<p>
[quote]
why do people even still argue with sakky?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet, you're still arguing with me? </p>
<p>
[quote]
1) who wants to read of all that
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So then don't read my posts. I don't have a gun to your head. If you don't want to read it, then don't read it. Feel free to ignore what I write. But let those who do want to read it be allowed to read it. If nobody reads my posts, then what's the problem? </p>
<p>
[quote]
what point is he making thats so important? that public schools suck compared to private schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think I ever used the word 'suck'. I am simply pointing out that the top private schools are better than the top public schools. But that doesn't mean that the top public schools 'suck'. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. I would say that Tim Duncan is a better basketball player than is Kevin Garnett. But that hardly means that Kevin Garnett 'sucks'. Kevin Garnett is indeed a very good player. But Duncan is better. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So BERKELEY has an 89% grad rate vs. 92% or 93% at a bunch of private school. Boo-F'in-Hoo. who cares? if you go to berkeley, do your work, and you'll be fine. theres a reason why 89% of the people there graduate!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And conversely, there's a reason why 11% don't graduate. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As for "turning numbers around" that little example of 89% vs. 95% being "double the rate" is just another bogus example of you taking numbers and blowing them out of proportion. 2 hypothetical schools, 1 with a 98% and one with a 99% rate have the same "double" the chance formula but that doesn't mean anything
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, that is EXACTLY what the numbers say. It is hardly a 'bogus example'. Let me put it to you this way. Putting on a seat belt does not greatly increase your chances of surviving a car ride, simply because the vast majority of car rides do not result in accidents. If you ride in a car without a seat belt, you probably have (making up some numbers here) a 99.9% chance of surviving any particular ride in a car. With a seat belt, maybe the figure is 99.99%. Either way, you are extremely likely to survive with or without a seat belt. But that also means that wearing a seat belt increases your chances of survival by 10 times.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Any argument can be turned around. I could very well say that you know, maybe some kids at berkeley go there because their parents make them, find out college isn't for them, and then decide to drop out. So Berkeley is better than private schools cause it only cost the kid $15,000 (or whatever Berkeley cost these days) instead of $45,000 to find out it wasn't for him.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I could turn that argument around by saying that some kids are forced to go to Harvard and then might find out that it's not for them. So it's a wash.</p>
<p>Yet at the end of the day, Berkeley's graduation rate is substantially lower than Harvard's. I would like that to change. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Listen there are a lot of reasons numbers are what they are. Ever consider that because Berkeley has such a high number of transfers that its impossible for them to graduate in that "6 year window" by the time they do CC and come over? 6 year grad rate would include the 2 years at CC. Maybe Berkeley has a lot of part time students. Who knows--there are a lot of reason to explain numbers that arn't "its easy to fail out of berkeley."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course there are lots of reasons! In fact, I have discussed many of them in this thread, which I invite you to read. </p>
<p>But just because they are 'reasons' doesn't mean they are good excuses. To take your example, why are these transfer students having so much difficulty graduating in the 6 year window? Why doesn't Berkeley offer better resources to these students so that they can graduate on time? Or if Berkeley can't do that, then why doesn't Berkeley simply reject them so that they can go to some other school where they can graduate on time? </p>
<p>As far as the part-time student thing goes, I would say probably not. Berkeley mandates that you are supposed to be carrying a full load of courses. Furthermore, most Berkeley classes are taught during the daytime, which tends to preclude most part-time work. This isn't a commuter CalState school here. This is Berkeley. </p>
<p>I said it before, I'll say it again. Every student that Berkeley brings in that doesn't graduate on time (or at all) is taking away a spot from some other student who could have used it to graduate on time. But you guys don't seem to care about that. You guys don't seem to care that there are people out there who would have done well at Berkeley but didn't even get the chance because somebody else who didn't do well had taken their spot. </p>
<p>
[quote]
well, i can guarentee you that its pretty easy to fail out of harvard and yale. Its called not doing anything--something which can be done at any private university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And yet very few people actually DO fail out of Harvard and Yale, relative to Berkeey. Why? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The only thing I can get out of what he/she is saying is that it's better to pay $200K+ for a private school, because their grade inflation is so rampant that you are sure to pass-- regardless of what you do (or, rather, don't do). Admittedly, I only scan his/her dissertations, but that's what I get out of them
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you should 'scan' them more carefully. I said that ceteris paribus the top private schools are better. </p>
<p>That doesn't mean that I think everybody should go out and spend $200k for a private school. After all, the money angle is irrelevent, because I could just as easily point to examples where private schools are actually CHEAPER than public schools. For example, know 2 guys from California who got into both Harvard and Berkeley, and found out that Harvard would actually be CHEAPER once financial aid was factored in. I remember one of them 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. That's because Harvard is EXTREMELY aggressive when it comes to financial aid. Harvard guarantees a full ride to EVERYBODY whose family makes less than 60k. What public school can say the same?</p>
<p>Forget about financial aid. Let's talk about an example that doesn't involve FA. I know a guy who was offered a choice to go to his state school, but at full cost, or to go to Stanford *on a full ride *, and none of that ride had to do with FA, because this guy is pretty rich and therefore didn't qualify for aid. How is this story possible? Simple. Football. His state school's team didn't offer him a football scholarship, but simply proposed that he try to walk on. Stanford did offer him a scholarship. Granted, the Stanford football team isn't that good, but hey, it's still a full ride to go to Stanford. </p>
<p>Hence, the point is, there are plenty of examples where the top private schools are actually CHEAPER than public schools are. Be honest. What would you choose? </p>
<p>Now, having said that, I can agree that for many people, a top private school is going to be more expensive. Hence, you have to weigh whether the extra expense is worth it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That depends on your own personal circumstances. </p>
<p>But what I am saying is that you shouldn't pretend for a minute that you aren't giving up something. You are. Just like when I choose to buy a car that doesn't have airbags or ABS or other safety features, I know I am basically trading money for safety. I know I'm getting a more dangerous car. I personally have made that choice many times (as all of my cars have basically been used jalopies). That's because I value the money . But I don't pretend that my cars are as safe as some of the alternatives. They are not, and I freely acknowledge that they are not. Similarly, when you choose a public school over a private school for reasons of money, you should at least acknowledge that you are giving up some safety. Don't pretend that you're not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Brown students are so much smarter and more capable than UVA students. Good grief.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did I ever say 'so much smarter' or 'so much more capable'? Pleaes point to the quotes where I specifically said that.</p>
<p>I am simply pointing out that on average, they are indeed smarter and more capable, something that boundary and even jags has acknowledged. We can argue about HOW MUCH smarter and more capable they are. But I think it is an indisputable point that, on average, Brown students are smarter and more capable. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But you're doing MORE than that. You're using these numbers to make statements about how many students are getting no degree at all, and to assert that large numbers of students are suffering detrimental outcomes. This is spurious
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think it is spurious. I believe other threads have indeed discussed just how many students at Berkeley actually flunk out or otherwise suffer from detrimental outcomes. I myself on this thread have shown such numbers at least with respect to the Cal football and basketball teams (where, according to NCAA figures, only 38% of Cal's men's basketball players and 44% of Cal's football players left the school in good academic standing even according to the most generous definition of 'good standing'). Other threads have discussed the problems associated with non-athletes. </p>
<p><a href="http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/inst2006/107.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/inst2006/107.pdf</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
And then you're also using that false assumption about high numbers to suggest that public schools should turn away more students, that they should significantly alter their admissions requirements due to the "scope" of this failure-and-crushed-dream problem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that public schools should necessarily turn away MORE students. That is only one way to accomplish the goal. The other way is to turn away DIFFERENT students. For example, if you are going to admit 5000 freshman, why not take care to admit the 5000 who are most likely to actually graduate? As I've said before, every person who goes to Berkeley and doesn't graduate has taken away a spot from somebody else who would have graduated but didn't even get admitted in the first place. You seem to care about social justice, so I ask you - where's the justice in that? </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you use graduation rate as your independent variable, your dependent variables will not just predict "failure" but will also be trying to predict things situations in which parents get ill prompting kids to transfer closer to home, students enroll at their second choice and transfer "up" to their dream school, students are assigned a roommate so ill-matched it derails their studies, and kids like your poor friend who got unfairly nailed by a weeder class. It will be a hot mess.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course it will be a mess! But the journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step. You can't just give up just because a problem is difficult. </p>
<p>I'm quite certain that we will find extensive problems when we examine the data. But the first step is still to examine the data. Only then can we actually get a grip on what to do about the problems. But if we don't even know what the problems are (or worse yet, when we don't even WANT to know what the problems are), then we will never get anywhere. </p>
<p>You mentioned a number of potential problems that all have potential solutions. Either that, or they are problems shared by the private schools. For example, somebody ends up with a terrible roommate? Then come up with a better roommate matching process. I've heard that Stanford's roommate-matching process works out very well, so why not use that? If you can't do that, then why not develop some housing that has a bunch of single-rooms? Or at least contract with local developers so that they can offer more single rooms to students who really want them? Harvard does that through the "Harvard-affiliated housing program" (where Harvard acts just as a facilitator and connector and doesn't actually manage the actual housing). Why can't Berkeley do that? Why can't other public schools? </p>
<p>You talk about parents getting ill. First off, I would remark - well, that doesn't happen at private schools too? Seems like a wash to me. Somebody gets nailed by a weeder? Then we have to examine why exactly does Berkeley run weeders at all, and couldn't there be a better way? {For example, those people who don't end up declaring a certain major ought to have the right to expunge any weeder grades for that major from their record. For example, if I don't end up majoring in Chemical Engineering anyway, then what does it matter what my grade in ChemE 140 is? } </p>
<p>But either way, I am more optimistic that all of these problems can be dealt with, one way or another. You seem to be quite pessimistic and seem to prefer status quo. But like I've always said, the status quo *ain't that good. * Surely my ideas aren't perfect. But the present situation isn't perfect either.</p>