<p>This is the last I'm going to say on this tread. ccmadforever, first, I didn't agree that the student body was mediocre, I said that there is probably not much of an outward difference between Cal students and UCI students. Slightly higer test scores don't really show up in day to day life. Second, college senior called the students idiots, and you agreed with what he said. Either way, I'm not mediocre and neither are my friends.</p>
<p>The people aren't mediocre academically, but socially.</p>
<p>I have met no real friends here...nobody I can trust, especially given the fact I was almost raped yesterday. People are unwilling to help.</p>
<p>If you want to make real friends (not just people you go out with, but actual people you can trust), go elsewhere.</p>
<p>Berkeley has made me very jaded about society.</p>
<p>if someone actually attempted to rape you, you need to take action against this criminal. don't talk about it on college confidential, using it as a way to describe how uc berkeley students are 'socially mediocre'. this is a real issue and isn't something to take lightly.</p>
<p>anyway, i highly doubt everyone at this university is sleazy and menacing. i have found many trustworthy, genuine people at this school - male and female. This thread seriously just needs to up and die.</p>
<p><3,</p>
<p>Izzie Bear</p>
<p>I will just respond to the stuff I remember which I hope will e thorough since I'm tired at the moment.</p>
<p>900 dollars a month for student housing is indeed expensive. Especially for doubles without a kitchen of any sort. Private prices are only slightly better in terms of quality. I don't ihow you can say this isn't dreadfully expensive.</p>
<p>I called the student population medicore. Deal with it. And yes, transfer students do generally have worst skill sets than those that get in normally (because there are just too many people for too few schools in California).</p>
<p>And there is a simple way to fix UC Berkeley's problems. Charge a market friendly price for in-state UC students and OPEN MORE CAMPUSES. Texas has almost as many public campuses as UC does for half the people. It also has more pharmacy schools and medical schools per capita than Berkeley does. Its insane how mch power public unions have here to screw over the average person.</p>
<p>To the person who went to UCLA and only took 3 classes because of a crazy work schedule: If you looked at my example, I didn't mean you. I meant people who took 2 knock-off classes, one easy one and didnt have a job or anything, they just tried to milk their gpa as hard as possible for med school. That's just what happens when you have too many people for a campus. </p>
<p>I listed 9 reasons and supported with facts from my experiences here, as well as some statistical data I thought was relevant. What do you expect? A senior thesis? Of course there are subjective parts based on personal experiences but from conversations I've had with a lot of people a lot of the points I make seem to be common among my colleagues and peers, and even people on this board. </p>
<p>I would like to add a Reason 10, the cold weather in the winter and the hot weather in the summer (if you live in a place that can't get the ocean breeze) because there's no air-conditioning, only a heater if you're lucky.</p>
<p>You can disagree if you want, and yes I am more critical than the average in-stater because I pay more than 3 times per year for this kind of education which I thought would be worth it. It just ended up being high school all over again in terms of quality and maturity of people (berkeley is more like a low-end suburban high school in terms of overall experience IMO).</p>
<p>I believe I called the student leaders idiots and the rest of the student body mediocre. The main point was that there are too many people being accepted that can't read or write. I also noted this wasn't necessarily their fault since California has among the worst high school systems in the world. </p>
<p>Finit.</p>
<p>Great, we've all said what we wanted to say. Now can we get a mod to lock this thread?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You fail to recognize that transfers don't just go to a community college, CSU, or other UC and just sit there and do nothing. They have to perform well enough in their classes to get to their transfer institutions. Even if these students were unmotivated in high school, if they go on to become stars at a CC or other college, how can we say that they are still somehow deficient?</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But again, it comes down to a level of fairness. Transfer students can get admitted based on a body of only 2 years of work. Freshman-admits have to present 4 years of work (their entire high school years). Why the difference? If transfer students can be admitted based on only 2 years of academic study, then freshmen should be admitted also based on only 2 years of academic study. What's fair is fair. Just like you can say that a guy who did poorly in high school but then kicked butt in 2 years of community college ought to be admitted as a transfer, then I could equally say that a guy who did poorly in his first 2 years of high school but then kicked butt in his last 2 high school years also ought to be admitted as a freshman. However, as it stands, this doesn't happen. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"The Berkeley campus is strongly committed to admitting transfer students, who make up about one-third of our fall 2005 class. Transfer students do very well at Berkeley, graduating with similar grade point averages and at similar rates as students who started Cal as freshmen."</p>
<p>It's not figure-based, but I think their word can be taken seriously. As the previous posters mentioned, it's not all about the figures, and people have to deal with various cirumstances during hs. On paper they may be underachievers, but not always in real life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, I've read this quote before. But the problem is simple. Let's talk about what I see as the biggest question mark of all about the quality of the transfer students. Transfer students get to skip some (or in certain cases) all weeders. </p>
<p>The fact is, weeders tend to be predominantly lower-division classes. Things like the Physics 7 series (especially Physics 7b). Math 1B. The Chem 3 series. Computer Science 61. Transfer students, however, get to skip these killer weeders and go right into the upper division. As many of you know, Berkeley majors often times tend to get EASIER as you get into the upper division, basically because they are no longer trying to weed you out. For example, I know a number of Berkeley chemical engineers whose upper division grades vastly exceeded (by about 1 whole GPA point) the grades they got from lower division weeders. </p>
<p>Hence, I am not impressed by the statistic that shows that Berkeley transfers graduate at similar rates and with similar GPA's as the freshman admits do. I would surmise that not having to deal with those killer weeders has a lot to do with it. Heck, if the Berkeley freshman admits didn't have to deal with weeders, I'm sure their GPA's and graduation rates would be a lot higher than they are now. What should be done is a true apples-to-apples comparison. Compare those transfer students' graduation rates and GPA's with the rates and grades of the freshman admits only AFTER they have gotten past the weeders. </p>
<p>Which is why I made a past proposal that transfer students ought to be able to prove that they can survive the weeders, just like the freshman admits have to prove. For example, I propose having the transfer students take the final exam, on a P/NP basis, of every weeder course they are skipping. </p>
<p>Otherwise, transfer students will constantly have to operate under the strong suspicion that they only reason they were able to get a degree from certain majors is because they were able to skip the weeders. The transfer path should be no easier than the freshman-admit path, and having the transfer students at least pass the final exams of those weeder courses will prove that they are not taking an easy path. Just think of it this way. If these transfer students are really as good as Berkeley says they are, then they will have little difficulty in passing the final exams of all these weeder courses. So there shouldn't be any resistance to this idea. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If transfer students are performing in general as well as their freshman admit counterparts, and are getting into good graduate programs as well as their counterparts, then what's the problem?</p>
<p>I still argue that a hint of bitterness or jealousy fuels much of transfer hate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps. But I'll give you an example that I heard about in the past. I know a freshman admit who worked hard to try to get into the CS program in L&S. As you know, CS is heavily impacted and you have to apply to the major, and many people don't get in. He took all of the CS prereqs, including the notorious CS 61B weeder (in which he got a quite mediocre grade). He didn't get into the major. On the other hand, he saw transfer students get in, who completed many of their prereqs at their community college. A very strong lingering suspicion exists that those transfer students had an easier road. </p>
<p>What I think ought to happen is that admissions into L&S CS (or any impacted major for that matter) should be based on one big comprehensive test that covers the gamut of the prereq coursework. Hence, everything is completely fair and clean - you either know the stuff, or you don't. Both freshman-admits and transfers would take the exact same test, so there would be no suspicions that somebody took a backdoor that allowed them to skip over weeders.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, you are such an elitist. </p>
<p>Here's a new word for you to learn this weekend:</p>
<p>egalitarian</p>
<p>Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As UCLAri has pointed out, here's a word for you to learn:</p>
<p>Meritocracy</p>
<p>A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.</p>
<p>Simply put, a guy who worked hard in high school should be rewarded over a guy who didn't work hard in high school. </p>
<p>You might say that certain people are immature and have to put up with negative circumstances in their home life that prevent them from amassing a good high school record. Sure, I can sympathize with that. On the other hand, a meritocratic admissions process is a reflection of real life here. When you get a job, you are going to have to do well in it if you want to keep that job. If you're not doing well on your job, nobody is going to care about why you're not doing well. Nobody is going to give you a pass just because of your immaturity or because you have a bad home life or whatever. You're either doing your job or you're not, and if you're not, you're going to get fired, simple as that. </p>
<p>Now, I have no problem with people who turned their life around and did well as transfer students coming into Berkeley. I have no problem with transfer admissions in principle. However, I continue to have severe problems with the way that Berkeley runs them in practice, particularly in the way that transfer students are allowed to skip over weeders. The transfer path should not be a get-out-of-weeders-free card.</p>
<p>so irritating. feel bad for you all.</p>
<p>How could you possibly talk poorly about the weather? It's like being on the Mediterranean coast. At least you're done. Have a nice life, and try not to spread the word too much about how Berkeley fails miserably at replicating any decent college experience. It would be a disservice to many.</p>
<p>
[quote]
anyway, i highly doubt everyone at this university is sleazy and menacing. i have found many trustworthy, genuine people at this school - male and female.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You find out who your real friends are in times of crises, not in times when you party or have fun together. All I can say is, most Berkeley students couldn't give less of a crap about each other.</p>
<p>Edit: On Sakky's note, I have a "friend" who is a transfer student. (Let's just say I use the word friend very loosely now.) He told me that CCs are easier than high school. That said, I don't really care whether or not it's unfair or if CCs are easier, making it somewhat easier to get in. In the end, it doesn't matter how you get here. Let's put it this way: I really question some freshmen's admissions but it doesn't matter to me. So if someone does have a problem with Cal's admissions process, then don't go to Cal, let alone go to Cal and then complain about it.</p>
<p>And as an out-of-state student who was admitted as a freshman, I think I'd complain about the UCs serving Californians first and out-of-staters being screwed over. But it's their laws! If I want to take advantage of the UC system, I have to keep in mind of their regulations. If I have problems with it, I should have applied to privates.</p>
<p>are you suggesting that i base my opinions on who is a decent party hopper? i have been in tough situations where i needed my friends, and they were there for me right away. i totally disgaree with you, but whatever.</p>
<p>I'm not sure where you resided previously, or if you have friends from high school at Berkeley, but the people I've met in my 2 years here, I can't truly call them trustworthy friends. I also don't think 2 years is that long of a time to get to know people well...but I digress.</p>
<p>Delicatess, "You find out who your real friends are in times of crises, not in times when you party or have fun together. All I can say is, most Berkeley students couldn't give less of a crap about each other." reminds me of other universities and schools to a large degree.</p>
<p>DRab, Perhaps you are right. Maybe it's not just Berkeley, but I haven't experienced other universities to know. (Although the more impersonal atmosphere may contribute.) Maybe it's just as people age, they give less and less of a crap about each other. Even if this is widespread, it still doesn't make it any less tragic.</p>
<p>I agree. Perhaps Berkeley's less wholly cohesive social environment compared to say a small LAC does contribute to it, but my friend at her small LAC knows only so many people there, too. <em>shrug</em> The world is, really, tragic.</p>
<p>Sakky:</p>
<p>A person who got bad grades in high school, who gets into UC Berkely or any great university after turning their life around and getting outstanding grades in junior college or a CSU, is, by definition, a beneficiary of the "meritocracy" you promote. This is the way it should be. There should be no prejudice against a person who turns their life around academically. Everybody deserves a second chance. </p>
<p>On the other hand, some of the very same people whom you point to as beneficiaries of this "meritocracy" (i.e., "a guy who worked hard in high school") burn out in college and end up not graduating at all from college and are total failures in life. The point is that trying to predict the success of a person, based upon a few tests in high school and high school grades is a dicey proposition at best. For example, one of my friends is a Harvard MBA, who graduated at or near the top of his class, and sits around stoned all day. At one time, he was the top of his high school class academically. Or how about the West Point graduate whom I know who drives a cab in Vegas; he was probably at or near the top of his high school class?</p>
<p>The point is that high school grades and tests only prove that a person can test well and get good grades in high school. Time is the real test that separates the proverbial boys (or girls) from the men (or women). Therefore, all colleges and universities need to be flexible in their admissions policies to insure that the people who really are the best and the brightest for the long term, are not left behind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Edit: On Sakky's note, I have a "friend" who is a transfer student. (Let's just say I use the word friend very loosely now.) He told me that CCs are easier than high school. That said, I don't really care whether or not it's unfair or if CCs are easier, making it somewhat easier to get in. In the end, it doesn't matter how you get here. Let's put it this way: I really question some freshmen's admissions but it doesn't matter to me. So if someone does have a problem with Cal's admissions process, then don't go to Cal, let alone go to Cal and then complain about it.</p>
<p>And as an out-of-state student who was admitted as a freshman, I think I'd complain about the UCs serving Californians first and out-of-staters being screwed over. But it's their laws! If I want to take advantage of the UC system, I have to keep in mind of their regulations. If I have problems with it, I should have applied to privates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh come on, now. What kind of attitude is that? We're all trying to figure out ways to make Berkeley better (or at least, I am, I don't know about others). The only way to do that is to point out processes and policies that are not working well and that are arguably unjust.</p>
<p>Let's talk about the subject within the context of social change. 150 years ago, slavery was the law of the land. Half of the states practiced slavery openly and legally within their borders, and the other half were compelled by law to respect those rules of bondage, particularly after Supreme Court decisions like Dred Scott. So how did slavery end? By the constant beseechments and active politicking of the abolitionist movement, particularly the Quakers and Methodists, joined by large numbers of free blacks and other non-religious, but educated Northerners (and some Southerners). They placed severe political and economic pressure on the slavery machine that ultimately caused it to break and be relegated to history. Many of the same players returned a hundred years later to support the Civil Rights movement to ensure that minorities were receiving the rights and recognition that they were entitled to have. The United States is a much better country because of their agitation.</p>
<p>Now think about the attitude that you are promoting. You seem to be saying that if people see something that they view to be a problem, they should keep their mouths shut? Or just leave the premises? What if the abolitionists had done that - that they viewed slavery to be wrong, but they simply said nothing, or decided to leave the country, as opposed to staying in the country and publishing books and newspapers detailing why they thought slavery was wrong? Or what if people like MLK had decided to say nothing, or move to Canada, instead of staying and publicizing the problems that minorities still faced in the 1960's? I have a strong suspicion that the United States would STILL be a slave nation, or at least, a country where minorities were still treated as 2nd-class citizens. </p>
<p>The same can be said for any social movement - the dissolution of Apartheid in South Africa, the overthrow of British rule in India by Gandhi, the implementation of women's suffrage, the toppling of dictatorships by democratic movements. In all cases, people didn't just shut their mouths and leave. They stayed around and agitated for reform. THAT'S how things get better. </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the issues in Berkeley can compare to grand social movements like the ones described. But the same principle applies. If you want things to get better, you have to point out the problems. Nothing ever got better because the reformers decided to close their mouths and exile themselves. In fact, that's precisely what the status quo ante regimes would WANT those reformers to do. Surely the plantation slave-owning class of the South would have LOVED to have silenced or exiled all of the abolitionists. </p>
<p>Of course, if you're not really interested in making Berkeley better, then that's a different story entirely. But if that's the case, then why not just say so? No need to be shy, just say that you don't really care to make Berkeley better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A person who got bad grades in high school, who gets into UC Berkely or any great university after turning their life around and getting outstanding grades in junior college or a CSU, is, by definition, a beneficiary of the "meritocracy" you promote. This is the way it should be. There should be no prejudice against a person who turns their life around academically. Everybody deserves a second chance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The question, again, is not whether I support the idea of transfer admissions in principle. The real issue is whether the transfer path is EASIER than the freshman-admit path. Hence, it really comes down to a question of equitability. How fair is it to let transfer students skip over weeder classes that the freshman-admit has to survive? A strong suspicion exists among many Berkeley students that transfer students are basically taking advantage of a strong get-out-of-weeders-free card, not to mention possibly easier admissions in the first place (as mentioned by Delicatesse). </p>
<p>Hence, what we are arguing about is not whether transfer admissions should exist at all, but rather about the specific way that Berkeley runs its transfer process. Like I said, if these transfer students are really completely equivalent to the freshman-admits, then they ought to be able to pass the final exams of the weeder courses they are skipping. After all, if they really are as good as people say they are, then they will have no problem in passing these final exams, so why have them do that? Resistance to this idea only stokes the suspicion that these transfer students CAN'T pass these final exams, which means that they really are taking advantage of a backdoor. I know a lot of freshman-admits who would love to be able to get into the upper division without having to survive the weeders.</p>
<p>So you talk about people who turn their lives around and should therefore be given a second chance. The real question to me is whether these people really turned thei lives around, or are they simply taking advantage of various artifacts within the Berkeley transfer process. Like I said, if these people really did turn their lives around, then they should have no problem in studying for and taking the SAT and submitted that score. They should have no problem in proving that they can handle the weeders by taking and passing the final exams of those weeders. In short, they ought to be able to prove that they can do the same things that the freshman-admits have to do. Otherwise, it seems to me that they didn't really turn their lives around at all. The transfer path should be made to be no easier than the freshman-admit path. The right to 'skip weeders' by taking them in community college is basically tantamount to special treatment.</p>
<p>Stanford is overpriced. Stanford reminds me of a night school. NOT friendly everyone comes and goes its an impersonal place. Beautiful surroundings but you feel really alone there. My cousin transferred out said it was not warm at all! Transient very Transient.</p>
<p>Sakky:</p>
<p>Sure, I'd like my university I graduate from to keep its prestige, and sure, I think some people here don't deserve to be here, but how exactly are you taking action to change the admissions process? (And heck, some people here may think I don't belong here. So who is to say exactly?) It's not like you can approach the admissions office and say "oi, here's the stuff I want you to get done." I mean, if it were to be my way, I'd make the standards for admissions for out-of-state and California residents the same, but that's not going to happen any time soon. That said, I have to admit I see Berkeley as a stepping stone for graduate school, and if I attend graduate school here, I might desire changes more adamantly.</p>