<p>Is UC Berkeley a microcosm of Socialism? 40,000 of the most intelligent people in the world, along with billions of dollars, and they are all so self-centered and incompetent that they can't get the toilets working. They are waiting for football to save them...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yikes... if Berkeley continues to fall, schools like Princeton, Yale, and Duke may be able to catch up!!
[/quote]
Like Berkeley, Duke chooses not to spend its money on infrastructure...except when building shiny medical research facilities. The Chapel is about the only building that has an inside that matches the outside. </p>
<p>Ruptured</a> water pipe causes dorm to flood</p>
<p>Dorm</a> maintenance frustrates students</p>
<p>Plumbing</a> woes plague Craven Quad</p>
<p>Yale was supposedly falling apart a decade ago, but they had enough money to fix things up. Few other colleges have the money to do so. U of Phoenix is a-movin' on up.</p>
<p>If you're ever in the South Bend area during the summer (and really, who isn't?), drop by the Notre Dame campus...you'll see an army of workers clearing up even the tiniest blemish on that campus.</p>
<p>ND is not burdened with the cost of maintaining massive libraries and up to date research facilities.</p>
<p>No schadenfreude. Perhaps a little upon initially reading the article as I'm loyal to an institution which has recently become competitive with Berkeley undergrad (though that's another argument for another thread). But then sadness as I'm a native Californian and thereby take pride in the fact that my state has the best higher educational system, lead by Berkeley -- nevermind how many beer cans I've had thrown at me on Tightwad Hill from those in Cal t-shirts. As a USC student, you want to see Cal athletics fail, or at the most, unfavorable admissions statistics relative to your own University's; never news that the greatest public in the land is undergoing a brain drain, unless its southward of course, and by that I don't mean their extension campus.</p>
<p>Really (and I realize this sounds hokey), it was just to spark discussion. I was curious what certain posters would have to say (Sakky), and I'm satisfying that. As to the motives of the LA Times, which to my knowledge doesn't have a history of poor objectivity or hidden agendas, I doubt they have one. Despite the dire tone of the article, it highlights buildings currently under construction on the Berkeley campus. You say that dailies have a long history of getting it wrong, but considering the LAT's prominence and prized history, I doubt the editors would let slip a biased article. Recently they had an extensive "history of CA Universities" feature which displayed Berkeley photos and factoids as prominently (if not more) as LA's own universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, CA was flush with money, not the UCs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, no. The UC's were ALSO flush with money at the time. Go through the history, and you will see that Gray Davis greatly raised the state funding of the UC's during the boom, and then whacked that funding when the state went into deficit. </p>
<p>But that's the point - whether Cal had money or not, things like maintenance still went undone. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Looks like Stanford > MIT/Harvard in that regard. I felt pretty much the whole campus was like a well-maintained giant resort.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know about that. I'm sure that Stanford also has certain departments that are poorly maintained. My brother is there, let me ask him about it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Some people would say Berkeley's model happens at expense of undergrads. May be a big fat kernel of truth in that. On the other hand, pretty much all the big research universities seem to make this same trade-off.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is definitely a lot of truth to this sentiment, and not just at Berkeley but at all research universities. But Berkeley seems to be unusually ruthless in this regard. I would say that this is a matter of revealed preferences. When Berkeley has money, it chooses to pour the bulk of it into its grad programs. Even when Berkeley doesn't have money, it still somehow manages to find a way to invest in its grad programs. I think the administration has revealed rather clearly what exactly it prefers to do.</p>
<p>To the MegaStud: You posted this 'cause you are concerned as a Californian and because you wanted to see how Sakky would reply? That doesn't make sense to me. I call ******** on you. A lot of people seem to spend a lot of time on this board pumping up their schools or tearing others down.</p>
<p>Regarding the LA Times, I wasn't saying they are bad paper. I was saying they are a daily paper. Daily papers go for the easy kills and their bias is toward the easy, dramatic statements: "UC is dying." And they tend to have no perspective.</p>
<p>But I do find it curious that you started out talking about an open-ended question about UC's demise, hype or reality. But when I said the LA Times might be biased, you defended it as a respectable, accurate paper. So which is it? You wanted to start a discussion. Or you cloaked your smack-down of Berkeley in "what do you think about this" terms.</p>
<p>I am suspicious.</p>
<p>I am glad Berkeley people still suspicious, while in the meantime keeping the mean spirit high:) I don't see how the OP derseves the kind of ad hominem attack except you are insecure. If you have truth, just tell us. What is not true in the article? Questioning LA times by throwing it into your so called daily paper is convenient and laughable.</p>
<p>Cal has always been short on cash, but if football keeps winning...</p>
<p>Incredulous, don't be so...incredulous. Sometimes people post articles just to get other posters' opinions.</p>
<p>I don't think the UCs will meet their demise anytime soon, but I've been reading from quite a few sources and the evidence seems to point that UC Berkeley is indeed suffering from a lack of funding. What sakky pointed out is also true, but this is a multifaceted problem, and lack of funding seems to be one of them.</p>
<p>Actually, alwaysthere, I am not insecure. Quite the opposite. I see a lot of insecurity and posturing on these boards and I was just calling it as I saw it. But if I was wrong about TheMegaStud, I am truly sorry.</p>
<p>If you really expect me to tell you the truth, then I think you missed the point of what I wrote above. What I wrote is I don't know the truth, but I wouldn't count on a daily newspaper to give it to me about such a complex subject.</p>
<p>With its glories of which there are many and its probably equal number of warts, I recognize Berkeley for what it is. And the UC too for that matter.</p>
<p>I really wasn't trying to be mean to MegaStud, really not. It just made no sense to me that, if he's happy at USC (he's 21, so I figure he's not leaving right now) and apparently not looking to go to graduate school (at least it was not posited in his query), he would need to speculate on this article. And it also seemed that since he seemed to have made his mind up the article was right, why was he asking? That's all. But I have come to conclusion that, like myself with this posting and others, there is a lot of endless speculation about the rankings and qualities of various institutions without regard to whether somebody is actually choosing to go there or not.</p>
<p>In other words, uselessness.</p>
<p>I came here to help someone choose the right fit, and I find it strange. That's all. And yet, I have been drawn into some of these conversations so I am not saying I am above them. </p>
<p>But since vicissitudes pointed out that some people just post to query other persons opinions, I realize that maybe I was in fact being too suspicious. So for that, I am sorry. After this post, though, I won't waste my time on these boards, 'cause it seems rather irrelevant to talk about the relative rise or fall of various schools without regard to whether they are right for a particular person.</p>
<p>Specifically with respect to the article in the LA Times:</p>
<p>1) The professors complained that they had to raise funding for projects before they could start. I work for an ivy league institution, and am helping a prestigious professor start an institution, and guess what? The first thing the university demands is that he find money for the program before anything gets off the dime. So what's new about what was quoted in this article with respect to this at Berkeley? So this is not a useful data point for me, since I know how this works in the real world. A journalist on a tight daily timeframe probably doesn't and doesn't bother to find out the truth.</p>
<p>2) I already made my point about the buildings at Berkeley. See above. Frankly, it has always been an object of ridicule for me. A building is falling down or is otherwise decrepit and we hear that the university is having a really tough time. And then -- boom -- a new $350 million state of the art building. I think all universities of a certain caliber go about things this way, and probably have to do so.</p>
<p>3) If you are going to talk about school funding, look at Harvard: the business school is flush, absolutely swimming in cash, but fairly recently the Graduate School of Design ran out of money and had to enact some pretty serious curbs according to a friend who was there told me. If you talk to the GSD, Harvard is not so flush with cash. But that of course is a crazy non-reality; Harvard is stupendously wealthy. It just makes every program stand on its own legs financially. Refer to point 1.</p>
<p>So, is the UC about to crash and burn? I have no idea. But I will tell you that the LA Times in one short article doesn't either. I offer this perspective as one who saw very similar articles written more than 20 years ago. And UC and Berkeley have continued to thrive by many measures. That's my only point: no perspective. In the absence of perspective, biases and easy answers prevail. Truth is harder to obtain, and you're certainly not going to get it from me -- or from most other pithy statements.</p>
<p>As for insecurity, I have none with respect to anything happening on this board. I had a great experience at Berkeley and also Back East. For those considering Berkeley, I would say it's big and impersonal often, and a challenging place. Some love it for that reason, others not. I would also say perennially it's proven itself to be one of the most significant universities in the nation in terms of sheer breadth and depth and quality. It is able to achieve this either in spite of or through being large. It continues to attract (and lose as they all do) some of the finest talent in the world. Folks, there's really enough prestige to go around. Berkeley, MIT, CalTech, Harvard, etc. etc. USC, Amherst, etc. can all be great. The question is the fit for you. For me, Berkeley was a great fit.</p>
<p>What a lot of people want is to be able neatly fit things into obvious categories and pecking orders. Berkeley is challenging in this regard because it's a public institution with a different mission and yet pre-eminent. </p>
<p>In my experience, people at Berkeley specialize in thinking the grass is always greener. But I've seen the progression of people leave there and go to places in the ivy league or elsewhere and realize that Berkeley is amazing and that they had under-rated it. The under-rating mainly occurs in terms of understanding how tremendous the professors and often fellow classmates were, in my experience.</p>
<p>I will now sign off. I am not really interested in participating more. Feel free to flame me. I am sure I have ****ed off someone.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I had a great experience at Berkeley and also Back East. For those considering Berkeley, I would say it's big and impersonal often, and a challenging place. Some love it for that reason, others not. I would also say perennially it's proven itself to be one of the most significant universities in the nation in terms of sheer breadth and depth and quality. It is able to achieve this either in spite of or through being large. It continues to attract (and lose as they all do) some of the finest talent in the world. Folks, there's really enough prestige to go around. Berkeley, MIT, CalTech, Harvard, etc. etc. USC, Amherst, etc. can all be great. The question is the fit for you. For me, Berkeley was a great fit.</p>
<p>What a lot of people want is to be able neatly fit things into obvious categories and pecking orders. Berkeley is challenging in this regard because it's a public institution with a different mission and yet pre-eminent. </p>
<p>In my experience, people at Berkeley specialize in thinking the grass is always greener. But I've seen the progression of people leave there and go to places in the ivy league or elsewhere and realize that Berkeley is amazing and that they had under-rated it. The under-rating mainly occurs in terms of understanding how tremendous the professors and often fellow classmates were, in my experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^^Man that was an incredibly beautiful post well-balanced, well-done</p>
<p>I agree. Many people tend to underrate the Berkeley education. However, a great many more people in-the-know (recruiters, grad adcoms, academia etc), do know what incredible an institution Berkeley is and how fabulous education/experiences one will have in Berkeley. In top academic level, only few handful schools can stand toe-to-toe with Berkeley, in terms of dept. strength, academic rigor, and prestige.</p>
<p>Knowing full well people would be suspicious of such a post, I began it with "not meant to be an insulting thread..." which I doubt could have been any more explicit. </p>
<p>Further, I admitted before that it's hokey to post such an article simply to spark discourse (and I'm sure it's still perceived that way), but that's simply the truth. While I could point out countless things that support my statement that this was not an attack thread (my forthcomingness with regards to how I felt about the article -- even admitting that initially it was somewhat welcome of news, for one), I really couldn't care less what you perceive my intentions to be as, again, my point was to incite discussion and here it is. </p>
<p>However, I understand you for being suspicious (Incredulous). Like you're about to do, I left CC for awhile after growing tired of the sophomoric "my university is the best and yours is a piece of ****" back and forth. In fact, I hadn't planned on returning until I saw that article and wondered how CC would react to it. Many posters here have strong ties to/with Berkeley (if you do a search for Sakky you'll see what I mean), and I felt they could offer a unique perspective. While (again) I understand your skepticism, I think it's also regrettable that sincere intellectual curiosity is met so automatically with repudiation.</p>
<p>Themegastud: I checked in to find your post and will only respond to you to close out this discussion. And will only say this: I made my apology and still stands; sorry if I hurt your feelings. </p>
<p>You go to one of the best schools in the nation -- and one that gets better and better -- so you're more than smart enough to understand my notions as follows: 1) there is (as you said) a sophomoric jockeying for position on whose/what schools are the best that goes on, I guess, among high school and college age folk in particular and it has little to do with the important question of an individual's goals and suitability for a school or ultimately even which schools are actually "better"; 2) I don't find this sort of jockeying worthy of intellectual concern or even of great relevance to anything important, at least as it is generally discussed in the press and, now that I know what goes on on CC mostly though not entirely, as it is discussed here (though there are some really interesting books on the subject/in fact, one by a Cal prof that talked, among other things, about how USC in particular had figured out some important ways to run a university well. I haven't read it, but I heard the author discuss it and he was complimentary of USC); and 3) you're smart enough to know the rhetorical trick of "I don't mean to insult you, but..." as a prelude to really insulting somebody. Then the insulted party can't really respond because you said, it's not meant to be an offense. However, I have come to understand you seem genuinely curious. And for the record, I wasn't insulted by your post, though I was skeptical of the article and initially your motives for posting it for the reasons I wrote here.</p>
<p>Finally, about "automatic repudiation," if you wanted debate you got it, no? Even if it did verge too much for the tastes of most on the overly personal.</p>
<p>So you have my apology and my respect, and I will really sign off now. </p>
<p>And don't take this the wrong way, but I hope the Pac-10 now first-ranked Bears maul your Trojan butts in a few weeks on the football field. I want you guys to win every game until then, so that when we demolish you, we'll be ascending to genuine first in the league. Though of course, we have do even worse damage to fUCLA before then. </p>
<p>(God, how much time have we wasted on this topic, ha. Go do your homework.)</p>
<p>Hah, as much as I want us to win, it looks like the Bears are a far better team this year. Stick around though; if you can get past the immaturity on this forum (which isn't really too bad compared to internet forums in general, except that CC posters tend to claim an intellectually elitist air of smarter-than-thou, even when they might not be entitled to it), there are some high schoolers who could really use the advice of someone who has first hand experience at Berkeley/Harvard. Heaven forbid CC turns away those who are levelheaded.</p>