<p>"Yes that is true, but YOU miss the point that many professors were dismissed after their colleagues backstabbed them."</p>
<p>Who cares? What does that have to do with me being a fascist for wanting good teachers or the claim of brainwashing you made earlier. You're drifting here, buddy.</p>
<p>First, I am not a "buddy," but a "buddess." Second, the derogatory term "fascist" is frequently used to describe someone who wants to impose their will on others. That is what Berkeley did in the 1950s and that is what it appears that you want Berkeley to do today. </p>
<p>But can someone bring back the main topic?</p>
<p>First, buddy is not gender specific, and I don't think buddess is even a word. Second, by your definition, all public officials are fascists, as they all "impose their will on others" in some form. If they implement taxes they are fascists. If they cut taxes they are fascists. If they hire or fire anyone they are fascists. Professors are fascists because they impose their will through lecture topics and grading. You have an interesting definition of the term. Very loose.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
There are many things that I would improve. I would streamline some of the bureaucracy by adding more possitions and making it easier to communicate with each other. </p>
<p>It seems that "additing more possitions" would be the opposite of "streamlining bueaucracy." Could you clarify, snugglemonster?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ten character limit.</p>
<p>Sure. There aren't enough people to take care of all the students, so you end of waiting in lines or sitting on hold for 1/2 and hour. Or you can't find someone who will explain which form to fill out or where to bring it. Or the office you need to bring it to is closed. Or someone in one department isn't communicating with another department. I would say that's a bureauracy, wouldn't you? If there were more people to help students get through some of the more complicated parts of Cal, life would be better. These are problems that I don't run into very often, but I was asked what I'd change and that's what I'd change. Anyone else like to scrutinize my post?</p>
<p>SnuggleMonster, I don't mean to make you feel attacked or anything, but I think to most people adding more people doesn't equate to streamlining a bureaucracy- in fact, they think the opposite would be the result, that more people means less streamlined. But your goal is really to make it more user-friendly? to make things easier for students?</p>
<p>Maybe my word choice wasn't great, but bureaucracy doesn't really have to do with numbers, but how the system works. So yes, adding more people would make Cal more user friendly, but it would also lessen the problems with the current bureaucracy.</p>
<p>Or just make it more efficient. Maybe if we reduce some of the beaucratic restrictions there wouldn't need to be so many departments, processes, etc.</p>
<p>You know what is seriously awesome about Berkeley's bureaucracy? That it resembles the real world!!! How can you possibly get a better preparation for being an educated adult than having to deal with bureaucracy?</p>
<p>That's true. Graduates can laugh and say "DMV? Pshhh...no problemo! I survived Berkeley." Others will be amazed as he quickly jumps from window to window, erradicating massive paperwork in minutes.</p>
<p>"You know what is seriously awesome about Berkeley's bureaucracy? That it resembles the real world!!! "</p>
<p>I really hate that argument. So what? The real world sucks and I want to postpone it as long as possible. The mess at Cal isn't all that bad, but I'd still like to see it fixed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Others will be amazed as he quickly jumps from window to window, erradicating massive paperwork in minutes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Am I correct in stating that you haven't actually been at Berkeley for a semester yet? Well, it shows. Most of the paperwork students fill is one page long. It's getting it approved that CAN be a pain. IF it is a pain, most often the student is to blame-s/he didn't fill out the FAFSA correctly, or took the wrong classes, or did bad IN those classes. In either case, there is plenty of information both on the Berkeley site and across the internet meant to keep a student from ever having any problems with the bureacracy at Berkeley. I mean, if a student can find, register, read, and post for countless hours on College Confidential, then s/he can certainly spend a few hours reading through his or her school website. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I really hate that argument. So what? The real world sucks and I want to postpone it as long as possible. The mess at Cal isn't all that bad, but I'd still like to see it fixed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well I hate to break it to you but Cal doesn't exist in a bubble. It's part of the "real world" and must exhibit some or all of of the tendencies of that world. (Particualarly because it is public.) </p>
<p>All the information most students need to know about how the bureacracy relates to them is on Bear Facts and/pr the academic department sites. If a student chooses to ignore that information/leave it to the last moment (as many do) than s/he is a weak link not only at Cal but in the "real world." If that behavior is allowed to continue-then Cal graduates won't be ready for the "real world." (In the exact same way that a recent survey found that 74% of American high school graduates don't know how to change their oil.) Isn't that the function of a university, to assure that it's graduates are ready for the harsh realities of the "real world"? If yes, then Cal is perfect as far as bureacracy is concerned.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, buddy is not gender specific, and I don't think buddess is even a word. Second, by your definition, all public officials are fascists, as they all "impose their will on others" in some form. If they implement taxes they are fascists. If they cut taxes they are fascists. If they hire or fire anyone they are fascists. Professors are fascists because they impose their will through lecture topics and grading. You have an interesting definition of the term. Very loose.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The part about the public officials is historically and politically ridiculous. MOST public officials in today's world are ELECTED. Fascism is a rejection of representative government. </p>
<p>Professors are fascist? Not really. Fascism is a radical ideology which sees things in terms of black and white. It's a "you're either with me or against me" kind of sentiment. Not so with professors, who do not FORCE students to take their class and/or come to lecture to hear the material the prof has willfully chosen to cover. I've known several people who come to class the first day and then once again on the final and ended up getting an A by learning the material at their own pace through other means. In effect, it is not necessary to follow a professor's will in order to do well on his or her tests. </p>
<p>Also, your statement fails to account for diversty. In many humanities courses I have taken at Cal, the professor begins to ask the class what they'd like to learn about. Students then vote on topics which other students have suggested for study. Clearly, that is not fascism. It's popularly elected enlightenment.</p>
<p>But let's stop talking about fascism, please. If you want to continue, please use PM. I apologize if I offended you. You're free to call me a communist pig, if you like.</p>
<p>Your first definition (which included me, for wanting good teachers):</p>
<p>"the derogatory term "fascist" is frequently used to describe someone who wants to impose their will on others."</p>
<p>I guess you've expanded your views on the term in the last couple of days, as now it seems only non elected radicals who see the world in black and white fit the definition. So, where does that leave me?
Anyway, I wont talk about fascism anymore, but if you come at me like you did before then I will certainly defend myself or my position.</p>
<p><a href="In%20the%20exact%20same%20way%20that%20a%20recent%20survey%20found%20that%2074%%20of%20American%20high%20school%20graduates%20don't%20know%20how%20to%20change%20their%20oil.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I call BS on this. Why should someone have to know how to change their oil? In economics, there's a term known as "rational ignorance." It's rational for most people not to bother learning how to change their oil, since they'll never do it anyway. Sure, it would be nice if everyone knew how, but it's by no means a mark of stupidity, laziness, or lack of preparation for the "real world." Why on earth would you care that your physician or attorney can't change automobile oil?</p>
<p>Nonetheless, greatestyen, we shouldn't be looking to make college bureaucracies LESS efficient. We should look to make them MORE efficient. I wouldn't exactly jump up and down in joy that UC bureaucracies resemble state (as in government) bureaucracies. That usually means that they're awful due to a lack of competition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Vicissitudes, I'll let sakky say if he said Cal was not "good" in UG. Your quote means nothing. As we all know, Sakky says alot, so just posting something were he DIDN'T say Cal was not good doesn't mean he didn't say it somewhere else. Whew! On to greatestyen. I'm still going to assume that you were being sarcastic, otherwise I'd lose all respect for you, because its hard not to laugh at anyone who would compare me to a facist because I want my teachers to enjoy their job. You are a silly, silly person.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have to take my quotes in context. I don't think I ever said that Cal was "not good" at UG, as a simple absolute statement. And if I did say it, then I must have misspoken. What I said (or meant to say) was that CAl was not AS good at UG as certain elite private schools. </p>
<p>It's like people saying that the Golden State Warriors suck. Actually, the Warriors are one of the best basketball teams in the world. After all, any NBA team is going to be one of the best basketball teams in the world. I am quite certain that the Warriors could whoop ass on any college basketball team, or any professional non-American basketball team. The Warriors can certainly destroy any team in the NBA Development League or the CBA. The Warriors are clearly better than those teams.</p>
<p>However, compared to the other NBA teams, let's face it, the Warriors are bad. I think even most basketball fans in the Bay Area would concede that the Warriors are bad. In fact, you will often times hear fans say that the Warriors suck. What they mean, of course, is that they suck compared to other NBA teams. If you want to compare them to teams in the CBA, then obviously they are great. </p>
<p>I can't believe I have had to explain this so many times. I don't see why it is so hard to see that any value judgments come with an inherent frame of reference. For example, when I say that the Cal football team is good, but the San Francisco 49ers are bad, I think it's clear that what is meant is that the Cal football team is good relative to other college football teams, and the 49ers are bad relative to other NFL teams. I am quite certain that if the 49ers were to play Cal, the 49ers would win easily, for the simple reason that even the worst NFL team is still almost certainly better than even the best college football team. Heck, I'm quite certain that the 49ers could still beat the college national champion UTexas Longhorns. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Um...or "make sure" could mean that they only employ teachers who enjoy their jobs. Or, better yet, they could fire people who are bad teachers! Is that fascist? Or is it too totalitarian to fire people who are bad at their job (teaching) and hire people who are good at it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now here, I completely agree with you. I don't see what is so fascist about having standards of conduct for performing work, and then firing people who don't meet that standard. After all, any organization in the world is going to fire somebody who constantly shows up late, who is lazy, who shows up to work drunk, who sexually harrasses coworkers, etc. If that is 'fascist', then every organization in the world is 'fascist'. </p>
<p>Look everybody, if I take a job with an organization, I have to understand that if I don't do my job well, I can get fired. I can't just expect to do anything I want. If I don't show up to work, I should expect to get fired. If I hand in papers that are crap, I should expect to get fired. If I don't produce results, then I should expect to get fired. If I don't like it, then I don't have to work for that organization.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I could be wrong, but the only Cal student or alum who really bashes it is Sakky.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I would dispute that I am 'bashing' Cal. In fact, I have actually defended Cal several times from some of the true bashers. </p>
<p>Secondly, if Nything, I think it's more accurate to say that I am the only one who keeps REPEATING what I am saying. There are a lot of other people here who have complained about Berkeley. People like PoliteAntigonis/CantSilenceTruth and Calkidd. The problem is that it looks like they no longer post anymore. But I do. </p>
<p>So to me is seems like a case of self-selection. The people who don't like Berkeley are often times the ones who don't post at all, or only post for a short while and then leave CC. It is the 'superfans' who seem to keep posting about Berkeley over and over again.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, I've never heard any of my friends complain about how hard it is to switch majors, yet now its the evidence dejour for why Cal UG is aweful. Where do you suppose that came from. Second
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you think I'm making it up? I would suggest you befriend one of those 50% of people who tried to get into Haas, but was rejected. Or how about some of those people who tried to get into engineering, and were rejected. Surely you're not saying that these people don't exist? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, I find his posts repetitive and boring, so for pure entertainment he gets a D.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't realize that my job was to provide entertainment. Funny, I thought the purpose of CC was to provide a wide platform for a diverse set of opinions. Since when did CC become an episode of American Idol?</p>
<p>I will vote sakky off the island.</p>
<p>My secret identity is Taylor Hicks.</p>