Unhappy at Berkeley?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
21

<p>
[quote]
There is NOTHING that can be done or should be done (assuming Cal remains a public university) because ALL PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES WITH UNDERGRADUATE HAVE EQUALLY "IMPERSONAL" BUREAUCRACIES BECAUSE THEY ARE EXTENSIONS OF A GOVERNMENT WHICH CATERS TO HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. YOU EITHER LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT, OR LEAD A VERY, VERY UNHAPPY LIFE.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nothing that can be done? "All" public universities have to behave like this? Oh really? Maybe you'd like to tell that to the public LAC's. Rare beasts, yes, but they do demonstrate that a public university can provide small and intimate educations.</p>

<p>Or even putting that aside. Once again, I would point to the Haas School, but this time, to the undergraduate program (the BS program). That program is also relatively intimate and colloqial, far far more so than L&S. And the Haas administration tries to relieve its undergrads of much of the burden of dealing with the general Berkeley bureaucracy. </p>

<p>Last time I checked, the Haas School was a public program and are extensions of that government that you say has to serve millions. Maybe you ought to call up Haas administrators and tell them that Haas can not provide a personal education to its undergrads, see what they say.</p>

<p>I think what that demonstrates is that this is a choice that public universities make to provide an impersonal education or not. They don't have to, they choose to. Now, I agree that often times it is an easy choice, and that's why lots of public universities do it. But the example of Haas (and to some extent other special programs in other UC's like the Honors program at UCLA) indicates that public universities are not forced to make that choice. Public universities can provide intimate educational environments if they decide that they really want to. The Haas administration has decided that they really want to, and that's why they are able to do it.</p>

22

<p>UCLA's honors program is hardly a good example. Certain departments are huge and impersonal, whereas others are small and intimate. If someone in linguistics or classics at Berkeley wants to get involved in the department, it is quite easy. I'm sure it's harder for MCB or psychology, but it isn't fair to classify L & S as impersonal full stop.</p>

23

<ol>
<li><p>Most liberal arts colleges are NOT universities because they lack the ability to to award anything other than a bachelor's degree. </p></li>
<li><p>I never said it was impossible to find an intimate atmosphere WITHIN Cal. Indeed, it's very easy if only the student chooses to try. Hass is but one example, getting to know your professors and joining one of the dozens of non-partying academic/community service clubs being the rest. </p></li>
<li><p>NO. A public university as a whole (because of its size) cannot and should not reach to every single student (lack of funding, time, resources.) Although outreach is definetly the goal, there should never be a grand movement by the central administration towards it. Instead, various bureaucratic departments like the ones we have now should be kept. They work if you want them to work. Besides, the only way to "improve" Cal as a whole like you want to improve it is to privatize it. But it's not like that's going to happen anytime soon, so stop living in a dream!</p></li>
</ol>

<p>DRab, I think the students we're criticizing here are the bulk of L&S...the ones who after four years are STILL struggling academically, socially, financially, and mentally (and blame Cal instead of their irresponsible selves.)</p>

24

<p>finemeal, as I have looked for multiple things thusfar, I can tell you it isn't "easy" to find some things on the berkeley websites.</p>

<p>"ALL PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES WITH UNDERGRADUATE HAVE EQUALLY "IMPERSONAL" BUREAUCRACIES BECAUSE THEY ARE EXTENSIONS OF A GOVERNMENT WHICH CATERS TO HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. YOU EITHER LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT, OR LEAD A VERY, VERY UNHAPPY LIFE."</p>

<p>Hmm. What about public liberal arts colleges? What about other, smaller public schools, like William and Mary? Do you think all private schools have friendly bureaucracies that will drink tea and eat cookies with you everyday, and ask you what you think about the policies they're doing? Yes, the government caters to hundreds of millions, but the UC system, at times, does things that Californians do not like, at least large bodies of Californians. Not all parts of Berkeley are equally large and impersonal. You should realize that some departments have profs which tend to care more about undergraduates, and others do not. Some departments are small, and other are large. The smaller ones tend to be more personal, and are easier to make more personal because of their smaller size. There are more than the two alternatives which you present.</p>

25

<p>Sorry if part of what I said was redundant or repeated sakky- my system isn't working correctly, and I couldn't read his post at the time of posting.</p>

26

<p>1) Who cares? I thought that by context, we were talking about undergrad education here. So what does it matter if a university offers a whole slew of different degrees and LAC's don't? For the purposes of undergrad education, they both offer bachelor's degrees. </p>

<p>2) And that's exactly my point. Hence it invalidates your assertion that all public universities must inevitably provide an impersonal experience. </p>

<p>3) Who ever said anything about privatizing anything? Berkeley knows how to run excellent and personal educational programs. The Berkeley PhD programs are invariably excellent and highly personal. I've never heard of a Berkeley PhD student complain that he has no relationships with his profs and that he feels like a number. And yet all the Berkeley PhD programs are public.</p>

<p>The issue is whether Berkeley administrators could do more for undergrads. I believe they could. Just take some of what they do for the grad students and do the same for undergrads. Now, I know what you're going to say, you're going to say that Berkeley doesn't care about its undergrads anyway. Yeah, but THAT'S THE POINT. If Berkeley did care, then it could do a better job for them. </p>

<p>Like Drab has been saying, it's not an either/or decision. I agree with you that students sometimes have to do more. However, that doesn't let Berkeley off the hook. Berkeley can do more too. BOTH SIDES can do more. Neither side has clean hands.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, I fundamentally object to your attitude that there is something 'wrong' with people who go to LAC's. So some people enjoy more personal attention. You treat that as some sort of character defect, as if these people somehow can't handle the real world. I would argue that the graduates from the elite LAC's can handle the real world just fine.</p>

27

<p>well i'm one freshman who is having the time of my life here. i second the call to greek life, its a great way to make instant connections with people. i'm a pretty social person to begin with, but i am having an absolute blast at the berk.</p>

28

<p>hear hear finemeal.</p>

<p>It's true, it's fairly easy to get things done once you get your lazy ass up and go to the office. As for the Berkeley experience, it's Okay. I do have some very close friends (much like in high school), but I wish I had more acquaintances. That's my personal problem though. I have a hard time keeping up with many people so I tend to have a small group of friends. Think I should join more clubs...</p>

29

<ol>
<li><p>It matters because liberal arts colleges are just that, colleges. They have a small student population and therefore automatically are able to pay closer attention to each student. In a large public research university (assuming the student isn't in some special Hass-like program), this IS not the case.</p></li>
<li><p>YES! so what's YOUR point? </p></li>
<li><p>Sakky, privatization is ALMOST always linked to an intimate college experience for students who are not enrolled in special programs. (Notable exceptions include: William and Mary, which is public but offers lots of intimacy; and, Harvard which is private but is notorious for being every bit as impersonal and "uncaring" as Berkeley.) </p></li>
</ol>

<p>The REASON I mentioned privatization was because it TENDS to be linked, once again, to an intimate college experience. Why? Because private schools cost more, on average, which makes it impossible for large amounts of students to attend. This in turn makes the faculty and staff happier because they are getting paid the same amount (or more) but are made to do less work! They will thus give students more individual attention simpy because there are less of them. Isn't that what you want sakky? </p>

<p>But of course we all know that privatizing Cal would be impossible. </p>

<p>And who really wants it private anyway? I sure don't!</p>

<p>sakky, you twisted my words. I never said going to a LAC as a "defect." WHAT I SAID was that they are in the middle of nowhere. How is that not true? MOST liberal arts colleges are in fact in the middle of a forest, or a town most people haven't heard of, or a state the average person is unable to properly spell and locate. This is all true, and going to a LAC is by no means a "defect," but rather a legitimately good choice for students who value intimate learning in spite of limited resources (libraries, number of faculty, majors) as opposed to the impersonal learning and outstanding resources that accompany a large public research university. </p>

<p>It should be obvious that students at large public research universities will have to make the extra effort. And, as berkeleygirl testifies, NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THAT because if a large public (which implies limited funds) research university is to serve 33,000 students, it can't afford (literally!) to make it more personal. I, for one, think Berkeley was founded in an ongoing crusade AGAINST privatization and should not even think about taking such a step. In fact, if it were up to me, I'd keep the public aspect and DOUBLE the size of the student body to make things even MORE impersonal. Why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH YOU CRY ABOUT THE BUREAUCRACY PUNISHING YOU BECAUSE YOU MISSED THE DAMN DEADLINE, YOU'RE STILL GETTING TAUGHT BY THE MOST DISTINGUISHED FACULTY ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET!!!!!!</p>

30

<p>Points 1 + 2) Exactly. So why don't you retract your previous claim? Here is what you said before:</p>

<p>
[quote]
There is NOTHING that can be done or should be done (assuming Cal remains a public university) because ALL PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES WITH UNDERGRADUATE HAVE EQUALLY "IMPERSONAL" BUREAUCRACIES BECAUSE THEY ARE EXTENSIONS OF A GOVERNMENT WHICH CATERS TO HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. YOU EITHER LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT, OR LEAD A VERY, VERY UNHAPPY LIFE.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh? First you said that nothing could be done. Now you are admitting that sometimes things can be done, like the Haas program. Are you ready to retract your old claim that nothing can be done? </p>

<p>Otherwise, what's your point in making 2 contradictory statements?</p>

<p>3) So now you say that it only 'tends' to be linked, whereas you previously said that it is ALWAYS linked. So again that means that you're changing your story. So, again are you going to retract your claim that they are 'always' linked? Hey, you were the one you used the word 'always' not me. It's precisely those kinds of categorical declarations that I disagree with.</p>

<p>
[quote]
sakky, you twisted my words. I never said going to a LAC as a "defect."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh really? Then perhaps you'd like to explain this quote of yours:</p>

<p>"...then perhaps they should transfer their crybaby selves to a liberal arts college "</p>

<p>What I can gather is that you are making a major insinuation that anybody who goes to a LAC is a 'crybaby' (again, your words, not mine). Perhaps you'd like to elaborate?</p>

31

<p>Finemeal, I'm not sure your faculty salary assumption is correct. Perhaps you would offer some statistics showing how public profs fair compared to private profs? Don't forget the differences between lecturers and tenured/tenure track professors. Really, I don't know if you're correct, and you brought in this issue which wasn't necessary to bring in, so show some proof.</p>

<p>Also, professors at other universities can have similar feelings of some professors here about undergraduates. Some professor would rather be doing something other than teaching, such as writing or doing research. Do you think this doesn't occur in private universities?</p>

<p>Students at smaller schools will get more personal attention, yes, if there are more faculty on average per student than at larger schools. It's not just that there are fewer students- it's that there are more faculty members per student.</p>

<p>Are Celtic studies, where there are (i've heard) 3 new students this year, or linguistics, or classics "special, haas-like programs?" Yeah, if you do physics or psychology, you're out of luck, but isn't engineering smaller than these? Do you get less personal attention in ME or EECS than you would in psych? Just wondering.</p>

32

<p>Wait, there's a lot of undergraduates doing physics majors? For some reason I had a different impression. Does anyone out there know if there's a lot of ppl doing astrophysics also? I'm applying to Berkeley this year and interested in that kind of stuff, just wondering if you guys knew anything about it....</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
WHAT I SAID was that they are in the middle of nowhere. How is that not true? MOST liberal arts colleges are in fact in the middle of a forest, or a town most people haven't heard of, or a state the average person is unable to properly spell and locate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a wonderfully stereotyped characterization that also has the benefit of being irrelevant. After all, even if most LAC's are in the middle of nowhere, so what? Guess what? Most public universities aren't exactly in the most urban and central of spots either! Don't believe me? What would you say about Davis? Or Merced? Or Santa Cruz? Or Santa Barbara? These are all nice towns, but you're not going to mistake ANY of them for downtown Manhattan. Let's face it. Believe me, outside of the college scene, there ain't exactly a whole lot of nightlife in the city of Davis. Davis isn't in the middle of a forest, but it is in the middle of a long swath of farmland. </p>

<p>Let's move outside the state of California. What do you have to say about Ann Arbor? Or Urbana-Champaign? Or Charlottesville? Or Chapel Hill? Or Williamsburg? Or Gainesville? Or Athens (GA)? Or Happy Valley? All of these places and many more are aptly described as college towns that most people have never heard of, located in the middle of nowhere, and in the case of many of them, are surrounded by forest. </p>

<p>Hence, many schools, LAC's AND big public universities, are located in the middle of nowhere. So what's your point? </p>

<p>And besides, so what if your school is located in a state that people can't spell? I've noticed a disturbing number of people who can't properly spell Massachusetts, but that doesn't take away the fact that 2 of the greatest schools in the world are located in that state. I doubt that anybody would turn down admission to either of those schools just because they'd be going to a state that people have trouble spelling. So why bring up the point?</p>

34

<p>It depends on the student. Some students prefer small settings, and some don't. The fact does not mean their lazy, and what not. It simply means that the environment doesn't suit them. I know several students who transferred from LACs to a larger state university because they enjoy the large atmosphere; at the same time, I know many students who went to a LAC because they detest the perceived coldness of larger universities.</p>

<p>For this reason, I emphasize the need to visit, visit, visit! Stay overnight, if possible and don't go during a specialized event (Cal Day for example--bad way to get influenced). </p>

<p>And public universities can be personal if they choose. Great examples are the smaller departments here at Berkeley: Gender Studies, Classics, Rhetoric, and Film for example. Personal experience with the Rhetoric department (and positive comments for the others) reflect that public universities can be personal. It's not an either-or argument.</p>

35

<p>Yeah i have to agree with yeah. I am a sophomore and i still dont like cal. It's just not for everybody. But if you are a freshman my advice is to recognize that alot of people hate their first semester of college, no matter where you are. To make next semester better make sure to go to ratemyprofessors.com (its something along those lines) and seriously choose your courses based on that, it really will help. Also it takes a while to find good friends. Once you meet people in your major you will make friends with them and loose the people who you were forced to be friends with in the dorms. Until then keep trying clubs out you can make friends there if you join some of the smaller ones. But yeah besides all that, i really dont like berkeley that much either. Its just so cold and impersonal. And alot of the people here can be haughty about how smart they are. Blec. Honestly i am looking to transfer.</p>

36

<p>TwylaBloo, Physics is one of the biggest departments, and one of the most popular majors. Astophysics not so much . . .</p>

37

<p>oh yay thanks i'm actually more interested in astrophysics anyway.</p>

<p>and opranoodlemantra your screenname rocks!</p>

38

<p>Hehe, why thank you twylabloo.</p>