Top 8 Reasons Not to Go to Berkeley

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
321

<p>The quality of the student body has definitely declined and their increase relative to the faculty size means that there is indeed a "dumbing" down effect where professors spend more time getting the slower students up to speed rather than cramming as much information as possible. Its very subtle, but I've definitely noticed it in terms of the midterms and finals I've taken here. For example, I looked at an organic chemistry exam from Rice University in Houston and it was much more thorough and difficult than one at Berkeley (with no filler, see-if-you-remember problems, i.e. the naming of organic molecules, or drawing out the structure), and more difficult find the product and show the intermediate steps problems. Granted this is anecdoctal but I do have this distinct sensation of things being made slower for a bigger, dumber audience.</p>

<p>In response to the person's thread of top 8 reasons why to go to Berkeley:</p>

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

<p>"1. 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>

<p>Sometimes its very difficult to tell who is really a "fair" professor since Berkely does not release professor or gsi evaluations (I personally know that the University of Texas releases it to students), for common consumption. I guess its because they don't want students avoiding a class because they hear a professor is bad, but its very stupid in my opinion and can screw you over. Also, I would also tend to avoid all visiting professors, and those that test very rarely (you don't know if they'll be an ass and test on stuff not on homeworks).</p>

<p>"2. 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>

<p>I would daresay the array is less than others. Only certain people will like the greek life, and the other things you listed are nearly empty. There are church opportunities to volunteer but they are nothing as intimate as having a permanent dorm room and a close knit community you would find at a smaller school woudl compare to. As someone who did some stuff in the Cal Corps as well as editing various newspapers, you will also find most clubs to be weaker (in terms of commitment and socialization) than even high school extra-currics. I believe this is mostly due to the lack of professor oversight and there being too many underqualified people at UC people dragging down the average experience (I've met tons of idiots).</p>

<p>"3. 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>

<p>Learning about something that is sucky will build character. I'm sorry, but I doubt most people will see this as a positive. </p>

<p>"4. 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>

<p>Is this a positive? Berkeley is known for not having good looking people but thats a relative statement. I would definitely say you will not meet your soul-mate here. People are just obsessed about grades half the time or worried about their economic prospects. Also, since its a very liberal school, it will tend to be very tolerant of (liberal cultures) and thus you can expect to meet many more people with weak morals. In my opinion, if I hear any more crap about people cheating on each other and people having "open" relationships, I think I'll go nuts.</p>

<p>"5. 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>

<p>Relatively expensive food. And going to restaurants like that just makes the social experience more cliquish and stupid because you really don't have to associate with anyone.</p>

<p>"6. 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>

<p>And most times it will be crappy housing or dealing with idiot room-mates. The housing situation is just a result of too many people being at Berkeley, jacking up prices for such a small amount of land. The fact that housing prices are high shows its scarce and that not everyone will find good housing.</p>

<p>"7. 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>

<p>I really,l really doubt Berkeley prepares you for anything other than being around rude, obnoxious liberals (maybe it'll prepare you for living in California in that aspect). The "real world" or all of America is not akin to the Berkeley experience. I know plenty of people that have had a "hold-their-hand" experience at the ivies and they are going on to great grad schools and great jobs.</p>

<p>If anything, it teaches you how far-left the middle class in California is of mainstream America and how bad life can be when you have an incompotent public administration making so many choices that directly affect you. It also shows you how having competition thats too cut-throat (too many people) will tend to degrade the experience for everyone and lead to endless prisoner's dillemnas.</p>

<p>"8. The Life Experience -- this isn't something I can explain, you have to see it for yourself."</p>

<p>You'll definitely get to see what your life will be like if you ever fall out of the middle class and suburbia or have to live around a motley crue of godless, societal rejects and work harder to escape it if you didn't know before.</p>

322

<p>ok, so obviously most of your problems with Berkeley arise out of your own ignorance about the city and the university. Well, tough luck. When I came here, I looked into every single detail I could find. </p>

<p>The education is still the best and I'll buy your little OChem story when I see it. Link please?</p>

323

<p>Too much cognitive dissonance for you to accept eh? So you have to resort to ad-hominem attacks.</p>

<p>Just google a berkeley ochem exam and a rice university ochem exam. Much more difficult, much more thorough at the small respected regional university.</p>

<p>Ignorance? LoL, I've been here 4 years and have doen a wide variety of activties. I'll grant my experiences are anecdoctal and I may have just been unlucky, but its obvious from your attitude there are quite a few obnoxious, intolerant people at berkeley.</p>

<p>Top notch is hardly the word I would call berkeley's undergraduate. More like impersonal, and either dumbed down or erratic and unfair. Berkeley has never been really challenging, just a bit arbritary on grading. I should've just gpa-whored and gotten out of this school in 2 years, I thought staying a year or two to get some activites and flesh out my experience would be a good idea. BIG MISTAKE.</p>

<p>I ran a service project to help some inner city kids and other social groups over spring break. I was forced to work with an incompotent asian girl who put us 300 dollars over-budget and was the laziest idiot I ever met in my life.</p>

<p>I worked with several editors in cheif at a publication. One was ok, but didn't know how to do anything (like adobe publisher (I forget the exact name of the program)). Second year, we have a dumbass who wants to meet less and sends out emails without asking for replies and then gets anal when people miss them. Being an ******* is no substiution for punctuality, deliberation, and getting a group to work together. Yet another Berkeley individual with a huge ego but without the talent to back it up.</p>

<p>You go to clubs, its like some cliquish idiot festival at many of the biggest clubs. Other clubs have no people that attend at all.</p>

<p>4 years here, 9 semesters of room-mates, 4 out of 5 were total idiots that played music too loud, were generally without manners, and were generally teeny boppy idiots or passive aggressive morons.</p>

<p>I can recount a lot more bad experiences here, especially with the crime (robbed twice), but I will forego you having to listen to something so dissonant with your own hardened beliefs.</p>

<p>The Berkeley experience is a phenomonal waste of time for any truly talented individual. Avoid coming here at all costs and go to a smaller university if you can. If you have to come here, ignore the social experience completely and quickly finsih your degree so you can move on to bigger and better things.</p>

324

<p>Oh yeah I forgot to recount the professor. One visiting professor from another mediocre university. Gave homeworks that did not prepare us for tests. Next gave a final, 1/4th of which was an entirely open-ended essay (in a class suppose to be about reasoning and math). No real preparation in terms of the homework (turns out later he jacked the homework from anther professor and then made up his own test.</p>

<p>Another professor gave a midterm, half of which was stuff covered the week before class and not on any of the assigned homeworks. Its his perogative to test on the stuff he wants but midterms generally are suppose to be comprehensive of the stuff covered and professors are suppose to warn when a test will focus heavily on stuff not covered in class.</p>

<p>Sure there are a lot of good professors, but it only takes oen bad prof to give you a C and move you down a tier in terms of grad school or job opportunities.</p>

325

<p>Boys and girls, you cannot trust this person's anecdotes. Especially when s/he's clearly lying. The clearest example is his reference to Rice University's OChem exams. He claims that students over there aren't required to draw out the structures like they are at Berkeley. And yet, voila: </p>

<p><a href="http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/%7Echem212/212Exam1Key2006.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~chem212/212Exam1Key2006.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

326

<p>I referred to a test. Not to this test obviously. I bet you had a lot of problems scoring highly on your lsat huh?</p>

327

<p>You made a statement about a test and then proceeded to imply that Rice was somehow teaching things Berkeley wasn't-thereby making Berkeley Chemistry look "weaker" than Rice Chemistry. Clearly that is not the case, if Berkeley is in fact "weak," so is Rice. About the LSAT, I haven't taken it, nor do I plan to.</p>

328

<p>That was just one test from one professor. I was just recalling the anecdote because I was studying for ochem one time and was talking to a friend at rice who was laughing at me and my test. The Rice program for biochem is very well-reputed (rice grads to Berkeley get .2 added to their GPA I've heard), and he fowarded me his test which was much more difficult than the practice tests I was taking. My initial reference was anecdoctal and I am probably biased because of my experiences, but I think its important for people to hear multiple sides of the story.</p>

329

<p>Yeah sure whatever. </p>

<p>I suppose there are certain things about the physical environment Berkeley is in and the social environment the students create that aren't too great-at least in most peoples' perspective. (I know people who love the bums.) But I stand by what I said in that since Berkeley's faculty, as a whole, is the best, so are classes they teach both at the undergrad and grad levels.</p>

330

<p>So ridiculous to even debate about these types of things. Everything is offered to you in Berkeley, it's all up to the individual. Don't like the dorms? Move out! Don't like the food? Eat out! Don't like the people? Find other people! Don't like the classes? Suck it up! Those are world class professors teaching you. What other complaints could there possibly be? Not any cute girls? There certainly is a drought, but you'll have no time for that anyway. It's the first time in your life you've truly been alone, so it's up to the individual to find ways to make life fun.</p>

331

<p>I've had some very good professors at Berkeley, and indeed you will have lectures from good professors. However, I was also mentioning the uneven nature of the teaching. One class you might have a fields medalist, but another you might have some visiting prof. from podunk U. </p>

<p>THis is mostly a consequence of the undergraduate program where you have a ton of breadth classes noone wants to teach.</p>

332

<p>That's the greatest thing you've said about Berkeley yet, Liberal. Don't go nice on us now!</p>

333

<p>
[quote]
but how does that in any way take away from from my conclusion that Berkeley has better lectures than Harvard

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I fail to see how Berkeley supposedly has better lectures than Harvard. It's not clear to me that either school has clearly better lectures than another.</p>

<p>First off, all major research universities, including Berkeley, have a lot of highly eminent faculty that simply don't teach, or if they do, will only teach graduate students. These are the profs that have given the department its eminent research reputation - but you just don't see them. Let's face it. A lot of them just don't like to teach and would rather either ensconce themselves in their lab, or travel around the lecture circuit, or do anything except teach undergrads. </p>

<p>To give you an example, ask yourself, when was the last time that Chemistry Nobel Prize winner Yuan Lee actually taught an undergraduate class. Yes, he has emeritus status now, but even a decade ago when he was still a full prof, he still practically never taught undergrads. For a long time, he had a restricted-entry lab in the basement of Latimer, but for the vast majority of undergrads, passing by the door to that lab was the closest anybody got to ever seeing him. In fact, some profs see winning the Nobel or some other major prize as a 'Get-out-of-teaching-undergrads' card. </p>

<p>Now don't get me wrong. Not all of the major profs are like that. In fact, I will be the first to admit that Glenn Seaborg was a treasure of the campus not only for his brilliance but even more importantly for his stance in undergraduate outreach. Berkeley needs more profs like that. However, the fact remains that plenty of Berkeley's vaunted professorial corps do not make themselves available to undergrads. Heck, I've talked to a number of graduating seniors who have basically said that in their entire time at Berkeley, they've been taught by a prof who was truly famous only a handful of times. The other times, their classes were taught by assistant profs who may or may not get tenure, by untenured lecturers (who contribute little to the eminence of the department), by visiting profs, and by a host of other people who have little to do with building the reputation of the department. In some ways, it's an old version of the bait-and-switch. Berkeley has a lot of famous profs, but if you as an undergrad never see them, then that doesn't do a whole lot for you. </p>

<p>Secondly, the other fallacy I see here is that big famous profs automatically equates to great lectures. I suppose that all depends on what you mean by 'great'. To me, a great lecture is one that is taught well. The person teaching it can have no fame at all, but if he is a very good teacher, then his lectures will be great. In fact, many Berkeley students have told me that some of their high school classes were taught better than many of their Berkeley classes, even when taught by famous profs, and sometimes especially so. After all, how many of Berkeley's Nobel Prize winners have won the Berkeley Distinguished Teaching Award? I don't know either, but I know it's going to be a pretty small percentage. Just because you're a great researcher doesn't mean that you're a great teacher. You can be a guy who produces world-famous research, but if you spend all your time mumbling, producing incoherent lectures, and simply not making the material accessible to your students, then you're a bad teacher. </p>

<p>In fact, in many cases, there is actually an inverse relationship between good research and good teaching. Both tasks take time, and there are only 24 hours in a day. A prof can choose to spend time making his lectures better, or can spend more time in the lab. Not surprisingly, many if not most of the famous profs will choose the latter. It is great research that is going to win tenure and win stature for a prof, not great teaching. Furthermore, I'm sure that many of these high-level profs find teaching undergrads extremely frustrating. After all, if I'm a Nobel Prize winning physicst, I want to spend my time talking and thinking about physics at the highest levels. I don't think I want to be dealing with a dumbed-down version like Physics 8A. </p>

<p>Note, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Harvard is any better in this regard. My point is that departmental rankings mean little when it comes to undergraduate teaching. I would rather be taught by a guy who has no fame at all, but knows how to teach, rather than a world-famous prof who gives incoherent lectures and who clearly doesn't want to be teaching the class. It is precisely for this reason that the LAC's are widely praised strong teaching. LAC profs are chosen and promoted primariliy for their teaching ability. Sure, LAC profs aren't famous in the sense that they don't produce ground-breaking research, but as an undergrad, you want to be well taught. </p>

<p>I agree that as a doctoral student, you want to be at a place that will provide you with the best opportunities for you to do your research, which usually means being at a place that has lots of eminent researchers. As a doctoral student, you are basically expected to teach yourself everything that you need to know to do your research. But the vast majority of undergrads are not going to get involved in research. What they really care about (or should care about) is great teaching.</p>

334

<p>I totally stand by what I say.</p>

<p>The Berkeley experience is significantly watered down, I don't know what it was like before I was here but its definitely become more watered down since freshman year while at the same time tuition has been rising.</p>

<p>With so many people, professors are forced to grade from a fairly arbritary scaling system of 15% A's 35% B's and so on. This is just retarded, even if you have a sample size of 150, you will always have deviations from the norm. In addition, some professors do not create tests that create a normal distribution. If you're going to have a quota, you better design a test so that very few people make A's, which is very hard for any professor to do, even one that has taught a class repeatedly. Ususally the curve becomes so easy as not to mean anything, or too arbritary to accurately reflect ability. Indeed with the internet and rampant cheating, professors can't give take home exams in general which could be more in length without wasting a class period and be adpatable to people's busy schedules because cheating would be too rampant. A fairer system of course would be the absolute system we see in High School. You get a 90%, you get an A, and the tests are specially calibrated such that about the same percentages get an A. </p>

<p>California is milking the legacy of its UC system dry, and its the undergraduates who suffer for it. I only hope it hasn't permanently hurt me in life by going here; I've seriously felt myself becoming dumber since going here. Every day you go to classes where many people haven't done their work and they are only 2 or 3 people talking in discussion. You have to deal with people that are so desperate to make the A, they become empty shells personality-wise, representing rough caricatures that you can see on television and movies; good at all the fluff of everyday life, but devoid of all the feeling and emotion necessary for meaningful relationships. There are so many people here that you pay a huge premium for quiet time just to read and think; the only place you can really get absolute quiet is in checked out rooms in the library for 2 hour stints. A lot of this is not only due to Berkeley, it may very well be unique to California such that many natives do not notice it. </p>

<p>The biggest lesson I've learned here is that most people really aren't ready for a true college education and that there needs to be a wider array of technical and vocational 2-year schools to suit the lower classes. The only way this works is if you increase the size of the stick to help the weeding process so people end up at just the level of their compotency, educationally, and economically. Public-run education is reflecting public bureacracies in general, full of people elevated just above their level of compotency, becoming deadweights to the economy and society.</p>

<p>Indeed, having too many people only leads to the dilution of not only the value of the berkeley experience but also the meaning of the degree.</p>

335

<p>Hi- I've been researching universities lately, and I came across this in the UCLA newspaper: </p>

<p>"In the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department at UC Berkeley, there is a set of grading guidelines for all the department's courses.</p>

<p>It states, "A typical GPA for courses in the lower division is 2.7. This GPA would result from 17 percent As, 50 percent Bs, 20 percent Cs, 10 percent Ds and 3 percent Fs." In a 100-person class, 13 students will fail."</p>

<p>(<a href="http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=36005%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=36005&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p>

<p>Is this true? Is this practiced in all the UCs??? Is this practice as prevalent in most privates as well, like Stanford?</p>

336

<p>Its true of Berkeley at least. Usually the cutoff for failing is set at some arbritary number (half the median grade sometimes).</p>

<p>Stanford, Harvard, etc. have grade inflation because they do not have a quota system, it has a more absolute scale. But then again most people there are smart so it really doesn't change things much.</p>

337

<p>wow people...17 pages of replies on how this school sucks...itz like...who cares? there isnt a perfect university...and for those of you that hate it here so much..maybe... get the **** out?</p>

338

<p>reason #10:
BEN BRAUN CAN'T COACH!</p>

<p>Leon Powe is still awesome though.
And Tedford wipes away all ten of the reasons (at least for me).</p>

339

<p>Keeping the truth alive.</p>

340

<p>No, LC. </p>

<p>The "truth" you speak of is YOUR truth. In MY "truth," Berkeley is a great place and I knew what I was getting myself into before I came here. It would be emotionally hard, physically ugly, painfully antisocial, totally weird, and above all, full of interesting people, books, places, and movements. </p>

<p>I'm sorry Berkeley isn't hicktown. Get over it.</p>