<p>If we are to be free, we must learn to deal with truths that do not agree with us--especially those truths which insult our pride and render mute the voice of reason that resides in all of us.</p>
<p>Ah, I have found the thread that has transformed me from a lurker to a poster.</p>
<p>This semester is my first at Cal, and I am a community college transfer. I take many issues with what has been said thus far about berkeley. First of all, I am insulted by the fact that somehow the integrity of the school is being called into question due to the fact that they admit so many transfers. I agree that as a transfer student, I feel underprepared to be at Berkeley. However, I don't think this is do to the fact the my intelligence as a transfer is sub-par, and I know many transfers are like myself. I feel it is more attributed to the fact that Berkeley is a school you have to come to with a solid foundation and strong work ethic, both of which are lacking in many transfers. The difference between us and other students is that we don't have 2 years at cal to hone our study skills and adjust and usually have to take difficult, upper division courses our first semester. Also, school has not always been our first and only priority. I've had a job since I was 15, and spent far more time working in high school than studying. I didn't have time for the busywork in AP classes, and essentially, I gained little from my high school educaiton. This is something I regret but cannot change. I feel socially detached at Berkeley simply because my life and experiences thus far are incongrous to the majority at berkeley. Let's face it, many of the kids at Berkeley are upper middle class jerks who have spent too many years defining themselves according to how many AP classes they were taking in high school, what their SAT scores were, and how much smarter they are than everyone else. More often than not, their level of maturity and common societal sense is not reflective of their intellect. There are plenty of smart kids at Berkeley, but they aren't as eclectic or openminded or interesting or smart as they like to think. In conversation, I feel judged--as if every word I say can and will be held against me. A dumb comment by anyone (and we all make them sometimes) will make peers immediately write them off as "stupid." Also, the level of success you are able to achieve in a class can have more to do with your high school education than anything else. Those who were lucky enough to come from better schools fare better on the kinds of weeder exams arbitrarily given at cal. It's true that professors will often test you material that is barely covered in the lecture and homework, and nowhere to be found in the book. Sometimes the difference between an "A" and a "C" is merely the fact that some people took AP in high school, or has taken more math than required, and has an extended command of the material as a result. </p>
<p>In conclusion, I agree most points made by the original poster. I know it is my first semester, but I think that makes my opinion less biased since the contrast between berkeley and the real world (and believe me, they are two different places far removed from each other) feels more poignant to me right now. Berkeley is not a friendly, welcoming place. The campus is beautiful (kicks westwood ass in my opinion) and there are many activities/concerts/eateries, but unless you are in an easier, noncompetitive major, I think it's likely that you will hardly find time to enjoy what Berkeley has to offer in that regard.</p>
<p>If self-teaching is your thing, and you have a good high school background, you'll fare well at Berkeley. However, if you are coming to Berkeley to learn, you might find that most of the learning you do will be a result of desperate and intense studying out of fear for a difficult exam. Don't expect to learn much from your professors, and if they do teach you something, don't expect it to show up on an exam. They'll assume you know it and test you on something more complex.</p>
<p>I totally agree. I actually stopped showing up to half my lectures last semester for 2 months, because I can only learn from books. Lectures don't help at all in general.</p>
<p>This is how I plan on getting through college: not professors, but books. So it really is self-motivation and self-learning.</p>
<p>Yeah, but then professors start testing over random crap they say in lecture to counter the complaints by gpa peabodies. I have to say science and harder classes can be easier in that grading isn't some abstract nonsense more often.</p>
<p>"Don't expect to learn much from your professors"</p>
<p>I am so glad that the people on this board are not representative of the Cal community (at least the ones I know). This is pathetic! All of you, drop out or transfer out or whatever, because its people like you that will ruin this school. You don't learn from your teachers? I don't even know how to respond to that. You don't go to class? You don't engage other students? Why are you in college? Seriously, I'd like to know what makes people that aren't interested in learning come to college. If its just to gain a foothold in some post-college career, I'd think there are easier and less time consuming ways of going about it.</p>
<p>Well, to be honest, liberal arts professors are SUPERB and I go to my liberal arts classes, but other departments' professors generally suck at teaching, except for maybe mathematics.</p>
<p>LoL. Lectures aren't necessarily conducive to learning and are quite boring to boot. SOme people learn in different ways, for example I prefer the socratic method because it weeds out idiots and keeps you engaged. Discussions are retarded. Half the people don't do their reading, and people just don't care. A berkeley education is just a slip of paper, nothing more.</p>
<p>Liberalcensor/collegesenior/apathetic, we know how you feel. You don't like learning and you don't like gays and you don't like minorites and you don't like college students and you don't like rain and you don't like sunshine and you don't like teachers and you find books boring and you hate your roomates and you hate the food here and you hate the hippies....</p>
<p>I don't like hippies because they smell funny and are rude.</p>
<p>I don't like crime and insofar as ghettos help produce them.</p>
<p>I don't like high school students masquerading as college students.</p>
<p>I don't like rain yes, its tough to get to class in it. </p>
<p>Deal with it, its a part of the berkeley experience and I have a right to excoriate it.</p>
<p>You guys have to put energy into finding interesting professors. They aren't going to fall on your lap. If you feel that your science professors are terrible, don't claim that "professors at Berkeley are terrible." Your evidence does not enstantiate the claim. I had an amazing professor in physics because I did some research on science professors.</p>
<p>I don't deny that LiberalCensor has some valid points, but where I disagree with him is that he is not providing proper perspective. Yes, Berkeley has problems. Problems with not-so-strong students, problems with coldness of the bureaucracy, problems with access to resources for individual undergraduate students, problems with a lack of undergraduate teaching focus, problems with all of that stuff.</p>
<p>Yet the fact is, that's true of most public schools, and certainly most large public schools. Despite all of its problems, I would argue that Berkeley is one of the most desirable and perhaps the desirable undergraduate public school in the country. Not because Berkeley doesn't have problems, but really because the other public schools have it WORSE. There are plenty of public schools out there that have all of the problems that Berkeley has, and none of the good stuff. </p>
<p>In short, I believe that Berkeley is a very good deal for a lot of undergrads, and in particular for those people who either weren't good enough to get into one of the elite private schools, or can't afford it. For them, Berkeley is a whole lot better than the other alternatives they had. </p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all, I am insulted by the fact that somehow the integrity of the school is being called into question due to the fact that they admit so many transfers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know if this was directed at me, but let me explicate my point. I never had a problem with the NUMBER of transfer students coming in. Like I said, in theory, I might be fine with a situation where ALL of Berkeley's undergrads were transfer students and Berkeley admitted nobody as freshman. </p>
<p>My issue has always been with the QUALITY of the transfer students, and in particular, what disturbs me and many others greatly is that the transfer students get to skip over difficult lower-division Berkeley weeders that the freshman-admits have to take. Simply put, that's not fair. If the freshman-admits have to survive the weeder gauntlet, then so should the transfer students. Otherwise, nobody should have to undergo the weeders. If the transfer students are as good as people say they are, then they will have no problem in surviving the weeders. If not, well, then maybe they shouldn't be admitted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The difference between us and other students is that we don't have 2 years at cal to hone our study skills and adjust and usually have to take difficult, upper division courses our first semester.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here I think there is a misunderstanding of what the freshman admits have to undergo. In many majors, there is little if any time to 'get accustomed' to the Berkeley environment or to lolly-gag around. Weeders start very early in the game. So just like the transfers in those majors are almost immediately plunged into upper-division coursework, freshman-admits in those majors are almost immediately plunged into weeders. The major difference is that while the upper-division courses are for the most part not actively trying to flunk you out, the lower-division weeders are specifically designed to flunk people out. </p>
<p>This leads to the notion that transfer students only see those freshman-admits who survived to make it to the upper division and then conclude that these freshman-admits had it easier. What the transfers don't see is all those freshman-admits who didn't survive the weeders. These guys tend to be quite bitter at the transfer students, and they have a right to be. After all, how do you justify to a guy who got admitted as a freshman into EECS, but then flunked out of EECS (or perhaps flunked out of Berkeley entirely) because he did poorly in the lower-division stuff that there are these transfer students who are allowed to get into EECS as upper-division students, completely bypassing all of those lower-division weeders that flunked him out? </p>
<p>Now, some might say that the transfer process is itself a weeder in the sense that transfer students have to battle for admissions spots to Berkeley. That is true but also irrelevant. After all, the freshman admits had to battle for admissions spots to Berkeley too. So both people had to fight for admission, so that's a wash. The difference is that the freshman admits also then have to survive the weeders that the transfer students don't have to. Instead of taking notorious weeders at Berkeley, the transfers get to do them at their community college. Where's the fairness in that?</p>
<p>The bottom line is that while I have no problem with transfer admissions as a concept, transfer admissions should not be a "get-out-of-weeders-free" card. If the freshman-admits have to run the weeder gauntlet, then so should the transfer students. Otherwise, nobody should have to run the gauntlet.</p>
<p>^ actually, if you were aware of the transfer process at all, you'd know that berkeley often doesn't let students take particular classes at community college, and those classes tend to be weeders. They then require those courses to be taken your first semester at berkeley before you can officially declare. Sure, you might think it's unfair that a person who takes organic chem or an engineering class at community college gets to go straight to upper-division berkeley classes, but how else would it be feasible for them to graduate within 4 years? And especially with regards to difficult/impacted majors like engineering and business, it is extremely difficult to be admitted as a transfer. </p>
<p>As for you GentlemanandScholar, you need to accept the fact that the experiences of individuals are unique and perhaps go deeper than your understanding. Obviously none of us hates to learn or any of that nonsense. I also think you guys forget that you don't often get a choice as far as who your professor is. If it's a required class that you need to take that semester, you are pretty much SOL as far as "finding a good professor" goes.</p>
<p>I think that the previous posts only reiterate what I don't like about Berkeley, which is that the students think they are so enlightened, intelligent, and openminded, yet once again, you are quick to dismiss another person as stupid and inferior just because they don't like Cal or don't like the way a class is run. You know, the only reason I went on this board is because I wanted to find things to like about Berkeley, and maybe some tips to do well and learn more. Nobody wants to hate college. Just because I don't like cal doesn't mean I should drop out or transfer. Sometimes I wonder if it's just people in general, or is it the competitive attitude at cal that makes people so pitiless and contemptuous to others? I want to hope that it's just people in general, but somehow I think there is a correlation between the school and the attitudes of its students.</p>
<p>"Just because I don't like cal doesn't mean I should drop out or transfer"</p>
<p>Why not? I guess that's your prerogative, but I think your only doing yourself a disservice to stay at a school that you don't like. Seems like a waste of time to me.</p>
<p>And I never said you were stupid or inferior. I said you (and others who limp through their college experience) are bringing down Cal. You come here and tell people that they won't learn anything from the professors at Berkeley and you want, what, a pat on the back? You seem to have no problem labeling the students here as pitiless and contemptuous, yet you feel free to chastise me for giving my oppinion about you and the half empty crew. I'm actually starting to agree with Sakky about raising the bar on admission standards. I don't just mean stats either, I mean that Cal should only let in people who are willing to work and who are excited about being here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because I don't like cal doesn't mean I should drop out or transfer
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think this can go two ways: You can either change it to suit your desires, or you can transfer. However, I think that sitting there and complaining about not liking the experience is problematic. I mean, if you dislike it that much, why stick around long enough for the status quo to drive you insane? Either cause a change, or leave. This makes you happier, and in theory, makes someone else happy 'cause now they get to go to Berkeley.</p>
<p>LoL at all the posts about "changing" the school. California's governance system is a bureacratic mess and near impossible to change. Nothing's going to happen especially since it seems obnoxious people who think Berkeley is the greatest (most likeley because its better than what they thought they were good enough for) are in the majority.</p>
<p>Apathetic,</p>
<p>I recall some fairly important changes at UCLA occuring because of student involvement. I can't imagine Cal is that different or harder to change.</p>
<p>Besides, if you want just be like your namesake, go transfer to a place you'll be happier. I don't see why you should sit with your thumb up your rear and just complain.</p>
<p>Things didn't become really bad until junior year when it became too late to change. Lower division classes have a standardized curriculum and more gsi's so you can find a better professor if you want to.</p>
<p>Upper Division classes are a hodge podge and the student activities are nothing more than crappier versions of high school ones.</p>
<p>Start your own group. That's what I did. It worked beautifully.</p>
<p>Oh, my lord, the irony. A Berkeley student saying that Berkeley students can't change anything! I guess your american history classes about the 1960's were too boring for you, or maybe it was raining that day and you didn't want to go to class, but I'd advise you walk over to the FSM cafe and read the walls. Anyway, you're doing a wonderful job of demonstrating the things I've been writing about. You're a pessimist and you're not a risk taker (as proven by the fact that you haven't left this godforsaken place even though you hate everything about it). I don't feel the least bit of sympathy for you. You hate life. You would hate life anywhere you were. You make other people hate life too.</p>
<p>I probably have to "reset" my education and gpa by going to get a masters program, all of which will be harder because of the poor preparation Berkeley has given me for the real world or for real education where they can test more and expect more.</p>