Top 8 Reasons Not to Go to Berkeley

eiffelguy87 · February 9, 2006, 3:25pm

[quote]
8) Shortened semester (due to budget problems) means NO dead days for finals and cheapened academic expereince. Thats a slight exaggeration, we had one dead day last semester, which is next to nothing. So not only will class selection be dominated by politics (picking fair professors), but also your final schedule because having a few extra days between your finals really is a lifesaver for your sleep schedule and your grades. I think we had a week longer semester when I was a freshman here with 2-3 dead days, which is still failry short because we had a month long winter break. Now its even cheaper than that. Libraries close earlier now as well and they are the ONLY quiet place to study on really.

[/quote]

Libraries are open 24 hours during finals time. They close at 2 am (main stacks and Moffit) during the regular school year.

And it's not only the quiet place "really." I study in my room often, and it's the preferred place. During finals, a 24 hour quiet hours rule is imposed in the dorms.

I had two finals on one day, and one the next day after. I'm still alive to type this. It's not that bad.

[quote/9) Generall rude people and students. People talking in the library very loudly, playing music too loudly in the dorms, etc. The trash really gets into berkeley and it cheapens the whole experience. The people you meet that aren't students are generally annoying uber-liberals that refuse to tolerate other viewpoints and act particularly righteous.
[/quote]

Generally rude people and students? Generally 30,000 rude students? You get rude people, but you get rude people in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, London, Paris, etc. This is reality and people have moods and some are rude.

There are many smiling faces (myself included :) )

And you ignore uber-liberals as you would ignore uber conservatives and uber liberals in other parts of the country.

[quote]
However, if you're like me and a lot of friends and want to use college as a growing experience, I would avoid Berkeley, completely.

[/quote]

No one is just like you. Everyone here will have an individual experience. How dare you attempt to impose your experience on prospective students.

I've "grown" a lot since coming to Cal; not just intellectually, but mentally, spiritually, and emotionally. And I have a lot of friends, and I enoy UC Berkeley.

But this is my experience and I won't impose on other or on prospective students.

It's great to hear differing opinions, but it's crucial for prospective students to come and visit the university to see if they can envision themselves here. It's an important choice and where you select can determine whether you're happy or bitter here. Berkeley is not for everyone. But Harvard is not for everyone. Claremont McKenna is not for everyone. And Yale is not for everyone and on and on.

WillDO · February 9, 2006, 3:26pm

"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."

That's quite an elitist view you've got there. I'd like to know where these "facts" are taken from. It almost sounds like you're saying transfer students don't truely deserve to go to any top schools since you don't think they worked as hard as the freshmen did.

sakky · February 9, 2006, 4:44pm

I'm simply making the observation that transfer students needed a second chance to get in. I credit them with taking advantage of that second chance. But it was a second chance, like it or not. It's like giving people 2 shots at getting a passing score on an exam.

If you think that is elitist to say so, then are you really going to take the position that transfer students had the exact same high school qualifications as the freshman admits did? I think we can all agree that, on average, they did not. Again, if they did, then they would have gotten in as freshmen. Hence, what that means is that they probably didn't work as hard in high school as the freshmen did. Now, I agree that they probably worked hard while in their community college. Yet the fact remains that transfer admissions does not require standardized tests. It does not require high school EC's. I think it should, but it doesn't. Hence, you could absolutely bomb the SAT and still get into Berkeley as a transfer. You could have had very serious academic and disciplinary probation problems in high school, and graduated from high school with a 2.0, and still get into Berkeley as a transfer. I am fairly certain that very very few people who bombed the SAT or who had horrible high school grades got into Berkeley as freshmen.

Now, is that good or bad? That's not for me to say. I am simply making the observation that the admissions criteria are different and therefore will bring in a different pool of people.

DRab · February 9, 2006, 5:32pm

Sure, this particular school is unique in its combination of factors, both good (which this thread ignoresand) bad. Many of the various problems you mention also, what do you know of "the UC experience?" Lets focus on this particular school, as that's what we're talking about. I'm just pointing out that many of the factors you name happen at other schools as well.

To expunge the bay area from the discussion does not make sense. The school is in an area that greatly affects things. If it were moved, things would probably change. But again, I guess you want to cut out a lot of the topics of conversation for some reason. But how much crime happens on campus? I guess we'll have to ignore all that happens off of campus. Does that make sense?

Again, I can't go along with what you're saying. All the people going to advanced studies or professional school aren't dumb. Many of the future people in business and other fields such as engineering aren't dumb. You mention a professor giving all A's on a final. That's a rarity. At any rate, the policy of the school is that only 65% of students in a class can get A's or B's. Perhaps this isn't so at the graduate level, as I think the policy refers to undergraduates. Anyway, what percentage of CA high school graduates end up in the UC system? I think someone on another thread said 8% or 9%, but that might be off. Say as a whole, CA has a bad high school public education system. Do all the kids who don't end up at Berkeley, who don't go to college, drag the best kids, the ones who end up here, down in quality by such a great amount that mention the aggregate high schooler is significant? The trend is kids here were near the tops of their class. Although at some schools this may have been easy, it is not the case with many others. And again, what about the kids who came from private schools? You seem to think they're better than public schools, so what about those kids? They're here, too.

I talk about the kids going to "better schools" getting the same "crappy CA public high school" education that I received, as you might describe it. Berkeley does attract many of these people, and they are probably a group that does very well here. As much as you want the discussion to center around something, you should talk about the other significant trends and groups.

You're going to the wrong events if all you can find are liberal speakers. There are conservative and moderate speakers on campus. Did you see Congress' historian of the Middle East speak about Israeli politics at Boalt, for instance? Again, stuff is out there, although sometimes hard to find, it can be found. And events are a part of social life. A law student I met this year at Boalt said that people are much friendlier here than where he went to school (Yale). He said when he walked by people, even if they knew each others names, they did not say hello. I don't know much about the ineptitude of student leaders, but perhaps they are. Have you ever experienced people being nice and corteous? Do you think that the decline in manners you experience is only on this campus, or only in CA, everywhere?

If you want to talk about crime, yes, Berkeley has a lot, probably even more than similar schools in larger, more urban areas, but I would bet it's not extremely higher than comparable schools with regards to set-up, not quality.

To what does
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
refer?

[quote]
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. Dispute it if you want, I'm telling you this is a fairly widely held belief among people who've attended berkeley.

[/quote]

Compared to which universities? Also, are you saying that peole cheating in high school carries over to here? What are the widely held beliefs, that the student government is political?

By a broader view, I mean you're showing more negative aspects that some would choose to ignore. That's broader than ignoring the good. You seem to have hated the place for a while, and should have transferred years ago. Why didn't you? Also, pehaps you could talk about good things at Berkeley. But no, we wouldn't want to do that.

ccmadforever · February 10, 2006, 8:04pm

[quote]
I'm simply making the observation that transfer students needed a second chance to get in. I credit them with taking advantage of that second chance. But it was a second chance, like it or not. It's like giving people 2 shots at getting a passing score on an exam.

If you think that is elitist to say so, then are you really going to take the position that transfer students had the exact same high school qualifications as the freshman admits did? I think we can all agree that, on average, they did not. Again, if they did, then they would have gotten in as freshmen. Hence, what that means is that they probably didn't work as hard in high school as the freshmen did. Now, I agree that they probably worked hard while in their community college. Yet the fact remains that transfer admissions does not require standardized tests. It does not require high school EC's. I think it should, but it doesn't. Hence, you could absolutely bomb the SAT and still get into Berkeley as a transfer. You could have had very serious academic and disciplinary probation problems in high school, and graduated from high school with a 2.0, and still get into Berkeley as a transfer. I am fairly certain that very very few people who bombed the SAT or who had horrible high school grades got into Berkeley as freshmen.

Now, is that good or bad? That's not for me to say. I am simply making the observation that the admissions criteria are different and therefore will bring in a different pool of people.

[/quote]

That's a hasty generalization there. Many people tend to go to a cc due to financial reasons. I would say that a slight majority would fit under the description you have described, and out of these, most of them would end up at the lower UCs. There is a sizable number of people who decide to go to a cc to save a lot of money for taking the same courses and ending up with the same degree. Also, if you notice the statistics for transfer students, the average GPA is the same as those who came to berkeley as freshmen.

As for my experience (I've attended UCI and a cc before coming to berkeley), I realized how mediocre the student body is in general, with nothing that really stands out from the student body at UCI... I guess the prestige of the school gave me the impression that all students here were prodigies, but really there's hardly any difference between the two groups of students. That's just what I've noticed in the pre-med classes. I actually find some of the classes here easier than classes from the other schools I've attended.

GentlemanandScholar · February 10, 2006, 9:59pm

You say the student body doesn't seem that much different from UCI's? Well, guess what? There isn't that much of a difference, and there's not much of a difference between Cal's student body and Harvard's. You've watched Good Will Hunting a few too many times. I've said it before, just because someone is good at school doesn't mean that they're going to go around debating the origin of the universe or disecting french philosophers during lunch. They're not here to impress you. And if the pool of students is so mediocre, am I right to assume that you've been ahead of the curve in all of your classes?

ccmadforever · February 10, 2006, 10:18pm

yup i've set the curves pretty much. it's quite disappointing really when you dont have much of a challenge

DRab · February 10, 2006, 10:20pm

Take harder classes, buddy. If you can't find classes that are challenging you enough, I'll point em out for you.

GentlemanandScholar · February 10, 2006, 11:36pm

In a previous post, ccmadfover said: "well we got our first midterm results back for MCB 102, and I was initially quite disappointed with my score."

Why were you disappointed if you got the highest grade in the class? You'd think you'd be pretty happy about that.

ccmadforever · February 11, 2006, 3:22am

lol, well i only managed to barely pass the 1st standard deviation above the mean for the first exam, which was disappointing for me... the other two exams, let's just say that i was safely ahead of the 1st SD above the mean. =)

ok really i'm not boa****l in real life, but i just wanted to play around with you guys.

and i wanted to point out that my initial post was not to look down on the student body of berkeley, but to show sakky that the entering freshmen class is not that great compared to the incoming transfer students.

College_Senior · February 11, 2006, 3:23am

I'm already made points about how subjective a few of my points are to preempt a lot of your arguments which I will ignore since you seemed to miss the point. It was just a recollection of my experiences.

Freshman year was pretty bad but I thought people would mature after a while and the curriculum was fair enough that it was easy to do well.

Sophmore year was pretty bad but I had invested in Berkeley already over 50k and I thought why not just finish and get the degree.

The last 2 years here, I really ratcheted up my student involvement and I've met hordes of stupid, incompotent people. I daresay a significant plurality of peopel are just outright jerks. And a greater deal of people just have no manners. By manners doing things like considering small things like not talking in a library and so on that I took for granted in the South. And yes, berkeley is worst than other areas, because its a run-down urban ghetto for at least 2 sides which face the campus.

You probably have some kind of weird cognitive dissonance that doesn't allow you to see the bad.

Transfer students are dumber in general than the normal student population which isn't all that bright to begin with, at least in my experience. They score lower, and they have worst skill sets in general. One of my professors had to kick 3 students out of his class because he required a tiny essay at the beginning of the school year to see how well students wrote. They were all transfer students.

I'm not saying all students are dumb either, they are quit a few smart and talented people at berkeley. What I'm saying is that there are too many dumb ones here too due to bad government planning. If Berkeley were a more manageable 10-15k or even 20k, the quality of an education would go up a lot. You have 3 hours of lecture a week, one person asks a dumb question that takes up 5 minutes thats a significant part of the lecture time. In addition, 5 minutes times 200 people is 1500 minutes or nearly 17 hours wasted. Professors assign less homework because grading more homework will take too much time because you have one graduate student instructor for 100 people.

Yes, you can see conservative people. Big whopdie do. The entire audience will be mainly liberals who will act rudely and make stupid biased comments. Its hardly an engaging intellectual enterprise.

A lot of your points are also irrelevant. I said the graduate program was indeed much better and more professional. Your anecdote is about a boalt law student. Indeed, many of my friends have pointed out that people are much more mature in graduate school. This is especially contrasting with a large state school like berkeley where the experience is like high school redux.

Uber liberals are the most obnoxious people on god's green earth. Ultra-conservatives are at least polite to you in your face, and indeed the most tolerant people I have met here or at Berkeley are the christians who know the value of forgiveness and tolerance combined with moral character.

Only one library is open to 2 am, and not everyone is lucky to have a quiet environment. I've only had one quiet year here at berkeley and its this year because I was lucky enough to find good quiet housing. Sometimes only up to 2 am is not enough, and its only for one library, the one I least prefer to study in. The point was only a minor one anyways, it was just one of the many cost-cutting measures which detract from the entire berkeley experience.

My main points remain, the berkeley experience is a watered-down college experience filled with negatives. The bad social life, the shoddy housing, the haphazard quality of the curriculum, and the lack of student responsiveness are all significant downsides of the Berkeley experience. Yes, these negatives are not necessarily exclusive to Berkeley, but they are still a part of the berkeley experience, and generally exclusive berkeley to the rest

ccmadforever · February 11, 2006, 3:32am

dude, have you attended any other academic institutions to really compare the pros and cons? i really doubt that you have.

DRab · February 11, 2006, 5:40am

[quote]
You probably have some kind of weird cognitive dissonance that doesn't allow you to see the bad.

[/quote]

Yeah, that's it, I guess you just aren't reading my posts very well.

The math in your 7th paragraph doesn't make sense, and when do GSIs have a 100 students? You got it, rarely if ever.

My points would be equally irrelevant as yours, then. Anyway, that story about the law student was about how the social interaction of undergrads at his school, Yale, relate to the social interactions of undergrads a Berkeley, not graduate school or professional school in the least. It was comparing social life to social life of undergraduate students.

If Berkeley is the watered down version, what's the "real thing?"

It seems that your conclusions don't follow from your arguments, but keep restating them if you wish. I guess you think if you claim subjectivity, people can't argue with you. How does that make sense? My experience is as valid as yours then, so I'm just juxtaposing it next to yours. People can read it as they wish.

And feel free to continue not mentioning a single positive thing, which you only did in one post.

I do agree with you somewhat in what you say, but I don't think you portray it fairly. The housing isn't shoddy. Relative to college dorms, they seem average on the whole. It may be less nice than you would expect for the price, although I'm not sure how this compares to other college dorms (do you?), and from what I know about pricing, it's only somewhat above what you would expect to pay for what you get, it isn't run-down. How about the new buildings? I bet you didn't even know about them, as they are new. Yes, the school should do much more to facilitate social interaction, and they lay it just about entirely on the student, which they should not do. But like any other school, the social life ultimately rests on the student. The quality of the curriculum is also set by you. There are so many classes here that if you cannot find difficult stuff to study, you have been trying to avoid the tough stuff, and yes, it's somewhat possible to do that, but like the social life, it's on you ultimately.

Really college senior, if you hated your time so much, I'm sorry you chose it, and then afterward did not transfer out after you knew you disliked it. Did you ever attempt to change the place?

UCLAri · February 11, 2006, 9:02am

[quote]
People are dumb here. Worst, many only take 3 classes a semester.

[/quote]

This is an absolutely awful reason to attack people's intelligence. I had quarters at UCLA where I could only take 3 classes because of my hectic work and extra-curricular schedule. I guess I must've been a real moron, then.

College Senior, many of your points are valid. However, it's funny how much of what you said is what I experienced at UCLA and at other programs I've studied at. I don't mean to sound sour, but I suspect that it's an unfortunate part of the college experience.

GentlemanandScholar · February 11, 2006, 12:28pm

I finally know what the deal with collegesenior is. I can't believe it took me so long to figure it out. He's some crazy right winger! This explains alot. Of course people are going to be mean to you. They probably thought you were some hillbilly. Your problem, as you already know, was that you picked the wrong college. I'm sure you would've had a much better time at Bob Jones, which is full of your type of people. I actually feel sorry for you now. Imagine you, a good "polite" person having to be stuck here in Berkeley with all these minorites and liberals. It must've been hard for you to even look at those people without longing for some sort of sourthern brotherhood like back home. I bet when you go back home for christmas you have a good time telling Ma and Pa and the rest of the brotherhood about all of us! Well, its not too late to see if you can get Rush Linbaugh or David Duke to speak at commencment, just to send you out in style.

eiffelguy87 · February 11, 2006, 1:22pm

[quote]
I'm already made points about how subjective a few of my points are to preempt a lot of your arguments which I will ignore since you seemed to miss the point. It was just a recollection of my experiences.

[/quote]

Purely a recollection of your experiences? When you title your thread "Top 8 Reasons Not to Go to Berkeley" it suggests there is more than "just experiences." The use of the word "reasons" indicates something more.

[quote]
You probably have some kind of weird cognitive dissonance that doesn't allow you to see the bad.

[/quote]

I do see the bad. The undergraduate experience here can be improved. Class sizes are a problem. Social activities require that students be proactive and find something to do. And on and on. But are they such a huge problem for me to transfer? No, not for me. If you refer to my previous posts, you'll see the bad is mentioned. But I attempt to provide both sides of the issue.

Prospective students need to realize that UC Berkeley may be good or horrible for them. And your case is an excellent example when a student chooses to attend the wrong university. Perhaps you have a weird cognitive dissonance in not seeing the good?

[quote]
Yes, you can see conservative people. Big whopdie do. The entire audience will be mainly liberals who will act rudely and make stupid biased comments. Its hardly an engaging intellectual enterprise.

[/quote]

Generalization perhaps? When you make a generalization you forget the differences people have.

[quote]
Uber liberals are the most obnoxious people on god's green earth. Ultra-conservatives are at least polite to you in your face, and indeed the most tolerant people I have met here or at Berkeley are the christians who know the value of forgiveness and tolerance combined with moral character.

[/quote]

Not all "uber liberals" are obnoxious and not all "ultra-conservatives are at least polite." On both sides of the politiccal spectrum, there will be obnoxious people.

[quote]
Only one library is open to 2 am, and not everyone is lucky to have a quiet environment. I've only had one quiet year here at berkeley and its this year because I was lucky enough to find good quiet housing. Sometimes only up to 2 am is not enough, and its only for one library, the one I least prefer to study in. The point was only a minor one anyways, it was just one of the many cost-cutting measures which detract from the entire berkeley experience.

[/quote]

Two libraries are open till 2 am: Gardner Stacks and Moffitt. Again, it depends on the individual experience. Some students may share you experience and others might not.

[quote]
My main points remain, the berkeley experience is a watered-down college experience filled with negatives. The bad social life, the shoddy housing, the haphazard quality of the curriculum, and the lack of student responsiveness are all significant downsides of the Berkeley experience. Yes, these negatives are not necessarily exclusive to Berkeley, but they are still a part of the berkeley experience, and generally exclusive berkeley to the rest

[/quote]

These are based on your experiences. You said it yourself. You think that Berkeley is "watered-down" etc. based on your experiences alone. This is why I recommend that prospective students get both sides of the issue and to select their university wisely. Prospective students must visit the campus, eat at the dining halls, etc. to see if Berkeley is for them (and for that matter at colleges). Berkeley is what you make of it. It can be the best college experience or it can be the worst, but that is all relative to the circumstance and the individual.

UCLAri · February 11, 2006, 1:24pm

[quote]
Not all "uber liberals" are obnoxious and not all "ultra-conservatives are at least polite." On both sides of the politiccal spectrum, there will be obnoxious people.

[/quote]

A good friend of mine is one of those dastardly "uber-liberals," and he's about the most polite guy I know. Contrariwise, a roommate of mine was a far-right winger and a rude cur.

sakky · February 11, 2006, 5:06pm

[quote]
That's a hasty generalization there. Many people tend to go to a cc due to financial reasons. I would say that a slight majority would fit under the description you have described, and out of these, most of them would end up at the lower UCs. There is a sizable number of people who decide to go to a cc to save a lot of money for taking the same courses and ending up with the same degree. Also, if you notice the statistics for transfer students, the average GPA is the same as those who came to berkeley as freshmen.

[/quote]

It is not a hasty generalization. It is based on facts. Notice how I have been careful to say that not ALL transfer students are how I have described them. However, as a group, transfer students tend to have lower high school academic qualifications than do freshman admits, if, for no other reason, their transfer application was judged on their community college qualifications, not on their high school qualifications.

To give you the analogy, NBA basketball players are taller and thinner (in terms of body fat) than the average person. Does that mean that EVERY player in the NBA is taller and thinner than the average person? No. But on average, we all know it's true. That's because the NBA obviously selects for people who are tall and have low body fat. Hence, it's not a hasty generalization to make at all, but a simple observation that when you select for certain characteristics, you are going to end up with people who are going to have more of that particular characteristic. That's simple population statistics.

[quote]
There is a sizable number of people who decide to go to a cc to save a lot of money for taking the same courses and ending up with the same degree. Also, if you notice the statistics for transfer students, the average GPA is the same as those who came to berkeley as freshmen.

[/quote]

Are you talking about the same high school GPA? I would love to see this.

sakky · February 11, 2006, 5:12pm

[quote]
My main points remain, the berkeley experience is a watered-down college experience filled with negatives. The bad social life, the shoddy housing, the haphazard quality of the curriculum, and the lack of student responsiveness are all significant downsides of the Berkeley experience. Yes, these negatives are not necessarily exclusive to Berkeley, but they are still a part of the berkeley experience, and generally exclusive berkeley to the rest

[/quote]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I actually agree with many of the criticisms aimed at Berkeley. I have always remarked at the large gulf between the quality of education between the undergrad program and the graduate programs at Berkeley. I concede that compared to all of Berkeley's programs, the undergrad program is probably bringing up the rear. The Berkeley undergrad program ought to be reformed to be more like the graduate programs in terms of selectivity, resources, emphasis, and so forth.

However, what you have been saying just elicits the response - where else are all these undergrads going to go? Like I've said, for many of Berkeley's undergrads, Berkeley really is the best they can do, either because they can't get into anywhere better, or can't afford it, or both. We can talk about how Stanford or Harvard or MIT are better all we want, but the truth is, many if not most Berkeley students could get into those schools, or couldn't afford it. So for them, it's really a false choice to compare Berkeley to those schools. Berkeley is the best they can get.

twitb · February 11, 2006, 6:04pm

Collegesenior,
I'm sorry for you, man. I can relate my experience here so far with many observations you made.
I guess I'm luckier that I have been living at Bowles, and I can have all the quiet and loneliness I want.
I hope you'll have a better time in grad school.

Thread		Replies	Views
What's bad about Cal? University of California - Berkeley	20	77	April 17, 2021
An overview of Berkeley: First Year Experience from a current Undergrad University of California - Berkeley	113	234	April 17, 2021
why you SHOULD GO to Berkeley University of California - Berkeley	39	349	April 17, 2021
fml i DIDNT GET INTO ANY IVIES High School Life	80	165	April 16, 2021
What are some downsides to Berkeley that no one ever mentions? University of California - Berkeley	27	101	April 17, 2021

Top 8 Reasons Not to Go to Berkeley

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

Top 8 Reasons Not to Go to Berkeley

Related Topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US