This is long but I would truly appreciate all of your guys help 
Alright alright. I know these threads are repetitive and at times monotonous. I know there are plenty of them also and it all comes down to “go to the school you like,” and what not. That’s my problem, I like them equally and for different reasons, or at least I think.
The reason why I say I think is because I visited Berkeley, UCSC, and UC Davis a few weeks ago. I flew up north by myself, so I had the liberty of walking my own path around each of the campuses. (I’m a Junior transfer for Philosophy by the way for 2016 Fall). So I took the tours and walked and explored each, even sat in on philosophy classes at all of them, and I can safely rule out UCSC and UC Davis now, although before I could not.
Berkeley was different though. I couldn’t get enough of the large university feel and the architecture. I loved how it seemed like a portion of New York just sort of picked up from the East coast and plopped over here in California. The surrounding area just seemed so alive (as well as the campus). And to be honest, I didn’t mind the homeless hippies everywhere. It actually sort of fascinated me because of the contrast between a top university with students who ideally want to make a powerful change somewhere in the world (not that they don’t at the other UC’s) and the impoverished free spirits. The food at Berkeley was amazing too, I’m a killer for authentic food (especially Asian).
Okay so I visited two classes, and each of the professors were very open and accepting. The one guy (John Perry) who is a quite renowned Philosopher even called me to the front of his class before he began to introduce me to the students and more specifically to the transfer students who were also Philosophy majors. (This was an upper-div. phil. course). That was impressionable in itself, because even though it was an upper division class, I didn’t expect the “Egotistical-Involved in my own research-Type of Professor” to go out of his way to do something like that. I also thought both he and the lesson he was teaching were very interesting (even though the students said they couldn’t stand him at times and he was quite boring compared to the other professors). Lastly, I’ve always kind of romanticized the idea of studying under top philosophers. It’s not so I can say “Oh yay look at me I studied under this guy,” but more because I feel they’re so severely invested in the study that I would love an idol and mentor of their sort to look up to for inspiration. I see it as gaining first hand knowledge from a guy whose books will one day be studied in a classroom, and I will have learned a dimension of theirs that will one day be inaccessible. Sort of like if I were to study under Ralph Waldo Emerson or Wittgenstein (although it’s arguable that the philosophers at Berkeley are not quite as influential as these guys or whatever).
The one thing that popped out to me most was that after class, the four transfer students in the class that the professor geared my introduction towards came up to me and started asking me questions, and we just talked about interests and what not. Then they invited me to lunched and they talked philosophy. I’ve never been around so many people at once that were so sincerely invested in their area of study that they liked to talk about it in their spare time. I didn’t even witness this at Santa Cruz or Davis. Also, normally when I try to bring up or prolong a conversation on intellectual topics with my Dad, Brother, or friends or coworkers, it is usually cut short and/or they get annoyed when I make a point. When I was having lunch with these guys, I didn’t get that at all. If anything, they just wanted to present their own points and learn from one another without being negatively taken aback from each other. THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM EVERYTHING I HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE COMPETITIVE BERKELEY STUDENT. They were kind and curious.
So the main point sort of driving my whole post is a quote I read by Henry David Thoreau, it goes, “How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.” I am a practicing writer and I want to attend graduate school for creative writing, unless philosophy grabs my interest so much that it pulls me that way for graduate work. I write all of the time anyway, regardless of my studying it or not, and I understand that creative writing does not make one a writer. I will write no matter what, but I want to be among a community of writers with common interests and (at this point) I want to teach creative writing. But as I mentioned, this may change.
So the reason for the quote is this: I have studied very hard in community college to get to where I am now; no matter where I go, I will continue to study hard; if those at Berkeley are really as academically minded as those who I went to lunch with, it gives me the impression that they as well as others will be less likely to go and experience some parties, bars, clubs, concerts, etc. I think it can be generally agreed upon that unless one is in Greek Life at Berkeley, there will be more parties at Santa Barbara. So basically, what I mean by the quote is that I believe there will be a greater series of stories and characters that I will experience at UCSB that will help me better understand the human condition, rather than just learning about these things from afar in books and experiencing them less often. It is not that partying is what the human experience is all about, but I believe the wild and adventurous side of the students at UCSB offers more material for writing. And I know this may sound selfish about choosing a school based on the material for one’s writing, but it goes beyond this. It is more because I myself am not a social person and I have not grown much in this area; I would benefit from improving my communication skills even without writing in mind, and to learn first hand people’s desires and fears and interests and their crazy wisdom from their stories would expand my understanding of what is possible in the world further than I have myself been exposed to. I feel as if I would benefit greatly from a variety of stimuli versus those who are so determined and focused on one purpose or goal (as those at Berkeley seem to be, although of course that is not to say that there are not plenty of people at UCSB with this focus or determination).
With that being said, if I do decide to go on to graduate school for philosophy, Berkeley in turn makes me a better prospect for grad. school philosophy programs (more so the more prestigious, but because it increases my chances for the more prestigious schools, my options in general will be of a wider variety).
But, if I do plan on pursuing graduate school in creative writing, Berkeley has a bunch of creative writing classes accessible to all, and UCSB does not. The only creative writing courses at UCSB are those in the College of Creative Studies, which, upon instructor approval, can be taken by those outside the college. Although my chances are reduced for being able to take these classes, I am confident enough in my ability as a writer that I don’t believe this will be a major obstacle for me, although surely I could be wrong. But even if I did get into ONE class, I may not get into two or three or four, and so my exposure to creative writing will be more slim. I’m not sure this worries me much though only because grad schools for creative writing probably would not care much if one did not take plenty of creative writing classes as an undergrad; all that they care about is that you can write or that you have promise. It is also generally conceived that it doesn’t matter what one does for their undergrad when changing their direction for graduate school, all that matters is that you have a degree and know why/can explain why you are changing your direction for graduate school.
