Turned down Berkeley

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
41

<p>
[quote]
But a lot of your college education comes from discussions with classmates in and outside of class, so I think student body quality does matter.</p>

<p>Look at the example again: you don't know who's a really good student and who's not. If you are at Harvard, 1/3 of the people you talk to will be really great students, whereas at Berkeley only 1/5 are. In fact, 40% of your friends (statistically) will be mediocre, while you don't meet these people at Harvard. So, I think interacting with those mediocre students (assuming you are a good student) will ultimately hurt your undergrad education/experience.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Even if this is true, I feel it is extremely over-exaggerated. The fact of the matter is that you will gravitate toward people that are like you. You get to choose your peers. There are just as many smart people at Berkeley for you to become friends with as any other great college out there. I don't personally make friends by having random conversations with random people, hoping to get lucky and find one that is smart.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The point is, that first of all, Berkeley can get more selective if it wants to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, so can any college. I could open a "college" if I were rich, have one student being taught by 10 professors, and be the most selective college ever (if I could get maybe 200 applicants or so, which wouldn't be hard to con 200 high schoolers into). Selectivity means squat by itself. I think the point you're trying to make is that Berkeley's lack of selectivity hurts the students there, and that isn't true. It helps the students that would otherwise not be there, and it has almost no detrimental effects on the students that would be there anyway. Your best example of detrimental effects is the quality of peers, even while there are groups like TBP and HKN (and others for non-engineering people I'm sure) where you can get as high-achieving a set of peers as you want.</p>

<p>I think your best bet is to argue finances, personally. We have to pay to give the crappy students an opportunity, too, and that hurts us. But in light of the goals of the campus (as stated by our Chancellor, ""I hope we can have a student population that is genuinely inclusive and serves the entire state of California, not just a portion of it"), we have chosen to pay that price (which is still $20,000 cheaper than the prices of HYPSM for us Californians). It's about accessibility, not elitism. Maybe your point, then, would be that the trade-off isn't worth it. But I think Berkeley as an empirical example proves you wrong.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
vicissitudes, of course it's an idea. We can talk about ideas, but we also have to talk about how feasible they are at some point. sakky knows and you must know that more exclusive admissions at Berkeley is a politcal unlikelyhood.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I'm not talking about cutting the student population in half. I'm just saying maybe admit 5-10% less students and let them drain down to other UCs which are under-admitting. I think that if Berkeley and the UC system WANTS to, this is pretty feasible. Heck, I think the GTO option that was established back in 2004 was a pretty good idea:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/apply/after_apply/gto.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/apply/after_apply/gto.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It gave those admitted students who were borderline a "guaranteed transfer option." These students are enrolled in a program in which they complete certain requirements for two years at a JC and is then guaranteed to transfer into that UC from which they received the GTO. This plan wasn't carried out because after revision of the 2004 state budget they allocated more money for UCs which allowed the UCs to admit those GTO students as freshmen. Most of those GTO students decided to attend another private university anyway.</p>

<p>Anyway, if they implemented something like this just two years ago, I don't see why what I propose isn't very feasible.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
Even if this is true, I feel it is extremely over-exaggerated. The fact of the matter is that you will gravitate toward people that are like you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You have a point. However, with 23,000 undergrads, it will take quite a while to sift out the motivated students from the unmotivated. You're probably going to run into a lot of lazy students before finding those you're willing to befriend. This results in a soured experience and even mars the education. Just search for a thread in this forum called "top 8 reasons to not go to Berkeley." Many students have complained about quality of peers. Now, it's not a HUGE problem, but it does make an impact and could be improved.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Selectivity means squat by itself. I think the point you're trying to make is that Berkeley's lack of selectivity hurts the students there, and that isn't true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you sure? Let's think about what would happen if Berkeley admits 10% less students every year (aka more selective):</p>

<ol>
<li>Quality of peers go up, and your educational experience goes up</li>
<li>More resources, research opportunities, etc. are available per student</li>
<li>Smaller class sizes as a whole</li>
<li>Less crowded campus, dorms (God the triples), etc.</li>
</ol>

<p>And did you forget that only about 56% graduate in 4 years or less and only 85% graduate in 6 years or less? Much of the remaining 15% never graduate; they flunk out. I'm sure you've heard of weeders. By being more selective Berkeley will admit many less of these people who ultimately flunk out, and do them a favor. Admitting too many students and being forced to weed them out year after year, isn't my idea of "serving Californians."</p>

44

<p>Ok, for the OP. The reason is, well, NYU is really, really expensive and it isn't good academically, at least not for undergrad.</p>

<p>But to each their own.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
However, with 23,000 undergrads, it will take quite a while to sift out the motivated students from the unmotivated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do people walk around thinking "Only highly motivated extremely hard-working people are worth my time?" Do these people think that these so-called lazy people do not exist at any and every school? Sure, perhaps fewer overall exist at Berkeley than other places (primarily because of size), and who knows, even perhaps smaller percentages at the top schools in the country, but I know my friend who went to Harvard as an undergrad had a roommate who didn't work on his senior thesis at all for almost all of his time there, and when it came down to the wire, he calculated how many words per minute he had to produce to turn it in on-time. I really must ask about all students "How lazy is lazy?" and what is laziness? Additionally, how can you determine who would turn into the lazy students (as I would imagine that some students come in fairly hard-working and then change). Sure, I also bet some come in "lazy," but many of these lazy students work hard when they need to, when it counts, giving them high GPAs and good all around applications, and many are bright, which results in pretty high test scores. </p>

<p>
[quote]
2. More resources, research opportunities, etc. are available per student
3. Smaller class sizes as a whole

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, all other things being equal, that is, given the same number of professors. </p>

<p>
[quote]

And did you forget that only about 56% graduate in 4 years or less and only 85% graduate in 6 years or less? Much of the remaining 15% never graduate; they flunk out. I'm sure you've heard of weeders. By being more selective Berkeley will admit many less of these people who ultimately flunk out, and do them a favor. Admitting too many students and being forced to weed them out year after year, isn't my idea of "serving Californians."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The percentage of students who graduate in 4 to 6 years is accurate, but why "so few" (as in, disregarding national averages and more) graduate in the time they do, I don't think "flunking out because of weeders" is the sole reason, or maybe even the main one. I'm curious as to how transfers are considered in these statistics . . . but anyway, I think many graduate in more than four years because they can afford to, and others do not because they cannot. Some say "why not make college longer?" for whatever reason and are able to do so because of their circumstances, whereas some other students have to leave school for periods to work and get money. Now I think weeders and harshgrading courses extend the gradution rates more than they could, perhaps especially the 4 year statistic, but I'm not sure how much weeders stall or prevent gradution, and if you want to claim much of the 15% do not graduate because of weeders and as a result of them they flunk out entirely, show me some evidence, and more than the story about sakky's friend who lives in Oakland, and talk about a more precise figure- a range of percentages, not just "much" or "a lot" (it's mroe helpful). In addition, I think people who transfer out of Berkeley are included on these statistics as those who do not graduate. And yes, I think this applies to all schols.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ok, for the OP. The reason is, well, NYU is really, really expensive and it isn't good academically, at least not for undergrad.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who knows, what if aid resulted in very similar prices? Also, based on what do you call NYU "not good academically for undergrads?" Their student to faculty ratio is significantly lower than Berkeley's, for instance, 14:1 or so compared to 18:1, and the op has a specific specialty program on campus. Say Tisch sucked- it wouldn't really matter to the OP as far as I could tell.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
I'm curious as to how transfers are considered in these statistics

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think transfers graduate "at the same rate as those who entered as freshmen."</p>

<p>
[quote]
but anyway, I think many graduate in more than four years because they can afford to

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, but why can Berkeley students afford to graduate in more than four years, in a greater percentage than students at other top private schools?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think people who transfer out of Berkeley are included on these statistics as those who do not graduate. And yes, I think this applies to all schols.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So once again, since this applies to all schools, it doesn't explain why Berkeley students are transferring out at a greater percentage than other private school students.</p>

<p>
[quote]
if you want to claim much of the 15% do not graduate because of weeders and as a result of them they flunk out entirely, show me some evidence

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, it's a theory, and I don't think they publish that kind of numbers. But I think it's based on some valid logic. If the median GPA at Berkeley is about a 3.0 then 11,500 people are getting less than a 3.0. Even if say, only 15% of those are getting a 2.0 or less (probably about the same number of Ds and Fs on a normal curve), that's still 7% of the student population and half of the 15% who don't graduate.</p>

47

<p>Anyway, back on topic, I agree with DRab that since the OP stated that he got financial aid from NYU it could be a better deal for him.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
I think transfers graduate "at the same rate as those who entered as freshmen."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While this is probably true, it doesn't tell us how they're represented by the statistics, does it?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, but why can Berkeley students afford to graduate in more than four years, in a greater percentage than students at other top private schools?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Cost? If you have 180k, you can go to Berkeley for sticker price for about 7 or 8 years or sticker price at the most expensive private schools for about 4 years. Now, is the ability to afford it the whole answer? No, but there are some students at Berkeley who can afford to go the Berkeley for five years who might not have been able to afford to go to NYU or Stanford for fives year (assuming sticker price), but this is only a part of the situation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So once again, since this applies to all schools, it doesn't explain why Berkeley students are transferring out at a greater percentage than other private school students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just because it's the same for all schools doesn't mean the result is the same at each school. If you want to assume that a factor affects schools evenly, feel free, but I really believe that people transferring out of Berkeley has more affect on its graduation rate than people transferring out of Harvard has on its graduation rate, as an example. And again, transferring is only a part of it. Are you able to find anything about the number of students who transfer out of Berkeley?</p>

<p>I'm no statistics wiz, but why are you using the median? Also, isn't the average campus GPA more like 3.10 or 3.20, maybe even 3.25? Indeed, it probably is. Berkeley did have a report fairly recently, only about a year or so ago, about the grades given out, and it found a very small proportion of D and F grades were given out, about 5%. I located it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In the late 1950's, the average cumulative GPA for Berkeley undergraduates was 2.50 and has increased to approximately 3.25. A significant increase in the GPA occurred during the Vietnam War when students received a draft deferment if they remained in good academic standing. </p>

<p>Of 79,791 undergraduate course grades given at UC Berkeley fall 2003, almost 50% were A's, approximately 35% were B's, and less than 5% were D's or F's.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://ls.berkeley.edu/undergrad/colloquia/04-11.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ls.berkeley.edu/undergrad/colloquia/04-11.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

49

<p>


</p>

<p>Perhaps, but all I know is NYU is kind of like USC, except the students in general are even wealthier. The plus sides of NYU are that 1) It's in the middle of wealthy NYC 2) tons of posh kids to marry, so you can marry into money. Plus the law school is top notch.
(Still, he would need practically 50% of it on aid to make the tuition equal, if not 60%. NYU is really expensive.)
However, for undergrad it just doesn't seem to be as good compared with Berk's undergrad. </p>

<p>But all I can say is, debating this is useless, because the OP already chose where to go, and there's no point in hearing anything that would make him regret his decision.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
While this is probably true, it doesn't tell us how they're represented by the statistics, does it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, you asked a question about transfers and I just quoted what the Berkeley website said about transfers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Cost? If you have 180k, you can go to Berkeley for sticker price for about 7 or 8 years or sticker price at the most expensive private schools for about 4 years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah but if you have 180k, why would you go to Berkeley? Many people choose Berkeley because they have little money and can't afford a private school. Besides many top private schools give generous financial aid.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, isn't the average campus GPA more like 3.10 or 3.20, maybe even 3.25?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I go by gradeinflation.com which you like to cite a lot too. I thought it was 3.00 but it's 3.10 for 1996, so yes it's not 3.00, but 3.10, and maybe a little higher now.</p>

<p>That study you posted is really interesting and a little hard to believe. For a school that's supposedly known for "grade deflation" about half the grades given out are A's? Hmmm...<em>bookmark</em></p>

51

<p>Why don't you ask all the "rich" or those that could easily afford to go to Berkeley for years on end or if they wanted to go to the most expensive private schools for 5 or more years without breaking a sweat why they go to Berkeley? There are many reasons why one might do this (such as strengths in particular programs, immense global prestige, "it was the best school he/she got into", but really, it doesn't matter why they go, what matters is that some do this.</p>

<p>Gradeinflation.com has some valuble information, but has some problems. Reputation is not everything. Cornell, another school known for grade deflation, also isn't so grade deflated anymore on the whole. The same is true for Chicago. The thing is, people are most aware of the most big-name frontrunners such as Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, and Brown, as well as the top LACs, and so I think some see this as the marker- but really, these guys are way ahead of the average, so if your average GPA is increasing, but at a much slower rate then these leaders, you still have grade inflation, although not necessarily any undeserved grade inflation.</p>

<p>Also, while this is the most useful data we have, I would be interested in how things changed since the report.</p>

<p>NeedAdvice, I just don't like it when people makes claims about entire programs when so many programs are really known for being good and have advantages that other schools cannot offer. USC also suffers from the same problem.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
What's your point in all of this, anyway? The only thing I keep seeing is that Berkeley isn't as selective as the top privates, which we all know and accept. I haven't seen how that affects anything, really, except costing us money by having more students to support.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely false, and this is actually one of my biggest pet peeves. What many people fail to see is that education is by its nature a highly social process and therefore the quality of your peers directly impacts the quality of the education you receive. This is true for 3 reasons.</p>

<h1>1 - Many classes, particularly in the humanities, business, social-sciences, are discussion oriented. Hence, you will tend to learn more when your classmates are of higher quality, as they will tend to provide more insightful discussions. But when you are forced to take discussion-oriented classes with people who don't show up, or haven't done the reading and don't * want * to do the reading, the quality of the discussion declines, and that negatively impacts the education you receive.</h1>

<h1>2) Most of the 'education' you receive in a college setting is not done in the classroom. That's because the vast majority of your time in college will not be spent in a classroom. Rather, it will be spent just living life, and socializing with other students. I will tell you that some of the best 'education' I have ever had was as a grad student, at dinners with other students, where we were firing ideas at each other as if we had machineguns. Science, mathematics, philosophy, politics, economics, sociology - you name it, we talked about it. I will tell you that I learned far far more from these dinners than I learned from almost any classroom lecture I have ever attended. These dinners were some of the most intellectually fruitful hours I have ever experienced in my life. Other highly academically productive times were spent just commuting to and from class with other students, or just living life. One of the best discussions of political economy I ever had in my life was a 20 minute discussion I had when I was sitting around in the laundry room with a brilliant PhD economics student, waiting for our clothes to dry.</h1>

<p>But sadly, at least for me, it was in grad school when I experienced these events. In undergrad, not so much. You can't have a cracklingly simulative intellectual discussion with people who not only don't know that much about various advanced topics, but frankly, don't WANT to know much about those advanced topics. </p>

<h1>3) The inspirational factor. This is arguably the most important factor of all. Simply put, human beings are social creatures and tend to copy what they see around them. When everybody around is studious and intellectually curious, then you will tend to want to be studious and intellectually curious. But when people around you are lazy and are not particularly interested in studying, then you will tend to become lazy also. You can always make the choice to work hard when others around you don't want hard, but it's a hard choice to make. It's like trying to quit smoking when you see everybody around you smoking. Put another way, it's hard to make the choice to spend a night studying when you know that much of your dorm is out clubbing and partying and drinking. Simply put, these students serve as bad examples for others.</h1>

<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I am certainly not saying that all Berkeley undergrads are bad students. Like I've said, I have always agreed that the top undergrads are quite strong. The problem, again, is with the tail end. The tail end is more conspicuous at Berkeley than at the top private schools, and to use econ-speaking, that tail end creates a STRONG negative externality. They distract from the quality of class discussions, they do not contribute to the informal aspects of education, and they create negative social pressures. The process of a college education cannot be hermetically sealed within the classroom itself.</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
Can you imagine if Berkeley had a great undergrad and a pretty good grad? The situation would be a lot worse.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know about that. Seems to me that that is what Princeton has done, and Princeton isn't doing too shabbily. There is a reason why, when people talk about elite undergrad programs, they talk about HYPSM, and not HY*B*SM. Grad-school is obviously a different story, and many of the best PhD candidates prefer to go to Berkeley rather than Princeton. But the point is, there is an example of a school doing extremely well by prioritizing undergrad over grad. It's clearly not impossible.</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
So if you don't know these students, you don't really know Berkeley, and if you know them, then you really know Berkeley. So one is either ignorant or agrees with you. Makes sense to me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I didn't want to say it so explicitly, but, basically, yeah. Seriously, if you've been at Berkeley for awhile and you haven't noticed some undergrads who just aren't serious about becoming educated, then I would have to say that that may be because you don't WANT to notice them. It's like somebody from East Oakland claiming that there's no crime there.</p>

55

<p>Again, all your points are perfectly valid, but you're missing a key aspect of this whole thing: you choose your peers. There IS an exceptionally intelligent set of folks at Berkeley, and you CAN choose to hang around them and engage in discussion with them. Just because there are stupid people here doesn't mean you will suddenly be talking to them in your spare time. I agree that you will inevitably get idiots in your discussion sections and have to listen to their inane ramblings from time to time, but consider you spend less time in discussion than you do in lecture even, and if you purport most of the learning goes on outside of lecture, then discussion is really a minor portion of this issue.</p>

<p>Your theory holds only if you assume that the people you hang around are a random selection of the people you go to school with. You know that isn't true. If I take EECS150, I'll get a different set of peers than if I take EE100. I get to make that choice. If I join TBP and HKN, I'll get a different set of peers than if I join a party frat.</p>

<p>Now, we're never going to convince each other of the other's opinions, because this is far too subjective. I could go so far as to say that in the real world, you'll have to deal with the tail end. There's no society in which a tail end doesn't exist, and it is typically longer and worse than Berkeley's tail end. Hence, living in Berkeley educates you on how to deal with these people, hence giving a MORE well-rounded education than a campus of exclusively excessively intelligent people.</p>

<p>This is all degrees, though. I agree that having a tail end may be bad. I think that it has a negligible impact on things, though. You feel it has a "STRONG" negative impact. In reality, though, I think we can both agree that it is certainly possible to get a great education at Berkeley, meaning that the impact certainly isn't strong enough to deter smart, focused students from getting the job done, and that's what matters.</p>

56

<p>Berkeley students in general are much smarter than the average high school peer. However, I'd say 40%-50% are unmotivated or somewhat unmotivated, which is good, for the curve. I don't think wes hould complain about having unmotivated students, because if there were more "excessive, studious types" we'd all be sc*ewed GPA-wise. Plus , they're usually more boring. :)</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
Even if this is true, I feel it is extremely over-exaggerated. The fact of the matter is that you will gravitate toward people that are like you. You get to choose your peers. There are just as many smart people at Berkeley for you to become friends with as any other great college out there. I don't personally make friends by having random conversations with random people, hoping to get lucky and find one that is smart.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, that is exactly what students often times end up having to do. Let's face it. Most of us end up becoming friends with the people in our dorm floor/suite. Yet dorm selection is a fairly random process. You don't get to say that you want to be in the 'really smart' dorm. You usually end up with a mix of students, some strong, some weak. And some have the bad luck to end up with a mix of students that is predominantly weak. The idea of a 'really smart dorm' (i.e. an honors- college dorm) is actually something I strongly support precisely because it would create the strong social externalities that are crucial to a good education. </p>

<p>Now of course it is true that you can go out and find talented people to socialize with. But that's extra work. Consider that an 'activation cost'. It's far easier to simply be placed in a social environment where everybody is talented. Again, this is where I think my idea of an honors dorm would really help. </p>

<p>Besides, I think you are strongly discounting the impact of maturity. Let's face it. Most incoming Berkeley freshmen are not confident and wise. Most of them are 17 or 18 year old kids with only limited experience in living unchaperoned. You place a promising, but immature kid like that in an environment where lots of people are partying, drinking, getting high, and basically doing anything but studying, and that kid will be strongly tempted to do the same. Many kids do not have the mental strength to resist those kinds of temptations.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
but you're missing a key aspect of this whole thing: you choose your peers. There IS an exceptionally intelligent set of folks at Berkeley, and you CAN choose to hang around them and engage in discussion with them. Just because there are stupid people here doesn't mean you will suddenly be talking to them in your spare time. I agree that you will inevitably get idiots in your discussion sections and have to listen to their inane ramblings from time to time, but consider you spend less time in discussion than you do in lecture even, and if you purport most of the learning goes on outside of lecture, then discussion is really a minor portion of this issue.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe I answered this point with my post above, and I would say that in many cases, you do NOT get to choose your peers. Like I said, your closest ties inevitably tend to be with the people in your freshman dorm, yet you don't get to choose who is in your dorm. By bad luck, your dorm floor/suite might be full of lazy idiots, so you end up bonding with a bunch of idiots. The same is true of many other instances. For example, you will find that you are randomly paired with a lab member, or placed into a random group for a group project, or numerous other instances where you have no choice about who you wind up with. Contrast that with the situation at, say, MIT, where the average student is better than that at Berkeley. You have a far greater assurance that any random mixing involved will still give you a strong selection of peers. </p>

<p>Furthermore, again, I would emphasize the point that many Berkeley students are not strong and confident mature adults. Many of them are just kids. Because they are kids, they will make bad choices. Hence, some Berkeley students will inevitably make the bad choice to hang out with a bunch of lazy irresponsible students. I know one guy who ended up falling in love with a girl who turned out to not only be an extremely lazy student, but was also deeply involved in drugs and alcohol. Because he was chasing her, he inevitably fell into the drug and alcohol lifestyle and nearly got kicked out of school because of it (in fact, I think they both ended up on probation). He was just 17 when he met her. Honestly, what do you expect out of a 17 year old guy, especially when confronted with an extremely sexy (but irresponsible) woman? Of course a guy like that is going to make bad choices. I think many of us would.</p>

<p>So I agree with you that people have choices. But what are you going to do about those people who make bad choices? I think that just tossing them onto the trash bin is unconscionable. Let's face it. People are going to make bad choices. That's why people smoke, eat too much junk food, don't exercise, get in fights, don't save enough for retirement, and buy Ashlee Simpson albums. Now, I fundamentally believe in freedom, such that if people insist on making bad choices, I will let them, but I do believe it is the proper place for an institution to reduce the scope and temptation of that bad choice. For example, supermarkets should be allowed to sell cigarettes, but only from behind a locked and sequestered counter (hey, maybe they should do the same thing for Ashlee Simpson albums). Similarly, I think it would be better for Berkeley to reduce the scope for people to make bad social choices.</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
Do people walk around thinking "Only highly motivated extremely hard-working people are worth my time?" Do these people think that these so-called lazy people do not exist at any and every school? Sure, perhaps fewer overall exist at Berkeley than other places (primarily because of size), and who knows, even perhaps smaller percentages at the top schools in the country, but I know my friend who went to Harvard as an undergrad had a roommate who didn't work on his senior thesis at all for almost all of his time there, and when it came down to the wire, he calculated how many words per minute he had to produce to turn it in on-time. I really must ask about all students "How lazy is lazy?" and what is laziness?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, come now, Drab. You are falling into the trap of articulated rationality. Just because a phenomenom cannot be defined to the point of perfect scientific precision doesn't mean that the phenomenom does not exist. Like the famous legal saying regarding the definition of obscenity as "you know it when you see it", the fact, is most social categories cannot be defined absolutely. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because not even our best legal jurists have been able to cleanly define the line between obscenity and art doesn't mean that obscenity does not exist at all. Similarly, just because nobody can give you a precise definition of laziness does not mean that laziness does not exist. In fact, most of the social sciences (of which I would include the field of education) are inundated with terms that have never been truly precisely defined on a purely numerical level.</p>

60

<p>
[quote]
So I agree with you that people have choices. But what are you going to do about those people who make bad choices? I think that just tossing them onto the trash bin is unconscionable. Let's face it. People are going to make bad choices.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>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? And that because Berkeley tends to have more temptation, people are more likely to make a poor choice? Fair enough.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So the tail end is better off here than elsewhere. What about the better students? If they make bad choices, fine, they'll fail. Big deal. Most likely, though, if they're good students, they're pretty good at making good choices, otherwise they probably would've failed earlier in the path. A smart student can choose smart peers and friends and avoid all of the pitfalls you're saying are a problem.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I agree that in some situations, you can get stuck. Getting a bad lab partner (which I had to deal with last semester) is a problem. It won't affect how much you learn, but it will affect your grades. In fact, I probably learned more as a result of having a bad lab partner, because I had to do more work as a result. This is the more likely effect of having a bad partner. The only way you'd actually learn from a lab partner is if s/he's smarter than you (and by some reasonable amount). If you're a crappy student, the smart guy will help you learn. If you're a good student, you're not going to get paired with someone significantly smarter than you. If you're equals, nobody really benefits. Hence, the top bring the top up, the bottom force the top to be good, and nobody gets brought down.</p>