Why is Berkeley ranked so high?

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

<p>
[quote]
This is structually ridiculous. High school students are, in general, not legally considered adults, meaning they cannot be treated like adults in college. If there WERE large lecture halls in high school in which teachers could kick disrupting students out, those students would then be out wrecking the hallways. Complete chaos and lockdown would soon follow. These are kids we are talking about. Most of them do not yet value education. Why? Mainly BECAUSE THEY AREN'T PAYING FOR IT! And they aren't around people who are paying for it, either! (private schools are not in the majority.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Greatesteyn, you are actually getting to an entirely different topic, namely what to do to reform K-12. I agree that this is a complex subject in and of itself, and could take a long time to discuss, But in general, high schools need to be reformed to be able to remove disruptive students. And in general, schools need to become more competitive and stratified such that the best students need to be able to go to a school (i.e. a magnet school, a charter school, etc.) that fits their needs.</p>

<p>I would point to the best high schools of the New York City public high school system - places like Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, and several others, high schools that are all public (and therefore free) but also extraordinarily competitive to gain admission to. Practically all students at these schools are supremely high achievers and almost all will go to college, many to some of the very best colleges in the country. </p>

<p>So let's look at what we're talking about. You say that people don't value education when it's free. Well, the kids at Stuyvesant High are getting a free education, but I think nobody would assert that they don't value education. You don't have problems with disruption and violence at Stuy. Yet you don't see Stuy or Bronx Science trying to teach students in large lecture halls. They obviously could, because they wouldn't have the problems of disruption and violence that other high schools may have. But they don't. Why not? Are you saying that they're stupid? </p>

<p>
[quote]
You are quite confused, sakky. First you say you don't agree that most college students don't want personal attention. But then you particularly point out the Berkeley case. Berkeley undergrads do not represent "most college students." The thread has gone from talking about just Berkeley to college in general. You don't seem to recognize that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm going to warn you, pal. Don't insult me, or you will be banned. </p>

<p>I don't think I am quite confused in the least. I never said that all students, or that even all Berkeley students want personal attention. I am saying that there is clearly still not enough personal attention than there needs to be at Berkeley. After all, if there was, then the fresh/soph seminars would not be overfilled. People would no longer be complaining about it if it was not a problem. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I really thought you were smarter than this. The fact that many people (especially on CC) complain about Berkeley undergrad's impersonal aspects does not mean most undergrads feel that way. I am restating what I already said and you seem to have ignored. IF most undergrads at Berkeley (or any other college) REALLY wanted personal attention, they would go to office hours. BUT THE REALITY IS THAT MOST PROFESSORS-all the way from Harvard to community college-are known to bemoan the fact that very few, if any, students come to their office hours.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because office hours are a tremendously poor gauge of personal attention. Let's face it. Many profs make it quite clear that they aren't interested in interacting with undergrads. So, yes, they may have OH's as a formality, but they treat you like garbage if you have the temerity to actually try to use them. Time and time again I have heard of students complaining how profs refused to provide help during OH's and how the profs instead spent the time telling them how they were not worthy of being in the class and should drop. </p>

<p>So I would turn this around and state that if profs actually cared more about undergraduate teaching, then more people would show up to OH's. Many profs adopt an attitude of indifference, if not outright hostility, to undergrads, and then they wonder why nobody shows up to OH's. But this all gets back to the question of personal attention. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Now, grad students, in general, are fundamentally different than high school students and undergrads. Unlike high schoolers, they are hoping to make a carrer out of their education, not torch down the school. And unlike undergrads, they are focused on a topic and are serious about it. Undergrads, for the most part, get lost between schoolwork which is WAAAAAAAAAAAY harder than it was high school, work (which a large number of them must do in order to keep going to school-unlike high schoolers who get it for free and grads who get it from grants/fellowships/etc.,) and sex and booze (self-explanatory.) Most undergrads go to college for the reasons Polite Antagonis pointed out-fancy looking degree and the promise of $$$. Why is this so? Mainly because most of them come from bad high schools in which intellectualism isn't stressed very much, but that still doesn't mean that the undergrads who want to become grad students cannot escape the herd.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I highly doubt that the differences are as strong as you say they are. Take the MBA students at Haas or anywhere else. Let's face it. Most MBA students are just out to get money and a fancy degree. In fact, that's really most of the 'value-add' of the MBA - in that it gives you entree to the recruiting officers of the most prestigious companies in the world.</p>

<p>Yet the fact is, Haas insists on providing highly personal education to its MBA students, despite the fact that most of them are money-grubbing careerists. Why do this? Is Haas being stupid? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I already tried to answer this, but let me say it again. BECAUSE IT'S STRUCTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Undergraduate education in the U.S., like in Europe and all other supradeveloped areas has been turned into a degree machine. There is no stopping this socioeconomic process. It's been here "benefitting" human society ever since the nineteenth century and its here to stay.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, now we're getting to the real heart of the matter. This is something that I actually agree with, if partially. Undergrad is something of a degree machine. </p>

<p>But it doesn't have to stay that way. After all, Berkeley has always been noted at being at the forefront of political change, so why can't Berkeley change the system? </p>

<p>And besides, I would assert that undergrad is no more of a degree than the MBA is. Let's face it. Most MBA students see the degree as nothing more than a mechanism to get into prestigious jobs in fields like consulting or banking. Yet despite that, Haas insists on providing a highly personal education to its MBA students. Why is that?</p>

42

<p>Stuy does not represent most high school students in the same way that supposedly unhappy Berkeley students unable to enroll in a freshman/sophomore do not represent either Berkeley's undergrad population or the undergrad population of the U.S. The vast majority of kids just don't want to the personal attention from professors. Face it sakky, they just don't. </p>

<p>Since you claim that students are turned off by nasty profs in office hours, let me just say that the vast majority of college professors are very nice people. Yet, they still don't get people in their office hours. The professor who invited me for coffee is one of the nicest people ever and he teaches a VERY large lecture. Yet, still no students in office hours. Now, my roommate from freshman year, a physics major, went to every single office hours one of his professors had. He did the same for a math professor last semester and a chemistry professor the semester before that. These are physics, math, and chemistry professors-the meanest ones by reputation. Yet, they weren't mean to him. This leads me to conclude that either my roommate is extremely likeable (which I dont think he is,) or those particular professors were extremely nice. Either way, as my roommate told it, there were NO OTHER STUDENTS AT OFFICE HOURS. What does this mean? It means that even when professors are nice and willing to help (<a href="http://www.ratemyprofessor.com%5B/url%5D,"&gt;www.ratemyprofessor.com,&lt;/a&gt;) students still won't visit them. </p>

<p>
[quote]

Yet the fact is, Haas insists on providing highly personal education to its MBA students, despite the fact that most of them are money-grubbing careerists. Why do this? Is Haas being stupid?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They do it because they know they are training the elite. Undergrad programs, in general, are not training the elite. There is therefore no need for personal attention, but that does not mean that the elite should decide what the non-elite or non-future elite should study. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Ah, now we're getting to the real heart of the matter. This is something that I actually agree with, if partially. Undergrad is something of a degree machine.</p>

<p>But it doesn't have to stay that way. After all, Berkeley has always been noted at being at the forefront of political change, so why can't Berkeley change the system?</p>

<p>And besides, I would assert that undergrad is no more of a degree than the MBA is. Let's face it. Most MBA students see the degree as nothing more than a mechanism to get into prestigious jobs in fields like consulting or banking. Yet despite that, Haas insists on providing a highly personal education to its MBA students. Why is that?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think that this is an accurate picture of what the public wants. They want degrees, not intellectual stimulation. Berkeley could never be at the forefront of a reform movement because no such movement is desired either by the majority of Berkeley students or by the general population. The BA degree machine has for long been a socialist dream. It is now coming true. You can't escape it. It's the way of the modern age. I already answered your Haas question.</p>

<p>By the way, could you defend your standpoint on freshman/sophomore seminars? Many of them are not overflowing. If I had time I would find out just how many seats are currently empty in each one. But alas that is too unproductive.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
Stuy does not represent most high school students in the same way that supposedly unhappy Berkeley students unable to enroll in a freshman/sophomore do not represent either Berkeley's undergrad population or the undergrad population of the U.S. The vast majority of kids just don't want to the personal attention from professors. Face it sakky, they just don't....</p>

<p>They do it because they know they are training the elite. Undergrad programs, in general, are not training the elite. There is therefore no need for personal attention, but that does not mean that the elite should decide what the non-elite or non-future elite should study.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aha, but here I see a contradiction in your terms. </p>

<p>Haas is training some of the elite MBA students. By the same token, I would argue that Berkeley is training some of the elite undergrad students. After all, according to USNews, the Berkeley undergrad student body is the 13th most selective such study body in the country. I would say that that's pretty elite. </p>

<p>I agree with you that if we're just talking about some CalState, then probably most of those students may not want personal attention. But if we're talking about the 13th best student body in the country, I would say that plenty of those students want personal attention. The Haas MBA student body is not significantly more elite than the Berkeley undergrad student body. </p>

<p>Look, at the end of the day, Stuy High is elitist, the Haas MBA program is elitist, and yes, the Berkeley undergrad program is elitist. Yet, of those 3, the Berkeley undergrad program is the one that doesn't provide personal attention. Either the Berkeley undergrad program is wrong, or Stuy and the Haas MBA program are wrong. They can't all be right. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think that this is an accurate picture of what the public wants. They want degrees, not intellectual stimulation. Berkeley could never be at the forefront of a reform movement because no such movement is desired either by the majority of Berkeley students or by the general population. The BA degree machine has for long been a socialist dream. It is now coming true. You can't escape it. It's the way of the modern age. I already answered your Haas question.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Berkeley is already at the forefront in being a public school that provides programs that are both world-class and highly personal....for its graduate students. </p>

<p>Besides, I would suspect that if a vote was put out to Berkeley undergrads asking them whether they would like Berkeley to be less impersonal, I suspect that the vote would win. </p>

<p>However, I agree with you that undergrad schools are becoming more and more of pseudo-diploma mills where the only thing that matters to to some students is the credential itsef. However, that doesn't mean that Berkeley has to buckle under this pressure. After all, I'm sure that the public would love to turn the Berkeley PhD programs into programs that are easy for California residents to get into and graduate from, but that hasn't changed the high selectivity of those programs.</p>

44

<p>Before I reply to your criticisms, why do you ignore the comments which directly counter yours? You did this to me in an earlier thread. You provide views A and B and I (and other people) provide counterviews C and D. You then choose to only rebut D. Whatever happened to C? I will now do the same to you, in order to save time. </p>

<p>So, how can you prove to me that the majority of Berkeley undergrads (let's just stick with Berkeley since you keep shifting back and forth between Berkeley and colleges in general) want personal attention? In my 6 semesters at Berkeley, I have gone to see every single professor that has taught me at least once during the course of the semester. Yet, I have never seen any other student do the same thing. These are professors who teach large lectures in history, biology, philosophy, and english. In their lectures, they couldn't possibly be nicer or more engaging and caring. Yet, no students at office hours. From my friends in the hard sciences, math, and engineering I have learned that they too have gone to office hours in those subject areas and have been treated with ZERO hostility from their professors. Since I have a lot of friends, something is obviously wrong here. Granted, it's your anecdotes vs. my anecdotes but in my and others experiences, although there are professors who are quite nasty at office hours and thus turn students away, the vast majority of professors actually DO like talking to and helping undergrads. However, the undergrads at Berkeley still don't take the time to visit them. And don't start ranting about how its "too hard" to show up in a building at a certain time during the course of the week. It couldn't be easier, especially for freshmen and sophomore who generally (95+%) of the time live within 15 minutes of any professor's office. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Haas is training some of the elite MBA students. By the same token, I would argue that Berkeley is training some of the elite undergrad students. After all, according to USNews, the Berkeley undergrad student body is the 13th most selective such study body in the country. I would say that that's pretty elite.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Perhaps I need to modify my language a bit. What I meant was that, generally, Berkeley is not dealing with undergrads who are the elite of the elite of the elite. Other places like HYP, for reasons you'll find in any sociocultural textbook, are forced to train the elite of the elite of the elite. YET! They don't, or not the the extent to which they could! With the exception of Princeton, H and Y are notorious for professors who despise undergraduates. Even more so than professors at Berkeley supposedly do. Why? Well I have the theory that H and Y professors assume their students don't need any guidance. However, many professors at Berkeley, especially in the social sciences and humanities, are quite conscious of the fact that most Berkeley undergrads, unlike their HYP counterparts, come from low to upper middle class backgrounds. They therefore feel like they have been given the task of getting these students up to the level of HYP students and are consequently quite friendly and engaging. Overall, I feel the the myth that most Berkeley professors are monsters needs to die because it's total BS. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Besides, I would suspect that if a vote was put out to Berkeley undergrads asking them whether they would like Berkeley to be less impersonal, I suspect that the vote would win.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>You are out of your mind. That would mean exponentionally increased fees. DO YOU KNOW HOW HOSTILE THE STUDENT BODY, in general, IS TO INCREASING FEES?!?!?!</p>

45

<p>I think we should just fire people who aren't needed--and there has to be quite a few of those jobs about, and thus decrease fees a little while making it a little bit more personal. It increases output per worker too.</p>

46

<p>Outrageous proposal. If you did that, the buildings would be empty, the library system would collapse, alumni would storm the administration, and the vast majority of Berkeley residents would take to the streets since they need the money the 32,000 students and 8,000 staff bring in, etc. </p>

<p>I'm very happy to know that none of these "reforms" will ever go through the democratic legislature.</p>

47

<p>Right, so let's create a "French" proposal. In France recently they made a law in order to supposedly increase employment, by only permitting people to work 35 hour weeks, thinking that more people will be hired. It backfired and the unemployment has increased. So yeah, by cutting off and firing a few people, we can increase outper per worker and stimulate the Berkeley economy. </p>

<p>Right now we probably waste a lot of money on unneeded jobs and I'm sure the excess could be found somewhere. </p>

<p>Why would the buildings be empty, the library system collapse, etc? Have you seen how people work one counter in the library? Like 3, in a 3 by 3 foot space. Two people do nothing. It's ridiculous. </p>

<p>Regarding Berkeley residents, plenty already take to the streets. It's just kind of pathetic that we have overweight homeless, in my opinion, and "homeless' who wear clean clothes, etc. In America the economic situation isn't THAT bad when they can't work a job making minimum wage, and possibly making more than they would if they were merely begging on the streets. They also probably have family who are willing to help them out too, even if it means just a little. It's just ridiculous to think about because people in other nations--who are starving to death--and can't even get jobs, yet try so hard, are in a worse off state than lazy people in America who could potentially find jobs, yet don't. We take a lot for granted, and I think we waste a lot too. And then what is even more irritating is that these Berkeley residents who do beg money off students, waste the money on cigarettes or alcohol or some other bogus crap. DO THEY EVEN KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN OTHER COUNTRIES? It's just ridiculous.</p>

48

<p>Well, I think you are a bit confused about the French CPE. I'm assuming that is what you are talking about, since the 35 hour work week has been around for quite a while (2000.) On that subject, you claim it has led to increasing economic prosperity. The opposite is true. France's economy is only the third best in Europe. What is actually happening in France is that young people (under 26) are being fired back and forth and replaced by other people just as young. This is leading to socioeconomic collapse. Likewise, firing a few will NOT be good for Berkeley's economy. Not just because of the immediate economic implications of firing someone, but because the Berkeley community is committed, in spirit, to the "right to work." If the University fired it so called "useless" employes, the city council would react against the university-leadiding to collapse. And let's not forget that most of Berkeley's "useless" workers are minorities....meaning the university could very well face discrimination lawsuits if it fired them on a systematic basis as you propose. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Why would the buildings be empty, the library system collapse, etc? Have you seen how people work one counter in the library? Like 3, in a 3 by 3 foot space. Two people do nothing. It's ridiculous.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Could you be a little clearer in your arguments? One minute you make it seem as if UCB is full of "useless" workers and the next you say that there's only 3 people working at a certain space in the library, with two "useless" workers standing around doing nothing. Two workers does not mean anything. Their wages probably sums up to no more than 300 a month. The Univestity deals in billions. In fact, just for fun, let's try to see how much the Library's "useless" (mostly part-time) workers are supposedly costing the University. I know there's around 900 Library workers total, earning an average of $14/hour. Let's say that, on average, they all work 11 hours a day for 5 days a week (being extremely generous here.) In a regular semester (16 weeks,) that's $11,088,000 for 900 workers. In other words, the semester tuition of about 93 undergrads. Yup, the cutting back on Library jobs will sure help alleviate fees which could be spent on personalizing the undergraduate experience, huh? WRONG! laughably wrong.......the same goes for the other 7,000 jobs or so. </p>

<p>In my opinion, it's pathetic that you're criticizing homeless people. Especially the overweight ones. I's perfectly obvious why they might be overweight. Because they beg us for money which they spend on fatty food. We can't blame them for that. Deep friend is the cheapest, and it's not like very many people give more than a dollar to Telegraph bums-if they give anything at all....</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
Well, I think you are a bit confused about the French CPE. I'm assuming that is what you are talking about, since the 35 hour work week has been around for quite a while (2000.) On that subject, you claim it has led to increasing economic prosperity. The opposite is true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I claimed nothing of the sort, fool. I'm saying that it was promoting laziness and lethargy, hence 35 hour workdays and thus its economy is on the slide. </p>

<p>In the late 1990s, France's economy grew faster than the European average, allowing the Socialist government to indulge in such goodies as the 35-hour week. But the country's cherished social model—characterised by heavy state involvement, a wealth tax and generous benefits for workers—has in recent years proved a strong disincentive to growth and to job creation. Unemployment is double that in Britain, and the pension system and rising health-care costs are straining the public finances.</p>

<p>And thus by firing workers, we can promote output per worker, hence anti-lethargy. </p>

<p>Duh. You're semi irritating me considering I was the one who had to sit through my professor's lectures and all he talked about was European economies. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Could you be a little clearer in your arguments? One minute you make it seem as if UCB is full of "useless" workers and the next you say that there's only 3 people working at a certain space in the library, with two "useless" workers standing around doing nothing. Two workers does not mean anything. They're wages probably sums up to no more than 300 a month. The Univestity deals in billions. In fact, just for fun, let's try to see how much the Library's "useless" (mostly part-time) workers are supposedly costing the University. I know there's around 900 Library workers total, earning an average of $14/hour. Let's say that, on average, they all work 11 hours a day for 5 days a week (being generous here.) In a regular semester, that's $693,400 for 900 workers. In other words, the semester tuition of about 58 undergrads. Yup, the cutting back on Library jobs will sure help alleviate fees which could be spent on personalizing the undergraduate experience, huh? WRONG! laughably wrong.......the same goes for the other 7,000 jobs or so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right, so you're pro-increasing fees? Just because the students' parents are middle-class workers, who worked hard to get them here doesn't mean that they have a right to keep increasing out fees, thinking it's "okay." </p>

<p>By firing some workers, hence the useless ones (the ones that stand around doing nothing), then we can either decrease fees or make it more personal. Personally, I would want to decrease fees, even if just a little, because I don't really care about the personal atmosphere.</p>

<p>
[quote]

In my opinion, it's pathetic that you're criticizing homeless people. Especially the overweight ones. I's perfectly obvious why they might be overweight. Because they beg us for money which they spend on fatty food. We can't blame them for that. Deep friend is the cheapest, and it's not like very many people give more than a dollar to Telegraph bums-if they give anything at all....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you've never been to Eastern Europe or Asia then? You've never seen what REAL homeless look like? Honestly, in other countries homeless people are actually starving to death, thin, and bony. In Berkeley most of these people are not really homeless people. Look at their clothes for example. And I actually have given money to homeless people, but now I realize it's a waste of my time, considering it's not as if my own parents were born into money. They actually had to work for it, yes work.</p>

50

<p>You know what else is ridiculous? That naked strike 2 weeks ago on campus protesting sweatshops and for people not to buy Berkeley attire. (I actually don't buy it, but only because it's unfashionable, not because of this ridiculous notion.)</p>

<p>Sweatshops actually HELP people in third world countries. Of course there are horrible working conditions, but unless these people actually come up with other solutions and other jobs the people in third world countries can work, then they should stop complaining and banning sweatshops. THey should instead lobby or whatever to increase wages or reform working conditions.</p>

51

<p>I'm not belitting other nation's homeless people's. I'm not belitting anyone other than you and your impossible ideas. Berkeley's homeless might be better off than if they lived in Russia or Asia, but that doesn't really change how they look at their situation. Homeless people everywhere do not have access to the things we have access to, they have no comparative reference group (as they put it in political science) to know off. Just because you know people are starving in Africa doesn't mean the hungry old man on Telegraph does. In any event, neither that man or the ones in Africa is in a position to care much about other people other than themselves. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Right, so you're pro-increasing fees? Just because the students' parents are middle-class workers, who worked hard to get them here doesn't mean that they have a right to keep increasing out fees, thinking it's "okay."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Where are you getting this? I never said anything about my personal views on fee increases. But since you ask, I can't give you a valid perspective because I'm a Regents Scholar and don't have to worry about such issues. However, I sympathize with students who want to decrease fees. But cutting the Library staff (as my corrected math shows,) is obviously not that great of a solution.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
I'm not belitting other nation's homeless people's. I'm not belitting anyone other than you and your impossible ideas. Berkeley's homeless might be better off than if they lived in Russia or Asia, but that doesn't really change how they look at their situation. Homeless people everywhere do not have access to the things we have access to, they have no comparative reference group (as they put it in political science) to know off. Just because you know people are starving in Africa doesn't mean the hungry old man on Telegraph does. In any event, neither that man or the ones in Africa is in a position to care much about other people other than themselves.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right, so you believe the obese homeless person is starving? I'm just saying, you haven't seen what real starving is, nor what a real homeless person is, at least not in Berkeley. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Where are you getting this? I never said anything about my personal views on fee increases. But since you ask, I can't give you a valid perspective because I'm a Regents Scholar and don't have to worry about such issues. However, I sympathize with students who want to decrease fees. But cutting the Library staff (as my corrected math shows,) is obviously not that great of a solution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't talk just about cutting library staff (when did I hint only on cutting library staff?), but all staff and reducing spending on worthless crap. For example in the student housing, they recently bought new couches and curtains, while there is still no working heater nor other amenities that are more necessary. Who the hell cares about where they sit in the lounge? Honestly, this school wastes so much on worthless, unneeded garbage when it could spend more wisely and reduce student fees.</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
You know what else is ridiculous? That naked strike 2 weeks ago on campus protesting sweatshops and for people not to buy Berkeley attire. (I actually don't buy it, but only because it's unfashionable, not because of this ridiculous notion.)</p>

<p>Sweatshops actually HELP people in third world countries. Of course there are horrible working conditions, but unless these people actually come up with other solutions and other jobs the people in third world countries can work, then they should stop complaining and banning sweatshops. THey should instead lobby or whatever to increase wages or reform working conditions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah I agree but there's not much you can do. College students like protesting, even if their reasoning isn't very sound. It's just something they, generally, do. Or maybe they were well aware of the fact that they needed a different form of protesting, but their main goal was to get attention from the administration. If a remember correctly, they got what they wanted and Cal sweatshirts will no longer be manufactured in sweatshops.</p>

54

<p>Yes, people do like couches. I live in a dorm, and my common room didn't get a couch. Where's my couch? I want a couch. I don't know of anyone else that got one except you, meaning you are blowing that incident way out of proportion. Can you give any legitimate (and large) examples of Berkeley's money wasting?</p>

55

<p>Do you want large examples of Berkeley's money wasting?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/11/10_stadiumrelease.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/11/10_stadiumrelease.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Although athletes do bring money into Berkeley, but c'mon...</p>

56

<p>Hm. I guess it's a matter of opinion. When I saw that project announced, I was quite happy because that corner of the campus looks like crap. I think the new buildings will serve their function well. </p>

<p>Did you know they're also going to demolish Evans and Moffitt, and build other things in their place? I bet that makes you extra giddy :) </p>

<p>By the way, have you seen the Starr library lately? It's coming along quite well. And the new science building looks awesome.</p>

<p>Oh yeah, and I've heard rumors about a Main Stacks II underneath Kroeber/Boalt . =)</p>

57

<p>Well Evans is pretty damn ugly, and I don't understand why they crammed Stats, Math,Physics, and Econ into it, but Moffitt? Is it because it's not safe in case of an earthquake? I heard it was built on a fault.</p>

<p>Regarding the others, didn't hear about them...</p>

58

<p>Moffitt is going because it's ugly. The Starr library is the up-and-coming building next to Haviland to the north of Moffitt. It's going to house economically unprofitable Asian Studies books and artifacts. Stanley Hall, next to Pimentel, is almost done and should house most of the Evans department until the new Evans gets built. Main Stacks storage space will run out by the end of this year and Main Stacks II will have to be built underneath Kroeber and Boalt-but I wouldn't count on it in any time soon.</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
Before I reply to your criticisms, why do you ignore the comments which directly counter yours?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, and have you rebutted every single comment that has countered yours? I didn't realize this was an exegesis where the goal is to deconstruct every single point that has been presented. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So, how can you prove to me that the majority of Berkeley undergrads (let's just stick with Berkeley since you keep shifting back and forth between Berkeley and colleges in general) want personal attention?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can't 'prove' it to you. And you can't 'prove' the opposite to me. That's exactly my point. I believe one thing, you believe another. In particular, I believe that most Berkeley students would choose to have personal attention if the option was made available to them. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Perhaps I need to modify my language a bit. What I meant was that, generally, Berkeley is not dealing with undergrads who are the elite of the elite of the elite.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And yet the Berkeley Haas MBA students are not exactly the elite of the elite of the elite. There is a better business school about 40 miles to the south. Yet, again, Haas insists on providing a highly personal education to its MBA students anyway. </p>

<p>
[quote]
However, many professors at Berkeley, especially in the social sciences and humanities, are quite conscious of the fact that most Berkeley undergrads, unlike their HYP counterparts, come from low to upper middle class backgrounds. They therefore feel like they have been given the task of getting these students up to the level of HYP students and are consequently quite friendly and engaging.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's an interesting take. By that logic, you would then assume that the profs at a Cal State would be even more friendly and engaging than the Berkeley profs. After all, the student body at CalStates tends to be less wealthy than the Berkeley student body. </p>

<p>And besides, I don't see where this logic is going. After all, if Berkeley profs see it as their goal to bring low and middle class Berkeley students up to snuff, then that begs the very simple and killer question - why do so many Berkeley profs insist on weeding those undergrads so much? There are plenty of courses at Berkeley where a significant fraction of the class will not pass, by design. Plenty of Berkeley students report bitter experiences in the weeders in engineering and the natural sciences. and plenty of students have been expelled because of these weeders. </p>

<p>To give you an example. I know one guy who came into Berkeley EECS as a Chancellor's Scholar - and promptly flunked out. Not just out of EECS, but out of Berkeley completely. Basically, he got crushed by the EECS weeders. He rues the day that he ever decided to come to Berkeley, saying that he would have been far far better off if he had gone to Davis or a CalState. It's better to be a graduate from San Jose State than to flunk out of Berkeley. </p>

<p>So how does the presence of these killer weeders jive with the notion that Berkeley profs are all friendly and engaging? Are you saying that it's OK to toss you out of Berkeley as long as they do it with an emollient smile? </p>

<p>
[quote]
You are out of your mind. That would mean exponentionally increased fees. DO YOU KNOW HOW HOSTILE THE STUDENT BODY, in general, IS TO INCREASING FEES?!?!?!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who ever said anything about increasing fees? I just asked the simple question of whether they want a more personal experience or not. That's a simple yes or no question.</p>

<p>As a case in point, again, let's look at Haas. Specifically, let's look at Haas undergrads this time. Haas undergrads also get a significantly more personal experience, on average, than other Berkeley undergrads (again, on average). But you don't pay any extra 'fees' to get your bachelor's from Haas than you do to get your bachelor's from any other department at Berkeley. So you have to wonder why is it that the Haas kids get to have a more personal experience than the non-Haas kids, while paying nothing extra. I would also assert that few Haas kids want their Haas experience to be 'less personal'. </p>

<p>The point is, I believe Berkeley can offer a more personal experience to more undergrads without necessarily raising fees. Haas manages to do it. So why can't other departments? It may involve raising money from other sources (i.e. the alumni) but it doesn't have to come from the students. Why do you assume that greater personal contact necessarily means raised student fees?</p>

60

<p>Break - I just wanna say that this is why I LOVE Berkeley. Instead of people just throwing insults at each other and getting ****ed off for no reason, our people actually try to construct intelligent arguments and make themselves presentable. Debate is a good thing - the whole point of debate is education.</p>