Top 8 Reasons Not to Go to Berkeley

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

<p>College Senior, </p>

<p>the things i pointed out do NOT only pertain to graduate school</p>

<p>if you're an ambitious undergraduate with a good head on your shoulders you should be able to do URAP and check out books from the library, have "fun," and do well in your classes</p>

<p>if you can't do that, then you're obviously not an ambitious undergraduate with a good head on your shoulders. simple as that. </p>

<p>and yes i know im being cruel but so what? everyone who goes into EECS from high school has heard that it is hard. so why should berkeley be blamed for students who not only aren't smart enough for EECS, but KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING THEMSELVES INTO in the first place?</p>

22

<p>When I commented that I agreed with College Senior, it was not of course 100%. I was just really really relieved that someone wasn't "rah-rah college is the best f'ing thing that ever happened to me and i am in love with cal etc etc" because that can be really exhausting. That attitude can be sad for someone who isn't in love with college, desperately wishes she were and wonders what exactly is wrong with her because it seems like no one feels the same way. </p>

<p>I don't hate college, but I'm not the biggest fan of Berkeley. And to all those people who make it sound like anyone who isn't happy here is clearly just antisocial, not making an effort, etc., please realize that it's a quick judgment that's also hurtful. I'm friendly and social if occasionally shy, I'm involved with a lot of activities on campus, I love doing things and leaving my room, etc., but it's been hard to find a niche here. I spent so much of last semester crying, and when people automatically form opinions on you because you say a few negative things about Cal is just really unfair.</p>

23

<p>sweetdreams+collegesenior,</p>

<p>ofcourse you have the right to say what you think about Berkeley, but you also have to realize that you're talking to high school kids who are about to make a HUGE decision about where they're going to be spending the next 4-5 years of their lives. So stating things as facts about Berkeley, things which I don't agree with and neither do the majority of the people I know, you are opening yourself up to rebutal. Sweetdreams, how do know that its berkeley that made you cry every night? Maybe you would've been crying at UCLA or Brown or wherever else you went to school. Some people aren't ready to go off to college. Maybe their expectations were too high or they just didn't have the emotional fortitude to handle being on thier own, and their's nothing wrong with that, but when you try to scare off other people because you couldn't hack it you're doing those people a disservice. And yeah, I do love Cal, and I love being in college, and these are the best years of my life so far, so I'm going to tell whoever will listen. Cal has problems just like any other school and those problems are well documented on this site. Maybe I'm overly easy going, but I get over the problems and move on. And about finding a niche, if you can't find one here, where do you think you would've found one? I doubt it'd be any easier at a college with half the population and located in the middle of nowhere.</p>

<p>ps. Sweetdreams, I just looked back at your original post and I see that you're a freshman. You've got to give it a little bit of time. Jeez, you've been here a couple of months, of course you're going to be going through some hard times and of course you don't have a group of the bestest-friends-in-the-whole-world. You just got here!</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
Also, there are more than a few people at the Ivys and Stanford who either could not get into or survive academically at UC Berkeley. </p>

<p>Berkeley is not for the weak of heart or mind. It is a great school. If a student thrives at Berkeley, especially in the engineering programs, they will probably outperform their peers who attend the Ivys and Stanford.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah but what about the non-engineering programs at Berkeley, or other such difficult programs (i.e. physics, mathematics, some of the other harder liberal arts majors)? Let's be honest. Berkeley has a good share of quite easy creampuff majors too that are filled with lazy, less skilled students. Just walk around frathouse row on a typical weekday during the semester and you will find drunken fratboys who haven't been in class or opened a book in weeks. They all tend to be in certain majors. I am not going to name those majors here, but I think anybody who knows Berkeley well knows exactly what I'm talking about.</p>

<p>Hence, Berkeley is only intermittently difficult. In particular, it is difficult only in certain majors and certain classes. If you just want to slide by to graduation without working very hard and without learning very much, you can certainly do it. You may not get a degree in a major that elicits a whole lot of respect from those who know Berkeley, but at least you'll get a degree and be able to call yourself a Berkeley graduate. </p>

<p>In fairness, most schools have their share of creampuff majors. Yet the truth is, the average Stanford student who completed a creampuff major is STILL better than the average Berkeley student who completed a creampuff major, mainly because of the more stringent admissions. True, both students basically lounged around and did nothing, but at least the Stanford student had to jump a higher admissions hurdle. The Berkeley creampuff student didn't even have to do that. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think the people who buy into the Ivy League, Stanford myths of elitism are the same ones who would buy "dog turds" for $1,000 a pound if they were sold in a Tiffany box.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't you think that' s a bit harsh? I happen to know quite a few people who chose the Ivies or Stanford over Berkeley for very good reasons. After all, who wants to put up with the Berkeley bureaucracy if they don't have to? Who wants to put up with huge class sizes and Telebears headaches and waitlists if they don't have to? Why put up with hit-or-miss Berkeley dorm housing when all undergrads get 4 years of guaranteed housing at, say, Harvard that is cheaper than Berkeley's? Why put up with restrictions on what you can major in when you are free to switch into any major you want at any time at a school like Stanford? For example, lots of people come to Berkeley hoping to major in CS, taking all the prereqs, getting decent grades in them, applying to the major, and then finding out that they didn't get admitted into the major, and so they have to major in something they don't really want. At Stanford, you just say that you want to major in CS and that's all you have to do. </p>

<p>These are all legitimate reasons why somebody would choose not to go to Berkeley. So let's not paint every single person who does not come to Berkeley as shallow. </p>

<p>And besides, while I agree that some people at the Ivies and Stanford are just there for the prestige, the same thing holds true for Berkeley. Let's face it. There are plenty of students at Berkeley who are just there because it's the best school they could get into. Come on, we all know that lots of people apply to all the UC's and then mechanically choose the most prestigious one they get into. If there was another UC that was more prestigious than Berkeley, then a lot of people who are at Berkeley now would have just chosen to go there instead. Somebody who chooses Stanford or the Ivies for their prestige is no different than somebody who chooses Berkeley for its prestige.</p>

25

<p>I resent the stereotypes that you are enforcing upon the Greek community. Most of the fraternity members that I personally know are majoring in Astrophysics, EECS, MCB, etc. It is unfair and harsh to make statements like that, so please, unless you were/are a member of the Greek community yourself, or have many Greek friends, I wouldn't make assumptions about the intelligence of those residing on Frat/Sorority row.</p>

<p>Goodnight.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
and yes i know im being cruel but so what? everyone who goes into EECS from high school has heard that it is hard. so why should berkeley be blamed for students who not only aren't smart enough for EECS, but KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING THEMSELVES INTO in the first place?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because the right and ethical thing to do is, if you know that a certain situation is dangerous, to at least provide those people with the means to get back on their feet.</p>

<p>Let me give you the military analogy. You send some soldiers off to war, and some of them get wounded. Do you just tell the wounded, well, it was your choice to volunteer for the military, so now that you've hurt, that's too bad for you, we're just going to leave you out on the battlefield to die, and your death is your own fault because you shouldn't have joined the military in the first place, so now you deserve to die. How ethical do you think that is? I dare you to walk up to any wounded veteran and tell him that he deserves his injury. </p>

<p>I'll also give you the practical parallel. I think we can all agree that 2 of the most difficult, if not the most difficult schools in the country are MIT and Caltech. I think everybody understands the legendary rigor of these 2 schools. Yet these schools actually have HIGHER graduation rates than Berkeley does. This is true despite the fact that these schools have far fewer creampuff majors than Berkeley does (in fact, probably close to none), and where, regardless of major (even humanities), all students have to pass the institute requirement suite of baseline science/math courses, which are no walk in the park by any measure. Yet these 2 schools still manage to graduate a higher proportion of their students.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
have many Greek friends, I wouldn't make assumptions about the intelligence of those residing on Frat/Sorority row.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have many Greek friends (or at least, they were in the Greek system back in the day). </p>

<p>Look, nobody is saying that ALL frat/sor members are lazy drunkards. But let's be perfectly honest here. A lot are. To say otherwise is to deliberately turn a blind eye away from reality.</p>

28

<p>For your information, I was a national merit scholar and in the top 3% of my class in high school. My school also had over 50 national merit scholars so were one of the top 10 public schools in the nation in terms of that number. I know something about difficulty and Berkeley is more the dumb kind of difficulty I was trying to get away from, where you get punished for making dumb mistakes because most classes have quotas. I did apply for a lot of stuff at berkeley and got into some of the stuff I wanted but its very difficult because there are many people applying for just a few positions. Its very stressful for no reason other than the fact the school is too big for its own good. For example I wanted to do URAP but only applied casually to see what it was like, but of course, lost out, because there were a lot of students who had specialized and had more of what the professor wanted. Berkeley has a lot of situations liek that where it punishes people who just want to try different things and see if theyre a good fit. I imagine most of my detractors will just say I didn't "try" hard enough or something like that, but that's not the point, I just want to try things out to see if they are a good fit, but opportunities are limited to those that know what they want and have the prerequisite expereince.</p>

<p>The "cut-throat" environment is not worth it and more a result of a poor bureacracy rather than high standards. For example, I got high marks in my chemistry classes because the mean tended to be low so you can afford to make a mistake but made a dumb mistake on the final on another class and got lower marks because the professor was too busy doing other stuff and designed a final that was too easy. In other classes, lazy professors routinely test on stuff they haven't put on homeworks because they aren't paying attention. Thats just the academic side of things which can often be frustrating. Another example of specialization being key is the business school. You have to apply your 3rd semester during sophmore year and by that time have taken the necessary pre-requisite classes. So if you are just exploring things your freshman year, tougth luck. </p>

<p>I totally sypathize with sweet dreams. People at berkeley are generally jerks. For example, I helped lead a service project and edited for a publication. In both cases, I foudn that most of the peopel I worked with were generally selfish, lazy fools and I ended up doing most of the work. Generally, student organizations are badly run because there is no real professor oversight, and no effective system of checks and balances. If you look at the student government, they routinely squander student money, in patently corrupt ways but they get away with it because of how badly the campus is run. </p>

<p>I would have to say going to a smaller school is much better, its less cut-throat naturally with less people for the same area (so about the same number of positions available) and you don't have to worry so much about politics and other idiotic stuff. The things that make berkeley bad are mainly a result of poor organization and just letting way too many idiots into the school. I would suggest Berkeley only for very motivated, smart students that know what they want to do immediately coming in. The real opportunities Berkeley offers are only available for a very small sliver of students and specializing is the only way to give yourselves a competitive edge over them.</p>

29

<p>Most of your response to Gentelmanandscholar seem to apply to any school. Plenty of people apply to schools they have no chance of getting into for no good reason. This great boosts the stats of any talked about school. Perhaps it more greatly affects UCB and UCLA because of the population of CA and the attractiveness of the UC system, but it happens at every name school.</p>

<p>Berkeley and the Bay Area hosts so much that I can't imagine how you can rationalize reducing what's available to parties and concerts.</p>

<p>"People are dumb here." Why do you say things like that? Are all of the advanced degree bound, professional school bound, private and public sector bound studnets dumb? Please stop painting with such broad, false strokes.</p>

<p>Great researching ability doesn't necessarily correlate with great teaching. My friend's dad took a class at Harvard with one of the pioneering mappers of DNA, Watson (or Crick, I forget which). He says that it was one of the worst classes he ever took. Yes, even though it was at a well-known, expensive school, a terrible professor taught. There are plenty of professors here who are quite good at teaching and research/scholarship. Some profs are bad, and that's just how it goes. It should be changed, sure, but you cannot expect to be blown away by each teacher you have.</p>

<p>Berkeley has many things on campus. There are many lectures, colloqiums, performances, you name it. I guess the school isn't giving me a stipend saying "spend 20 dollars this week on music," but events occur all the freaking time. Things are out there, one just has to look for them. I agree, the campus should do a better job of creating a more close knit environment, but to say Berkeley invests little in academics or social situations? I can't agree.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The UC system has a fairly high rate of suicides and its not really suprising.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Did you really type that? Where are your statistics comparing the UC stats to other schools (and ajusted for size)? I don't know where you pulled this from, but until you present something, I can't believe it. I agree, more years of on campus housing would improve the social aspects of the school. But you were complaining about cost earlier. Oh, yes, the policy used to be one year guarenteed, now it is two, and I think that Berkeley should head the way of UCLA in making four years guarenteed (while changing some policies, as to accomodate a more life-on-campus feel and situation.</p>

<p>3) I can't agree that most of the small classes are specialized or uninteresting. But even if you're correct, is this different from other schools? The largest classes are the more general ones. </p>

<ol>
<li> You didn't site the source of ranking, but what about all the kids who come out of the CA public schools and go to better schools? Not all of the CA public schools suck. Shocking, yes, but some send huge amounts of kids to very prestigious schools. My friends who came out of my school and went to the Ivy league or MIT did fine with their CA public school education. Are the kids going to those places receiving a different education than the one I receive that lead me here?</li>
</ol>

<p>Again, perhaps people would want a longer semester, but I would not like to have my finals over my head like my friend at Harvard. i prefer being done with it ahead of time, but others might disagree.</p>

<p>Oh, about being a generalist, or Haas, seriously, that is the time to be a generalist. Your first year especially, and most of the second, can very well be about exploring fields. If you're doing Haas, you have to fulfill specific requirements, which can be done in many different departments and areas of study. you explore as you fulfill requirements- is this different than most other schools?</p>

<p>Campus politics occur at every school, college senior. Do you understand that many of the things you criticize about Berkeley happen everywhere? Perhaps they seem to happen to a larger extent here than elsewhere, but have your friends at small LACs not portrayed a similar process to what happens here? Sure, it differs, with smaller class sizes, although one friend of mine had ]much more difficulty getting the classes she wanted than I did getting the classes that I wanted, and more personal attention, but there is competition, and people taking fewer units because they want to concentrate on specific classes which they want to do very well in, or people being rude. </p>

<p>While you do gie a broader view of Berkeley, your interpretations seem at least somewhat off fairly often.</p>

30

<p>No, I would dispute the fact that this can happen at "any" school. UC Berkeley is unique in the confluence of factors that make up the UC experience as well as some of those factors themselves. </p>

<p>This is not a discussion about the bay area, this is a discussion about UC Berkeley itself and the experience and observations. </p>

<p>People are pretty dumb at Berkeley and they've gotten dumber every year. I'm sorry but its the truth. I'm amazed at how many people don't know how to write or speak English, in addition to various other deficiencies in Math and Science (curves being very very low sometimes for things where at my old high school there would have been none, or professors making test very, very easy so even the lowest common denominator can make an A). Its a sad fact, but true, and supported by statistical evidence. California is ranked near the bottom for secondary education and it definitely shows. California's students rank very, very low in standardized tests. Many times in discussion, students will ask dumb questions, and the level of the conversation doesn't even match what it did in my old IB high school discussions. </p>

<p>You talk about smart people in California being able to go to harvard and whatnot but that is irrelevant to the discussion. Of course people who are self-motivated will achieve great things no matter what school they attend. It's the old adage that school is useless for both the most smart and the least academic. Since Berkeley doesn't attract these people in general but rather a swatch of average middle class students by and far, the discussion would have to center around their attributes. California's standards are just crap and are contnuing to decline.</p>

<p>True, private schools have some of the same problems, but Berkeley seems to do very little to rectify long-term problems. It just seems everything is a bureacratic mess, wheras my conversations with friends at the Ivies and other large public universities seems to show a trend towards greater responsiveness. There is ample enough evidence in this thread of how much Berkeley ignores improving its undergraduate program.</p>

<p>There are many events on campus, that is true; which doesn't mean any of them will be particularly edifying. I, for example, can go to a lot of Political Science events but I can quite reliably in each case expect to see a very tilted, one-dimensional liberal bent to the discussion and the audience which taints the intellectual exercise. That being aside, I talked more about the social life rather than the events in and of themselves. That doesn't change how cliquish people are, how lacking in manners the berkeley student population is, or the general ineptitude of student leaders as well.</p>

<p>I heard about the rate of suicides on a local news network but I may be wrong about statistical data. But I do know there is very high crime compared to other school zones with Berkeley's mortality and robbery rate being much higher than a comparable "top" university.</p>

<p>3) Yes, it is. Berkeley's classes are generally huge and gettnig larger each year since I've been here due to the financial crisis and general apathy it seems among the regents. </p>

<p>4) Campus politics are to a ridiculous level at UCB. The idiocy of the student government is well documented, and the less stringent requirements on getting in compared to other universities when coupled with a quota system for grades means even more cheating and politicking than a normal school. Its hard to get an objective measure but this is just something I've gotten a general sense of from conversation and observation. Dispute it if you want, I'm telling you this is a fairly widely held belief among people who've attended berkeley.</p>

<p>I don't know what you mean by a broader view. I gave reasons why Berkeley is a bad school for certain types of people and said it was based on my own experiences. They can do what they want with the information, I just put it out there so people can have a more rounded view of the way Berkeley is. All I know is I made a huge mistake coming herek, and don't want anybody else to make the same mistake I did.</p>

31

<p>College Senior, Since Berkeley has been so bad for you (and expensive to boot as you are OOS), why didn't you transfer to another university? I'm assuming you are a 4th year student given your tag, is that correct?</p>

32

<p>Collegesenior,
I didn't want to get into stats, but since you continue to say Berkeley students are stupid, I'll go ahead and share them with you. You say Berkeley kids are dumb in math.</p>

<p>Middle 50th Sat math for Berkeley: 680 (one sitting)
Middle 50th sat math for stanford: 720 (best combined)</p>

<p>Incoming Gpa berkeley: 4.2
Incoming Gpa Stanford: 3.9</p>

<p>percent who graduated in top 10th of class Berkeley: 98%
percent who graduated in top 10th of class stanford: 89%</p>

<p>Before you start crying about these stats being skewed by bad california schools, 44% of all stanford undergrads come from California. So unless you're prepared to say that stanford is full of idiots too, maybe you should lay off the idiot stuff. </p>

<p>*these stats are easy to find. They come from the most recent common data set from each school.</p>

33

<p>And I already pointed out Berkeley has more GPA hogs than smart people which your info does not refute.</p>

<p>The SAT's are a joke, they've been constantly dumbed down and rebalanced down over the years to account for the increase in the nubmer of students going to college. GPA also means nothing and is not an indicator of intelligence.</p>

<p>I measure intelligence by more subjective measures like skill in conversation, knowledge of things other than what is required by school, and long-term retention of what you do actually learn in school. By my standard, subjective as it is, Berkeley is **** poor, a result of accepting too many people from a poor high school system.</p>

34

<p>Ok, so let me get this right, even though Berkeley's numbers are comperable or better than other private schools, somehow Berkeley's students are stupid and their's are not? Is that about the gist of it? Or is it that everyone is stupid when put next to you, the person that can't handle multiple tests on the same day? Did you transfer to Berkeley? Have you gone to other schools that have let you make a comparison to other student bodies? And I'd like your opinion on stanford too. You keep mentioning California's horid school system, yet nearly 50% of stanford's students are from California. So does that mean stanford if full of idiots as well? To all that are lurking and reading this thread, look at what college senior is saying. Does any of it make sense? I say its him with the problem, not the school. He says the students are dumb. I show him evidence that the numbers are fairly similar to stanfords. He says that those tests (gpa, sat) don't mean anything. So who's to say that Harvard, Mit, caltech, and yale aren't full of the same idiots that stanford and cal are? Again, maybe its collegesenior and not the school.</p>

35

<p>sakky wrote:</p>

<p>"Berkeley is only intermittently difficult. In particular, it is difficult only in certain majors and certain classes. If you just want to slide by to graduation without working very hard and without learning very much, you can certainly do it. You may not get a degree in a major that elicits a whole lot of respect from those who know Berkeley, but at least you'll get a degree and be able to call yourself a Berkeley graduate."</p>

<p>You use the term "intermittently difficult" when referring to UC Berkeley. Read the article in the Atlantic titled, "The Truth About Harvard":</p>

<p><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200503/douthat%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200503/douthat&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Since Harvard is the flagship Ivy school, it serves as an excellent example to show the type of nonsense that people are buying into when they tout the Ivy or Stanford elite school myth. If you want an example of "creampuff" courses and majors read the above mentioned article about Harvard.</p>

<p>You say that the "average Stanford student who completed a creampuff major is STILL better than the average Berkeley student who completed a creampuff major, mainly because of the more stringent admissions". To prove this statement, you would have to define what all of the "creampuff majors" are; then you would have to define what you mean when you say "still better than". Your statements sound like the same type of nonsense that the people who support the Ivy / Stanford elite school fiction / system run up the flagpole to support their fantasies about these schools. </p>

<p>Of course, if you still think the Ivys and Stanford are so superior to good 'ole Cal Berkeley read another article in the Atlantic titled, "Who Needs Harvard":</p>

<p><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200410/easterbrook%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200410/easterbrook&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think this will open your eyes. </p>

<p>Overall, I have not been too impressed by the Ivy grads I have met; and I have met quite a few in my career. They are not smarter, more competent, or more able than people whom I have worked with who graduated from other top schools.</p>

<p>Then again, that's just my opinion.</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
Incoming Gpa berkeley: 4.2
Incoming Gpa Stanford: 3.9

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not an entirely fair assessment. Berkeley reports both weighted and unweighted GPA's, whereas Stanford reports only unweighted GPA's. The unweighted Berkeley incoming GPA is a 3.9.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/#admission%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/#admission&lt;/a>
<a href="http://cds.vcbf.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2004-05.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://cds.vcbf.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2004-05.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Middle 50th Sat math for Berkeley: 680 (one sitting)
Middle 50th sat math for stanford: 720 (best combined)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know if the common data set includes information from just one sitting or the best combined. Yes, I know that many private schools like Stanford like to report best combined to USNews. But whether they do or are even allowed to do that for the CDS is unclear to me. Does anybody know? </p>

<p>
[quote]
percent who graduated in top 10th of class Berkeley: 98%
percent who graduated in top 10th of class stanford: 89%

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Finally, the biggest issue I have with looking at the CDS this way is that obviously it doesn't have anything at all to say about the quite large population of transfer students at Berkeley. According to the CDS, Berkeley matriculates about 3600 new freshmen every year, and about 1600 transfer students, or about 30% of all incoming undergrads. Stanford, on the other hand, brings in a measly 50 transfers as opposed to 1500 new freshmen, or a measly 3%. While I give credit to Berkeley transfer students for working hard to work their way through community college (for that's where most of them came from) into UC, the fact is, they probably are not as naturally talented as the freshman admits were. After all, if they were, they probably would have gotten into Berkeley as freshman. What that means is that transfers basically give people 2 bites at the UC apple. If you can't get in as a freshman, you go to community college, and then you can apply again as a transfer. As a transfer student, you don't need good high school grades, you don't need good SAT scores, you don't need good high school EC's, you don't need any of that stuff. All you need is good community college grades and good community college EC's. </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. If we included all the SAT scores of the transfer students (including forcing those transfers who didn't take the SAT to take it), I have a strong suspicion that the "true" average SAT score at Berkeley would drop. Again, I say that not to take a shot at transfer students, but as a simple observation that from a statistical standpoint, a group that is not judged on a particular criteria is probably not going to be as strong at that criteria than a group it is judged by that criteria. To give you an example, I know that the MBA program at INSEAD (the top European B-school) weights an applicant's language skills more so than most other B-schools do, especially most American B-schools. The result is that the average incoming INSEAD student speaks more languages than, say, the average HBS student.</p>

37

<p>sakky wrote:</p>

<p>"If we included all the SAT scores of the transfer students (including forcing those transfers who didn't take the SAT to take it), I have a strong suspicion that the "true" average SAT score at Berkeley would drop."</p>

<p>See, that's the problem with your posts; they are based on suspicion, hypothesis, and general statements not facts.</p>

<p>Perhaps you need to add some steak to your sizzle.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
You use the term "intermittently difficult" when referring to UC Berkeley. Read the article in the Atlantic titled, "The Truth About Harvard":</p>

<p><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200503/douthat%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200503/douthat&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Since Harvard is the flagship Ivy school, it serves as an excellent example to show the type of nonsense that people are buying into when they tout the Ivy or Stanford elite school myth. If you want an example of "creampuff" courses and majors read the above mentioned article about Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody is saying that Harvard doesn't have creampuff majors. However, the point is that Berkeley is no better in this respect. Both schools have creampuff majors. </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. Jason Kidd managed to survive 2 years at Berkeley, and was never put on academic probation. Let's face it. Kidd wasn't exactly a scholar. He was majoring in basketball. The same could be said for many of Berkeley's football and basketball stars - many of which weren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed from an academic standpoint. </p>

<p>I say that not to overly denigrate Berkeley but to simply point out that of Berkeley ,Stanford, and the Ivies, ALL of them have creampuff majors in which substandard students can run and hide in. ALL of them. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You say that the "average Stanford student who completed a creampuff major is STILL better than the average Berkeley student who completed a creampuff major, mainly because of the more stringent admissions". To prove this statement, you would have to define what all of the "creampuff majors" are; then you would have to define what you mean when you say "still better than".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A creampuff major is one in which you can graduate with very little work and with demonstrating relatively little knowledge. Other names for them would be 'football majors' - the majors of which the scholarship football players of a division 1A team tend to congregate. </p>

<p>You don't need to strictly 'define' what creampuff majors to talk about them just like you don't need to strictly define 'poorer students' to talk about them. You just make the simple observation that at Berkeley (and yes, at Stanford and the Ivies), there are certain majors that you can complete while doing relatively little work and little effort, and there are students who don't really seem to care very much about their academics. Come on, at Berkeley, we've all seen those classes in which people can get top grades for doing little work. </p>

<p>I know one guy at Berkeley who took a class that shall remain unnamed in which he never showed up and never did any of the reading. The class required that he write 2 papers on the reading. Instead of doing the reading, he just went to Amazon.com, read the various user comments about the books that he was supposed to read, and then basically just reformulated those comments into his own words to create a paper. He ended up with a final grade of an A- in the class. He would have gotten a solid A, except that he never showed up (part of the class grading was on class participation which he obviously did none of). Nor was he the only lazy student in the class. There was even a group of students in the class who were "competing" to see who could get the highest grade in the class while doing the least possible work. None of these guys would go to class more than once or twice a month (if that), and also did very little of the reading. I think the worst grade that one of them got was a B-, which is still a respectable grade. </p>

<p>Look, the point is, Harvard has creampuff majors. Stanford has creampuff majors. Berkeley has creampuff majors. So what's the diff? </p>

<p>Nor do I think that Berkeley science/engineering is the most rigorous in the nation. There's a certain other school in Cambridge Mass that would hotly dispute that notion. There's also a certain school in Pasadena. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Your statements sound like the same type of nonsense that the people who support the Ivy / Stanford elite school fiction / system run up the flagpole to support their fantasies about these schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And what of the fiction and fantasies that are used to support Berkeley vis-a-vis the other UC's or the CalStates? Berkeley positions itself as the 'elite' flagship public school in California, yet the fact is, taking a creampuff Berkeley major is almost certainly easier than completing a difficult major at UCLA or UCSD. I would argue that the UCLA engineers are far more academically hard working and intelligent than the Cal football team. </p>

<p>You accuse Stanford and the Ivies of behaving in an elitist manner, but Berkeley does the SAME THING with regard to all the other public schools in California. Lots of people go to Berkeley not because they actually care about the education but just because Berkeley has a big name. Lots of people apply to a bunch of UC's and then go to the most prestigious one they get into. So how is that any different from people going to Stanford or an Ivy just for the big name? It's the same thing. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Overall, I have not been too impressed by the Ivy grads I have met; and I have met quite a few in my career. They are not smarter, more competent, or more able than people whom I have worked with who graduated from other top schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody is saying that Ivy grads have a monopoly on intelligence or competence or ability. I would say that the smartest and most able people I have ever met in my life didn't come from an Ivy - they all came from MIT. </p>

<p>But that's not the issue. The issue is that Berkeley does have its share of not so sharp students. I completely agree that the top Berkeley students can complete with anybody. But Berkeley has a long tail end of students who aren't that good. You talk about not being impressed by the Ivy grads you met. Yeah, well, I am not particularly impressed by many Berkeley students I have met, particularly the low-end, many of whom won't even graduate. The tail end of the Ivies and Stanford is almost assuredly better than the tail end of Berkeley.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
1) Higher Tuition Costs (especially if you are out of state, I pay more than a stanford student for much larger classes and less credit hours a week).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As an in-state student, the cost is less compared to private schools. Attending Georgetown for me would've been way more expensive, factorning in travel. But as a Southern Californian, Southwest offers cheap flights so I can get home with no worries. But yes, tuition is going up because of the state's continued budget problems.</p>

<p>
[quote]
2) Poor social environment. Half the clubs are empty or nearly empty (you have the officers and those that want to be officers, i.e. Resume Whores). They boot you off campus after first year so you're suppose to befriend people on your floor (about 12 people) or your building (maybe about 50). If you are very selective socially, then you're out of luck. VERY cliquish social community (The biggest groups are the Asian American Association, and Asian something or other, and then you have a bunch of much smaller groups). People in clubs are nice but you'll probably never get to know them very well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This depends on the individual. For some, the social environment here is the best thing in the world, for others, such as yourself, it may not be. But this is your personal experience. Incoming students may not and probably will not have the same experience. Some may have similar experiences, but not all.</p>

<p>I've enjoyed my first year at Cal (or at least quickly approaching). I'm in the smaller Asian Political Association; it's been the first time since I've had the opportunity to work on issues concerning not only Asian American community but the community at large: issues which effect all groups. I know the members quite well, being just in the club for one and half semesters. In fact, one of them is hosting a party for us to hang out and talk. Moreover, in my capacity as a CalSO counselor in training, I know 40+ people, all of whom I consider my friends. By the end of the summer, the majority of them will be not only just friends, but close friends.</p>

<p>Secondly, UC Berkeley now offers two years of housing here at Cal. The second year has the options of the larger suites here on campus. Things have changed since College Senior's first year.</p>

<p>Housing is expensive, approximately $11,000 for a double in the high rises. Comparatively speaking, UCLA charges approximately $10,000 for housing with the same meal plan that comes standard for Cal students, UCSD charges $7,900 for a double (though their room is larger, I believe). </p>

<p>The community at Cal can be cliquish, but there are 30,000 people here. To say that 30,000 people are cliquish is a broad statement. Students looking for smaller schools will undoubtely feel uncomfortable in such a situation. But students who enjoy such a large community will have fun here. Again, it depends on the person and prospective students should take the opportunity to evaluate their own circumstances and determine whether Cal is for them. It's certainly not for everyone.</p>

<p>
[quote]
3) Huge classes. Even upper division, problems with the budget have made classes generally large, impersonal and boring.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm in the Rhetoric department. My introductory classes are about 80 students; not bad compared to the larger science and political science classes. If you have a great TA (or GSI), it'll be fantastic. If you don't, it can get rough. I recommend asking around for the good professors. Upper division classes range 20-50, though more are on the 20-30 side.</p>

<p>My other dept, the political science, does have larger classes. But the upper division classes can be small. PS 147 this semester is capped at 28 students. However, the classes such as international relations, which is upper div, has about 300 because it's a class which many IR students are recommended to take before continuing on.</p>

<p>
[quote]
4) Poor quality peers. This is subjective but most of the people you meet will be not smart and many times will slow down the class by asking dumb questions. They are the "cream" of the crop of the 2nd worst high school system in the US, where 1/3 of all students drop out, and it really shows many times.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There are students who hijack lectures. Most professors quickly shut them down, though some do continue to be a pest. And the California public school system isn't fantastic, but many students here at Cal come from Harvard-Westlake, Loyola, Mater Dei, and other private schools. Also, California public schools such as Whitney and other magnet schools are consistently compete at a national level. Berkeley is not full of future Nobel Laureates, but again, there are 30,000 students here. Are all of them unworthy of College Senior's recognition?</p>

<p>
[quote]
5) Poor opportunities for generalists. If you are very determined and know what you want to be, you might get the internship or job you're going for. If you're tring to figure it out, good luck, because they are a ton of applicants for every position you apply for and getting behind is easy, when everyone else has specialized. Its really a bit more cut-throat environment than I have heard from my other friends at ivies and University of Texas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't have personal experiences about this, so I won't discuss it. I invite those who are "generalists" and attend Cal to give a better perspective.</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>So far, I've had FANTASTIC professors here who not only entertain, but are bright and interested in having their students learn. Kaja Silverman (Rhetoric Dept) is one of them and so is Paolo Mancosu (Philosophy Dept). </p>

<p>Daniel Coffeen (Rhetoric) is a "visiting" or adjunct professor here. He's charismatic, incredibly intelligent, and willing to help his students. </p>

<p>Richard Muller (Physics) is another fantastic teacher.</p>

<p>My "visiting" professor in History 6B is also amazing. </p>

<p>The freshman/sophomore seminars are another great place to meet great professors.</p>

<p>It's interesting that "harder" professors may be a bad thing. Some enjoy to be challenged, and some don't. And yes, GPA is a huge factor for graduate/professional schools, but "harder" can also bring out the best. I considered rhetoric 20 difficult, yet the challenge and my response earned me an A- and I learned so much more! An easier class may have gotten me an A perhaps, but the breath may have been different.</p>

<p>To find quality teachers, you have to ask around.</p>

<p>
[quote]
7) CRAPPY housing. If paying highly inflated prices for really crapp housing is your thing, then berkeley will suit you. After the 1st year of paying for extremely overpriced, unairconditioned housing shared with a great deal of idiots, the University sends you out to live in extremely overpriced, unairconditoned housing. Which is only a slight improvement because some areas of berkeley have very high crime.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To restate, things have changed. UC Berkeley now offers two years of housing here at Cal. </p>

<p>Housing is expensive, approximately $11,000 for a double in the high rises. Comparatively speaking, UCLA charges approximately $10,000 for housing with the same meal plan that comes standard for Cal students, UCSD charges $7,900 for a double (though their room is larger, I believe). </p>

<p>As for safety in Berkeley, just don't do stupid things. Most of the crimes that are committed (armed robbery, assault, etc.) are committed at 1 am - 4 am against individuals who are walking alone. It's a tragedy yes, but this is an environment where it is more urban. However, various safety programs can be used, including Bear Walk, where escorts will bring you home, Night Safety Shutte, OWL. </p>

<p>Northside Apartments are quite nice as well. Southside has its problems, but its not crime ridden which College Senior describes. (Hello, USC? But I'm not suggesting that it's ridiculously more unsafe).</p>

<p>On air conditioning, Berkeley is by the bay. It's cool here at Cal, even in the summer time (when you're not here). The humidity is higher being coastal, but not as bad as the Southern states. Certainly not like Lousiana or anything. No need for air conditioning. Just crack open a window. It's 69 F right now. Not exactly blazing hot. I come from the IE in SoCal where it gets 100 + F! This is paradise.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
"If we included all the SAT scores of the transfer students (including forcing those transfers who didn't take the SAT to take it), I have a strong suspicion that the "true" average SAT score at Berkeley would drop."</p>

<p>See, that's the problem with your posts; they are based on suspicion, hypothesis, and general statements not facts.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They are no less fact-oriented than are yours. For example, you said that you met Ivy grads and are not impressed. Do you have "facts" to support this assertion? Of course not. </p>

<p>Look, I don't ask you for facts to support all your assertions. The fact is, most things cannot be definitely proved. We have to talk about likelihoods and reasonable logic. After all, if everything could be definitely proved, then there would be nothing to debate about. </p>

<p>But fine, have it your way. If you want to demand facts from me, then you should be demanding them from yourself and from everybody else on this thread, including your supporters. If you want to apply standards of proof, you have to apply them to everybody.</p>