<p>
[quote]
My guess is, maybe they're not smart enough to get into Berkeley so they resort to bashing spree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sure you'd put me and sakky both into that category, yet I'm pretty sure both of us could've done quite well at Cal. In fact, if you'd like, I think I still have my acceptance packet back in LA. I can scan up the letter for you. ;)</p>
<p>"This led to some posts in the past that overpraised Berkeley which created this backlash of posters (shiboing boing, xiggi) who want to point out the negatives of Berkeley too, to "balance" some of the overly positive posts, but honestly I think they go too far and it leaves a bad taste in the reader's mouth."</p>
<p>This is really, really funny. How many posts does it take to become part of a backlash? .05% or .1% or 1% of one's total posts? </p>
<p>I have been on CC for years, with several thousands posts on both the old and new forums, and hardly EVER mentioned Berkeley, except in statistics. Yet, it takes a few seconds for this Berkeley crowd to brand their new "archenemy" with a hot iron. Proof: run a search for my posts using Xiggi on the College Search Forum for the word Berkeley. Result: 16 posts, including almost all of them in that stupid other thread about Berkeley being better than Rice. So much for the theory of "posters" who have gone too far in wanting to point out the negatives of Berkeley." </p>
<p>Oh, but that does not stop the "good guys" -including people who admit having been here for a few weeks from drawing far reaching conclusions about posting patterns, and others from blasting "LAC-ish schools" noboby has ever heard from, calling the so called-bashers clueless, or accusing them of ruminating a rejection from Berkeley, and this while basking in the glory of the uber-intelligence only shared by liberals. </p>
<p>As I said in this post, every post--even when absolutely factual--that happens to have a negative overtone is guaranteed to recreate a West Coast version of the Wailing Wall. </p>
<p>The reactions in this thread just confirmed my earlier point with great clarity, with the gem posted by Vic, "So why did you only attack Berkeley?" taking the cake. Wonder why it becomes so tiresome after a a few years?</p>
<p>people only have negative things to say about berkeley when people who go there like to pretend like it's better than it is, nobody actually thinks berkeley is a bad school, but many people on these boards like to compare it with the likes of schools it is just simply not equal to, and that is where the animosity come from, the people who do this are at times fanatical and stubborn.</p>
<p>this is the epitome of what i'm talking about, posted by sansai in another thread:</p>
<p>"The general prestige of Berkeley anywhere in Asia is about the same as Harvard's, and that means it's even in a small bit more popular and more prestigious than Stanford and MIT both by the ordinary guys walking in the streets and by the intellectural elite circles (HRDs of top corporation, University Professors, etc.)."</p>
<p>now, see, no one thinks berkeley is a bad school, but when you start doing stuff like putting it's undergrad reputation on par with Harvard's, and then asserting that it is better to go to berkeley for undergrad than to Stanford or MIT, you are going to run into people who are going to resist you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is really, really funny. How many posts does it take to become part of a backlash? .05% or .1% or 1% of one's total posts?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How many posts? One. You made at least one post bashing Berkeley, at least partly due to the fact that other posters have over-praised Berkeley, so you are part of the backlash. Did I say that a majority, or even a sizable portion of your posts have been about Berkeley? No I did not. Does it matter whether you posted a million posts about other things? Does that make your 16 posts about Berkeley any less valid? No it does not.</p>
<p>I certainly could have mentioned other people who also behave this way, and posts like this in a higher percentage, but the two I listed were just the first to come to mind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As I said in this post, every post--even when absolutely factual--that happens to have a negative overtone is guaranteed to recreate a West Coast version of the Wailing Wall.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have to disagree. sakky posted many negative things about Berkeley in the past, and I have to agree with most of them. It's when you become overly-negative and misrepresent reality by posting things like "almost impossible to graduate in 4 years" that I have a problem.</p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that every time I see something good posted about Berkeley, there are almost always people trying to decry it. For example, you protested to positive responses of Berkeley in this thread and another thread about Berkeley vs. Rice. So how are you any better than the "West Coast version of the Wailing Wall" who protest about your negative responses?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reactions in this thread just confirmed my earlier point with great clarity, with the gem posted by Vic, "So why did you only attack Berkeley?" taking the cake.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it was quite obvious that I was referring only to this thread. The fact that you may have posted criticisms about other schools in the past is irrelevant to this thread's discussion. You have said before that you respond negatively to the over-praising of Berkeley by posters, yet on this thread there were no such over-praising, and you for some reason still felt like attacking Berkeley. If someone else had said that Berkeley is the greatest university in the world in this thread, and you respond by pointing out some flaws and your opinion that Berkeley is, in fact, not the greatest university in the world, then I would be fine with your post. However, you seemed to respond to something that just wasn't there, which makes me think that you harbor resentment from OTHER threads in which posters overrate Berkeley, and have carried them to this thread.</p>
<p>What I am questioning is your motives for bashing Berkeley on this thread. Either you were 1. misleading us in the other thread when you said "For the record, contrary to the popular belief in this thread, I do not make a habit of criticizing schools. I do, however, resent the fanatical zeal to put a few schools on a pedestal, and especially one theyr hardly deserve" and you have other reasons to critize Berkeley besides the fact that you resent the "fanatic zeal" which was nowhere to be found in this thread, or 2. you are inherently biased against Berkeley (for whatever reason, perhaps due to past experiences with these fanatic zealots), in which case your posts about Berkeley don't hold much credibility as they are biased.</p>
<p>
[quote]
people only have negative things to say about berkeley when people who go there like to pretend like it's better than it is, nobody actually thinks berkeley is a bad school, but many people on these boards like to compare it with the likes of schools it is just simply not equal to, and that is where the animosity come from, the people who do this are at times fanatical and stubborn.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except I haven't seen anyone compare Berkeley to another school that is better in this thread, so I'm not sure where xiggi's animosity comes from.</p>
<p>Hope the writers of these posts can remember their own posts !</p>
<p>
[quote]
So to me is seems like a case of self-selection. The people who don't like Berkeley are often times the ones who don't post at all, or only post for a short while and then leave CC. It is the 'superfans' who seem to keep posting about Berkeley over and over again.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I said it before, I'll say it again. Berkeley undergrad is better than the vast majority of all undergrad programs out there, and is arguably the best public undergrad program in the country. What more do you want? It's "not good" when compared to HYPSM, however.
[/quote]
[quote]
"I would suggest you befriend one of those 50% of people who tried to get into Haas, but was rejected. Or how about some of those people who tried to get into engineering, and were rejected. Surely you're not saying that these people don't exist?"
[/quote]
[quote]
It's true that it has quite a bit of prestige, but that's only in the public's perception. Among prospective students it's often seen as "second-rate" compared to the elite privates such as HYPSM ... while Berkeley tends to piggyback off of its history and its prestige rather than improving its school.
[/quote]
[quote]
No, I believe that the current top public Universities in America are not as good as the top private Universities in America. If Berkeley and UCLA can improve to the level of HYPSM (a big if), then many California students (i.e. the top ones) will not have to shell out 40,000 and travel 3,000 miles to get a better/more prestigious education.
[/quote]
[quote]
What bothers me with the Cal undergraduate situation isn't that it's a university wide gap between Cal and the top privates. It's just the undergrad.
[/quote]
[quote]
So you're saying that the opinions of 23,000 undergraduates at Berkeley and the 6,600 undergraduates at Harvard don't matter? Are they just stupid for preferring Harvard over Berkeley? The obvious reason seems to be that Harvard simply offers a better undergraduate education, so everyone wants to go there.
[/quote]
[quote]
"Since 1970, the portion of the state General Fund going to the University of California has fallen by half, from 7% to 3.5%. Over the first four years of the 2000s alone, UC's state funding fell by 15% while the University was accommodating a 19% increase in student enrollment."
[/quote]
[quote]
The reality is, if the UCs are going to take in more and more students, the situation will probably get worse, not better. The class sizes will probably get larger, not smaller.
[/quote]
[quote]
If Berkeley really were a better school, I don't think the name alone could convince tens of thousands of students otherwise. So while it counts for a lot, you must admit that part of the reason why most students prefer Harvard is simply because it's a better school (for undergraduates, at least).
[/quote]
[quote]
I think it's because there are simply better options, such as HYPSM. At the undergraduate level, Berkeley simply isn't as good. This is partly due to the fact that Berkeley is also trying to provide the best education possible to "as many Californians as possible." This results in stretched funds, larger classes, etc. But actually, I think there are many other reasons why Berkeley is lagging behind these other schools, mainly stemming from inefficient allocation of resources and administration. For example, people have to apply to their major, and often have trouble switching majors. Berkeley can and should do something about this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
*posted by: UCLAri *</p>
<p>I'm sure you'd put me and sakky both into that category, yet I'm pretty sure both of us could've done quite well at Cal. In fact, if you'd like, I think I still have my acceptance packet back in LA. I can scan up the letter for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Judging from your response, it looks like you're affirming that you are a UC Berkeley basher... </p>
<p>Lol...</p>
<p>"What I am questioning is your motives for bashing Berkeley on this thread."</p>
<p>And where was the BASHING, my friend? Again, you make my point about the hyper-touchy reactions we can expect from the die-hard fans. No wonder why reasonable posters avoid discussing the school like the pest. And before jumping on another tangent of delusional pscho-analysis babble or commenting on my "motives", DO check my posting history on this site.</p>
<p>here is another example; it's just so easy to find them, something posted by Dhl3, as well as the response from flopsy:</p>
<p>""Originally Posted by dhl3
Berkeley: Competition with Stanford</p>
<p>UCLA: Competition with USC"</p>
<p>"Ever notice how the UCB/Stanford "rivalry" is hardly acknowledged by Stanford? That's because Stanford's rivals are Harvard, Yale and Princeton (hence the "HYPS" moniker), especially when it comes to undergraduate education. Take a look at UCD and its newly-proclaimed football rivalry with UCB, which UCB doesn't acknowledge... Sounds familiar? That's because it's the shrewd practice of self-aggrandizement by proxy -- in both cases. Meanwhile, the UCLA/USC cross-town rivalry is a nationally-recognized tradition that actually elicits equal participation from both schools. One might also consider the geographic proximity of UCLA and USC, compared to the proximity of UCB and Stanford. The levels of competition just aren't the same.""</p>
<p>maybe if people would stop comparing/putting berkeley ahead of harvard, mit, and stanford, there wouldn't be other people coming here disputing that.</p>
<p>I do remember my posts. I stand by all of them. So what's was the point of digging up my past posts? I never said Berkeley undergrad is on the same level as HYPSM. It's not. HYPSM is, overall, better than Berkeley on the undergraduate level. I think that's a fair statement to make, and I don't think I've posted differently on these boards.</p>
<p>I've never said Berkeley doesn't have its problems. It has quite a few actually, especially at the undergrad level. For example: capped majors. Unresponsiveness of the administration. The four-year graduation rate that really should be higher than it is right now.</p>
<p>But I also try to be FAIR and put things into perspective: capped majors negatively affect a small minority of the undergrad population who usually find another major. Administration, again, is something that most students rarely encounters and isn't a widespread problem. The graduation rate, as it stands, isn't terrible, especially when considering how many people choose to stay longer. Would I like to see it be higher? Of course. But I'm not going to post something like "almost impossible to graduate in four years." That's a serious misrepresentation of reality.</p>
<p>My problem is, I don't think you are giving a fair representation of Berkeley in your posts. For example, in this thread, you posted an article about a large class with waitlists. So what is this supposed to show? That Berkeley is filled with large classes that people can't even get into? By posting isolated events like this and nothing else you give off the impression that this is representative of Berkeley at large when it is not. Actually, only 7% of Berkeley's classes are over 100 people.</p>
<p>Now, a student could stumble onto this and think that what you posted IS in fact representative of the university at large, and make a poor college decision based on that, and be miserable for four years. I certainly don't want that to happen, so I only ask that you be fair in your posts. Not overly positive, and not overly negative.</p>
<p>
[quote]
elsijfdl </p>
<p>now, see, no one thinks berkeley is a bad school, but when you start doing stuff like putting it's undergrad reputation on par with Harvard's, and then asserting that it is better to go to berkeley for undergrad than to Stanford or MIT, you are going to run into people who are going to resist you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha ha ha... your comments made me laugh...honestly... Ha Ha ha ha hahahaha....</p>
<p>What can we do if Berkeley is really prestigious in the place where I come from? Blame Berkeley's strong alumni in Asia then for incessantly spreading the news to their peers, etc.. that Berkeley is indeed an excellent school to go to and is a leader in science, engineering, tech and management education. Blame Berkeley for giving them a good life and for being very successful in their profession... Ha Ha hahahha...... you're very funny indeed.</p>
<p>I think it’s you who can’t accept the fact about Berkeley’s enormous prestige. In the Far East, we call that sour grapping…</p>
<p>
[quote]
And where was the BASHING, my friend?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh come on. You seem to be an intelligent person. Do you really want to debate over such trivial matters?</p>
<p>
[quote]
the school where it has become almost imposssible to graduate in four years, where the named professors are omnipresent but do not consider teaching undergraduate a great part of the job, where getting in the right classes is a constant ordeal, where housing is pathetically dismal, where the student body is hopelessly different from the rest of the country, where the imminent budget crush will be both unavoidable and hard felt.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If this isn't Berkeley bashing, I don't what is. Or the article you posted in this thread, which was an obvious attempt to attack Berkeley's class sizes (which, when you take a look at the big picture, aren't even that large) and difficulty in getting the classes one wants. You can ask the Berkeley students here like DRab if it's really hard to get the classes you want. Certainly from my experience with other Berkeley students it doesn't seem to be a big problem.</p>
<p>But really, you want to argue about whether or not you have been "bashing" Berkeley?</p>
<p>"I think its you who cant accept the fact about Berkeleys enormous prestige. In the Far East, we call that sour grapping "</p>
<p>Yep, and on this forum, we have a couple of neat names for people obsessed with prestige!</p>
<p>
[quote]
now, see, no one thinks berkeley is a bad school, but when you start doing stuff like putting it's undergrad reputation on par with Harvard's, and then asserting that it is better to go to berkeley for undergrad than to Stanford or MIT, you are going to run into people who are going to resist you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhh, who has asserted that it is better to go to Berkeley for undergrad than Stanford or MIT? Besides, if someone like sansai thinks it's better for HER to go to Berkeley for undergrad than Stanford, for her own personal reasons (whether that may be because she likes the environment better, or that she enjoys the prestige of Berkeley in Asia that is based largely on Berkeley's grad programs and research), then who is to say that she's wrong? It's an opinion.</p>
<p>Vic, your words were: ""What I am questioning is your motives for bashing Berkeley on this thread."</p>
<p>Again, you're making my point utterly clear.</p>
<p>And what would that point be?</p>
<p>
[quote]
<br>
posted by: elsijfdl </p>
<p>maybe if people would stop comparing/putting berkeley ahead of harvard, mit, and stanford, there wouldn't be other people coming here disputing that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For undergrad education... i think no one here is saying that Berkeley is ahead of Harvard. (wait, please don't make it appear as well that your Stanford is = to Harvard, because it's obviously not, ok!!) but there are courses which some people think is still best acquired from Berkeley than at Harvard, example are Chemistry and Physics. </p>
<p>Between UC Berkeley and Stanford in undergrad, they're about the same, in my opinion. But I prefer Berkeley because it has more of a “wow” factor in the place where I come from and its Physics program is next to none. Maybe you do have a different opinion but can you at least respect mine and those others who conflict from yours. Because no matter how you think our opinion is crocked... we also think yours is much more crocked to the point that ... whenever I read your comments... its slowly sinking in my mind that you are a foolish person. Meaning, you've surpassed to being called stubborn... sorry that I came to a point of being honest to you.</p>
<p>"And what would that point be?"</p>
<p>Check post 22 in THIS thread. Don't get confused again with another thread. And, by the way, it pays to actually read the posts.</p>
<p>I thought I already addressed that several times. It doesn't matter if you posted 3,000 posts about other things if you posted one biased post about Berkeley. That still makes you biased against Berkeley. What you posted in the past, about other matters, is irrelevant to this thread about this matter. If you are biased against Berkeley, it doesn't matter if you make one post about it or 1,000 posts about it. You are still biased against Berkeley.</p>
<p>Honestly I thought we went over this already. Maybe you should take your own advice and actually read the posts.</p>