<p>
[quote]
I do think that there are students at Berkeley who don't want to become educated, and I bet there are more of them (both in total numbers and percentage wise) at other top schools, but I do think you make it seem like 1) they are everywhere at Berkeley, 2) they don't exist elsewhere, and 3) they're somehow different than those at other schools. I think these are false, and the last one is the most important here. I think many students at other, so-called (and perhaps even actual) better schools are lazy in the same way that some Berkeley students are lazy- they work when they have to work. Those that don't work when they have to work often flunk out at Berkeley and often elsewhere
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have never disputed that there are bad students at other schools. Of course there are. George Bush and John Kerry have both admitted to being bad students while at Yale. </p>
<p>The difference is in degree. For example, I think nobody can dispute that there is far more violence and crime in South Berkeley than there is in North Berkeley. That's not to say that there is no violence/crime in North Berkeley. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I'm falling into no trap. I'm a philosophy major. I deal with complicated concepts in often non "absolute, precision, scientific" terms, but when I do, I still define them, and more so than just "y'know what I'm talking about." I'm not asking for an absolute definition, I'm not asking for complex studies, but I am asking for some working definition.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can use a simple definition - all of those students who were academically expelled are probably pretty lazy and immature. If a student shows up to cless than a quarter of the time, then that's a pretty good indication of laziness. Anybody who takes more than 7 years to graduate is probably lazy. I can understand taking 5 years, maybe 6, but come on, 7+? </p>
<p>But look, just because something cannot be defined precisely, or even not given a good working definition, does not mean that one can make no useful categorizations at all. To paraphrase Sowell, any reasonable definition of national borders would have to concede that Beijing is part of China and Moscow is part of Russia.</p>