Top 8 Reasons Not to Go to Berkeley

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
301

<p>I'm going to be blunt: Berkeley is definitely a school that would appeal to self-reliant people, and, I'd dare to say, you have to really want to come here to enjoy it to the fullest. Though there are the groups that come here after being rejected from somewhere else and are pleasantly surprised. I hated Cal my first year because I wasn't ready for the 'School of Hard Knocks', I was pretty much forced to go/got suckered in by the rah-rah crap at CalSO and became very very angry when I found it was different when I got there, and I try to steer people away who want, in truth, to go elsewhere, are unsure, and/or want to go to a school where they'll have their hand held.</p>

<p>Berkeley changes you. You either become self-reliant or you sink, very fast. You have to be assertive, you have to be aggressive, and you have to be ready to knock a few heads (in a metaphorical sense), to survive here. If you have the survival skills necessary, I fully recommend you come to Berkeley. If you are looking for small classes and individual attention, you are better off elsewhere. If you want parties all the time, better off elsewhere. Berkeley, like every other school, has its advantages and its flaws. Coming to Berkeley is like going from 17 years old to 25 years old in about 2 months. There is a high-level of maturity that is not just required, but demanded. And there is no such thing as 'easy' at Cal. Everything here is done the hard way, and honestly, looking back at it -- I wouldn't exchange it for anything. If you got the balls to take on the real world like a babe left in the woods, then come to call. If you need a few more years of handholding, seek other options.</p>

302

<p>"Let me put this another way, When you went to grad school, did you find that the students who graduated from HYPSCM were more prepared than you because you didn't go to those schools for undergrad?"
Your answer was no. "</p>

<p>dstark wants collusion with his dilusion that highly-ranked undergraduate programs are no better than Whasamatter U undergraduate programs (I will spare you my negative adjectives). Please tell him, if true as I suspect, that while the occasional hard-working, driven, graduate of a 3rd or 4th tier school gets into good graduate programs and maybe even does well, that the odds are stacked against it, on a percentage basis.</p>

303

<p>And to add to the top post -- 8 reasons to come to Berkeley:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Top notch education on any level -- with one caveat, it's what you make of it. Berkeley's education can be crummy or it can be great. Like I said before, go to a professor rating site and talk to older students who have had professors. And talk to more than one about it, because what might have been the perfect professor for one student might have been terrible for anyone else. Though with a few exceptions, most Berkeley professors are at least above the curve.</p></li>
<li><p>A reasonable array of social options -- though our Greek System is not as glamorous or big as some southern schools, or USC, it's a strong link to the school. If going Greek isn't your thing, there is still a myriad of clubs, church opportunities and other outlets in Berkeley and SF. You just have to take the initiative to find them. If living in a communal environment is more your thing, try the Co-ops. Think the 'liberal', less traditional counterpart to the Greek System. Take the initiative and find your niche.</p></li>
<li><p>Dorms -- the point of a dorm is not to live in luxury, its to help you meet people. Yea, Berkeley dorms suck -- that's a fact, but its the people that make them, not the rooms. You won't be living in a palace your entire life, and after you live in the dorms, you realize how far you can 'fall' and still be comfortable. It really puts life into perspective.</p></li>
<li><p>Girls/Guys -- I'm so freaking tired of people saying: "Oh, the opposite sex is so ugly!" Who gives a crap!? Everyone ends up ugly and dead in the end, sure -- have standards, but find someone who your mind melds well with. Trust me, if you date someone just for their looks, you'll get bored very quickly, unless that person is urbane, witty, and intelligent. There are plenty of wonderful, quality people at Berkeley. You just have to find them. Not all of them are handsome or beautiful, but they are definitely worth your time knowing. </p></li>
<li><p>Food -- Screw the dorm food, go out in the town of Berkeley and eat. No where else have I seen so many diverse varities of food and cuisine in such a small area than in Berkeley. Durant, Telegraph, and Shattuck are veritable smorgasboards of world foods. Whether it's La Burrita or Naan n' Curry that suit your tastes, you are bound to find something.</p></li>
<li><p>Housing -- yea, housing is expensive, but there are other options than living in an overpriced apartment or the dorms. The Greek and Co-Op systems offer plenty of options, and people are always looking for roommates. Take a chance! I find a lot of people are just too timid when considering their options. Sometimes you have to go where life takes you.</p></li>
<li><p>The Berkeley Experience -- Love it or Hate it, it prepares you for the cold reality of the real world than anything else I can think of on the top of my head. The sports are great, our football team is respected, there is always something to do, the library is nice, though I admit, people do talk loudly from time to time -- but that's why you bring headphones or ear plugs. Go out and sample everything Berkeley has to offer.</p></li>
<li><p>The Life Experience -- this isn't something I can explain, you have to see it for yourself.</p></li>
</ol>

304

<p>DRab, well the truth of the matter is that Berkeley's faculty is smarter than Harvard's. But fine I'll play your little game. </p>

<p>About these "conversations," they don't typically happen in lecture and if they do no self-respecting professor will stand for them. Therefore it can be assumed that no conversation will go on in lecture classes (of which Berkeley's are superior.) What matters is the section discussions which at both institutions are led by graduate students. Now, I must confess that I don't know how many Teaching Fellows Harvard has for each section, but according to this semi-credible website: </p>

<p><a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewebteach/cases/davis.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dartmouth.edu/~webteach/cases/davis.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>There is one graduate students for every 18 or so students in Harvard's General Chemistry class. Compared to Berkeley's Chem 1A, the numbers aren't that much different. </p>

<p><a href="http://sis.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=SP&p_classif=L&p_deptname=Chemistry&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=&x=29&y=2%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sis.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=SP&p_classif=L&p_deptname=Chemistry&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=&x=29&y=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And of course, Berkeley Chemistry is the best department, not only in chemistry but in everything. It's the only department in the world that has a perfect "5.0" according to USNews. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/che_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/che_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I can't say much else about section size in other departments at Harvard because I just don't know it. But I'm willing to bet its about 15-20 undergrads to one grad-very much like it is at Berkeley. </p>

<p>As far as my personal experience, I can't say that I have ever taken a class where the students aren't every bit as eloquent at my brother, who I remind you, is a Harvard student.</p>

305

<p>greatestyen, for those of us who don't have access, could you share a longer list of top graduate asian studies programs?</p>

306

<p>
[quote]
Both schools are great at different things, and those things need to be emphasized. But the fact that most of Berkeley's programs are better than Harvard's programs should not be forgotten. These Cal "masterprograms" are available to any undergrand who wants them, perhaps even more so than at Harvard College because Harvard humanities professors, unlike their Berkeley counterparts, are notorius for being unfriendly, self-absorbed monsters.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh come now. I have met PLENTY of Berkeley profs who are also quite unfriendly ans self-absorbed monsters too. </p>

<p>
[quote]
For Asian History majors, it's not the best we "could do" (admissions wise,) but the absolute BEST it is possible to do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, here is our FUNDAMENTAL disagreement. Like I said before, I believe that Berkeley is a great place to get your PhD. But that doesn't mean that it's a great place to get your undergrad degree. It's a good place, but I would hesitate to call it great. Simply put, there is a big difference between the quality of a PhD program and the quality of its undergraduate program. When you are an undergrad, you should worry about undergrad quality. When you're a grad, you should worry about grad quality. </p>

<p>
[quote]
According to US News, Berkeley offers THE BEST PH.D PROGRAMS IN THE NATION. So you're gonna talk crap on US News now too? No matter which way you spin it, Berkeley is the best academic insititution in the world. And I know for a fact that you said that somewhere so I'm going to try to dig it up and make you acknowledge your statements.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Since you have invoked USNews, I feel compelled to do the same. I agree that USNews says that Berkeley has great PhD programs, in fact, arguably the best. But USNews ALSO says that the undergrad program at Berkeley is not the best. It's good, but not the best.</p>

<p>I'm not the one picking and choosing here. USNews runs 2 separate rankings - one for graduate programs, one for undergrad. I thought we were talking about the undergrad program here. Well, USNews has weighed in and said that Berkeley was ranked #20 (or something like that). If you want to invoke USNews, then you have to invoke all of USNews. You can't just pick and choose what you like out of USNews and discard the rest. Either you invoke all of USNews, or you invoke none of it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I believe in the rankings and through them, it should be obvious that since Harvard's faculty is, as a whole, dumber than Berkeley's faculty, the quality of their teaching will differ accordingly

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, I would say that if you truly believe in the rankings, then you have to believe that Berkeley is the #20 best research university for undergrad in the country. After all, that is what USNews says that it is. </p>

<p>Look, I'll put it to you this way. I personally don't think that Berkeley is only the #20 ranked research university for undergrad. I would say that the true ranking is probably higher than that. But I wouldn't say it is beter than Harvard either. </p>

<p>It seems to me that your constant fixation is on the quality of the doctoral programs. Like I said, Berkeley's doctoral programs are great. But that says little about the quality of the undergad programs. After all, how is it that the elite LAC's like Williams and Amherst can have such highly regarded undergraduate programs without having any presence in the departmental rankings? You say that Berkeley outranks Harvard when it comes to history departmental rankings. Well, both of them clearly completely outrank Williams (because Williams doesn't appear on the ranking at all). So does that mean that Williams is a terrible place to go to school? </p>

<p>In fact, I have found that there is little correlation between the supposed 'brilliance' of a professor and how well he teaches. Just because you're a great researcher doesn't mean that you know how to teach. Who really cares if your research is great if you can't make yourself understood by regular undergrads? I would rather be taught by somebody who is less well regarded as a researcher, but has great teaching skills. </p>

<p>Look, again, I am not saying that Berkeley is a bad place to go for undergrad. In fact, I maintain that Berkeley is clearly the best public undergrad school in the West Coast, and arguably the whole country. However, the fact is, I believe that a school like Harvard can and does offer a better undergrad experience. That's why the majority of people tend to prefer going to Harvard for undergrad. For the doctoral program, it's a different story. But we're not talking about that here. You can't tie the doctoral programs to the undergrad programs because they are two completely different things. When you are at the stage of your life when you are pursuing your doctorate, that's when you should care about the quality of the doctoral programs. But when you're an undergrad, you should care about undergrad quality. to say that you want to do undergrad somewhere because the graduate schools there are good is a huge act of folly. That's like saying that you want to get your MBA at Johns Hopkins because the medical school there is really good.</p>

307

<p>Asian History</p>

<ol>
<li> University of California–Berkeley</li>
<li> Harvard University (MA)</li>
<li> Yale University (CT)</li>
<li> University of California–Los Angeles</li>
<li> Columbia University (NY)
University of Chicago</li>
<li> Princeton University (NJ)
Stanford University (CA)</li>
<li> University of Michigan–Ann Arbor</li>
<li> University of California–San Diego</li>
<li> Cornell University (NY)</li>
<li> University of Washington</li>
<li> University of Pennsylvania</li>
</ol>

308

<p>Like I said, I agree that Berkeley has a great PhD Asian History program. </p>

<p>But if you're not yourself a doctoral student in Asian History, so what? By that token, nobody should ever go to Williams or Amherst for anything, because they don't have highly ranked doctoral departments in anything.</p>

309

<p>Well sakky, I totally disagree. Berkeley's PhD programs are inherently tied to its undergrad program. The fact that USNews ranks Berkeley as #20 has more to do with its large admit rate, not with the QUALITY of its program. How do you measure quality? PHD PROGRAMS. Why? Because PhD rankings look at the actual worth of each department. And I hope you will not claim that there is something like the "Classics Undergraduate Department" or the "Chemistry Undergraduate Professors." That would be rubbish. The professors are the same for the grads and the undergrads at both Harvard and Berkeley, meaning that the quality is the same. Sure, since Berkeley has the legal duty to admit people who might not have done that well in high school, Berkeley has more dropouts than Harvard. But just how does that truly diminish the quality of the education? </p>

<p>In every post that you've replied, you've only pointed out things you think I'm "missing." But you still have not defended Harvard as I asked you to. Are you unable to do so? Or are you just too embarrased to admit that since Berkeley's financially inferior professors are smarter than Harvard's rich ones, lectures at Harvard are inferior to lectures at Berkeley? </p>

<p>About your belief that kids want to go to Harvard because they think that its a great place to get undergrad education-it's not true. The hordes of eighteen year old who end up at Harvard do so because American youth culture, even though it pretends not to, values old traditions, legends, and myths. Harvard, since it's so old and rich, is the greatest myth. I doubt the quality of their intended major department was even a concern.</p>

310

<p>greatestyen,</p>

<p>But, as an undergrad, you're not only going to be taking classes in your department. You're going to have to take classes in many different fields. Basing your undergrad education as a freshman admit on the strength of one or even two departments is a huge gamble.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley has more dropouts than Harvard. But just how does that truly diminish the quality of the education?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A professor of mine at UCLA (which isn't that different for undergrad) said this:</p>

<p>"The fact that a good portion of the UC students come from a much lower tier than the lowest tier Harvard student does affect what I can teach and how quickly I can teach. As I'm forced to teach rudimentary skills to many of the lowest tier students, I tie up my able student's hands."</p>

<p>greatestyen, Harvard's resources may not be building the highest ranked departments, but it sure is getting its undergrads into the best grad schools at higher percentages.</p>

311

<p>In my three years at Berkeley and my 124 units, I cannot say that any of my classes other than the ones that were meant to be watered down were actually watered down. Here I am talking about all those R1 classes. Those kind of classes are meant to be an insult to intelligent people and are to be expected. </p>

<p>It is simply untrue that professors go slow here. In fact, just last week, my German history professor spat out a dozen little unimportant details in less than 30 seconds and then randomly picked someone out to see if that person could remember the information. He called on a kid who has never ever spoken in class, and the kid got it right. The same thing has happened to me numerous times. It's a total lie that Berkeley professors hold back because they don't think the undergrads (or SOME undergrads) can't handle it. If anything, large numbers of profs consistently try to give the undergrads a real cranial workout by randomly calling on them, selecting impossible readings, and making the exams more difficult than anyone would expect. This is especially true in the harder humanities upper divs, sciences, and engineering as I'm sure sakky will agree.</p>

312

<p>124 units in three years! Man, you're not playing around.</p>

313

<p>greatestyen,</p>

<p>Perhaps. But then why would professors in the top UCs be complaining?</p>

314

<p>Well instead of giving us only what your professor said, can you say about which class he was saying it? Which level? What class was it? Obviously a professor at any college (including Harvard) would hate to be the one teaching the kids who didn't pass the AP or whatever is required by the college. Now, what was your professors specific situation? Because I know that generally professors do not hold back. If the students don't get the material, then they dont get the material. The professors don't truly perceive it as their problem, it's the students problem, in general.</p>

315

<p>Hello,</p>

<pre><code>No, the figure you claim Stanford students pay ($45,000) is NOT what out-of-state students at Cal currently are paying. I should know, I (and my spouse) are paying the bill for a student from Illinois. Don't get me wrong: we are paying a very high amount, but, depending on housing (which can range significantly from the highest dorm--currently around 13,000+!--to apartment sharing or co-op living--as much as 50-65% less than the dorms), a Cal out of stater is paying (assuming no aid of any kind) a full $10,000-$l5,000 less than the Stanford student.

That might not be all that reassuring to those of us footing the bill, but it is, thank God, not quite as bad as what you quote.

I'm a bit surprised (some) students don't know more about what the non-Californians are paying--sounds like some more dialogue/curiosity might be needed and then, perhaps, less feelings of isolation that some of these posters in this thread are sharing??

Good luck to all; no college experience is perfect. Just wait until you enter the job market! Enjoy what you have available to you now.
</code></pre>

<p>Cal parent</p>

316

<p>People,</p>

<pre><code> I have just skimmed all the l6 pages of replies/posts in this thread. A couple replies:

--A lot of you have a LOT of time on your hands.

Good grief, if you care that much about "improving the quality of the undergrad education" on the Cal campus, quit wasting your time on the net and do something, anything, in the real world that might actually have an impact on said institution! (If you need an idea, here's one from an out of state parent: question/challenge obscenely rising tuition rates (not just at Cal, at all colleges and universities)--they're effecting many aspects of higher education and not for the better ('sakky', perhaps you could compose an essay on this?)

--I don't know the ages, occupations, or genders, etc. of the posters, but from the sound of it, many of you are acutely concerned with issues of status. I don't think I've ever seen the word "Harvard" repeated so offen in my life.

It's very odd to compare undergraduate educations at Harvard with Cal with Local Community College with State U. with LAC-in-the-cornfield...isn't it obvious we're dealing with institutions that are vastly different? And how, I ask, does one begin to define what makes an undergrad education "good"?

Isn't it more helpful and more honest to simply state that particular types of campuses tend to have certain predictable pros and cons?

Wow, news flash, classes at Cal are often large! Gee, success at Cal usually requires an 'self-starter' kind of student! I had no idea, Wall Street is still dominated by lawyers who attended the Ivies? Who wouldathunk't!

--I have a bit of personal experience here, and a lot of near experience: either I, or a close friend or relative, earned undergrad and/or grad degrees from: Harvard, Yale, Brown, Stanford, U of Chicago, Michigan, Madison, Berkeley, Northwestern U., Reed, Oberlin, Carleton, Boalt Hall, Harvard Law, downstate U, relatively unknown little college, or, ahem, community college.

Now, of all these folk, who's the richest?--well, that's hard to say because we're dealing with some generation spreads, but, if pressed, I'd say the Harvard, Yale, and UW-Madison and Boalt Hall grads have the most wealth.

And, whose got the most enviable, 'sexiest' jobs? Hm, well, certainly not the U of Chicago people!! (I noticed that nobody who contributed to these garrulous posts mentioned that one would be hard pressed to find a more depressing and depressed campus than that of the worthy U of Chicago. Obviously, none of you are Chicagoans!) Guess I'd have to say the Harvard MBA grad and a flock of the Madison folk do the most interesting, I-wish-I-did-that-too work.

Who do you think is doing work that doesn't even require a college degree? The Stanford grad. (That should make Cal readers happy.)

Now, who, would I guess, is the happiest in their work? In their marriage?? In their life??? Ah, things are getting lots more tricky here to answer.

Get the point? If you haven't, I'll clarify: Where one 'goes to school' predicts--for the bulk of college grads--little about later adult life. (Exception previously noted: Wall Street sharks, oops, lawyers. Hey, I'm one, I can say that.) Try as one might, all the crazy vissisitudes of life cannot be boiled down to, or controlled by, getting into a particular college.

--So, hey, relax and enjoy the most extraordinary good fortune to be able to spend (or, to have spent) four years or so throwing frisbees, debating politics, studying ancient Greek, chasing guys, or girls, and generally being useless. The rest of the world should be so lucky.
</code></pre>

<p>Chicago Cal Parent</p>

317

<p>Yes we are obsessive, but you gotta do what you gotta do.</p>

<p>(I'm still waiting for your defense of Harvard's PhD programs in light of your mentioning of financial resources, sakky.)</p>

318

<p>greatestyen,</p>

<p>The professor said that he saw a significant decline in the quality of undergrads in his lower div poli sci classes. He argued that much of this has been due to declining standards in secondary education in the state, which are still the largest feeders for the UCs.</p>

<p>The only point that the original poster had that I'm interested in though is the fact that Cal hasn't produced Nobelists since the 1970s. Now, some people say it doesn't matter. It does. Cal is still one of the most competitive schools with Academy memberships, what's keeping them from getting the Nobels?</p>

<p>Hell, this may not even be their fault, but it is an issue.</p>

319

<p>Well UCLAri, your professor is, if not alone, almost alone. I can't say I know about UCLA, but at Berkeley, as I am sure sakky will agree, it seems that professors (especially in the sciences) are out to make you fail. The Poli Sci lectures I've had have been equally fast, although nowhere near as hard as the science ones---the same is true at pretty much every university. Humanities and social/behavioral sciences are easier for a student to learn than hard science or engineering, that should be obvious.</p>

<p>In fact, I'm so certain about Berkeley's tough faculty, that I'll say that it's one of the toughest places to graduate with great grades. The other places would be MIT, Caltech, Swarthmore, Chicago, Reed, etc.</p>

320

<p>Well, I don't deny that Berkeley has not had someone who went to Berkeley for undergrad win a Nobel in a while, but how does that in any way take away from from my conclusion that Berkeley has better lectures than Harvard? I never said the quality of Berkleley's student body was the best, only that it's faculty, as a whole, is the best and teach the best. Most students don't take advantage of the faculty they have, and that's understandable when you learn that they are in fact coming from a horrible public school system. But again, why does it matter? The quality of the lectures, meaning their academic value, in all but a few fields, is higher at Berkeley than anywhere else in the United States.</p>