that these transfers would have chosen the UC rather than the 100% acceptance rate CC as a freshman year, but for some reason they couldn't, whether it's because of money, location, or just the fact that they didn't get in.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You have biases of private undergraduate education being better than public undergraduate ediction, not based on much justification, at least considering you haven't provided much here.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay, then why do I say that Cambridge and Oxford undergrad (which are public) are probably better than any private undergrad in England? If I really have the bias that private undergrad is better than public undergrad, then I wouldn't say that, would I?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your mention of Cambridge and Oxford again reveals your inability to understand the distinction of the UC system.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not saying that they are the same. Far from it. But you accused me of being biased against public schools. I simply used to Cambridge and Oxford to show that I am in fact, not biased against public schools. There are some who I think really are biased against public schools. For example, I know of a girl who loves Stanford. When she found out that I'm going to Berkeley she said this: "Oh...good job. But I would never go to a public school." I am trying to change this perception, because I actually don't think public schools are inherently worse. Just look at Berkeley grad, or Oxford and Cambridge, or Berkeley undergrad in the 60s. What I do think, is that the current top public universities in America are not as good as the top private universities, not because they are public, but because well...that's just the way it is right now. However, I believe that the public schools, especially Berkeley, can get better, and I want to see them get better. But first we have to admit that they need to get better.</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>
[quote]
I think the fact that tens of thousands of prospective students prefer Harvard over Berkeley is a good indication that it is, in fact, a better school. If Harvard is in fact a worse school than Berkeley, why would tens of thousands of students rather go there?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While this may be true for undergrads, have you considered how it functions for grad school? Let me be the first to tell you that Berkeley for grad school is the most common choice for Harvard undergrads. They reject Harvard to go to Berkeley. Those who don't get into Berkeley have to "settle" for HYPSMC. Why do these students want to get to Berkeley? Because they realize that Berkeley's research and faculty are, as a whole, truly the best in the world-making it the best "school." These are informed individuals and they clearly prefer Berkeley over Harvard. So, please, if you're discussing undergraduate education, do not use the term "school." As made clear by Harvard undergrads, Berkeley is clearly the "better school." </p>

<p>
[quote]
Are they just all blinded by prestige?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes. Getting into Harvard as a high schooler is like getting into Hogwarts as a Muggle. You have no idea what you're getting other than that it's famous and cool. That's gotta count for something, right?</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>I think I have stated several times that I am talking about undergrad, and that the grad school at Berkeley is superb, comparable to Harvard, Stanford, and the rest. However, it is painstaking to type "undergraduate school" every single time. I think it was pretty clear from my previous posts that I was talking about undergrad.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes. Getting into Harvard as a high schooler is like getting into Hogwarts as a Muggle. You have no idea what you're getting other than that it's famous and cool. That's gotta count for something, right?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course it counts for something. It counts for a lot. But I was arguing that more people choose Harvard over Berkeley because it's a better school (for undergraduates, at least). If Berkeley really were a better school, I don't think the name alone could convince tens of thousands of students otherwise. So while it counts for a lot, you must admit that part of the reason why most students prefer Harvard is simply because it's a better school (for undergraduates, at least).</p>

[sansai]

<p>
[quote]
eiffelguy87
Senior Member</p>

<p>Of course the other UC's wouldn't carry an international reputation. In all your discussion about the UC's, you've neglected their purpose, their duty to California. To improve UC's image abroad and at home, one must understand the University of California: it's history, it's purpose, and it's State.</p>

<p>The UC's that have built a reputation have done so because they focused on serving California, and a by product included reputation and prestige. UCSD gained its fame for the Scripps Institute, one of the leading world institutes for oceanography. UC Berkeley contributed to the sciences (e.g. the early enrichment of uranium by the use of calutron invented by E. Lawrence to buold the Hiroshima bomb). UCLA has established itself as a leading medical institute on the west coast.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>QUESTION: If the UC has this legislative role to serve the citizen of Cali by providing them the best education possible ... why then the best and brightest cali citizens are NOT attending UC colleges? I'm NOT saying that those who go to UC are not smart but it is very clear the cr</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>I think it's because there are simply better options, such as HYPSM. At the undergraduate level, Berkeley simply isn't as good. This is partly due to the fact that Berkeley is also trying to provide the best education possible to "as many Californians as possible." This results in stretched funds, larger classes, etc. But actually, I think there are many other reasons why Berkeley is lagging behind these other schools, mainly stemming from inefficient allocation of resources and administration. For example, people have to apply to their major, and often have trouble switching majors. Berkeley can and should do something about this.</p>

[DRab]

<p>vicissitudes, you really are starting to sound like sakky, from arguments and examples to diction. Did you become his apprentice?</p>

<p>Have you guys defined what makes a school better yet? I see some talk of small class sizes, but Harvard has its share of large lecture courses, like Berkeley does. Is small classes a thing that makes a university great, or at least small classes would make Berkeley better? Define your "better" as it is different from other people's definitions, or stop wasting your time using the word and associated ideas (improving, ect).</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>I know..............but look at what Allorion typed!</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you want a debate about representative democracy and public trusts, bring it on. I'm afraid you don't know who you are dealing with in that aspect of knowledge.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>He sounds like sakky too.</p>

<p>I read his posts a lot...it has that kind of effect.</p>

<p>Anyway, you know that it's hard to define what makes a school good using a limited number of criteria. But I think there are definitely things a school can do to make itself better, things which have been brought up many times on this thread so I don't want to keep repeating them.</p>

[DRab]

<p>Yes, Allorion at times also sounds like a sakky, jr. as well.</p>

<p>Just define it once explicitly and refer back to it- make it post 96, and just keep refering to it.</p>

[sansai]

<p>vicissitudes,</p>

<p>If your bases is endownment and selection criteria, what made you think that Berkeley's undergrad is poor compared to Harvard and Stanford while it's grad school is comparable etc, etc... </p>

<p>I don't get it. Is there a separation of system/approach for undergrad and grad school at Berkeley?</p>

[sansai]

<p>
[quote]
vicissitudes
Member</p>

<p>I think it's because there are simply better options, such as HYPSM. At the undergraduate level, Berkeley simply isn't as good. This is partly due to the fact that Berkeley is also trying to provide the best education possible to "as many Californians as possible." **This results in stretched funds, larger classes, etc. **But actually, I think there are many other reasons why Berkeley is lagging behind these other schools, mainly stemming from inefficient allocation of resources and administration. For example, people have to apply to their major, and often have trouble switching majors. Berkeley can and should do something about this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What is the average class size at Berkeley and how big the difference is from Harvard and Stanford?</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>
[quote]
Of course it counts for something. It counts for a lot. But I was arguing that more people choose Harvard over Berkeley because it's a better school (for undergraduates, at least).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not too sure about this. As a Berkeley undergraduate student, I have many friends in Berkeley's grad schools who graduated from Harvard College. Their assessment? Harvard undergraduate education "sucks." The way they make it sound-Harvard College is essentially a big rat race to get professors' attention. Now, since profs "pretty much know" that they're dealing with "the smartest group of 17-24 year olds on the planet," they will often make themselves unavailable. Getting a personal attention (essential for good recommendations) at Harvard is one of the biggest hassles a student can go through, it seems. Harvard students, according to my grad school friends, not only have to be brilliant but they have to sabotage their peers. This can involve anything from misshelving prof-assigned library books to spilling drinks on a dormmates' homework. This rarely happens at Berkeley. My conclusion from these anecdotes has been that, in essense, Berkley's faculty, as a whole, has the "Harvard brains" without the attitude. Since this faculty is accessible to all Berkeley undergrad who seek them out-I'm not too sure if Harvard offers the best undergrad "education." What it DOES provide is the best opportunities for it's undergrads-since the Harvard name opens many doors.</p>

<p>If you take a look at <a href="http://www.ratemyprofessor.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.ratemyprofessor.com&lt;/a>, you'll notice that the number of "happy faces" is disproportionally higher at Berkeley than it is at Harvard. This tells us that out of those students who choose to publically laud and/or belittle their profs, undergraduate students at Berkeley are disproportionally happier with their professors than students at Harvard. I think this is a direct measure of just which school offers the best undergraduate "education."</p>

<p>
[quote]
you must admit that part of the reason why most students prefer Harvard is simply because it's a better school (for undergraduates, at least.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No. High-achieving highschoolers are misguided young people who PERCEIVE that Harvard is a better school than Berkeley. Why? Mainly because the history of many of America's greatest leaders and innovators is tied to Harvard. And it's tough to find a Harvard applicant who doesn't want to make it into the history books. Berkeley just doesn't have that. Harvard has a two-century head start on Berkeley which it used to build a reputation in the early chapters of American history. Founded in 1868, Berkeley did not begin to attract a phenomenal faculty in most fields until the early 1900s. This was more than enough time for Harvard to become a part of American mythology. And we all know that mythology is to a large extent built on lies, not fact. Once again, this is proven by the hordes of Harvard undergrads in the present-day who want to get OUT of Harvard and INTO Berkeley.</p>

[sansai]

<p>
[quote]
DRab
Senior Member</p>

<p>vicissitudes, you really are starting to sound like sakky, from arguments and examples to diction. Did you become his apprentice?</p>

<p>Have you guys defined what makes a school better yet? I see some talk of small class sizes, but Harvard has its share of large lecture courses, like Berkeley does. Is small classes a thing that makes a university great, or at least small classes would make Berkeley better? Define your "better" as it is different from other people's definitions, or stop wasting your time using the word and associated ideas (improving, ect).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm interestedto know this as well. but wait a second, have we all come to an agreement that changingof the name is not really the best way? Of course, changes in internal policies, improvement of curricula, services, etc. can also be implemented even when the school has changed its nname. Most of the time, drastic moves are only taken when new names are launched.</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>Fine. I'll try to list some things Berkeley could do better.</p>

<ol>
<li>Something should be done about the impacted majors. At many top schools you can free choose majors but at Berkeley this is not the case. You have to apply for your major, and you may not get in. It's difficult to change majors. If someone in engineering does poorly and decides he wants to go do a different major, it's hard for him to apply to that major because he has such a low GPA now. The poor guy is stuck in something he doesn't want to do.</li>
</ol>

<p>Or, take another guy. He is admitted into the college of L&S, and gets okay grades, and decides he want to become an engineer. Well, he has to apply to transfer to the college of engineering, and apply for the engineering major, and he may not get it.</p>

<p>The least Berkeley could do is just let these two guys switch places, but now they're both worse off.</p>

<p>Take a school like Cornell: it's similar in that it's a large school, some parts state-funded, and it has many colleges. However, transferring from college to college is relatively easy, where in Berkeley's case it is sometimes difficult. I mean, you have to apply to Haas just to be a business major, and about 50% are rejected, forcing them to major in something they don't want to major in.</p>

<p>If impacted majors are in such high demand, just take more funding and make more space, and take away some funding that's going to some "easy" majors in which students do very little in terms of studying and going to class.</p>

<ol>
<li>The impersonal attitude. Why does Berkeley have it? I don't really understand this. For example, when I called someone at Cornell about financial aid she was very nice about it, but when I called the Berkeley financial aid office, I was told that I would have to be put on hold for 8 minutes, ended up waiting for 30, and got back a perfunctory response. I was trying to explain my situation and she just said "yeah yeah, get to the point." Was that attitude really necessary? It really makes students feel like the administration at Berkeley simply don't care about them.</li>
</ol>

<p>The beaucracy is kind of a mess. I've heard of people complaining about how much paperwork it takes to apply for studying abroad, and how it's easier to do that at other colleges. Why does Berkeley have to make things so difficult for students? I was reading some old threads, and I came across one of GentlemanandScholar, a long time defender of Berkeley on the boards, complain about the beaucracy at Cal. Berkeley should do something about this.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>This is one thing that has really bothered me about Berkeley, and that is the lack of a 24 hour library. Libraries, with the exception of finals week, are only open until two at the latest. Honestly USC was starting to look pretty good to me because it had a library that was open 24/6. In fact, I think I heard somewhere library hours used to be longer before there were funding cuts. I suspect that this is something Berkeley probably can't do much about, but it's something can be improved.</p></li>
<li><p>Berkeley has been taking in more and more students while funding has been repeatedly cut. Some posters have mentioned that Berkeley should simply put some of the students to other UCs that are under capacity, such as UC Merced. I think UCSB and UCD (or some other UCs) were accepting applications past the application deadline date because they needed more students to fill the class.</p></li>
<li><p>Offer more perks for regent scholars. I've seen many people get into Berkeley with regents, but decided to go somewhere else. If they are regent scholars it's likely that they were also accepted to another top school, so Berkeley needs to give them more incentives to come. I've heard of regent scholars complain that they get 1,000 - 2,000, while UCLA is much more generous with them. Also, other than scholarship, regent scholars don't get many other benefits. How about guaranteed spot at their selected major? Or extended library hours? Or something that can convince them to go to Berkeley? Because many of them now are choosing to go to other schools, and Berkeley is losing its top candidates.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>These are just some of the things I thought of off the top of my head.</p>