sakky--What is your relationship with UC Berkeley?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
21

<p>Sakky, there isn't a school in the country that does everything the best.
If I want to make connections in politics or the business world, I wouldn't go to Berkeley over Stanford, Princeton, Harvard or Yale.</p>

<p>If I want to go to a school with predominately wealthy people, Berkeley isn't the right school.</p>

<p>If I want to go to school that really has the most diversified student body, where I can get a great education with the best professors in the country, that has division 1 sports, strong in music, where the energy level is unmatched, where I can visit a world class city under 30 minutes, study practically anything, the price is good, the weather is great, where intelligence is valued, and where I will have to be pro-active because nothing is given to you, then Berkeley is the place.</p>

22

<p>dstark, there's no point in harping on sakky. Someone asked a question, she simply responded with her background and views on what should be changed at berk. They're just her own opinions so we don't need to make this an off-topic argument thread. No conclusion will be drawn regardless of time spent arguing, so I don't think we should waste our energy on such.</p>

<p>I think we can all agree that every school has their individual pros and cons, berk has a lot of pros and is a very awesome school, but of course, it still has some cons which can be worked on.</p>

23

<p>Now, let me deal with people's objections in turn.</p>

<p>To Dstark, I am not 'rushing' anybody through college who doesn't want to be rushed. If you want to undergo a standard 4-5 year undergraduate progression, you can do so. What I am saying is that we should provide a boon for those people who might be interested in getting out early. Nobody's being forced. But if you want to do it, I propose to reward you. It helps Berkeley because Berkeley saves money. It helps you by giving you added incentive to get out early. But again, I'm not forcing anybody to do anything they don't want to do. If you don't want it, you don't have to take it. </p>

<p>As to your other points, Dstark, I'm afraid that many of them are nonsequiturs. Of course Berkeley is the best school for some people. Did I ever say otherwise? Of course Berkeley educates a lot of relatively poor people. Did I say otherwise ? </p>

<p>But that doesn't mean that Berkeley can't get better. You're basically acting as if Berkeley has no reason to improve on anything, and I think that even the biggest Berkeley fanatic would have to disagree with that. Berkeley has flaws, many of which are fixable. Yet it seems as if the Berkeley administration doesn't really want to fix them. And, I'm afraid to say it, but it is people like yourself who encourage the administration to not fix the problems. By going around saying how great Berkeley is, you're simply encouraging the Berkeley administration to do nothing. </p>

<p>I also would inquire about your statement about Berkeley taking more risks and therefore undergoing more failures. That's a pretty blase attitude, don't you think? You're basically legitimizing the laziness and the lack of desire to study that some of the student body exhibits. Again, I repeat, for those students, one of two things should happen. Either those students should be encouraged to change their ways and become serious students. Or, they should be eliminated from the school so that Berkeley can either save money or so that their seats can be offered to students who will be serious students. </p>

<p>And don't posit laziness as simply a 'non-academic interest'. Again, you don't seem to see the seriousness of the problem. It's not just about liking or disliking the Oakland A's. It 's about the entire gamut of behavior - like never going to class, not knowing what's going on in class, and not wanting to know what's going on in class, and instead spending all your time goofing off. Nor is this attributable to just 'a small amount' of students. Go down fraternity row and you'll see plenty of guys who haven't opened a book in weeks. Go down to the coops and you'll see the same thing. You have to admit, there are far more than just 'a small amount' of students at Berkeley who are not serious students. </p>

<p>This is not a game here. What makes the situation so serious is that these students are being subsidized by the taxpayer and are using up precious Berkeley resources at a time when Berkeley is going through budget problems. I don't know about you, but I don't think too many California taxpayers would enjoy hearing that their taxes have been used to support all-week drinking binges. I'm sure they also wouldn't like to hear that their tax dollars are being used to support people who don't study, who don't want to study, and just want to get an easy Berkeley degree while doing as little as possible. Again, these guys are not serious students. They either need to become serious students, or they should be forced to give up their spots. </p>

<p>And to conor, this has nothing to with being elite. This has to with the seriousness of the scholarship. Surely you're not going to take the position of defending laziness. Yet just go walking around the residences at Cal and you will see people who basically never go to class, never study, never do anything academic. All they do is goof off and do nothing all day long. Who is going to defend that? Is it elitist to say that these people should actually care about school? Is it elitist to say that these people should be going to class and actually trying to learn something? Is it elitist to say that Berkeley is wasting tax dollars to subsidize people who clearly don't want to do anything? Fine, if so, then I'm an elitist. However, I think that would make a lot of people elitist.</p>

<p>And I will tackle your other point headon. You say that small schools are elitist and big schools are necessarily less popular because people can't use a big school to separate themselves from the crowd. </p>

<p>I will argue this point through analogy. Which MBA program has the largest full-time enrollment in the world? Is it some huge public school? Nope, it's Harvard Business School. Yep, that's right, HBS has the largest full-time MBA enrollment of any B-school in the world. In fact, HBS is almost 4 times the enrollment of that of the MBA program of Haas. That's right, almost 4 times. Simply put, HBS is a behemoth compared to Haas. </p>

<p>I think you must agree that there would be very few people who would turn down HBS in order to attend Haas. Honestly, how many people would turn down a chance to get an MBA from Harvard because they'd rather go to Haas? Very few. Yet, here's a situation where people are turning down a program with small enrollment (Haas) in order to attend the program with the largest enrollment (HBS). I think that calls into question your contention that the popularity of a large program necessarily plummets. HBS is arguably the most popular business school in the world, as well as being the most populous. That proves that you can be both large and the most desirable at the same time.</p>

<p>Let's take a look at law schools. What's the most populous law school in the country? Some huge public school? Nope, once again, it's Harvard. Harvard Law School has almost twice the students that Berkeley Boalt has. Yet how many people are going to turn down Harvard Law because they'd rather go to Boalt? </p>

<p>Again, the point is that there is no necessary conflict between size and popularity. You can be both very large AND very popular at the same time. Hence, I'm afraid I cannot accept your contention that people want to attend small programs in order to separate themselves from others. Tell that to the students in the gigantic class of HBS.</p>

24

<p>Now, to dstark's second question, it's not simply a matter of choosing HYPS because you want better ties to business or politics. The fact is, HYPS(and MC) can and often do provide better education than does Berkeley. Hence, you can't just say that people prefer HYPSMC just for connections. Many people prefer HYSPMC because of the superior education. </p>

<p>Let's face it, while some people get a very good education at Berkeley, many others do not. There are many Berkeley alumni who are quite bitter and unhappy with their experience at Berkeley. They feel that they didn't learn very much, that the profs never cared about them, that they could have learned more by just sitting at home reading the book, etc. etc. Again, not all students feel that way. But some do. </p>

<p>And these are things that Berkeley needs to work on. The reality is that Berkeley has never been known for strong undergraduate education across the board. Strong undergraduate education in certain fields, sure. And very strong research and graduate education, of course. But strong undergrad education across the board? Not really. There are plenty of Berkeley undergrads who are being poorly taught, who don't feel engaged, who don't enjoy their experience, who want something better. Berkeley could do a lot of things to provide that. </p>

<p>Again, look at how strong the Berkeley graduate programs are. Very well run, highly motivated and high morale graduate students, strong graduation rate for graduate students, strong connections to the profs, and so forth. Now ask yourself, why can't the undergraduate program be like that? You never see Boalt Law students hanging around in their dorms, never going to class, never studying, and doing nothing but playing video games and drinking all day long for weeks on end. You never see Berkeley PhD students not knowing what's going on with their studies, and not wanting to know what's going on with their studies. So why is it OK for Berkeley undergraduate students to be like that?</p>

25

<p>woah...</p>

<p>sakky, would you care to respond to my question as well?</p>

<hr>

<h2>Sakky, so what exactly is your relatinoship with Berk? Do you go there? Are you an alum? What do you do now?</h2>

<p>And also, what are you doing to get your ideas implemented/change the system?</p>

26

<p>Your criticism of fluff majors and laziness among some students is a criticism that could be shot at almost every school in the country, save maybe MIT and Caltech. You can graduate with a fluff degree from almost any college in the country with a minimal amount of work, Ivies included. </p>

<p>I agree with your thoughts on the subject, and proposed solutions. But we can’t make this look like a Berkeley-only phenomenon. There are thousands of college athletes in this country and they have to major in something, after all...</p>

27

<p>Undergraduate students do not have the maturity that graduate students have. Anywhere.</p>

28

<p>Sakky, you are always the first to point out the differences between undergrad and grad school, and this is no exception. You can't proclaim these huge differences between grad and undergrad only when it suits you. And honestly, these lazy people in fluff majors that you talk about, who cares if they go to class or not? You wouldn't know if they were there or not, because I assume you would be taking more scholarly classes to begin with. So the only reason you care is to enhance the image of the school, the prestige. Yes, they take tax dollars, and yes they dumb down the place, but what they don't do is have any impact of YOUR or MY personal education.</p>

29

<p>Conor keep looking, her point IS that when you "take tax dollars" or "dumb down the place" it takes valuable resources from more important uses, and inhibits Cal's ability to attract some high class students who overall, will improve the quality of education. Your education comes not just from the teachers or the facilities, as many schools have that. What makes the difference between a "good" school and an "outstanding" school is the students, and this is usually the case at any level of learning. Berkeley has the "stuff" as Sakky mentioned earlier. They have the Nobel laureates and the Patent holders and the professors who made the discovery and then wrote the book. Even the huge classes arent a problem if you have that many great students who are all striving to succeed. And as much as some people fail to think so, a subject is best learned through teaching it. Mutual cooperation between phenomenal students can increase individual success more than buying a better projector, a more expensive microscope, or nicer desks.</p>

30

<p>Uh...wow...long discussions. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I agree with expanding the Regents/Chancellor program. I mean, when you're looking at $1000/yr from Cal vs. $5500/yr from UCLA, suddenly, the slightly edge of prestige isn't as important...</p>

31

<p>Wall. Of. Freaking. Text. /10.</p>

32

<p>yllwjep, in theory you might be right, but how are you going to go about screening these dumb people. Will there be a test? Because the vast majority of incoming freshman have stellar stats and its only later that they start screwing off. Plus, you're going to get this everywhere, from chico state to harvard. ITS COLLEGE!! Kids like to get drunk, do alot of drugs, have sex, and shirk their homework. Atleast Cal doesn't have massive grade inflation like many other top colleges, so I imagine that the problem with these type of peolpe is even worse at those schools. To tell you the truth, I think eveyone is blowing this way out of proportion. Of course we'd all like classmates that add to the disscussion and make us think of new things, but in reality many of the smartest students sit completely quite in class as they take notes on their laptops. How is this any different that having a empty seat? All itr would do would prop up the numbers and give the college higher rankings and more prestige.</p>

33

<p>Therein lies the problem. Sure it would be great if we could just get in everyones minds and know whether or not they are going to be slackers or put telescreens in dorms... :) In the end, all schools exactly like you said, will have this same problem, and in the end those people will get theirs dont worry. But also, because the problem is unilateral does not necessarily make it unimportant, but not the most efficient way of solving the problem of trying to build up Cal. Attract as many good students as possible, let the bad apples screw themselves over, and the rest will fall into place. Maybe throw in some grade requirements to light some fires under some peoples ***'s and Cal should improve. For those who want to work and take initiative to find opportunities to go above and beyond others, from what i can tell, their efforts will be fruitful, and they will reap the rewards.</p>

34

<p>you guys worry too much about each other's opinions. go study or sleep or something</p>

35

<p>I don't think anyone is too worried about anyone elses opinion. People are talking about ways to make their school better, or worse in some cases, but I really don't see the problem with that. Besides, nobody is forcing you to read these posts.</p>

36

<p>all i really care to know about regarding this thread is what the **** is sakky's connection to CAL? it remains a mystery......</p>

37

<p>Sakky is the screenname of the new chancellor. (j/k)</p>

38

<p>Conor, yllwjep has understood my point completely. Conor, you have to understand that those weak students are not just hurting themselves. They're hurting everybody else by soaking up money, because their presence "forces" Berkeley to maintain programs that could otherwise be greatly shrunk or shut down completely. Some of them are taking up valuable dorm room space that could instead be given to other students who are actually conscientious about their studying. </p>

<p>And I would repeat, the biggest problem in all this with these slackers is that they are taking up an admissions spot that could have been given to somebody who actually wants to work hard. So consider the fairness of that. Every year, good students are denied admission to Berkeley due to lack of space, yet at the same time, Berkeley is filled with a large quantity of current students who don't lift a finger. </p>

<p>Like yllwjep said, why not enforce some minimum GPA requirements before you can declare certain fluff majors? Or how about making the admission to those majors competitive (i.e. only the top X are admitted). Why not - that's how the Haas undergraduate program works. The point is, it's a solvable problem, if Berkeley decides that it WANTS to solve it. The issue is that Berkeley doesn't really want to solve it. Let's face it, Berkeley seems to have no problem in having boatloads of students hanging around in do-nothing fluff majors. </p>

<p>The Berkeley administration, I'm sure, knows full well that certain classes are considered to be 'joke' classes that people take in order to do nothing and get an easy A. The administration knows full well that entire majors are considered to be 'joke' majors. They have to know. It's not like it's a secret. So it's not like the administration doesn't know. Rather, it's that it doesn't care. </p>

<p>Also, I keep hearing the objection that "well, other schools have fluff majors and do-nothing students too". What kind of an objection is that? So what if other schools have fluff majors and do-nothing students? The point is that Berkeley has fluff majors full of do-nothing students, and we can all agree that that's not good for Berkeley. What other schools are doing is not a valid objection. I don't want to sound like your father, but you know what they say about if your friends decide to jump off a building...</p>

<p>In fact, I would say that if other schools also have fluff majors and do-nothing students, then that's a reason for Berkeley NOT to have them. Think of it this way. If other schools have this problem, and Berkeley does not, then Berkeley will have an advantage over those other schools. Berkeley will develop a reputation as a "No-Slackers" school. Furthermore, Berkeley would be allocating resources more efficiently by not wasting them on students who don't want to study. </p>

<p>And finally, for those who want to know what my connection is to Berkeley, contact me privately.</p>

39

<p>Again, I agree with you on the fact that fluff majors are a problem, but specifically attacking Berkeley for them makes it look like a Berkeley-specific problem. When really you could be on the Stanford/Harvard/Any school with a football team boards giving the same speech.</p>

40

<p>But if other schools, like harvard, stanfurd and yale also have fluff majors with do nothing students... AND grade inflation!, why is it that Cal is seen to be subpar to them in undergrad? Thats my problem, that this a universal thing, yet those other schools don't get any scorn for it while Cal get long arse threads devoted to it. I agree that it would be wise to enforce a minimum gpa on certain majors if it would raise the level or academic intensity, but I honestly don't know what these "fluff" classes are. And if you tell me I promise I'll be signing up for a couple during phase one, because I could use a couple of easy A's. Kidding. Sorta. But seriously, I think that if you are going to call these classes out, which disrespects not only the student that takes the class, but also the proff., then I think to be fair you should name them. Not the majors but the actual classes and actuall teachers that make up those classes. Because I'm sure they'd beg to differ about being called "fluff." I'm not saying that they don't exist,(football players have to major in something) I'm just saying I don't know which ones they are.</p>