Question, mainly for Sakky, regarding Cal (vs Northwestern vs Penn(waitlist))

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
41

<p>DRab,</p>

<p>What I really referred to were the ones that I talked to and that lived in SF before. </p>

<p>"rude"? I am sorry that you misunderstood. I personally don't considering misreading things bad. I misread things a lot especially when I am in a rush. </p>

<p>"SF jazz"? With over 30% Asians and very low % of African Americans? By the way, do you know house music also originated in Chicago?</p>

<p>I don't know the label "Gourmet Ghetto". The food, like I said, is nothing fabulous. Those that know food apparently don't consider them anything special either. I am not aware of any listing of top restaurants that includes any of those "gourment ghetto" restaurants.</p>

42

<p>Alright, thanks for the clarification about who you're speaking for.</p>

<p>Non-blacks play jazz music, too. </p>

<p>I think many would disagree with you in that the food is pretty fabulous- where'd you eat, exactly? Where do you read lists of top restaraunts? Which of "those restaraunts" do you have in mind when you say the Gourmet Ghetto, anyway?</p>

43

<p>In terms of the cultural scene, I don't think Chicago is better than SF, except for the Blues. But SF has overall a better pop scene. And even if you're into Jazz and Blues, SF is very good by any standard, with one of the best Jazz radio stations in the world and several great venues in SF and Oakland, as well as jazz festivals like the SF or the North Beach fest. As well, Berkeley is home to a great jazz school and the UC Jazz Ensemble performs on campus.</p>

<p>Where Cal pulls away though is in the amount of cultural activity within the campus proper, with Cal Performance (Kirov Ballet, Mark Morris, Yoyo Ma -now there's an Asian who plays music-, Opera de Lyon,...) and the Greek Theater, a world-famous pop music venue that's right on campus.</p>

44

<p>CalX,</p>

<p>Bay Area...7 millions. You are probably pulling San Jose, a city bigger than SF itself. There's a lot of area you are covering. You may as well pull the whole California and with that, SF is the greatest in the world.</p>

<p>Regarding those tech firms you are talking about, they are not finance sectors, which is what I think the OP is interested in. But if the OP is interested in startups, then the bay area is better known for that.</p>

<p>So one person and one restaurant makes Berkeley "cuisine mecca"? Shouldn't "cuisine captial" or "mecca" have at least half dozen best of the best restaurants in the nation, instead of just one? </p>

<p>Did you actually live in Chicago??? Did you attend any Jazz festival in Chicago? If you haven't or at least stayed long enough to explore the scene or the cultural scene in general, I really don't think you can speak for it with so much confidence. There are probably lots of those jazz festivals you mentioned in places like Fresno too. It's okay to be less than Chicago in jazz because there are only few cities where jazz has had strong development and Chicago is one of them. No need to feel bad if your city isn't one of them and it doesn't mean it has a pathetic scene. I mentioned Chicago's geography is flat. I didn't say something like "oh, many people like it flat". LOL! But when it comes to weather, you go, "many people like a cool summer". Well, if that's the case, how come so many people complain about it? I just happen to meet the wrong people? LOL! You somehow feel SF/Berkeley has to be at least equal, if not above every other place in everything. No wonder whenever there's thread like Stanford vs Berkeley or whatever, it would drag on forever.</p>

45

<p>Can't we just agree that Chicago and SF are two fine cites, both of which can keep you busy and happy until you're 90 years old? And all this talk about food is laughable. Nobody I know that's in college eats at Chez Panisse, and I'm sure the same could be said for the gourmet establishments in Chicago. There will be good, cheap food for students in both places. Chicago has the best pizza I've ever had, and Berkeley has basically every type of food you could ever want, so its a wash in my eyes.</p>

46

<p>Come on Sam, you're being disingenious. Everybody knows what the metropolitan Bay Area is, it's the area from Napa to the southern edge of SJ (Los gatos/Morgan Hill) and east to Livermore. Berkeley is known to be in what is the East Bay, while San Jose is in the South Bay. People commute from SF to SJ, same transit systems:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>SF/SJ is a giant in world industry. That weight means it also has a big financial sector. All the big banks (and many small ones) have offices in the Bay Area with big staffs to cover the tech industry and other emerging sectors (biotech, pharma) as well as a base of large industry like Chevron or Gap/</p>

<p>It's also totally ridiculous to qualify the SF jazz scene as marginal. Berkeley and Oakland are home to famous musicians like Vince Guaraldi (Peanuts soundtrack), Ray Obiedo and Pete Escovidio. As a matter of fact, very few colleges (if any!) can boast having the lineup that Berkeley has *on its own campus every year, not just in jazz, but in pop, classical, dance or theater. Cal Students get a 50% discount and priviledged access to these events. If you volunteer, you can get free tickets. Here are some of the headliners for this year, just for jazz:
Wynton Marsalis Quintet
Gilberto Gil
Kronos Quartet
Bobby McFerrin with Voicestra
Paco de Luc</p>

47

<p>GentlemanandScholar, I ate at Chez Panisse fairly regularly as a student. You can get a calzone or a main course at the cafe upstairs for under $20, tip incuded. About three times the cost of dinner at McDonald's. That's one thing that makes the Berkeley food scene unique, it's pretty accessible. You can roll off your class in your shorts and eat at the most famous restaurant in the US. as well, everybody takes their visiting parents there.</p>

<p>What you don't have in Chicago is places like Gregoire, or the Cheese Board, which are high-end street food at low prices.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
What are the problems you have with Cal? Is it just the fact that those that are less motivated or willing to take initiative have a higher chance of falling through the cracks?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is your question what are the problems that I PERSONALLY have had with Cal, or the problems that I have seen Cal foist upon others? I think the latter is a far more interesting question. </p>

<p>The answer to the latter (and to some extent the former) is simple - Cal just doesn't particularly care about its individual undergrad students. The attitude of Cal has always been that here are the resources, but it's up to you to figure out how to use them effectively, and if you fall through the cracks, that's your problem. A lot of people do quite well in that kind of environment. But a lot of other people do not. The key is then to figure out what kind of student you are and then attend the school that fits you best. In particular, I would say that students who are meek, shy, not particular aggressive or entrepreneurial in their attitude are almost certaily better off going to another school. I don't think that's a statement of 'bashing', but rather a candid assessment of what Cal has and does not have to offer. Cal is a high-risk, high-reward school, which means that it is unsuited for those who don't have a high tolerance for risk. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If so, why do you continue to tell those that are considering other schools, such as MIT, Harvard, etc., about this horrible atmosphere at Cal? Your posts have strong negative undertones, and although you do make some concessions, they will for the most part turn those people that are considering Cal with other top schools away. However, those that have been accepted to Cal as their best school will take Cal over UCSD or other comparable schools. This seems to actually result in the opposite of your intention; those with the best chance to succeed at Cal (those that have shown their skills and intelligence by getting into other great, highly selective schools) reject Cal. Those that have Cal as their top choices and probably at the highest risk of "falling through the cracks" go on to choose Cal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is a DEEP mischaracterization.</p>

<p>First off, I would challenge the assertion that my posts have strong negative undertones or strong undertones of any sort. I say what is on my mind, so there are no 'under'tones. I call it as I see it.</p>

<p>But even if it was true that my posts have these strong negative undertones, so what? Don't I have the right to free speech? Don't I have the right to my own opinions? Is there some rule on CC that you can only write 'positive' posts? Has CC become an arm of the Berkeley marketing department? Are you advocating censorship? Are you saying that people should not be allowed to state certain opinions. If a guy like CalX is allowed to state his opinion, then I should be allowed to state mine. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I don't ever recall categorically recommending UCSD over Cal because Cal is a clearly better school. Now, if you have a stronger personal fit with regard to UCSD than Cal, or if you want to major in something in which UCSD is stronger than Cal, then that's another thing entirely. But on the aggregate, I have never categorically recommended UCSD over Cal.</p>

<p>I would also disagree with your assertion that somehow my posts emphasize the 'horrible' atmosphere at Cal. I don't ever recall using the word 'horrible' to describe the general atmosphere. What I have done is state certain problems that certain former and current students have had. I think it is important for people who are considering Cal to know about the problems that students can have. That is how you make an informed decision. Surely you are not going to take the position that people should not be allowed to learn about Cal's problems? In other words - censorship.</p>

<p>And that gets to the notion that I am somehow trying to 'steer' people one way or another. I personally don't care whether people choose Cal or not. What does bother me is that people will choose a particular school without having all of the information about that school, or, what is even more disturbing, is that some people don't WANT to have all of the information. In other words, what I have seen is that some people choose not to know about certain things. </p>

<p>To that, I would say that if you really don't want to have all of the information, fair enough, don't read my posts. Maybe I am telling you things that you just don't want to know. Fine. Then you can do us all a favor by simply ignoring anything I write. But let the people who want to have all of the information be allowed to get it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If my goal is to eventually double major in business and engineering, while participating in undergraduate research, where will I most likely have the best academic opportunities, assuming I am motivated enough to seek them out? Penn has the Jerome Fisher Tech/Management program, which integrates business and engineering. At Cal, there is the risk I won't get into one of the two schools. At Northwestern, the integration is to a lesser degree and an Undergraduate business degree is not available. However, as far as research, it is most available at Northwestern but the caliber, in my opinion from what I have seen, is greater at Berkeley. I do not know of the research at UPenn. If you have the time, please correct the inaccuracies of my statements and fill in the blanks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of the 3 choices you mentioned, I would put Penn JF first, followed by Berkeley and then Northwestern. That is because, like you said, Penn JF is completely integrated (just like MIT LFM is, but for undergrad). </p>

<p>But again, much of it comes down to personal feel. I can definitely see how some people would prefer Northwestern over Berkeley or Berkeley over Penn or some other permutation. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As far as atmopshere, I visted all three of the campuses in the past couple weeks and loved them all. San Francisco is an awesome city, so much to do, great food, great weather. Chicago.. how can you not like Chicago? I hear its cold. Very cold. Never been there when its cold. But at the same time, I've always lived in mild/hot weather and I wouldn't mind a chance to experience something different. (Yes, I realize both UCB and NU are in suburbs, not SF/Chicago. But the culture does carry over, and neither is eccessively far.) I don't know much about Philly, but I loved the UPenn campus and the surrounding area, or what little of it I saw. And the athletic facility is freakin' awesome.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would consider all 3 to be highly vibrant communities. It really comes down to personal fit. Some people like SF. Some people like Chcago. Some people like Philly. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, please do reply to the paragraph about your intentions of steering those that may fall through the cracks away. I don't want to you drive away a potential future friend, genius, witty, motivated, etc. because of your negative posts even though they may have succeeded at Berkeley. I recognize you are an intelligent person, and I am sure you can see why I have an issue. I also recognize that you are trying to help people, but I think you need to make sure you make it clear that those that have the drive, intelligence, and will to succeed at MIT and make it far in the world could do so at Berkeley as well. Please do not take away the gifted at my potential University

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Come now. If there is any REAL danger of 'steering' (which I am not doing), then it is in steering people to Berkeley who don't fit well in that environment. Like my old friend who came to Berkeley and promptly flunked out. The truth is, he should have gone to Stanford or one of the Ivies or (probably best of all for him) one of the elite LAC's. He chose Berkeley because Berkeley basically gave him a full ride through the Chancellor's Scholarship, but the fact is, his personality didn't fit well with the Berkeley environment and he couldn't adjust. It's better to go into debt to earn a degree from a school than to go to a school on a full ride, only to flunk out. </p>

<p>What is really unforgiveably infuriating about the situation is that Berkeley still refuses to let him off the hook. It's many years later since he flunked out. So he wasn't a good fit for Berkeley. Fine. Then Berkeley should seal his academic records and let him go to some other school with a clean slate. But Berkeley refuses to even consider it. Why? </p>

<p>But I also disagree that those who have the drive and will to succeed at MIT will also do well at Berkeley. As I have said before, these are 2 entirely different environments. Characteristics that would make you successful at MIT may not make you successful at Berkeley. In fact, in several ways, the success factors at both schools are actually somewhat orthogonal to each other. The point is, there are definitely students who would thrive at one school who would perform terribly at the other, or even flunk out. This is why personal fit is such an important factor. </p>

<p>Look. I am not saying that everybody should choose MIT over Berkeley, or vice versa. Nor am I saying that the other schools are problem-free. Heck, if you see my posts on some of the other sections of CC, I discuss in great depth about the problems of some of those other schools. What I am saying is that if you want to consider Berkeley, you should be given all of the information about Berkeley before you can truly reach an informed decision.</p>

49

<p>GentlemanandScholar,</p>

<p>CalX is the one who said SF is "far more superior" than Chicago. The funny thing is he hasn't even lived there before! My view is that they both have pros and cons and I lived in both places before. CalX seems to be thinking everything is at least equal, if not better in SF. He thinks many people like cool summer despite the fact the cold foggy summer is one of the most commonly cited when people point out the negatives of SF. He also thinks SF's jazz is as good as Chicago's despite the fact that Chicago, not SF, is one of the few cities people would think of when it comes to jazz. At least I acknowledged that Chiacgo's geologic setting is flat and not comparable to SF. I also acknowledged that Chicago's winter is worse than any weather situation in SF. If I were like CalX, I could have come up with excuses like "people actually like it flat cos you don't have to walk up those da*n hills" or "many people love cold winter, four seasons, and white Christmas". ;)</p>

<p>CalX,</p>

<p>I said Berkeley wouldn't qualify as "cuisine mecca" because of just one restaurant. It's so ridiculous you listed the restaurants in SF as if I said SF didn't have more than one top-rated restaurant in the nation. I didn't! Please don't confuse people. The two aren't interchangable like the Trinity. LOL! You should just acknowlege you inflated Berkeley. </p>

<p>I never mention anything about jazz on campus. If that's directed to me, you were simply going off the tangent.</p>

50

<p>Where's your list of top places again, sam lee?</p>

51

<p>Whoa sakky - you're completely twisting what I said. I never said you recommended UCSD over Cal. I said that the way your posts work is that the students that got into the best colleges, MIT, Penn, Harvard, Stanford, etc.. the ones that have a higher chance of succeeding at Berkeley, are the ones that will not pick it. The ones that got into Cal as their top school, among UCSD/Irvine etc, will end up picking Cal. Now I realize that this isn't uniform across the board, but you cannot deny that it is more likely that those people accepted at the higher colleges are generally more motivated and driven.</p>

<p>I'm not asking you to censor anything - completely against that. I'm just saying that you claim your posts are solely informative, yet you include these little negative things that are somewhat irrelevent. Include them if you wish, but please clarify the improbability of these situations, or at least the rarity. I just ask that you clearly state the following: If you are driven, outgoing, willing to seek out resources, you have the ability to succeed at Berkeley. The majority of your posts that outline the possibilities to fail at Cal do not say this. They may very slightly imply it, but it gives the overall post a negative tone. Am I saying you shouldn't be allowed to post it? No.. I'm just saying that its misleading when you say you only seek to inform.</p>

<p>I really don't understand where you got censorship from. Reread my post, please. I never ask you to stop posting, I just ask you to clarify - if your goal is to actually inform students. If your goal is to mislead students or steer them away - which you say is not your goal - then please clarify your posts. Attacking me by saying that I am in support of censorship is a clear logical fallacy. I can see you are an intelligent person, I just don't see where that came from.</p>

<p>By the way - about the FedEx guy - are you seriously going to tell me that someone who was gifted enough to recieve the Chancellor's scholarship cannot find a better opportunity than this? I'm not saying that what Berkeley did was justified or anything, but you cannot place all of the blame on Berkeley. Obviously, this guy is smart. Obviously, he didn't care about his time at Berkeley. I'm not saying that its completely his fault, but you make it seem like it is completely Berkeley's. I can see your point about Berkeleys apathy towards the success of their undergraduates, and I agree that something needs to be done about this. However, I cannot believe that someone that had such intelligence - at least in the past - to receive a Chancellor's scholarship cannot find something better than a job at FedEx for so many years. Unless he does management or something now? I know for a fact that there are small colleges just in Vegas that will admit you just out of showing motivation with no prior transcrips required, just a diploma/GED. Not saying its a great school or anything, but it gets you a degree and you can definitely find something better than what he has now. Is he not willing to climb the stairs to his old point? Does he just want to magically be back where he was, without showing any effort on his part at all? Excuse me if I sound insensitive, or if I am wrong about his effort - I have not read all of your posts, so please correct me if he has done something similar to what I have said. Its just that you seem to place all of his problems on Cal's shoulders.</p>

52

<p>CalX and SamLee -
Thank you both for the information about the two schools. I've chosen Berkeley over Northwestern - two reasons.</p>

<p>One - Money. Instate tuition for three years, hard to turn it down.</p>

<p>Two - I realized something about the weather. I was willing to put up with the cold for the wonderful summer's I've experienced there. I've visited Chicago 3x,twice in midsummer and once in late spring. Then it dawned on me: If I went to NU, I'd come back to Vegas for the summer. Meaning no awesome Chicago summers...</p>

<p>I know I'll miss Northwestern, the chance of actually seeing a true snowfall and having a legitimate snowball fight without going snowboarding or using artificial snow.. I'll miss the beach, the private school atmosphere, the dorms.. the friendliness and helpful quality of the people. But I'm going to be living there for four years, and I've never been there while its been cold. </p>

<p>Thank you again Sam Lee, you've given me a ton of great, very useful information. Though you didn't swing me to Northwestern, I've shown a few friends to this post and you've helped them as much as, or more than, you've helped me.</p>

<p>CalX, thank you too. you definitely helped me choose Berkeley. It sounds like I'll have a great time there.</p>

<p>By the way - I don't really even like Jazz. But I'm sure both places have wonderful opportunities to immerse in the culture, even if one is slightly older/better.</p>

53

<p>I'm sorry this thread often got off topic or concerned itself with things that you didn't really care about. I'd say that you will get dorming experience (I dont know how similar or different to NU) if you want it, and you're likely to find some friendliness and helpfulness in the Berkeley population. See you next year! Go bears!</p>

54

<p>Oh I didn't mind about the jazz thing. I was just saying.. you never know, someone who may be interested in jazz might wander into the thread. Not saying there aren't friendly people or helpful people at Berkeley - just experienced some of it already at NU. And about the dorms, gonna live in them at Berkeley too. Its just that NU's dorms were amazingly nice. Some of them anyways..</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
I'm just saying that you claim your posts are solely informative, yet you include these little negative things that are somewhat irrelevent. Include them if you wish, but please clarify the improbability of these situations, or at least the rarity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thank you fisd. That was a point I've made to sakky several times already.</p>

<p>If you look at the latest differential in the 6-yr graduation rate between Cal and the top privates, you will find that this difference is quite small:</p>

<p>Cal 86.6%
NWU: 92.0%</p>

<p>As well, most of the difference in the 4-yr graduation rate (which is more marked) is due to the fact that Cal's student body has a much higher proportion of middle and lower-middle class students who need to work more hours. But the stat above proves that sakky's constant use of the falling-through-the-cracks-of-Berkeley story is disingenious without putting its relative rarity into context.</p>

<p>It indicates that sakky has at the very least a strong anti-Berkeley bias, if not an outright agenda.</p>

<p>fisd, you won't regret your choice. I think you will find that you will have made the same decision regardless of the weather and cost savings. Berkeley is such an amazing place to grow as a student and as a person. Good luck and go bears!</p>

56

<p>fisd,
Congratulations! For in-state tuition, it's hard to beat Berkeley. I knew all along you'd pick it. CalX is a better salesperson anyway. ;) Like CalX said, IEOR/econ are probably the closest to what you want while pending Hass' admission. </p>

<p>DRab,
Go to <a href="http://www.dirona.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dirona.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>CalX,
I feel you are underappreciating Chicago because of lack of knowledge about it. If it's not the winter, I can totally see myself living there. The fact that it's in the midwest may have something to do with it. But it's actually pretty east coast (where I'd lived for 2 years) like and has been called "the east coast in the midwest". Here's a good link I found about Chicago: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Chicago is ranked as one of 10 "Alpha" (most influential) world cities by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group & Network

[/quote]

[quote]
Chicago commands the third-largest market in North America (after New York City and Los Angeles) and as such has many different forms of media and outlets to support its status.

[/quote]

[quote]
Today, Chicago remains the United States' second financial center with the nation's second largest central business district and third largest gross metropolitan product. In fact, Chicago's gross metropolitan product would rank 18th in the world if it were a nation-state, at approximately $380 billion

[/quote]

[quote]
Chicago has made many significant pop-cultural contributions. In the field of music, Chicago is well-known for its Chicago blues, Chicago soul, Jazz, and Gospel. It is known as the birthplace of the House style of music, whose history is related to the development and fostering of the techno electronic style of music in nearby Michigan.

[/quote]

Not saying that means it's better; I just don't think SF is far superior to Chicago and vice versa.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
Whoa sakky - you're completely twisting what I said. I never said you recommended UCSD over Cal. I said that the way your posts work is that the students that got into the best colleges, MIT, Penn, Harvard, Stanford, etc.. the ones that have a higher chance of succeeding at Berkeley, are the ones that will not pick it. The ones that got into Cal as their top school, among UCSD/Irvine etc, will end up picking Cal. Now I realize that this isn't uniform across the board, but you cannot deny that it is more likely that those people accepted at the higher colleges are generally more motivated and driven.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I disagree with your premise here. Just because you are extremely accomplished academically does not mean that you have the type of personality that would fit well in Berkeley.</p>

<p>As a case in point, I would point to my brother. My brother's academic accomplishments are beyond reproach, to the point that he won the full-tuition + stipend merit President's Scholarship to Caltech. So he actually MADE MONEY by going to Caltech. On the other hand, he freely freely admits that he is a highly quiet and mild-mannered guy. He would be precisely the type of person who would do very poorly in the aggressive environment at Berkeley. He is indisputably a genius, but also exactly the wrong personality for Berkeley. </p>

<p>Nor is he the only one. Let's face it. There are many other quiet geniuses in the world. In fact, I have read numerous studies that document the correlation between true intellectual genius and introversion. Heck, I remember that the valedictorian of my high school class was basically a quiet and mild-mannered genius who, quite frankly, was more comfortable in reading books and studying than he was in interacting with people. Put these people in the right intellectual envirnonment, like a Caltech or an MIT or something like that, and they blossom. Put them in an environment that requires strong aggression, like Berkeley, and they wilt. Come on, you know what I'm talking about. We've all seen these guys.</p>

<p>On a similar note, there are people who perform far better in small, intimate environments than in large ones. If my brother had not gotten into Caltech or MIT, then I would have recommended that he look into one of the elite LAC's or perhaps Princeton (which is basically a LAC that also happens to have a bunch of doctoral programs). Again, it has to do with personality. He is the kind of guy who, while brilliant, needs to have an environment that will draw his brilliance out of him. He will not aggressively assert his brilliance by himself. Hence, he does better in an environment that focuses on teaching, on small classroom interaction, and the like. </p>

<p>Think of Ethan Hawke's character in the movie "Dead Poet's Society" - a painfully shy and withdrawn person who is nevertheless a poetic genius, but would demonstrate his genius only when Robin Williams got into his face and forced him to display it. He wouldn't do it by himself. </p>

<p>Now, I don't think that my brother is as quiet and as withdrawn as the Ethan Hawke character, but the point is, just because you may have the academic qualifications to get admitted to Berkeley doesn't mean that would succeed there. This is a matter of a personality fit. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not asking you to censor anything - completely against that. I'm just saying that you claim your posts are solely informative, yet you include these little negative things that are somewhat irrelevent. Include them if you wish, but please clarify the improbability of these situations, or at least the rarity. I just ask that you clearly state the following: If you are driven, outgoing, willing to seek out resources, you have the ability to succeed at Berkeley. The majority of your posts that outline the possibilities to fail at Cal do not say this. They may very slightly imply it, but it gives the overall post a negative tone. Am I saying you shouldn't be allowed to post it? No.. I'm just saying that its misleading when you say you only seek to inform.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I don't know about it being 'misleading'. I prefer to give people more information rather than less, and people should be free to determine for themselves what is relevant for them and what isn't. I think it is entirely proper for people to know the problems of Berkeley. In fact, they SHOULD know them if they are seriously considering Berkeley. I am certainly not going to police my posts to remove any hints of possible undertones or irrelevancies, because that's basically self-censorship. My role is to give you as much information as possible, and then you have to be the one to determine what to do with it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If your goal is to mislead students or steer them away - which you say is not your goal - then please clarify your posts. Attacking me by saying that I am in support of censorship is a clear logical fallacy. I can see you are an intelligent person, I just don't see where that came from.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because again, what you are saying is that I should somehow modify my posts to prevent possible 'steerage', something that I will not do. If people are steered away from Berkeley by my posts, then that is perhaps as it should be. Like I said, you have to figure out what is the best school for you. If by reading my posts, you discover that Berkeley is not a good match for you, then I would think that that is a very good thing. Not everybody who gets admitted to Berkeley should go there. The absolute worst thing that can happen is for a person to choose Berkeley only to then find out after matriculation that it's a bad match. </p>

<p>The point is, I give you all of the information I have, and it is the job of the reader to lead himself to wherever he thinks he should go. I am not going to lead or steer anybody anywhere. The decision is up to the reader. If some people choose not to come to Berkeley after reading my posts, then I don't see why that's necessarily a bad thing. Like I said, some people should not be choosing Berkeley. For example, if you have a personality like my brother's, then you probably shouldn't go to Berkeley.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
By the way - about the FedEx guy - are you seriously going to tell me that someone who was gifted enough to recieve the Chancellor's scholarship cannot find a better opportunity than this? I'm not saying that what Berkeley did was justified or anything, but you cannot place all of the blame on Berkeley. Obviously, this guy is smart. Obviously, he didn't care about his time at Berkeley. I'm not saying that its completely his fault, but you make it seem like it is completely Berkeley's. I can see your point about Berkeleys apathy towards the success of their undergraduates, and I agree that something needs to be done about this. However, I cannot believe that someone that had such intelligence - at least in the past - to receive a Chancellor's scholarship cannot find something better than a job at FedEx for so many years. Unless he does management or something now? I know for a fact that there are small colleges just in Vegas that will admit you just out of showing motivation with no prior transcrips required, just a diploma/GED. Not saying its a great school or anything, but it gets you a degree and you can definitely find something better than what he has now. Is he not willing to climb the stairs to his old point? Does he just want to magically be back where he was, without showing any effort on his part at all? Excuse me if I sound insensitive, or if I am wrong about his effort - I have not read all of your posts, so please correct me if he has done something similar to what I have said. Its just that you seem to place all of his problems on Cal's shoulders.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, I never said that it was all Berkeley's fault. He freely admits that he was highly immature and irresponsible when he was 17 and 18 years old. And he got punished for it. Fine. </p>

<p>But my point is this. Hasn't he suffered enough? It's many years later now. Who cares about what happened years ago? He didn't commit a crime. He didn't hurt anybody (except himself). He was just immature and irresponsible. But that's not a crime. Think of it this way. Speeding tickets and moving violations get wiped off of your driving record after 5 years. Personal bankruptcies get wiped from your credit record after 7-10 years. So shouldn't there be some sort of grace period after which failing grades gets wiped from your college academic record? That would allow people who screwed up in the past, but are different people now, to start from a clean slate. But Berkeley refuses to do it. And why not? It would just be a flick of the pen. What does Berkeley gain by refusing his records? Hasn't he suffered enough? Why doesn't Berkeley let him off the hook? All that stuff happened a very long time ago, who cares about it now? This is why I strongly suspect that there is a faction within the Berkeley administration that actually seems to ENJOY hurting students. They almost seem to WANT to screw up the lives of those students. </p>

<p>Now of course there are ways for him to recover. For example, he could start off at community college, do well there, transfer to a CalState, and so forth. But why should he have to? He has a very good high school academic transcript. After all, it did get him into Berkeley with a chancellor's scholarship. So why can't he just use that to reapply to other decent schools as a freshman? The problem of course is that he has a record of documented expulsion from Berkeley, and no decent school will touch him with a 10-foot pole. But why should that be? What that means is that he is actually WORSE off by going to Berkeley. This is wrong. He should not be made worse off. At worst, he should be the same, but not worse off. </p>

<p>Put another way, if he had decided to not even go to college at all, but just entered the workforce right after high school, then he could now apply to a bunch of top schools and probably get in. I know other people who didn't start college until they were 30 or so. So it's not that unusual. But he chose to go to Berkeley right after high school, whereupon he flunked out because of immaturity. But if he has simply chosen to work, maybe he would have still been immature and he would have been fired from various jobs and bounced around a lot. Sure. But being fired from your job for immaturity when you're 17 or 18 years old is really not a big deal, and certainly not something for which a school adcom would reject you. But flunking out of school for immaturity is something for which an adcom would reject you. This should not be. Going to Berkeley should not make anybody worse off than not going to college at all.</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
As well, most of the difference in the 4-yr graduation rate (which is more marked) is due to the fact that Cal's student body has a much higher proportion of middle and lower-middle class students who need to work more hours. But the stat above proves that sakky's constant use of the falling-through-the-cracks-of-Berkeley story is disingenious without putting its relative rarity into context.</p>

<p>It indicates that sakky has at the very least a strong anti-Berkeley bias, if not an outright agenda.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, there you go again, trying to accuse me of having an agenda. So you're saying that people should NOT know about the story of the FedEx guy? He is not the only story that I know about. I can tell you of another guy who failed out of ME, although in his case, his case is less sympathetic for the simple reason that he probably should never have been admitted in the first place (the only way he got in was he was a Hispanic during the old days pre-Prop 209, and not only that, his sister happened to be personal friends with the AA director in the CoE and she forwarded his brother's file to the her). But the point is, plenty of students come to Berkeley and do poorly. </p>

<p>And by poorly, I don't necessarily mean flunking out, although that is clearly the most extreme case. Doing poorly can also mean barely graduating. Take engineering. Believe me, there are PLENTY of engineering students who are doing quite poorly, as in, getting GPA's below a 2.5. If you're in that kind of range, your life is not much fun at all because basically your whole life is spent trying to avoid probation. For example, I know a guy in EECS who basically couldn't even do any recruiting his senior year because he wasn't even sure he was going to graduate. To graduate in EECS, not only do you need an overall 2.0, but you also need a 2.0 in your upper-division technical coursework, and coming into his senior year, he was barely above water. Rack up a few C-'s (which are worth 1.7), and he would not have graduated. So basically he couldn't recruit, couldn't socialize, really couldn't do anything at all in his senior year, because he had to spend all of his time studying in order to avoid not graduating. Basically, that was one of the most stressful years of his life. Just think of it. To spend several years at Berkeley and still not be sure whether you're even going to graduate. That's not a fun mental state to be in. </p>

<p>As it turns out, he did indeed graduate. But that's not the end of his troubles. I think he ended up with a 2.1 GPA. Let's face it. Most respectable employers are not going to touch a candidate with grades that low. So it took him quite a long time to find a job. I think his job search took him something around 9 months after graduation, during which time he was living at home doing nothing. Contrast that with his buddies who had studied engineerng at lower UC's or to CalStates and had done well there and consequently had secured good jobs before they had graduated. The job this guy eventually got was as a low-level engineer at a no-name company, something he could have easily gotten by going to a lesser school. In fact, I think he once said that basically every employee there was from a CalState or a lower UC, which means that if he had just gone to a CalState or a lower UC, he would have probably gotten the same job 9 months earlier.</p>

<p>That doesn't mean that I am saying that people should turn down Berkeley for a lower UC or a CalState. Far from it. The point there is that simple graduation rates are not enough to determine whether students are doing well. In the case of Northwestern, I would surmise that not only are more students graduating, but more importantly, more students get higher grades which make them more competitive for graduate school or jobs. By pure reputation, I highly doubt that too many Northwestern students are getting truly bad grades. But that happens at Berkeley quite a bit, particularly in the technical disciplines. Again, let's face it. There are quite a few engineering and science students at Berkeley who are getting less than a 2.5, and they're going to have some trouble finding a decent job and going to a decent graduate school is certainly out of the question. </p>

<p>And besides, you constantly accuse me of having an agenda. Well, I can easily say the same thing about you. You hardly ever seem to talk about the negatives of Berkeley. What about that? Seems to me that if I am slanted, or I do have an agenda, it's no different than you. Seems to me that you don't want anybody to ever turn Berkeley down. My position is that some people SHOULD turn Berkeley down because they have better opportunities elsewhere or because of a poor personality fit. I doubt that this is a position with 'an agenda', but even it is, it's no worse than what you're doing.</p>

60

<p>Sakky, do you really think of Berkeley as needing "strong aggression" to succeed, and people needing to be "really aggressive." Maybe it's just me, or I'm not familiar enough with the system and don't have enough experience, but it seems that your wording is extreme- for instance, is instigating a conversation with a professor extreme? Going to office hours? Asking for help? Certainly Berkeley is not for everyone, but at the same time, it's not a huge pack of wild dogs trying to get whatever bits of scrap meat that is thrown into their pit. Your descriptions make it sound like that. "Being aggressive" and being proactive are not the same thing. While at times one might need to be assertive, one needn't be aggressive at all turns, or nearly ever.</p>