How do you like Berkeley?

sakky · November 19, 2007, 2:46pm

[quote]
It's fine to have a different opinion -- I never said you couldn't, so I don't know why you just spent paragraphs on that -- but you consistently derail threads (I've seen it ever since I started here on CC) with the same drivel comparing Berkeley to top privates

[/quote]

I think you should bear in mind that I wasn't the one who started the comparison between Berkeley and the private schools. Cawaiigirl did that. So if you don't like this tangent, then perhaps you should ask her why she brought it up.

[quote]
don't think that many-page debates on how crappy Berkeley can be is an interesting (or even vaguely pertinent) tangent in a discussion that simply asks, "How do you like Berkeley?" especially when there are plenty of other discussions on it.

[/quote]

If you don't think it is interesting or pertinent, then don't read it! Again, nobody is forcing you. Nobody has a gun to your head.

But let the people who want to read about it be allowed to so do. Seems to me that at least 2 people (Jhg888 and kuiter wolf) are interested in the tangent enough to walk to continue talking about it, and I would imagine that there are probably some other people who are interested in reading about the topic (but just not replying to it).

[quote]
And can you point out where I said you couldn't post? No, you can't, because I never said it.

[/quote]

Oh? You never did? So what's this quote I see in post #35?

*"...Or we can ask you to stop clogging up the threads with your endless bantering about the Berkeley administration et al (which you seem to do often). " *

So if that is not a demand that I stop posting, then, pray tell, what exactly is it? I know what you might say - you will say that I can post, but only regarding topics that YOU deem appropriate. But that begs the same question I asked before - what gives you the right to tell others what they can and cannot post about?

Bottom line, kyledavid80, if you don't like my posts, then don't read them. I am not asking you to read them. Every time you see that a post is authored by me, you can feel free to skip right over it.

UCBChemEGrad · November 19, 2007, 2:57pm

^ That's relatively easy to do, because they're normally the longest. ;)

sakky · November 19, 2007, 3:30pm

[quote]
you seem to suggest that the administration of Berkeley is flawed because they do not accommodate the tax-paying public-- because they are selective in their admissions and thus inadvertently screen out a portion of tax-payers. You might be right, but I don't see this as a mistake on the part of the UC administration. After all, UCB IS meant to be a selective institution that provides the tools and education necessary for those students showing the most potential to succeed.

[/quote]

I never said it was a 'mistake' or a 'flaw' on the part of the administration. I think you are correct: that the administration is doing exactly what they are setting out to do when they set high admissions standards that serve to reject the vast majority of applicants.

I am simply saying that what Berkeley is doing is not consonant with the purported mission of public schools that has been advanced here, which is that public schools serve the taxpaying public. In the case of Berkeley, what is far more accurate to say is that Berkeley serves only the tiny fraction of the taxpaying public that can get admitted. The vast majority of California taxpayers will never get to go to Berkeley. Hence, they are paying taxes for an institution that they will never get to use.

[quote]
The rest of the UC system is in place for other students of varying caliber, and the state does a damn good job with the UC system in providing top notch education for the public

[/quote]

Again, it's not really 'the public' we are talking about when we talk about who the UC system serves. Only the top X% of Californian graduating high school seniors are even UC-eligible. Most Californians do not fall in that category. And then of course there are all those Californians who don't even graduate from high school (of which there are many). Clearly they are also not eligible for UC.

Like I said, the one system that could be said to truly serve all of the public is the community college system. Any taxpayer, even if he hadn't even graduated from high school, can still access that system. The UC's and even the CSU's, by design, serve only small subsets of the public. I don't think it is a mistake - rather, it is probably by design - but I am saying that, either way, it is it is a central feature of those system.

[quote]
I don't contest your logical deduction that there may be an over representation of medium-high income students at UC Berkeley (I don't have data either way), but given that its true, I don't think its fair to criticize Berkeley for the phenomenon. Berkeley, as a public institution, can only rely on merit when determining their admissions, and socioeconomic issues are too far beyond the scope of what is relevant in these admissions.

[/quote]

That's exactly what I said.

[quote]
Plus, your statements about Stanford's exclusivity seem to contradict your argument that Berkeley is unaccommodating to the poor. I mean, you just said Berkeley is far more accessible to poor people, just not as accessible as you feel it should be.

[/quote]

Uh, I don't see the contradiction. What I said (and you agree) is that merit and socioeconomic class are highly correlated. Both Stanford and Berkeley are highly merit-driven. That also means that both of them also tend to admit richer people.

The main difference is that Stanford is *more selective<a href="at%20the%20undergrad%20level">/i</a> than is Berkeley. Hence, that fact alone would dictate that Stanford is less accessible to a lot of the poor.

But, as I said, it's not the ENTIRE population of the poor that is the key population here. {After all, Berkeley rejects most poor people too, simply because Berkeley rejects MOST people, rich or poor, and the only institution that could be said to serve all of the poor is the community college system.} Rather, the key population here is those poor people who are good enough to get into Stanford and Berkeley. For those people, I am arguing that Stanford may actually be the better choice, principally because of Stanford's impressive financial aid system.

The point is, I don't think that Berkeley deserves "credit" just for having lower admissions standards and therefore picking up more poor people for that reason alone. After all, if you want to follow that logic, then you should give even more credit to the community college system for admitting ALL of the poor (because they admit everybody). The Berkeley graduate programs should also be subject to withering criticism for being supremely selective and therefore admitting far fewer poor people than does the undergrad program.

[quote]
Perhaps Berkeley could offer the same financial services to excellent students from poor families if it were to admit less students, become more exclusive, and intensify admission criteria? Then it'd be very much less a public institution.

[/quote]

Why is that necessarily so? Again, I would point to the Berkeley graduate programs, which are all public, yet are extrordinarily selective, in some cases such as some of the PhD programs, even more selective than those of the private schools.

I could also think of the military academies. All public, all extremely selective, all provide full scholarships & stipends to all of their students. I know a lot of people who wanted to attend a military academy but didn't get in. Now, obviously, the military academies have a special mission. Nevertheless, the point is, I don't necessarily that that high exclusivity & excellent financial support is necessarily misaligned with a public mission.

[quote]
And what about for the rest of us in the middle class? What about the vast majority of the state population that is poor-but-not-quite? A family making an income of $60,000 in the bay area could very easily find UC tuition costs beyond their capabilities, let alone a private school!

[/quote]

First off, even I very strongly suspect that a family making $60,000 would probably find a top private school like Stanford to be a very good financial deal, and clearly a school like Harvard to be a killer deal. Harvard's threshold for full financial aid is $60k. If you're under that threshold, then Harvard doesn't demand any parental tuition contribution. Stanford's offer for those families is not quite as generous, but is still very good. In fact, I would argue that for such a family, the costs to go to Stanford are probably about the same as the costs to go to UC. {But I don't have any hard data on that, so if somebody from such a financial background has a Stanford aid package to report, please do so.}

Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "Well, what if you're just not good enough to get into Harvard or Stanford"? Well, then we're talking about a different ballgame then. Sure, I agree that UC serves a lot of students who just aren't good enough to get into one of the top private schools. But now we're talking about different populations. Just like the community colleges educate a lot of people who just aren't good enough to get into UC. Again, different populations.

sakky · November 19, 2007, 4:08pm

[quote]
Let's start with the third topic. Your last post examines- and dedicates a few paragraphs, I might add- to a few statements I made that were admittedly speculative in nature. The truth of the matter is, I'm not a grad student and claim no knowledge of graduate school admissions. Besides, does it really serve our purposes to consider graduate education independently of the university at large? (Which serves mostly undergraduate students- by far a larger source of revenue for the university- and thus really a restatement of our second topic.) In my book, this nonexistent case is closed

[/quote]

The case is completely open in my mind. Why? Because the Berkeley graduate programs are public programs. They all take money from the taxpayers. Yet graduate admissions are run quite differently from the undergrad admissions.

I keep dragging in the graduate programs to illustrate a simple point. The graduate programs are living proof that you can run public admissions in a different way. You can be extremely selective - just as selective as the top private schools - and still be public. The Berkeley PhD programs do so every year. There is no necessarily conflict between these 2 concepts.

The salient question is then: if the graduate programs can do that, why can't the undergrad program?

[quote]
You can blame the higher admissions standards of Stanford University or some apparent correlation between income levels and intelligence for this, but from my point of view, the difference between a tuition of $8,400 and $35,800 is a BIG, FAT REASON.

[/quote]

And I would argue that Stanford's published commitment to full financial support to ANY family who makes less than a certain threshold is a BIG FAT REASON why plenty of poor people are now interested in the top private schools, and in fact, probably more interested in them than in Berkeley. After all, Berkeley refuses to make the same commitment.

Let me give you a story. I know 2 guys who are from California and who got admitted to both Berkeley and Harvard, and found out Harvard was actually cheaper once financial aid was factored in. I will always remember one of them mordantly joking that he had always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so he had "no choice" but to go to Harvard.

[quote]
I say compare the income levels of Berkeley students with those of any other elite school, and let the numbers speak for themselves. (Honestly, what better way to resolve this issue once and for all?)

[/quote]

But again, we would have to use the statistical controlling factor of admissions standards. No doubt, Berkeley serves more poor undergrads than Stanford does, simply because Berkeley is less selective. Just like the community colleges serves far more poor students than does Berkeley, because the community colleges are even less selective.

A fair comparison would be to look at the incomes of those Berkeley students who are actually good enough to get into Stanford. THAT would be a fair study. Unfortunately, I don't know of any easy way to run this study, for I know of no way to obtain honest answers of which Berkeley student was actually good enough to get into Stanford, but just decided not to go to or didn't even apply to Stanford for whatever reason.

[quote]
Finally, we have made it to our, hehe, first topic: The complexities of administering a college dependent on public funding. This discussion seems to get further and further off-topic with every additional posting; it has now transformed into a debate over whether or not Stanford was a "regional backwater school" in the early 20th century. I still have my reasons for disagreeing with you here, but it's beside the point. Even if Stanford was initially financed with trinkets and seashells, it always had the fiscal liberty to succeed; Berkeley, by contrast, has always depended upon public money, which brings exceptional levels of scrutiny whenever it is spent or invested, particularly in risky (but potentially lucrative) ventures. In this case, comparing Stanford to Berkeley is like comparing apples to oranges.

[/quote]

And to this, again, I would have to bring in what you call point #1, the graduate programs. Essentially there is little practical difference between the way that the Berkeley PhD programs and the Stanford PhD programs are run. They are comparably selective (and in many cases, the Berkeley programs are MORE selective). They provide comparable funding to their students, in that all PhD students usually receive a full scholarship plus some sort of stipend (either from fellowship or TA/RA-ship). The programs are highly comparable in terms of reputation and research productivity, and in many cases, the Berkeley programs are regarded better than their Stanford counterparts.

Yet, the Berkeley PhD programs are publicly supported and presumably undergo public scrutiny. So the salient question again, why have the Berkeley PhD programs been able to compete toe-to-toe with Stanford or any other private school, but the undergrad program cannot?

bluebayou · November 19, 2007, 6:10pm

I would assume its bcos the Legislature would not let them, (bcos voters in every County care whether thier kid has a shot at being accepted to thier in-state flagship for undergrad). Sure, the Regents set policy, but the Legislature wields the checkbook, based on voter preferences. If Cal started accepting thousands of OOS and/or international kids, voters would toss out their local elected official, and/or start cutting back funding to UC. Methinks Grad admissions is just not a political isssue that voters care about.

Before becoming Mayor of LA, Antonio V was Speaker of the House and a legistlator. In his time in Sacramento, he made numerous speeches about undergrad admissions; check them out.

kyledavid80 · November 19, 2007, 6:15pm

[quote]
But that begs the same question I asked before - what gives you the right to tell others what they can and cannot post about?

[/quote]

It isn't so much a matter of telling as simply having the ability to know what's pertinent and what's not, which seems rather obvious in the OP.

student14x · November 19, 2007, 7:12pm

"The vast majority of California taxpayers will never get to go to Berkeley. Hence, they are paying taxes for an institution that they will never get to use."

Well, the purpose of the UCs( including Berkeley) is to stimulate economic growth. Just because people don't attend Berkeley doesn't mean that they don't benefit from its presence. By providing more top-notch education, they are indirect benefiting the Californian populace via more jobs, innovation, etc. Its not just economic growth. They are benefiting California in numerous other ways. Just look at how many elements they created. Berkeley was instrumental in the construction of the atom bomb. I could apply the same logic to secondary schools. Its real purpose is not to serve a specific set of individuals but rather to benefit society though its synergy. No one will attempt to dispute the fact that by withdrawing all funds to secondary schools, the national GDP will weaken. The same logic should apply to the UCs and California.

Kultur_Wolf · November 20, 2007, 5:38am

Sakky,

Given the haphazard mess this thread has become recently, I think it's in the best interests of you, me, Jhg888, bluebayou, student14x, and- to some extent- kyledavid80 and UCBChemEGrad to consolidate all the simultaneous debates currently taking place into a larger, unified Mega-Debate, with you in one corner and (seemingly) everyone else in the other. This way, you won't have to respond to each criticism individually, but rather address the crowd as a collective whole. (Admittedly, this may not be feasible in practice.)

Its difficult to pinpoint exactly what views you hold that we all seem to disagree with; it's harder to assume that we, on the other hand, are of a singular opinion. I think it's far to say that we all find fault with the way you discredit Berkeley as a public institution intended for the taxpayers of California. Inevitably, Berkeley's accommodation of low-income students relative to comparable (but private) elite universities has been a center of focus lately, though I cannot say that everyone who disagrees with you necessarily believes that Berkeley is more accommodating to your average Californian than a need-blind private school.

You maintain that UC Berkeley is not wholly subservient to the taxpaying public because A.) it is highly selective, B.) its graduate programs seem to have no preference for Californians, and C.) its admissions system is just as merit-based, perhaps less so, than any private school with generous financial aid. (Feel free to correct anything I have written up to this point that you feel is inaccurate.)

You are right to say that UC Berkeley only benefits a tiny minority of California's taxpayers. You are also right to observe that the community college system, with its open admissions policies and cheap costs, is easily more accommodating to the general public than either the UC System or the CSU System. (Of course, not even the community college system benefits all taxpayers directly, but rather, only those who chose to utilize the education at any given time.) But the question that needs to be asked here is this: "Are less selective schools more accommodating to the general public than selective ones?" The answer seems simple at first, but consider this: Santa Clara University, another private school located in the South Bay, has much lower admissions standards than Berkeley, but manages to be less socio-economically diverse than Stanford. This comparison may seem unfair- after all, Cal is public and SCU is private- but this further illustrates my point that taxpayer accommodation is not defined by inclusiveness, but rather, financial incentives for Californians. (Either way, the community college system is still #1 because it is inexpensive.)

In regard to the perceived inconsistency of UC Berkeley's graduate admissions policies, again, I can't say I am qualified to argue with you here, although I do think bluebayou makes an excellent point in his latest post when he says "voters in every county care about whether their kid has a shot at being accepted to their in-state flagship for undergrad... grad admissions is just not a political issue that voters care about." (For criticisms regarding the actual possibility of undergraduate admission, read the paragraphs above and below.) While the demand for college education has skyrocketed in recent decades, the percentage of Americans who make it all the way to grad school remains relatively slim, possibly insignificant to California legislators. Of course, that doesn't rule out future change, perhaps in our lifetimes.

Lastly, we're forced to ask ourselves if UC Berkeley is really taxpayer-friendly when many of its elite peers are need-blind, or have generous financial aid programs. Despite these incentives, more low-income students attend UC Berkeley, with lower admissions standards as the alleged cause of this phenomenon. This may be partially true, but adherents of this view must also assume that intelligence and wealth are inherently correlated. It's not an illogical argument and certainly nothing new, but within the ideally egalitarian framework of need-blind college admissions, it's just plain naive to hold that richer students are simply more deserving of a private education.

powergrid1990 · November 20, 2007, 9:22am

Sakky, this thread is about "How do you like Berkeley?" not how do you hate Berkeley or how do you think would Berkeley improve... I don't think that's so hard to understand. Nonetheless, some of your points are good. I just don't think they're appropriate in this specific thread. If anything, they're spoiling this thread, and you're old eough to notice that that's coming.

On topic:
The name -- UC Berkeley -- is a globally famous university name and only a handful universities can claim such.

vc08 · November 20, 2007, 1:43pm

I love Berkeley. People in every state get screwed on taxes, so with that in mind, it suddenly becomes an even playing field again...and...let's see....yup, Cal is still at the top.

yayarea510 · November 20, 2007, 5:33pm

except for the fact that im stressing out everyday with homework, i love it here

UCBChemEGrad · November 20, 2007, 5:38pm

^ Is the "yay" area a relatively new term? I never heard that one before...

CH3CH2OH · November 20, 2007, 6:02pm

^That term's been around for ages. If you don't listen to mainstream hiphop then I'm not surprised you've never heard it.

And *** are all these long-winded paragraphs? To answer the original question, I like Berkeley. The classes are a lot more difficult than my community college, but it's not like I'm drowning in homework and reading. I have a reasonable amount of free time. People are nice here including my GSIs.

UCBChemEGrad · November 20, 2007, 6:04pm

Nope, hiphop definitely isn't in my iPod...

Thanks, ethanol!

sakky · November 20, 2007, 8:18pm

[quote]
I would assume its bcos the Legislature would not let them, (bcos voters in every County care whether thier kid has a shot at being accepted to thier in-state flagship for undergrad). Sure, the Regents set policy, but the Legislature wields the checkbook, based on voter preferences. If Cal started accepting thousands of OOS and/or international kids, voters would toss out their local elected official, and/or start cutting back funding to UC. Methinks Grad admissions is just not a political isssue that voters care about

[/quote]

I think you're exactly right, and in fact, this is precisely what I and others had come up with ourselves on old threads (which you could search for).

But it still leaves a salient question of why don't voters care more about graduate admissions? After all, admissions to top graduate programs are even more competitive than are undergrad admissions. They are probably also more important to the general economic and certainly intellectual/cultural development of the state. For example, somebody who obtains a PhD in engineering is far more likely to produce beneficial technological or academic spillover effectsfrom his research than is somebody with just a bachelor's degree in engineering who is probably going to just end up as a regular line engineer at a company. Hence, if anything, the state government (and by extension, the voters), should actually care more about graduate programs than undergrad programs, not less.

I agree that, for whatever reason, it doesn't happen. But why not?

sakky · November 20, 2007, 8:21pm

[quote]
It isn't so much a matter of telling as simply having the ability to know what's pertinent and what's not, which seems rather obvious in the OP.

[/quote]

Well, I don't know about that. You said it yourself - numerous threads on CC head off on tangents because participants want to talk about other things or want explication on certain details. I see nothing wrong with that. If you don't want to participate in a particular topic tangent, you are free to not do so. Nobody's forcing you. I certainly don't participate in the vast majority of topics raised on CC.

sakky · November 20, 2007, 8:32pm

[quote]
Well, the purpose of the UCs( including Berkeley) is to stimulate economic growth. Just because people don't attend Berkeley doesn't mean that they don't benefit from its presence. By providing more top-notch education, they are indirect benefiting the Californian populace via more jobs, innovation, etc. Its not just economic growth. They are benefiting California in numerous other ways. Just look at how many elements they created. Berkeley was instrumental in the construction of the atom bomb. I could apply the same logic to secondary schools. Its real purpose is not to serve a specific set of individuals but rather to benefit society though its synergy. No one will attempt to dispute the fact that by withdrawing all funds to secondary schools, the national GDP will weaken. The same logic should apply to the UCs and California.

[/quote]

I've heard this same argument before, and it is actually a faulty argument because it is one that serves to bolster the case for support of ALL schools, not just public schools.

Let's face it. Private schools also provide immense regional economic benefits. For example, you simply cannot talk about the development of Silicon Valley without giving due credit to the contributions of Stanford. Stanford has been the key research and educational driving force of the Silicon Valley technology dynamo for several generations now. Similarly, much of the scientific and technology base of Southern California was fostered by Caltech.

In other words, the argument that education benefits society is not an argument for the financial support of public schools, but rather, is an argument fro the financial support of ALL schools, public or private. For example, if the state of California were to have provided taxpayer subsidies to Stanford, then Silicon Valley might be an even stronger innovative force than it is today.

Let me also posit a somewhat different case. What if I am a California resident who has paying taxes into California all this time, and I intend to get my college education in California and then stay in California to work. But I want to go to Stanford. Why shouldn't I get a taxpayer subsidy on my tuition? After all, I am going to stay in California post-graduation, and hence I am going to benefit the California economy via my improved human capital. Maybe I will use my Stanford education to start some highly successful tech companies or invent some new technology that will greatly benefit the state. Hence, if the purpose of tax subsidies is to benefit the economy, then there is no reason why I shouldn't get the subsidy just because I want to go to Stanford. Why should I get the subsidy only if I go to Berkeley? It's not like Berkeley produces economic benefits and Stanford doesn't. They both produce economic benefits.

sakky · November 20, 2007, 9:21pm

[quote]
I think it's far to say that we all find fault with the way you discredit Berkeley as a public institution intended for the taxpayers of California

[/quote]

First off, I don't "discredit" Berkeley as a public institution.

I am simply saying that the arguments that serve as the institutional basis for a public university like Berkeley are inconsistent. For example, if the true goal is to serve the taxpayers, then you should actually be serving the taxpayers, as in ALL the taxpayers, not just a certain subset of taxpayers. The community colleges can claim to serve all the taxpayers. Berkeley certainly cannot. Again, not every taxpayer who wants to attend Berkeley is allowed.

I am not saying that that's bad. In fact, I actually think that it's good. But that's irrelevent at this point in time. What I am simply saying that we have to admit the truth to ourselves that Berkeley can no longer really be said to be serving the taxpayers. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different issue. But we at least have to come to terms with the truth.

[quote]
This comparison may seem unfair- after all, Cal is public and SCU is private- but this further illustrates my point that taxpayer accommodation is not defined by inclusiveness, but rather, financial incentives for Californians. (Either way, the community college system is still #1 because it is inexpensive.)

[/quote]

You are correct, but I think what you are saying actually illustrates my point. We were talking specifically about Stanford, and hence it is proper to bring up Stanford's quite generous financial aid package that it offers to the poor. I am quite convinced that there are probably poor Californians who would find Stanford to be cheaper than Berkeley is, once financial aid is factored in. That certainly happened in the case of the 2 guys I know who went to Harvard at a lower cost than what they would have had to pay at Berkeley.

In other words, the financial aid programs of the top private schools means that those schools could actually be said to serve the most qualified poor Californians (and Americans in general) better than the public schools do. Let's face it. A superstar genius who is poor is probably going to get a killer financial deal from a top private school. Hence, these poor taxpayers are actually served better by a private school than by a public school.

Now, where I would agree with you is that the public schools serve the middle class better than do the top private schools - that middle class being defined as those who aren't poor enough to qualify for substantial financial aid, but not rich enough to not care about tuition costs. Those public schools also serve those poor students who aren't good enough to get into the top private schools. But I don't know that that's really the most rapturously heartwarming mission in the world. Imagine somebody like Robert Birgeneau saying something like: "Berkeley: Our value-add is that we cater to the middle class and the non-superstar poor!" I don't know about you, but to me, that's not exactly the most electrifying mission in the world. But it would be an accurate description of reality.

[quote]
While the demand for college education has skyrocketed in recent decades, the percentage of Americans who make it all the way to grad school remains relatively slim, possibly insignificant to California legislators. Of course, that doesn't rule out future change, perhaps in our lifetimes.

[/quote]

Well, let me put it to you this way. The percentage of Californians who actually make it to Berkeley is also very very slim, relative to the total California college-age population. Only something like 12.5% of California high school seniors are even UC-eligible, and only a subset of them choose to even apply to Berkeley. Even so, Berkeley admits only 25% of the applicants it does get (and OOS applicants are so few in number as to negligible). Hence, only a vanishingly tiny fraction of Californians will get admitted to Berkeley for undergrad.

Now, I agree that the number of graduate students at Berkeley is obviously even less. But my point is, even the tiny percentages inherent in the Berkeley undergrad program obviously did not prevent it from becoming a serious political issue.

[quote]
it's just plain naive to hold that richer students are simply more deserving of a private education.

[/quote]

Uh, when have I ever held that richer students are simply more deserving of a private education just because they're rich? As statisticians would say, correlation does not mean causation.

Specifically put, I am saying that we have an omitted variable, that being academic motivation, which mostly tends to come from your parents. If your parents value education, then that probably means that they are well educated themselves, which then probably means that they probably aren't poor. {Yes, we can all name some examples of highly educated people who are nevertheless poor, but I think we can all agree that in general, the more educated you are, the more money you tend to make. In fact, getting a better job is probably the biggest driving forces of why people get educated in the first place.} And if your parents are educated, they will probably inculcate better academic motivation into you.

Hence, it's not really the wealth that is making you a more 'worthy' student. It's the inherent academic motivation.

As a case in point, a big reason why Kobe Bryant is such a killer basketball player is because his father was former NBA player Joe Jellybean Bryant. Surely, his father taught Kobe what it takes to be a star player, and probably also contributed good genes that gave Kobe his athletic gifts and his height. As an NBA team General Manager, I don't really care why Kobe is such a killer player. I just care that he is. Sure, one could argue that Kobe was born with unfair advantages. If my father was a former NBA player, maybe I'd be a basketball superstar myself. But that doesn't matter to the GM. He is interested in getting the best players he can.

Similarly, as an admissions officer for a PhD program, I don't care *why *certain candidates are more qualified and more capable than others. I just care that some are. Maybe they are that way because their parents were college professors themselves and therefore taught them starting at a young age how to be a strong researcher and academic, and instilled the self-motivation to become a strong future researcher. All that background doesn't really matter to me. All I care about is that I am admitting the most qualified people I can. After all, most PhD adcom officers are professors in the department and so they will be stuck working with whichever graduate students they admit, so they can't really afford to admit students who aren't that good.

sakky · November 20, 2007, 9:24pm

[quote]
Sakky, this thread is about "How do you like Berkeley?" not how do you hate Berkeley or how do you think would Berkeley improve... I don't think that's so hard to understand. Nonetheless, some of your points are good. I just don't think they're appropriate in this specific thread. If anything, they're spoiling this thread, and you're old eough to notice that that's coming.

[/quote]

Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Numerous threads on CC diverge into tangents. I see nothing wrong with that. If you don't want to participate in a certain tangent, then just don't. You can pick and choose which topics you want to talk about. I certainly don't respond to or even care about the vast majority of topics that are presented on CC, whether they are part of the original thread or tangents to that thread. I just lightly skim the posts and if it is talking about something I don't care about, then I'll skip over it.

student14x · November 20, 2007, 10:31pm

"I've heard this same argument before, and it is actually a faulty argument because it is one that serves to bolster the case for support of ALL schools, not just public schools."

Well, I've never said that private schools(i.e Stanford) don't contribute to economic growth. What I am doing is simply pointing out the fact that just because one does not attend Berkeley doesn't mean that his tax money is wasted.

Thread		Replies	Views
What do you like/dislike about Berkeley? University of California - Berkeley	8	79	April 17, 2021
An overview of Berkeley: First Year Experience from a current Undergrad University of California - Berkeley	113	234	April 17, 2021
For students attending UC Berkeley: Are you liking the Cal experience? University of California - Berkeley	61	303	April 17, 2021
What do you love/hate about Berkeley? University of California - Berkeley	25	87	April 17, 2021
Life at Cal University of California - Berkeley uc-berkeley	11	50	April 16, 2021

How do you like Berkeley?

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

How do you like Berkeley?

Related topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US