<p>
[quote]
So you're saying someone in the tail end wouldn't be able to resist temptation for quick rewards, which may lead to poor results?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not just talking about who is on the tail-end. It happens even to otherwise very good students. After all, why do you think parents try to move out of bad neighborhoods? It's because they don't want their kids exposed to bad influences. Parents feel (correctly) that if their kid is exposed to gangs, drugs, and other social pathologies, then they will be tempted to adopt that lifestyle. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What if those people never went to college? What if those people didn't come to Berkeley at all, but instead went to a community college or just into the workforce with a high school diploma. You think THOSE people are better peers than what they'd get at Berkeley? You think they'd make BETTER choices there, and see MORE success? Further, allowing a sub-par student to attend Berkeley isn't exactly leaving them in the trash bin. Not giving them an opportunity is doing just that, however.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By this line of logic, why not just have Berkeley run open admissions? Throw Berkeley open to everybody, including newly released convicts, gangbangers, and basically everybody who wants to go. Why even have an admissions process at all? Just admit everybody. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If they make bad choices, fine, they'll fail. Big deal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's EXACTLY the difference between you and me. You think this is no big deal that good students will fail. I think this is a VERY big deal. I think most parents would think so too. Think of it this way. What are you going to tell a parent whose kid just got admitted to Berkeley and to one of HYPSM? You say that that kid might come to Berkeley and fail, and you don't really care. Well, if that's the attitude of Berkeley, then that's a very good reason for that parent to not want his kid to go to Berkeley. </p>
<p>Think about what you're saying. Every parent wants to put their child in a position where they have the greatest likelihood to succeed, and that includes minimizing the risks of failure. From what you are saying, you admit that good kids can come to Berkeley and fail, and you don't think that's a big deal. Do you think that really attracts people to Berkeley - that they might come and fail? People are naturally risk-averse. That's why people buy cars with airbags, ABS's, and car alarms. That's why people move out of bad neighborhoods. People want to be safe. What you are saying is that Berkeley is not safe. So why would people want to go to an unsafe environment, when they could choose something safer? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, about dormmates. Your roommate might be a complete slacker. Completely irresponsible, does nothing, etc. You might bond with him, might choose to make him a good friend, or might not. Thing is, he's not your only choice. If you're in a suit, you have 9 others to choose from. If you're not, you've got a floor of people you're very near to choose from. I hang around with a couple of people from the dorms I was in last year who lived in my suite. The rest live elsewhere and we see them occassionally. I know I couldn't live with them, because they're very different from me. That's fine. I had a choice. You're talking about an extremely rare situation where every individual in your suite or on you floor is an idiot. While less likely to happen at MIT, it's already so unlikely here that the difference is negligible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But don't you see the difference? It's always better for your education to have 10 smart and motivated friends than to have 5 smart and motivated friends and 5 dumb and lazy ones. That's because with 10 strong friends, you can have double the number of interesting and educational conversation than if you only had 5. </p>
<p>Look, the basic issue is that nobody has an infinite amount of time to produce social capital. I can't go and meet and bond with everybody. Socialization is, by necessity, opportunistic. You have the best chance to bond with your roommate because, by necessity, you live with him. Sure, you can choose to invest the time to bond with the genius down the hall, but it's a greater drain on your time and energy, because you see each other less. It would be an easier investment of your social capital if your roommate was that genius. Simple proximity makes things easier for you. Hence, you have to put in more work as a Berkeley student than if you were, say, a Stanford student.</p>
<p>Basic psychology states that the more work something requires to get done, the less of it will get done. Let's be honest. People will work out more if they have a gym located conveniently next door than if it's far away. What is one of the first things you do if you want to quit smoking? Throw away all of the cigarettes in your house. If you want to lose weight, you throw away all of the junk food in your house. When something is closeby, you tend to interact with it more. That's basic psychology. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Hence, the top bring the top up, the bottom force the top to be good, and nobody gets brought down.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? How is it that nobody gets brought down? You just admitted yourself that the top gets brought down. You said that your grades will get brought down. I would argue that more than just your grades get brought down, but your overall level of understanding gets brought down. That's because you probably spent more time doing silly busy work and less time actually learning the lessons that the lab was trying to impart. The purpose of a lab is not to go through the mechanistic motions of performing a lab, but to actually learn the deeper lessons of the lab. You had to spend a lot of time going through the mechanistic motions of the lab. That is most likely not a positive experience. </p>
<p>I'll give you an example. I know a guy who was assigned to a group in a computer science project. Basically, he was the only guy who knew what was going on, as the other group members were either lazy or just not particularly talented at CS. So he basically ended up doing the whole project, and that was a MAJOR loss of time for him. The project involved a tremendous amount of busy work that really didn't teach him much at all. But since he got no help from his group, he was hosed. </p>
<p>The point is, any way you cut it, the top gets brought down. If you are a top student, then why would you want to get brought down, if you can go to another school where you won't be? Seriously, think about how you are going to sell that to a prospective student. You're telling them that there are some bad students, and you may get stuck working with them and basically having to cover for them. Is that something that is really going to attract the top students to come to Berkeley?</p>