Berkeley's shortcomings

[sakky]

<p>

2. The education I received was first-rate, and was of a higher quality than the one i’m currently receiving as a masters student at Stanford. I credit my Berkeley science education with allowing me to score 99th percentile on the MCAT, and with getting me into one of my top choice medical schools (so far).

</p>

<p>I’m glad you did well at Berkeley. The fact that you got into Stanford for grad school proves that you did do well. Good for you.</p>

<p>However, I’ve never much worried about those students who do well. I have always said that those Berkeley students who are at the top will do very well. My question has always been, what about those who don’t do well? Trust me, I know a LOT of Berkeley students who don’t do well. What about them? </p>

<p>

3. Whether I am walking in the Stanford campus, driving on the freeways in California, or interviewing at top medical schools, I am surrounded by successful Berkeley alums. Get the hint: We tend to do well and there are a lot of us. In one 10-day stretch at Stanford, I had FOUR former Berkeley UNDERGRADS give guest lectures in my classes…including recent Nobel Prize winner Andrew Fire (BA '78). Berkeley will provide you with all the tools to be successful in whatever you pursue. At Berkeley, your aptitude will fall far short of opportunity (ie, your aptitude is the limiting factor)…that’s guaranteed.

</p>

<p>Uh, considering that there are 23,000 undergrads at Berkeley, I would find it very odd indeed if you ** didn’t * run into any former undergrads. Frankly, given the sheer numbers of Berkeley undergrads, they should be absolutely dominating the ranks of power in the Bay Area. But they are not. </p>

<p>

6. For those of you who have these crazy fantasies of turning Berkeley into an elitist institution, you don’t understand the point of having public universities to begin with. The UCs try to provide the best possible education for the cheapest price to the GREATEST NUMBER of students…that is their goal. .

</p>

<p>As has been said before, the UC ** graduate * programs aren’t trying to provide the best possible education for the cheapest price to the greatest number of students. Take the Haas full-time MBA program. For a top-ranked program, it is an absolutely tiny program. Harvard Business School has literally about 3 times the number of full-time MBA students that Haas does. Why is that? Or take the Boalt Law School. Again, Harvard Law School absolutely dwarfs Boalt in size. </p>

<p>Take any of the other Berkeley graduate programs, and you will quickly note that none of them are particularly large, relative to competing programs. There isn’t exactly a giant horde of EECS graduate students at Berkeley, relative to the number at Stanford or MIT. There isn’t a huge horde of Berkeley English graduate students, relative to that at Harvard or Yale. </p>

<p>So that begs the question, why is it OK for the Berkeley undergraduate program to try to cram in the greatest number of students, but not OK for the graduate programs? Are you saying that the graduate programs are wrong? </p>

<p>

6. For those of you who have these crazy fantasies of turning Berkeley into an elitist institution, you don’t understand the point of having public universities to begin with. The UCs try to provide the best possible education for the cheapest price to the GREATEST NUMBER of students…that is their goal. The UCs don’t even try to inflate their students’ SAT scores by adding together the highest individual subscores to get a composite like private schools + University of Virginia do. If you are looking for an elitist affiliation so you can impress some idiots who find value in a certain worthless concept known as “prestige”, please, please, DO NOT enroll at Berkeley. Shoot for Yale like Bush, Kerry, and other such clowns did.

</p>

<p>By that same token, the vast numbers of Berkeley undergrads who are there solely for the prestige are also a bunch of ‘clowns’. Let’s face it. There are plenty of undergrads who are at Berkeley only because it was the most prestigious school that they got into. You’ve seen it, and I’ve seen it. I’ve seen plenty of people whose sole college application strategy was to apply to all of the UC’s, and some top privatesand then just go to the most prestigious one that they got into it. If they can’t get into any of the top privates, but got into Berkeley, they go there. If they can’t do that, but get into UCLA, they’ll go there. If not that, then UCSD, etc. etc. Are these guys also a bunch of ‘clowns’.</p>

<p>The truth is, Berkeley attracts plenty of people because of its prestige. But if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Just because plenty of people will turn down UCDavis for Berkeley for the prestige, plenty of people will turn down Berkeley for Stanford, again, for the prestige. </p>

<p>Besides, prestige is hardly ‘worthless’. Michael Spence won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for his work on college job-market signalling which basically states that prestige carries currency in the job markets because it signals to employers that you were, at the very least, good enough to get admitted to a top college. That’s extremely valuable, something without which many labor markets would fail. I would hardly call a man’s work that won a Nobel Prize ‘worthless’. </p>

<p>

If you are a California resident that gets into an “elite” private school (w/o scholarships) and Berkeley, I strongly urge you to go to Berkeley.

</p>

<p>And what if you’re not a California resident? 89% of the country does not live in California.</p>

<p>Or, what if you’re from California, but you’re poor? I know 2 people from California who got into both Berkeley and Harvard, and found out that Harvard was actually going to be * cheaper * once financial aid was factored in. I will always remember one of them acidly joking that he had always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he couldn’t afford it, so he had “no choice” but to go to Harvard. </p>

<p>Or what if you’re Californian, but you’re rich - rich enough that you don’t care about the difference in cost between a private school and a state school? Again, I think you would therefore be indifferent.</p>

<p>So what are we left with? Just the California middle class. But that represents only a tiny tiny fraction of the total population of the United States. </p>

<p>

Think again. But if you’re more interested in buying an affiliation rather than an education, please, by all means, go to an elite private school. You deserve to have to pay a ridiculous tuition for being so naive

</p>

<p>See above. Let me ask you again - how do you justify Berkeley over HYPSM to somebody coming from New York? Or Texas? Or Florida? Or Pennsylvania? Can you justify it?</p>