<p>Berkeley's ugly?</p>
<p>You people haven't seen Japanese university campuses then...</p>
<p>I meant mostly the city. The campus isn't ugly, but it's not like it's gorgeous.</p>
<p>Aw c'mon, just 'cause it ain't Westwood doesn't mean it's ugly.</p>
<p>It's...eclectic. :)</p>
<p>Hey liberal, why don't you restate the "Truth" for our viewing pleasure?</p>
<p>I love how my detractors constantly prove my points about Berkeley.</p>
<p>TTT.</p>
<p>Aw, you aren't going to do it. How about those high housing prices, liberal? Did you realize that Berkeley charges what other schools charge, maybe less considering housing is more expensive here than elsewhere? And many of the housing facilities are better here than at some other schols (for which students pay more). I don't think the dorms here are palaces or cheap, I'm saying they're far more reasonably priced and far nicer than you give them credit for being. </p>
<p>Liberal, if you aren't going to continue contributing to the conversation, and only bump the thread, I'm going to ask the mods to delete it, as it contains so much false information. Maybe they won't, but many of your points have been shown in a more accurate light by others (and yourself), so keeping the first pages of the thread up simply perpetuate falsity. Do you refues to continue talking?</p>
<p>900 dollars for a double without air conditioning, a kitchen, or a personal toilet? Yeah, its cheaper than the immediate area around which is comparing crappy to crappier (San Fran is one of the most expensive places to live in America after New York, and by extension Berkely is quite expensive too in the bay area). Once you're out you can expect to pay upwards of 600 or 700 dollars for a single room. Yeah, what a fantastic deal.</p>
<p>It matters not, I'm not here to convince you. So far the only case that has had merit was that my points weren't absolutely provable. Sue me. If knowledge were confined to the absolute, our world would be a much smaller place. Notice the title of the thread doesn't say that there are no good reasons to go to Berkeley, just that these were among the top 8 or 9 reasons not to go to Berkeley. </p>
<p>As such, they are kernels of truth which prospective students can investigate on their own. Do you think I want to slam a school I've committed 4 years too? Berkeley can be a very singularly bad experience on many levels--academic, social, and personal--and people deserve to know that before making an equal commitment to the school.</p>
<p>Insofar as you want to delete this thread, thats your perogative. I'm glad you're not a moderator though. The world can only stand so much hypocrisy by people who claim to love free speech but deign to censor anything that conflicts with their assumptions.</p>
<p>LiberalCensors,</p>
<p>There's a difference between government censorship and censorship on a forum. As the very very conservative law professor Volokh states:</p>
<p>" Nongovernmental entities may and often should do things that the government may not; and their ethical rights and obligations are often more complex and context-sensitive than what we'd expect from the law.</p>
<pre><code>Also, if the discussion board decided to filter out rude statements in order to make the discussions more valuable, or even to filter out evil ideas because they don't want their property used to promulgate such ideas, I wouldn't object: I think they're ethically entitled to do this, and there's no reason to condemn them for it."
</code></pre>
<p>If you are in fact spreading misinformation, then it's perfectly ethical for the mods to censor you. Sorry, but the Internet isn't the rest of the world.</p>
<p>I'm only spreading "misinformation" according to pretty biased pro-Berkeley people. That's a pretty dumb standard. Insofar as censorship is concerned, private entities have the right to censorship, but that doesn't make it any less hypocritical to do so when you censor things not on things of relatively objective merit (such as rudeness, vulgarity, whatnot), but of subjective things like whether or not you agree with whats being said.</p>
<p>In this case, what I've said has been truthful, whether you like it or not, and if you were to delete my stuff you might as well delete all the subjective pro-berkeley stuff as well. </p>
<p>The point in this contention is whether or not I've lied which I have not despite what biased posters, who are unable separate their predilections from their arguments, may think.</p>
<p>Indeed, if my points were so libelous or false, you've both had more than ample time and ability to reply in kind to them already later on in the thread and disprove them as such. Even drab pointed out in his first reply (before he jumped on Gentlemanscholar's trolling wagon) that I had a lot of valid points even though he disagreed in extent. </p>
<p>My vitriol was only made more vehement upon encountering retards like GS who represented what I hated so much about Berkeley; knee-jerk reactionaries who have little to contribute in the way of intelligent discourse. For those points which I was obviously on tilt, I apologize, but that in no way undermines the validity of the points made in the initial post.</p>
<p>I think that this is the problem I have with your arguments: They're true for you. Much of what you said, like the rudeness and stupidity of the students, is so subjective that it's impossible to ever be universally true. </p>
<p>Other points, like the decline in stature, may in fact be true. However, I've already made a counterargument to your US News argument (e.g. the fact that the criteria changed at least a few times over the years, rendering a 16 in 1984 different from a 21 in 2004.)</p>
<p>I don't know that you're entirely wrong with your complaints, but your objective and "truthful" brush are a bit on the silly side to me.</p>
<p>I never said I was completely objective, in fact I admitted to the subjective nature of some of my arguments several times; which many trolls chose to ignore. Insofar as my truthfulness, I never intentionally misrepresented my honest feelings or opinions about Berkeley as a senior here. This seems to be a big point with my detractors who say I'm just blowing off steam and hyperbole. I have tried my best not to exaggerate (at least when not responding to ad hominem attacks).</p>
<p>Rudeness is of course relative. Non-students and faculty can be quite rude and I don't think this will be disputed by anyone. Bums regularly curse on the streets and there are many odd people who will verbally and physically harass you. There are other ways people can be rude as well--Among which is not saying hi to people you have met and whose names you know. I don't think that is too much to ask for but its a common occurrence for peopel to drop and forget one another after going to the same classes together. You can often tell a freshman by their friendliness, they will try to talk and maintain manners. This generally disappears as you progress through school and is a sad fact of Berkeley life. There are other sad things too, but its these infractions which I generally consider rude; and I believe many people (perhaps non-Californians who are not use to this) would to. </p>
<p>I didn't see the US News argument, but my initial statement was that I recalled a decline, not exactly. Its hard to measure how much a quality of the undergraduate departments have decreased; since US News rankings are invariably tied to the quality of the graduate program as well, but I've heard of more than one professor leaving for greener pastures elsewhere because of UC's budget problems. </p>
<p>Still, UCB's status even among public schools doesn't seem to be anything home to right about. UCLA's honors program is definitely better, and the top public ivies out of California probably offer better bang for buck if you're out of state, along with a likely better personal experience. </p>
<p>At any rate, they are definitely no clear "winner" arguments, for the things I posted for either side. Are Berkeley people obnoxious? Possibly. More so than other people? Depends. At least people will have an idea of what to expect when they have the negatives presented to them, rather than a rose-colored mirage.</p>
<p>One of the things I dislike about Berkeley, and people may throw rocks at me for this, is the plethora of arrogant males that attend here, particularly those of the science departments. This one guy in my class boasted about him setting some science curve and basically kept talking about how smart he was. He thinks it impresses people whereas it just bugs the crap out of me. Not to mention he does not get hints...but I won't go into further detail.</p>
<p>Liberal, again, have you compared housing prices? Have you looked at what other schools charge and what this school charges? If you have, you would notice that maybe if Berkeley were isolated in the world, the only school, your argument would be fine. Thats stupid, though, considering what matters is it in relation to other schools. Other schools tend not to have air conditioning, from your small privates to large publics. Berkeleys housing is a lot like many schools housing. Do you not realize that? </p>
<p>The title of the thread says top 8 reasons not to go to Berkeley. You list 9, really. Do you remember the few attempts you brought up positive things about the school? Yeah, its image is deteriorating (and you cite US News). Well, US News peer assessment had Berkeley at a 4.8. Out of 5. Thats nearly as high as it could possibly be, and you keep claiming that its low, that its falling. But really, any time you brought up good reasons to come here, you invalidated them immediately. Your points arent absolutely provable, neither are mine. Thats life. I accept that. You still havent made any sort of serious list about good reasons to come here. I dont expect you to. Your deal is merely to slam a school youve attended for four years. Clearly, thats it. Have you read your own posts? Maybe Im foolish, but Im more interested in improving it. On this thread, Im interested in showing a more accurate light, putting your statements in perspective, but in the end, I want to change the place for the better. You seem satisfied with insults.</p>
<p>Hey Liberal, did I ever claim Im a fan of free speech? That Im a proponent of much? You put so many words in mouth. Do you really believe your own last paragraph, that something conflicts with my assumptions? What assumptions am I making? That most of the students at Berkeley dont suck? That the situation isnt dire? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The point in this contention is whether or not I've lied which I have not despite what biased posters, who are unable separate their predilections from their arguments, may think.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I love your cute ad hominem attacks. </p>
<p>The problem with your post is extent, liberal (although sometimes, you miss things entirely). Although you claim that youre trying to avoid hyperbole, you employ it all the time.</p>
<p>Your not saying hi reminds of that anecdote I told about the Boalt student who went to Yale. He described Yale as being like what youre saying. </p>
<p>Shall we revisit the most obviously incorrect parts of your beloved first post just to show, again, how its wrong?</p>
<p>Your first point has been shown false. Not only do Stanford students who pay the sticker price expect to pay more (by about 10k), those who later move out of the dorms at Berkeley end up paying much less. Also, while the classes are generally larger, your taking fewer credit hours doesnt make sense. You can take what you can take, and because Stanford is on the quarter system, it might appear that theyre taking more units. This is only the case if you decide to take fewer units- it isnt Berkeleys fault.</p>
<p>Your point about housing, when put in context of other universities, becomes empty. Unless youre criticizing all universities, Berkeleys housing might actually be a better deal because of the generally higher prices of housing in this area (compared to other states). Also, two years of housing are now guaranteed. </p>
<p>Poor quality peers. Where does that come from? Are they lacking in intelligence, statistical performance, accomplishments?</p>
<p>Poor opportunities for generalists. Compared to? I think the availability to different things, many of which people havent heard of prior to coming here, make it more easy to find new, different things. Doing everything? Thats tough, especially considering that there are so many different activities, lectures, concerts, and more available on campus and in the Bay area.</p>
<p>You probably find that all of these points are too subjective or something. Do you still stand by everything, EVERYTHING, you said in the first post? Say yes if you do, I dont want you to say no for any reason in you still feel that theyre all true. Im being quite sincere. I ask you to read through your first post and then post anything you think is false in it.</p>
<p>Also, itd be nice if you were to open up your private message box so I could send you some things in the future.</p>
<p>LC has a sixth reason: </p>
<p>
[quote]
6) Many poor quality teachers. This is a research institution and it shows, many professors are just poor quality and seem to care more about research than teaching. Some test you on new stuff not on any of the homeworks they assigned, just because they can. I thought I had left having to consider teacher politics to high school, but you really have to be careful picking teachers, as some classes will be fairer and harder relative to the professor and not the class. Be especially wary of "visiting" professors and professors who have never taught a class before.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This "reason" shows that LC is really only cognizant about science, math, and engineering classes. I know this because s/he mentions "homework." Humanities and social science classes rarely if ever have homework. Also, the professors are very nice in those areas and tend to be outstanding teachers. In fact, I'd say it's next to impossible to find a truly anti-student humanities/social science professor who is a "poor teacher" and only cares about research. Also, most of these professors test ONLY ON THINGS THEY'VE ASSIGNED. So beware of LC and his/her half-truths.</p>
<p>I agree with most of your post (other than humanities and social science profs don't assign homework). Even though I don't have problem sets, I have so much reading it drives me up the wall.</p>
<p>But that's not homework. </p>
<p>Homework is when you have a little assignment and it's due in a couple of days. Reading for humanities/social science classes is basically like textbooks in math, science and engineering-you'll have to know it, but not until the midterm and final. In MSE you'll get homework that may end up being a significant part of your grade every single week. The same is just not true in H/SS. (Except for langauge classes, maybe.)</p>
<p>This isn't really important right now, or in the context of this thread, so we'll talk about this later.</p>
<p>That doesn't make any sense. Of course what I'm saying is relevant to the thread. One of LC's reasons for saying Cal sucks is because s/he claims professors test on things that aren't on the homework. I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that professors who assign homework are in the minority and the Berkeley faculty as a whole should not be reprimanded for unfair tests. </p>
<p>The reality of the situation is that the majority of tests administered to Cal undergraduates, given that they are mostly given to humanities/social science students by their overtly generous professors, are quite fair and germane to the assigned material. There are differences in quality of teaching among the different academic disciplines and those differences should be adressed. (Essentially, as is the case at most colleges, the humanities/social science faculty is better at teaching than the math/science/engineering faculty.) </p>
<p>It isn't just a Berkeley problem and shouldn't be categorized as such. And it certainly shouldn't be classed as a pan-Berkeley problem, as it's mostly prevelent in the sciences.</p>
<p>What I meant was whether or not the humanities/social sciences have "homework" isn't important. You're going to have stuff to do, reading, problem sets, ect, for your classes. I haven't heard of someone getting tested on something they weren't assigned in reading or other forms.</p>
<p>I'm a social science major: one of them is specifically Economics, and we have problem sets. So yeah, that's technically 'homework.'</p>