<p>Why is Berkeley ranked so high? I think we ought to ask a Historian specializing in UC or UC-Berkeley history (there's gotta be someone who studies the topic). There must've been some point in time when good scholars, lots of research money, and good students started pouring into California and Berkeley.</p>
<p>Oh boy, another iteration of Liberal Censors...this time it's "Polite Antagonis."</p>
<p>You gotta quit getting banned, man, it's too hard to keep up with your new names. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Berkeley was ranked high because California use to be the best-run state in the Union (<em>cough</em> republican *cough).</p>
<p>A little over a generation ago, Berkeley was up there with Harvard and Yale in terms of undergraduate as well as graduate. </p>
<p>Many things have changed. There has been a huge influx of immigration from groups that are very difficult to integrate into American culture and society because they are numerous enough to form insulated ghettos. I'm not just talking about Mexicans; I'm also talking about the Vietnamese, Chinese, and most other minority groups. Much of the immigration has also been low-class and illegal adding to California's woes. </p>
<p>Combine that with the rent-seeking politics of the unions who run the California democratic party, runaway populist sentiments more akin to France than America, and a government organized so badly that local governments have to spend millions each year just to lobby to the state government; its not hard to see why much of the public infrastructure of California has gone by the wayside.</p>
<p>AHA! </p>
<p>So you are anti-minority. The truth comes out. </p>
<p>But like almost all Republicans, you only pointed out the half-truth. You claim that education in California has been watered down mainly because of immigration. I say different! This is both the main result of immigration AND poor WHITES flocking to college after WWII and Vietnam. </p>
<p>I can see why you're so unhappy with Berkeley-because the campus and city, in general, do not tolerate racism. </p>
<p>God Bless France</p>
<p>LoL, you've practiced blinding yourself quite well.</p>
<p>Um, no. </p>
<p>I'll state it again. I am a Republican. However that does not mean that I am a racist, in spite of the fact that most members of the party are.</p>
<p>All the hard-working Asian immigrants to California have improved its economy too...just look at Silicon Valley. Thousands of companies there were founded by East/South Asian immigrants. Companies like Yahoo and Google give California a good name, and I bet the educational sector has benefited from the high tech industry in CA as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can prove it to you. I've asked you twice now to defend the freshman sophomore seminars which you claim to be overflowing but in reality are now and have always been half-full in many departments. I will get the detailed figures soon. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, I do believe this. Why do I? Well, because before I came to Berkeley as a freshman I took 4 classes at CSULongBeach. My professors were great. They were nice. They were smart. And they had office hours. To nobody's surprise, I visited them quite often and found no other students. One of the profs even told me that he has one collegue who has never even talked to a student in office hours in over 20 years. Not because that profs doesn't want to, but because the students don't seek him out. In other words, they, the students, do not want personal attention from this great professor who teaches a great, popular, non-weeder, liberal arts, 500 person lecture each semester. (Moreover, I wouldn't really say individual CalStates serve mostly low income students. In fact, CSULB, is quite the upper-middle class school.) </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How many times must I point out that most professors at Cal do not teach weeders, and consequently can't be classified along with the minority that does? Many many times. I know you've read that explanation, but you don't seem to acknowledge it. Once again, you are guilty of math/science/engineering centerdness. And even then, many continuing students in those subject areas go into a new lecture each semester and think that one will be just as horrrible as the previous one in the series, without so much as meeting the professor. In other words, IF STUDENTS WALK INTO A LECTURE AND FULLY EXPECT THE PROFESSOR TO BE A HORRIBLE TEACHER (like so many others,) THE STUDENTS WILL NOT PROFIT FROM THE PROFESSOR, NO MATTER HOW GOOD S/HE IS. Even if the professor is good, students in that mindset will assume s/he is new and will soon turn evil like all the others. This, in my opinion, is what a lot of students in those subject areas think. And it has been proven to me, by my former roommate, that the professors in those subject areas cannot be classified as monsters by default. Of course, sakky ignored that in his reply. Just like I will ignore his comment on the Regents Scholar. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is so wrong. I know you are at least a former Cal student. Since that is so, I am guessing you are familiar at least to some degree as to how the student body votes. They have giantic referendums in which the implications of the yes/no vote are universally advertised. Increased personal attention would mean increased fees. Cal students would know that the second they heard the proposal. So, even if some of them did want to vote yes as a sign that they want increased personal attention, most would not, as shown by the discretited notion that freshman/sophomore seminars are overflowing. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's painfully simple. First, Haas has a culture. The other departments don't. Or at least not an organized culture. A small program like Haas needs a culture of its own which fosters close interaction between faculty and students. How do you get this culture? Competitive admissions (Harvard Nation, Yale Nation, Princeton Nation, etc.) I anticipate you will point out that EECS has a culture and arguably little personal attention. Yes, I agree. EECS has a culture. But I would say it is more of a student culture than a student-faculty culture. Why? Well, unlike Haas students, it's very difficult for EECS students to talk to their professors on a more personal level since Haas teaches students to deal with people whereas EECS teaches students to deal with....I'll just say it. Things. Haas deals with people. EECS deals with things. </p>
<p>Upon reading that ^ maybe you'll point out that the undergrad psych major is also competitive and it deals with people and thus should have a more personal atmosphere. But those students do not want the personal attention. I'm sorry to say it, but the vast majority of psych students do not care about intellectual stimulation as fostered by a personal relationship with faculty. This is more about the students than it is about the faculty. </p>
<p>Second, Haas deals with a very small number of academically successful students. Most of the other departments (that hold the majority of the undergrads) have to deal with thousands of kids who have no clue what they're doing at Berkeley. If Polite Antagonis had his way, these students would be kicked out. Thanks to European socialist ideals which are enjoying growing popularity in America, that will never. </p>
<p>God Bless France</p>
<p>Uh, Isn't Polite Antagonis/Liberal Censor Asian?</p>
<p>I too think s/he is. </p>
<p>It's perfectly possible for people to be racist agains their own race, though.</p>
<p>I think he is too. Polite Antagonis...what do your parents do? Are they intellectual immigrants or the "scummy" ones you were referring to?</p>
<p>I just don't get why he'd come to Berkeley if he is indeed racist. It's probably one of the most non-Caucasian campuses in America.</p>
<p>LoL, did I ever say anythign that was racist? No. Racist would be generalizing a trait to a whole group of people that is untrue. Its just the stupid Politically-correct filter that affects most people's and apparently greatestyen's thoughts that seriously undermine rational and thorough discussion of today's issues.</p>
<p>All I said was that too much immigration strains social services. They also live together and form communities of their own that are often quite racist. You can see the underlying tensions come out in prison where the races segregate completely. Somehow, pointing that out is racist but the people who live in these exclusionary communities by choice do not.</p>
<p>I seriously doubt you are a republican greatest; because you would know most Republicans are not racist. Some are probably, but probably no more than they are on the democrats side. For example most inner city african americans are racist against koreans, white people, etc.</p>
<p>Anyways, I don't want to denigrate this thread into a discussion about racism (which is always a red herring), and always used hypocritically or idiotically (as greatestyen has proven), but the point remains that too much immigration strains social services and minority ghettos make it hard to deal with many problems. Some cultures do not place the same value on education as American culture and there is no way for government programs of any sort to really change that. If your parents don't tell you do your homework, that increase the likilhood of you dropping out. If your parents don't teach you the value of civic service, you are less likely to vote as the asian community is prone to do.</p>
<p>As usual, discussing issues with most Californians is quite difficult; they've so blinded themselves with political-correct doublespeak. Its little wonder why California governance continues to be so bad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
LoL, did I ever say anythign that was racist? No. Racist would be generalizing a trait to a whole group of people that is untrue. Its just the stupid Politically-correct filter that affects most people's and apparently greatestyen's thoughts that seriously undermine rational and thorough discussion of today's issues.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Couldn 't be more false. What you did was first state that you thought "certain" students did not belong at Berkeley and should instead be forced to go to trade schools. You then clarified that these "certain" students are minority students. In other words, you want to have the authority to force minority students out of Berkeley and into trade schools. If this isn't racism, I don't know what is. In fact, you didn't even comment on my comment that education was watered down starting when whites enrolled in large numbers. This was before minority students enrolled in large numbers. A double, racist, standard is at work here.</p>
<p>Good book, highly recommended: </p>
<p>I never said anything of the sort. I said that we should have more trade schools and imitate the german system more. SOme people just want to make money and trade schools are an effective way of retraining workers and offering a fast career track to a good job. In no way is that racist. Some people are just not as capable at school and learning as others and shoudl be given more options than just college.</p>
<p>I never said that these certain students were "minority" students. Ever. I ignored the rest of your argument because you stooped down so low as to call me racist. Maybe its true that the college expereience was more watered down when whites and if thats a clarification then that's fine.</p>
<p>I suggest this for you to read, you obviously need it: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1931020299/sr=8-1/qid=1142889048/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7852260-4980142?%5Fencoding=UTF8%5B/url%5D">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1931020299/sr=8-1/qid=1142889048/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7852260-4980142?%5Fencoding=UTF8</a></p>
<p>I finally got around to your response:</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<p>"Yet, only 8.9% of Americans have graduate or professional degrees." </p>
<p>This is a GENERAL finding. Berkeley's proportion is probably higher since it is an elite school seen as a top feeder for many graduate and professional schools.</p>
<p>8.9% out of 42% is about 20% of college students in general going on to get some form of post-doc. At a place at Berkeley I wouldn't be surprised if it was in excess of 40%. That's still a lot of people who need professor interaction to make it.</p>
<p>"You limit merit by cutting it out of the picture. Just who is to decide if people really want or "should" be in college? What criteria would you use? How could you avoid racism, sexism, ableism, and all the other isms? Or would you not? Maybe what you secretly want is to limit the number of minority and women students? Obviously they are, as a group, the less qualified-the ones fit for trade schools under your Stalinist system. I'm calling it Stalinist because it is Stalinist. If I could I would call it Hitlerist, but it's not Hitlerist. Hitler was against all non-military or home economics educaton."</p>
<p>Obviously, we should filter out students the way we do now. Not everyone that applies to Berkely gets in. Just make the academic standards higher. Simple.</p>
<p>"I explicitly said the INTELLECTUAL elite-meaning university professors, writers, and top private researchers."</p>
<p>Thats who I mean to, but also including our legislators who obviously have to make tough calls.</p>
<p>"You are really quite something. Stop putting words I never say into my mouth. I am far from a politically corrent loudmouth. I'm actually quite conservative on most issues. But aside from my personal politics, it is you who blind yourself from the fact that most Americans love the idea of going to college. They do not go there without wanting to, they go there exactly because they've joined the bandwagon that says college is something which, if at all possible, should be done-even if you're not smart enough. People still try. It's the American way."</p>
<p>They should definitely try, I say give them more venues for trying and more flexibility to the economy. And you can definitely see that the bottom percentile of berkeley students have a lot of problems; maybe they would be better suited somewhere else. If they want to come back the university could always administer a university-specific test for admissions like they use to in the old days.</p>
<p>"Uh, no. If you knew your Soviet history, you would have realized that I evoked Stalin because of the stringent educational decrees passed before and during his rule which accomplished exactly what you are proposing---state imposed decisions on people's educational destiny without so much as a consultation. You brought out the gulags and genocide all on your very own."</p>
<p>Please, Stalin was obviously corrupt and was trying to help his brown-nosers. There are ways you can provide second and third opportunties into the system (the administered test as I pointed to above). I just think too much of an emphasis is built on people getting a college education and lots of people get it without thinking about it, and don't get much out of it because standards keep getting lowered.</p>
<p>We should always offer more opportunities but not at the expense of high standards.</p>
<p>
[quote]
german
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
SOme
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
shoudl
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
expereience
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's you that needs "Hooked on Phonics."</p>
<p>By the way, notice that it's not just me who think you're racist.</p>
<p>~Just to say something about the Freshman/Sophomore Seminars being "overfilled" </p>
<p>I have taken several seminars in the past 2 semesters. They have all been very diverse in subject and incredibly enjoyable. I have yet to have one be completely full the first two weeks of class. </p>
<p>My one seminar that actually is at the limit of enrollment was finally filled the 3rd week of class by people that showed up that week for the first time. Obv, it wasn't so impacted if the prof. added them that late.</p>
<p>I'm in a research seminar currently which had a limit of 15...there are only 5 people in it! </p>
<p>I would say that, yes, if you look on Telebears for a seminar it appears that they are all full and extremely popular. But for some reason the actual enrollment does not quite match up. I've had such an amazing time with them that I don't understand why more people don't take advantage of them, except for the hassle of Telebears. </p>
<p>The following article explains the program aims a bit:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would say that, yes, if you look on Telebears for a seminar it appears that they are all full and extremely popular. But for some reason the actual enrollment does not quite match up. I've had such an amazing time with them that I don't understand why more people don't take advantage of them, except for the hassle of Telebears.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or a simple lack of interest, as I think. Thanks for the link.</p>
<p>I don't have time to spend the precious extra secondss to be more careful with my posts to prove my point to a bigoted close-minded person like you. The meaning is there for anyone who really knows how to read.</p>
<p>As is mine.</p>
<p>Then stop making dumb***, unfounded accusations of racism jerk.</p>