<p>Sakky, Thank you for your posts. That's an awful story. What concerns me is that Berkeley did nothing to counsel this guy to take time off and his not been at all helpful to him subsequently. It sounds as though unless you are positive you will do well at Berkeley in your major, you shouldn't go there since you risk being trapped in a major you don't like and don't do well in. Very scary!</p>
<p>I don't think that's the lesson one should derive from Sakky's anecdote. Perhaps in the college of engineering, perhaps, but in general, I don't think that's the idea.</p>
<p>I think the lesson that should be drawn is that Berkeley will do very little to help those students who are not doing well. But not only that. It could be said that Berkeley goes out to deliberately hurt those students who aren't doing well. I mean, come on, trapping somebody in a major because they aren't doing well in it? That's unconscionable. Wouldn't you want somebody who isn't doing well in a particular major to be able to try something else? </p>
<p>If Berkeley is not going to let students like that stay at Berkeley and try something else, then another thing that Berkeley could do is enact some sort of transfer policy to a CalState. For example, anybody who is doing poorly at Berkeley can have a free transfer to Cal State East Bay or SF State. If the guy isn't good enough to get a Berkeley degree, fine, but at least give him the chance to get a degree somewhere else. </p>
<p>Or at the very least, I think Berkeley should seal your academic records after a certain number of years. After all, even a bankruptcy, by Federal law, is expunged from your credit record after 10 years (and most credit agencies will expunge it in 7 years). So I think that it's entirely fair that if you flunk out of Berkeley, then the academic record of your failure should be expunged after a certain number of years. Treat it as if he had never taken any classes at Berkeley at all. So that means that he can start at another school with a clean slate. Right now, as it stands, whenever he applies to another school, that other school will always ask if he has ever been a college student before, and if so, please submit transcripts, and then of course when they receive his Berkeley transcripts with his poor performance, they probably will not admit him. So he's continuing to pay for mistakes he made more than a decade ago. Seriously, come on. That stuff happened a long time ago. Leave the guy alone. It's time to let him off the hook. How long does he have to keep paying? So he was immature and flunked out of school when he was 18. Does he really have to pay for that for the rest of his life? Who cares about whatever immaturity he exhibited more than a decade ago? Yet Berkeley still refuses to let him off the hook.</p>
<p>I would use the example of MIT. MIT is no pushover school. Far from it, in fact. Yet MIT also uses the concept of the external vs. internal transcript. The internal transcript contains all kinds of information about your grades. Only people at MIT can see the internal transcript. The external transcript is a cleaned up version. The biggest change is that failing grades of your freshman year are hidden. So if you fail a class, evidence of that fact will show up in your internal transcript, but not your external transcript. Other things like late drops are also only reflected on your internal transcript, not your external transcript. It is this external transcript that is sent out to employers or to grad schools (unless you are applying back to MIT for grad school, in which case, they will see your internal transcript). </p>
<p>I therefore propose that Berkeley should enact a similar policy for its failing students. The internal transcript will contain all of the bad grades, just like it does now. But the external transcript can either contain nothing at all, or just a list of all your classes with no grades attached to them. So when you apply to another school, no evidence of your failure at Berkeley will be shown. To prevent abuse of this privilege, I would propose that this external transcript will not be available until several years after you have been expelled from Berkeley. This way, flunked-out Berkeley students still have the opportunity to study elsewhere with a clean slate. They won't be forever haunted by their performance at Berkeley.</p>
<p>FYI, Oxbridge and LSE aren't free, they cost over $5K per year, and climbing fast. They're not considered public universities either. As well, I don't think they're clearly better than Berkeley. Berkeley is better for example in business, econ and engineering among other subjects. The Oxbridges are better in English and literature and pure humanities. LSE is, like <em>all</em> the Grandes Ecoles in France, too narrow a school, designed for one class of majors (either business or engineering), and this specialization diminishes the quality of the education IMHO. </p>
<p>The Sorbonne is definitely worse than Berkeley. I am from Paris, I know what I'm talking about here. It's such a disaster that the students there have been rioting for weeks now. One of my HS friends in on the faculty. And if you can't spell "Grandes Ecoles", maybe you're not well qualified to evaluate them... And de Villepin and the others actually studied at the ENA (Ecole Nationale d'Administration), not the IEP. Perhaps if they had gone to Berkeley, France's economy wouldn't be the worst in Western Europe right now...</p>
<p>Virginia's only merit is to score like a private school on USNWR's poll, where it outscores better public schools like Michigan. Virginia is a monolithic school with a wealthy student base and alumni. Berkeley has three times the rate of underpriviledged students and a broader ethnic mix. UVA and the service academies provide a very narrow mindset and cultural environment. One of my close friends at Haas was a UVA grad, she marvelled at the level of diversity and openness at Cal (granted she wasn't the typical east coast/mid-atlantic prepstress). Furhtermore I'm not sure how much of a good measure is comparing the number of presidents produced, given the academic and intellectual credentials of many of the last few. But I can tell you that my Cal dormitory alone has produced many more Nobel laureates than the entire university of VA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
>I'm really curious as to what your personal background </p>
<br>
<p>I think the readers deserve to know what your personal experience was like at Cal, because you seem hell bent on discrediting the University. You have a particular bias that the overwhelming majority of Cal grads don't share. It makes one wonder if that horror story you describe wasn't yours. Besides, your buddy could have enrolled in JC, raised his grades, and reapplied to a Cal State. </p>
<p> [quote] I've never worried about the students who do well at Berkeley. The question in my mind has always been - what about the ones who don't do well?
</p>
<p>You are hyping that lone experience/horror story and overlooking the fact that the current graduation rate within 6 years is around 85%, and that a good part of the students who don't graduate dropped out due to financial difficulties.</p>
<p>I have at least two friends who couldn't cut it in the Cal Engineering major, they ended up doing EE at San Jose State and ME at Hayward State respectively. They were from in-state and probably not amongst the top 4/5th of the admits (they flunked the Physics intro series) I've never heard of stories like your friend getting stranded. It's highly questionable if not outright slanderous to suggest to prospective engineering that they'll end up pushing carts at FedEx if they go to Cal. </p>
<p>None of my friends and Cal acquaintances (a few hundred people, Cal is a big school and I was a pretty social guy) have had anything close to that story. By and large, Cal grads are quite successful. People I've known in my dorms include a British MP, CEOs, foreign cabinet ministers, multimillionaires and academic leaders.</p>
<p>FWIW, I don't think that Cal is perfect. There are issues with the premed and EECS majors (too competitive/grade conscious, and not enough diversity.) But Cal was perfect for me and just about all of my friends. As well, I've found that having succeeded from a tougher environment helped prepare me better for the real world.</p>
<p>I think the lesson you paint is too broad. You say that the entirety of Berkeley will not only do nothing for you if you arent doing well, but purposely try to hurt you? As far as I know, people in engineering are assigned to a faculty advisor. Does the CoE do nothing to help its failing students? In L & S, there are particular procedures that are followed, including a mandatory visit to an academic advisor. </p>
<p>Only very particular majors have the possibility of people trapped in their major. While I think this isnt alright, I dont think implying that its the entire university is alright either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
FYI, Oxbridge and LSE aren't free, they cost over $5K per year, and climbing fast.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said they were free. I said that their tuition for British students was highly subsidized by the government. Basically, the British model of education is very different from the US one in that all British students effectively receive vouchers to attend whatever British school they want. This effectively makes all of the British universities 'public' in the sense that the government pays most of the tab for your tuition. </p>
<p>
[quote]
They're not considered public universities either.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well why not? I think they should be. After all, most of British student's tuitions are paid by the government. Much of the budget at Ox-bridge is underwritten by Downing Street. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, the bulk of the funding for undergraduate education for British citizens at Oxbridge comes from the government, just like the bulk of the funding for undergraduate education for California residents at Berkeley comes from the state government. Much of the funding for the creation of the physical plant at Oxbridge came from the government. For example, King's College at Cambridge was founded and named for King Henry VI, and was built with royal funds. Furthermore, the operating budget of both schools comes largely from the British government. So how is that any different from a public school?</p>
<p>Furthermore, I see that wikipedia lists Oxford and Cambridge as public schools. And every year, the funding for Oxford and Cambridge is a topic of contention in the government debates in Parliament. Hence, I completely fail to see why Oxbridge shouldn't be considered public schools. In practically every single important way - from who is footing most of the the bill for the residents, to who is paying much if not most of the budget - Oxbridge is basically a public school. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...</p>
<p>
[quote]
As well, I don't think they're clearly better than Berkeley. Berkeley is better for example in business, econ and engineering among other subjects.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. Let's imagine how many Berkeley undergrads would gladly transfer to Oxford or Cambridge if money was no object, and then let's imagine how many Oxford or Cambridge undergrads would want to transfer to Berkeley. Honestly, do you really think Berkeley would win this one? Remember, we're talking undergrad here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Sorbonne is definitely worse than Berkeley. I am from Paris, I know what I'm talking about here. It's such a disaster that the students there have been rioting for weeks now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh come on. French students riot all the time. That doesn't mean that the schools are bad. For example, when Berkeley students were rioting in the 60's, that doesn't mean that Berkeley was necessarily bad in the 60's. Heck, the 60's were some of Berkeley's golden years. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And if you can't spell "Grandes Ecoles", maybe you're not well qualified to evaluate them...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ahem. Shall I go back and recount all of your spelling and grammatical mistakes? What are we, in a doctoral dissertation examination here? </p>
<p>
[quote]
And de Villepin and the others actually studied at the ENA (Ecole Nationale d'Administration), not the IEP.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? So what have we here on the French Embassy's own website?</p>
<p>"Diploma from the Paris Institut d'Etudes politiques "</p>
<p>So is that a lie? Maybe you should contact the French Embassy and tell them that the biography of their Prime Minister is incorrect. </p>
<p>And in fact, if you had bothered to check your facts carefully, you would see that ENA is mostly a GRADUATE institution. De Villepin went there for GRADUATE study. But we're not talking about graduate school. We're talking about undergrad. </p>
<p>"Entrance to ENA is granted on a competitive exam, which people generally take after completing studies at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris "</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps if they had gone to Berkeley, France's economy wouldn't be the worst in Western Europe right now...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So that's how it's going to be? You want to be jingoistic and bash other countries? You know, there are people from France who come to this board. </p>
<p>However, the point stands that the public universities in other countries have created far more prominent political leaders than Berkeley has. It's an indisputable point. Whether you agree with their politics is another question entirely. </p>
<p>Besides, let's say you're right. Let's say that Berkeley grads would have made better political decisions than the French IEP grads did. So what? The fact is, the Berkeley grads, for whatever reason, are not given the opportunities to make those choices, and the IEP grads are. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But I can tell you that my Cal dormitory alone has produced many more Nobel laureates than the entire university of VA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet didn't you say before that your dormitory was filled mostly with GRADUATE students? But we're not talking about that, are we? I have never disputed the great strength of Berkeley's grad programs. The question on the table is what about the UNDERGRAD program. </p>
<p>You're doing the exact same thing that the Berkeley administrators do. Whenever people point out problems with the Berkeley undergrad program, they start talking about the strength of the graduate schools. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the readers deserve to know what your personal experience was like at Cal, because you seem hell bent on discrediting the University. You have a particular bias that the overwhelming majority of Cal grads don't share. It makes one wonder if that horror story you describe wasn't yours.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I'll put it to you this way. I have given you the opportunity to PM or email me, and I'll tell you what you want to know about my biography - but under one condition. I only ask that you have an open mind. But be honest with yourself. No matter who I am, no matter what I can tell you, you're probably not going to change your mind about anything because it looks like you've already made up your mind. Am I right? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides, your buddy could have enrolled in JC, raised his grades, and reapplied to a Cal State.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But why should it have to come to this point? If he was good enough to get into Berkeley out of high school, then he was clearly good enough to get into CalState. So why shouldn't he just be allowed to go to CalState right now? </p>
<p>That's precisely the point. Berkeley has hurt him. He basically has to start over. In fact, it's worse than that. Berkeley has basically served to invalidate all of the hard work he did in high school. For example, if he had decided to never go to college at all and just go straight to work, then he could, right now, go to a Cal State. His old high school transcript is clearly good enough for that. But because he went to Berkeley, he has to start from square one. In other words, going to Berkeley actually made him WORSE off than if he had just not gone to college at all. Why should that be? </p>
<p>
[quote]
You are hyping that lone experience/horror story and overlooking the fact that the current graduation rate within 6 years is around 85%, and that a good part of the students who don't graduate dropped out due to financial difficulties.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's another issue. So let's say that a lot of students don't graduate because of financial difficulties. So what? That doesn't absolve Berkeley. Either Berkeley should provide sufficient financial aid so that this doesn't happen. Or else not admit students who are not going to have the financial means to see themselves through. The worst choice is for Berkeley to bring in students, have them pay tuition for a few years, and then have them drop out with no degree because they have no more money. You're just wasting everybody's time, not to mention the student's money, when students do not get a degree. This is doubly egregrious if these students don't have much money in the first place. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's highly questionable if not outright slanderous to suggest to prospective engineering that they'll end up pushing carts at FedEx if they go to Cal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Would you like to meet the guy? If you're in the Bay Area, he lives in Oakland. </p>
<p>I personally think it's outright slanderous to suggest that bad stories like this never happen to anybody. The truth is, some students have sad stories. This is undeniable. </p>
<p>
[quote]
People I've known in my dorms include a British MP, CEOs, foreign cabinet ministers, multimillionaires and academic leaders.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, remind me who was in your dorm? Didn't you say yourself that it was mostly graduate students? In fact, here's your own quote:</p>
<p>"I lived in a large dorm at Berkeley, made up of mostly grad students and got to meet a lot of CalTech and MIT alums."</p>
<p>So, REALLY, what you are saying is that you are quite impressed by people who went to Caltech and MIT for undergrad. Right? </p>
<p>
[quote]
FWIW, I don't think that Cal is perfect. There are issues with the premed and EECS majors (too competitive/grade conscious, and not enough diversity.) ...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And FWIW, I never said that I thought that Berkeley was all bad. Berkeley is a mixed bag. Some things are good. Some things are bad. I would like Berkeley to fix its problems. In particular, I believe Berkeley needs to be doing more for the students who are doing poorly.</p>
<p>Yet what I have found is that a lot of people just don't seem to be very interested in having Berkeley fix its problems. If you're not interested, just say so.</p>
<p>In case you didn't get it, **je suis Fran</p>
<p>Berkeley Parent,
Well said. I've posted in the Parents' Forum several times about my son's wonderful first-year experience at Berkeley. He has been given and has taken incredible opportunities that have surpassed anything we expected. He loves Cal, in spite of some of its flaws (which all schools have). He could graduate next year due to transfer units taken while in high school but wants to stay all four years. I think some of the posters who bash Berkeley relentlessly would be unhappy at any school. Some people just choose to dwell on the negative aspects of life. I feel sorry for sakky and PA, truly, they seem miserable - and obsessed.</p>
<p>CalX, your views, especially considering your international background, are quite a welcome breath of fresh air. I spent a year as an undergrad at the Universite de Poitiers, so salut!</p>
<p><em>yawn</em> It seems the most ardent defenders of Berkeley are parents who have never attended and people in the soft majors and don't seem to be aiming towards a top 5 program (no offense).</p>
<p>If you're an average student thats motivated, Berkeley is a pretty good opportunity I guess if you know what you're doing and have good contacts that can steer you in the right direction. Insofar as my contacts with people at top ivies and other universities have gone, a lot of former berkeley students in top grad programs don't like Berkeley that much. </p>
<p>It seems the pro-ucb'ers would rather pigeonhole those who dislike Berkeley as being "negative" or some kind of weird loners and not have to deal with the darker realities of the Berkeley experience. That is their loss, and representative of what I found so revolting about the Berkeley experience; the number of close-minded people around campus. </p>
<p>Normally I would also go on a tangent about how liberals live in their own self-contained groupthink and how many of the opinions on the board represent that kind of politically-correct, morally shallow thinking. All I have to say is, if you have middle america values, you should probably avoid Berkeley.</p>
<p>What exactly do you define as middle American values, fairly right PA?</p>
<p>i love DRab. i wish i was as smart as him.</p>
<p>There are better goals to have. Maybe being as hard working as nspeds? Or as smart as him. Or many, many others.</p>
<p>Polite antagonis - your impulsive negativeness on the subject is totally irrational. Parents are very well-positioned to report to other parents and prospective applicants about the Berkeley experience, especially those parents who care enough to be present here and share their experiences. They are a tremendous asset to this board.</p>
<p>I don't know if you consider engineering to be one of the "soft majors", or Wharton's MBA program not to be a top 5 program, because I was a Cal Engineering undergrad and a Wharton admit (I went to Haas instead, partly because I loved being at Cal so much.) Some of my closest friends at Cal went to:
Yale Law (Dept of Interior in DC)
Boalt (filthy rich doing corp law in China and SE Asia)
Columbia School of Architecture (partner in small Manhattan firm now)
Michigan MBA (VP Marketing now)
Haas MBA (CFO)
Michigan med school
INSEAD MBA (top program in Europe, Sr VP at l'Oreal)
Vanderbilt Philosophy (because of a faculty member; he's an underpaid writer now. Probably the happiest of the bunch)
Penn State Engineering PhD (could have gone anywhere but GF was there)
Davis wine school (she's been a head winemaker for a boutique wine in Napa)
SF State film school (former Cal and GE engineer, he's a movie director now)</p>
<p>Only a few didn't go to grad schools, and those are having good careers (or being great moms) and are very satisfied with their Berkeley experience. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems the pro-ucb'ers would rather pigeonhole those who dislike Berkeley as being "negative" or some kind of weird loners and not have to deal with the darker realities of the Berkeley experience. That is their loss, and representative of what I found so revolting about the Berkeley experience; the number of close-minded people around campus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>According to the most comprehensive survey about student satisfaction, only 1.6% of the student body were very dissatisfied with their experience, so it's only fair to say that your opinion represents a tiny minority. </p>
<p>PS: If you're not going to find any open-minded people at Berkeley, you will have an awfully hard time finding them at just about any other college...</p>
<p>(Merci momo, and thanks for the props Berkeley Parent.)</p>
<p>My son also picked Berkeley over MIT (grad study in Transportation Engineering)</p>
<p>He gave this reason: By looking at the students on both school, he felt that his future friends at Berkeley are much happier than MIT peers. Six years in the Ms/Ph.D program are just too long to hang around with not-so-happy classmates.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The IEP is more or less a JC, the ENA is <em>THE</em> school for governement and administration in France. It is NOT a graduate school. It's just that it's a "bac plus cinq" like all the other Grandes Ecoles, meaning five years post-HS (3-yr program following 2 years of prep/JC). And yes, it produces narrow-minded technocrats, and many attribute a lot of the political and business problems in France to the "Enarques", or ENA alums.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what? The fact of the matter is, France uses a different system, and de Villepin went to IEP. Hence, your claim that he didn't go to IEP is false. </p>
<p>Yes, he also went to ENA. I never said he didn't. But what does that have to do with the subject at hand. The truth is, he went to IEP. As did Chirac. As did many other French political leaders. Case closed. </p>
<p>If you want to blame the problems of France on IEP or ENA, then that is your prerogative. But that doesn't take away from the fact that that's where they went. Just like perhaps you can blame the problems of the US on Harvard and Yale, because that's where much of the US political class comes from, including Bush and Clinton. But again, so what? All that means is that Harvard and Yale graduates get a greater chance to attain positions of political leadership (and possibly screw things up). Berkeley students don't even get that chance. I ask again - how many US Presidents has Berkeley produced, compared to Harvard and Yale? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you also realize that the ENA only graduates something like 130 students every year, compared to 20,000 undergrads at Berkeley? No comparison...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley graduates 20,000 undergrads a year? I think you mean to say that Berkeley HAS 20,000 undergrads a year. But obviously not all of them graduate every year. </p>
<p>In fact, this doesn't bolster your argument, it actually WEAKENS it. After all, Berkeley has far far more students than ENA does. Hence you would think that from a pure numerical standpoint, Berkeley would have produced lots more political leaders. Yet it hasn't. ENA, despite being such a small school, has produced more political leaders. If anything, that makes Berkeley look even worse by comparison. Hence, I fail to see why you have brought this point up. This is actually a point in my favor, not yours. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Oxford and Combridge are the size of American private schools like Penn. So they don't quite walk like a duck either.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What does that have to do with anything? At the end of the day, the British government effectively nationalized most of its institutions after the war, and Oxford and Cambridge have stayed nationalized. Much of the budget at Oxbridge is derived from the government. Much of student tuition (for British citizens) is paid by the government. Honestly, how is that different from a US public school? </p>
<p>I furthermore don't see what size has to do with anything. Some public schools in the US are relatively small. UPenn has about 11000 undergrads. Virginia has about 13,000. So that's not substantially different. Yet nobody says that Virginia is not a public school just because it is of about the same size as Penn. Heck, UC-Santa Cruz has far FEWER students than does UPenn (grad + undergrad), yet nobody goes around accusing UCSC of not being a public school. Hence, I fail to see what size has to do with anything. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's international reputation is second only to Harvard's. No one reads USNWR outside of the US... The foreign UNDERGRADUATES at Cal are the best of the best.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And since when are we talking only about foreign undergrads? I agree that OOS undergrads are indeed far better than regular undergrads at Berkeley. But so what? You should be talking about the OVERALL quality of the Berkeley total undergraduate student body. And the fact is, the Berkeley undergrad student body doesn't measure up to schools like HYPSMC. If you went to Berkeley, you would know that there are quite a few undergrads who, frankly, aren't very good. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's international reputation is second only to Harvard's. No one reads USNWR outside of the US
[/quote]
</p>
<p>International reputation is 2nd only to Harvard's? At the graduate level, I could agree. But at the undergrad level?</p>
<p>Tell me this. If Berkeley is so good at the undergrad level, then why does it lose the undergrad cross-admit battle with Stanford? Are these students stupidly picking the worse school? </p>
<p>
[quote]
About your friend's story, the issue here is HOW PREVALENT IS HIS PATH? ISN'T THAT AN EXTREMELY UNUSUAL ONE? You are totally misrepresenting the Cal experience by ignoring the baseline statistics. I know hundreds of former Cal UNDERGRADUATES, this has never happened to anyone I know.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did I say that this happened to everyone? No. But it certainly happens to some students. Heck, he isn't even the only story. I can think of 3 or 4 quite similar stories. </p>
<p>Look, the fact is, some students come to Berkeley and fall through the cracks. That is why the graduation rate is only 85% - that means that 15% of students will never graduate. The rate is probably higher in certain subjects, notably the engineering subjects. </p>
<p>I never said that this sort of thing happened to everybody. But on the other hand, you can't deny that it doesn't happen at all. It is something that people who are considering Berkeley ought to be aware of. Berkeley does indeed screw over some students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
t reminds me of Stalin's famous saying about his style of propaganda:
"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"
meaning that a pesonal story told about an individual makes a strong personal impression, but the big picture remains obscured and emotionally distant. This is what's known as the representativeness bias in cognitive science. You're basically using that technique to scare off applicants, whether consciously or not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what are you doing? It seems to me that you are trying to encourage everyone to come to Berkeley, including those students for whom Berkeley is poorly suited. THAT is far worse. By not talking about sad stories, you are encouraging the myth that Berkeley has no problems and that everybody should come. I think any reasonable observer would have to admit that Berkeley is not for everybody and every prospective student has to determine whether it is right for them. </p>
<p>Do bad things happen to everybody? No, I never said that it did. But do bad things happen to some people? Yes. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You're scolding Berkeley for not providing financial aid when it is much cheaper than private schools. At all the top private schools, only about 10% of the students are poor (that's true at Virginia and Michigan too actually.) At Cal, one third of the students are poor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Twisting my words around? Read my quotes again, in their entirety. You will see, if you bothered to read them, that I am not scolding Berkeley for admitting poor students. I am scolding Berkeley for admitting them and then not providing them with enough aid to get them through. If you're not going to provide them with sufficient aid, then it is better for you to not admit them at all. The worst choice of all is what Berkeley is doing - admitting them and not providing them with enough funding to have them graduate, hence forcing them to waste time and money at Berkeley without getting a degree. That is the problem.</p>
<p>My take is simple. Either you properly support all of the students that you bring in. Or just don't bring them in at all. Dont' go about it halfway. It's an all-or-nothing affair. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, no one here cares that much about the ENA or a lot of this stuff, you should put your energy elsewhere instead of spewing bitterness on a saturday night here. Seriously.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You seem to be so worried about my energy, well, what about you? </p>
<p>If you are going to continue to post here, then so will I.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakkys pathology--his reams, over 4000 posts worth, of biased anti-Berkeley screeds (he seems poised at the computer ready to instantly counter anything positive about Cal), his inability to admit error, his need to always have the last wordis evident to us.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what about you? Looks like you and your lackey are always ready to dismiss any possible problems of Berkeley as if none of them ever exist. When people want to genuinely discuss the problems of Berkeley, you just want to shout them off the stage, as if people here should not have the right to learn about any problems. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Whats sad are the numbers of potential Berkeley students he has undoubtedly steered away from the school. I posted a long piece about my sons extraordinary undergrad experience at Cal. It didnt faze Sakky one bit. Neither will your articulate, knowledgeable posts. But keep them coming.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If I am turning students away, then it's probably those students for which Berkeley is ill-suited to handle. But even if I am convincing students not to come (which is not my goal), then what about you? How responsible is it for you to convince students to come who probably really are better suited to go elsewhere? </p>
<p>In short, I ask, why is it that posts that do not talk about the problems of Berkeley are somehow "permitted", but nobody is ever allowed to talk about the problems of Berkeley? I thought that this was supposed to be a free discussion board where people could talk about whatever aspects of Berkeley they want to talk about. This board is not an arm of the Berkeley marketing department. This is a board that is supposed to support free speech. Free speech inherently means that you are supposed to get a wide range of opinions, both good and bad. If you are only allowed to post "good" opinions, then that's not really free speech. </p>
<p>I believe people should know about the problems of Berkeley before they decide to come. If they understand the problems and still decide to come, then they have made an informed decision. But to say that the problems of Berkeley should be deliberately concealed from people such that they aren't able to know what they are until they come - now that is irresponsible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know if you consider engineering to be one of the "soft majors", or Wharton's MBA program not to be a top 5 program, because I was a Cal Engineering undergrad and a Wharton admit (I went to Haas instead, partly because I loved being at Cal so much.) Some of my closest friends at Cal went to:
Yale Law (Dept of Interior in DC)
Boalt (filthy rich doing corp law in China and SE Asia)
Columbia School of Architecture (partner in small Manhattan firm now)
Michigan MBA (VP Marketing now)
Haas MBA (CFO)
Michigan med school
INSEAD MBA (top program in Europe, Sr VP at l'Oreal)
Vanderbilt Philosophy (because of a faculty member; he's an underpaid writer now. Probably the happiest of the bunch)
Penn State Engineering PhD (could have gone anywhere but GF was there)
Davis wine school (she's been a head winemaker for a boutique wine in Napa)
SF State film school (former Cal and GE engineer, he's a movie director now)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No need to argue about it. Why not just look at where Berkeley graduates end up going. Click on the various majors and you can see where students end up getting employed, or to what graduate school they went to.</p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm</a></p>
<p>However, keep in mind that this is a voluntary study. Obviously not too many people who couldn't get a job at all are going to be champing at the bit to report the fact that they are unemployed.</p>
<p>Yeah, if you really had friends that did that you must have gotten all the smart people at Berkeley in one place. </p>
<p>I don't really care what kind of statistics you feel like manipulating. Its true that most students at Berkeley do not care and that for many Berkeley is the very best school they could get into so there will be inherent biases. </p>
<p>And as I've pointed out, if you're smart enough to make it at Berkeley, you could've made it elsewhere and in my opinion, many times you could've done better either in terms of experience or placement. If you ask those people how much Berkeley people really contributed to their success, especially in relation to other schools, I would have to say they would mostly agree in saying, "very little."</p>
<p>Well, I'd say MIT and Berkeley's engineering are basically the same. Maybe MIT's is a little bit better in certain areas of engineering.</p>
<p>However, MIT's social life is a piece of dog feces, so I hear. The people are weird, incredibly weird. At least Berkeley has liberal arts majors and social science majors to balance out the weirdos.</p>
<p>So think about this when you decide.</p>