<p>I think what we can agree on, and what the real point should be, is that at Berkeley it is generally necessary for students to be more proactive, or more aggressive, to get the same opportunities than similar students at private institutions of similar caliber. Whether this is a positive or negative of the University vacillates according to personal preference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What I mean is that one needs to be aggressive to really take advantage of all of the resources at Berkeley, whereas at other schools, the resources basically just get handed to you. I agree that one can get a fantastic education at Berkeley - just as good as most of the elite private schools - if one has the type of personality to seize the opportunities. But if you're not that kind of person, then the kind of education you will get at Berkeley will be of far lower quality. In other words, if your natural personality is to just sit back and let things come to you, then you're not really going to get that great of an education at Berkeley and you are probably better off going to some other school.</p>
<p>Sakky.. I never told you to remove anything to your posts. I just ask that rather than splitting your posts up into two different posts - one predominantly negative, and one (almost) positive, you combine them. So that way when people are browsing the boards, they don't see your one negative post and just dismiss the place. Your concession posts or positive posts are so much smaller that in like half of your posts you make Berkeley seem like a completely negative place - something you agree that it isn't. Not asking you to censor anything, just asking you to include all of your opinions in threads more often..not just the negatives..</p>
<p>Ha! So basically, you're asking me to make my posts even longer and comprehensive and more nuanced than they already are.</p>
<p>At the same time, I have other people constantly complaining that my posts are just too long and thick.</p>
<p>So really, I can't win. No matter what I do, somebody is going to complain.</p>
<p>You say you want to provide everyone with as much information as possible - I don't see whats wrong with what I said.</p>
<p>I want to provide all of the information I can, but at the same time I don't feel like repeating myself over and over. People are free to search through all of my old posts.</p>
<p>But you say the negatives over and over..just not the positives.. is this indicative of an agenda? Just kidding just kidding.. but still.. whats up with that?</p>
<p>I think I can answer that for sakky. It's because here, other people generally all cite the positives, thus he feels he should provide the other side. Besides that, he probably genuinely believes in what he says and he probably wants people asking to get what he believes is a truthful image of Berkeley.</p>
<p>I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that's generally what I got from reading his posts and explanations of his posts in his other posts. I'm not sure how productive trying to dig out sakky's motives are.</p>
<p>I don't think he does it maliciously, since I've seen him defend Berkeley on other forums outside this one (against unreasonable belittlement in any case).</p>
<p>Whether what he says is absolute truth or not--it probably isn't. But neither is anyone else's opinions. There's plenty of other people's views and opinions to balance out a good idea of what Berkeley is.
He does gives fair, and justified, warning to those who will go to Berkeley and not work as hard as they should. And in all honesty, people unwilling to put in work shouldn't be at Berkeley. Though in my opinion, they shouldn't be at any other top institution either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But you say the negatives over and over..just not the positives.. is this indicative of an agenda? Just kidding just kidding.. but still.. whats up with that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Drab said it perfectly. My "agenda" (if I have one) is to provide a balanced look at Berkeley. Hence, when I think that a discussion is tilting too far in one direction, that is when I will step in. For example, some of my most long-standing clashes were with that guy rayray222/california1600/californiapride/some-other-names-he-used who was providing the most saccharine-coated posts of Berkeley I have ever seen. I saw it as my duty to provide the other side. </p>
<p>At the same time, as Drab pointed out, I have also had numerous clashes with others who have derided Berkeley unreasonably. Perhaps these are less famous because they tend to occur, unsurprisingly, on the Stanford board. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I don't think I have to repeat positives that others have already stated in a certain thread, nor do I need repeat negatives that others have already stated in a certain thread. The real key is for somebody who is perusing an entire thread to be given a palette of opinions. Berkeley is neither all-good nor all-bad. </p>
<p>However, one thing that should be said is that certain things are simply not a matter of debate, because they are facts. People have the right to their own opinions, but people do not have the right to their own facts. This is why I attempt to include references to facts in as many posts as I can. There are certain things about Berkeley that are indisputable and should not be the subject of debate. For example, I agree with CalX that Berkeley is well-connected within the Bay Area through public transportation because of BART and ACTransit in a way that Stanford is not. This is indisputable and can be seen through a simple glance at the public transportation grid. It is also indisputable that the Bay Area in general and San Francisco in particular is one of the most culturally rich locations in the world. It is also indisputable that Bay Area weather is significantly more moderate than is New England/NY/Midwest weather (although it is also indisputable that San Diego weather is even more moderate). On the other hand, it is indisputable that Berkeley's yield rate is significantly lower than that of the top private schools, and that the placement rates to get into, say, medical school, are not as high as at those private schools.</p>
<p>"saccharine-coated"...haha. You couldn't have said sugar-coated could you?</p>
<p>Sugar is natural. Saccharine is completely artificial.</p>
<p>
[quote]
D*Rab said it perfectly. My "agenda" (if I have one) is to provide a balanced look at Berkeley . . . At the same time, as DR*ab pointed out, I have also had numerous clashes with others who have derided Berkeley unreasonably
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did I say these things? Where was that?</p>
<p>Sorry, I meant to say Allorion. </p>
<p>But I know you have defended me in the past.</p>
<p>I guess you just have me on the brain, sakky. ;)</p>