I turned down Harvard, Princeton and Stanford for Berkeley's Physics programme

eudean
Sun, 02 Jul 2006 05:02:30 +0000

Uh, isn’t that the very definition of not giving people what they want? If I choose Mary Ann over Ginger, isn’t that probably because Ginger isn’t who I really want?



I’m speaking in terms of educational experience. Of course, generally speaking, it is always true people make choose that which they desire most. However, we’re not talking about the best college to attend in factors such as prestige, location, demographics, or what not. We’re talking about educational quality. Just like you could choose Mary-Ann for having a crapload of money, that would not indicate that Mary-Ann would give you what you want from a “good wife” perspective (in the general sense–not the “good wife = lots of money” perspective).



If it is somehow invalid for people to choose HYPSM over Berkeley just for the prestige, then it is equally invalid for people to choose Berkeley over, say, UCLA just for the prestige.



Oh, I completely agree. People that choose Berkeley over UCLA for prestige are ■■■■■■■■. Those that choose Berkeley over UCLA because Berkeley is stronger in their desired field make the right choice. I never said that people should choose Berkeley over all else. Also, I never said prestige bears no correlation to educational quality. It is certainly true that many prestigious schools offer great educations. That doesn’t mean that I should choose Harvard over Berkeley without thinking about what I’m getting at both schools first.



To give you a poignant example, it’s sad when a person just feels like talking about philosophy or political science or economics or mathematics or some other subject at a high level over dinner in the dining commons, and nobody around him is enough of an intellectual equal to match him. It’s far better if that person has, at the same table, somebody who can match him measure-for-measure. THAT’S when you really learn something.



You talk like it’s hard to find such a conversation at Berkeley. You’ve got a lot of very smart people to choose from here, and can go at it whenever you want. If you intend to sit randomly at a table in the dining commons and start a philosophical debate, people will probably leave you to eat by yourself because, like most human beings, some people just want to eat with their buddies.

If your friend was truly too intelligent for all of the undergraduates at Berkeley, and fraternizing with MIT graduate students was easier, then good for him. I don’t know if graduates and undergraduates live together at MIT, or if MIT graduate students don’t go out to bars, so I can’t really comment on MIT. I know a lot of Berkeley graduate students that are quite social with undergrads, and every class will have multiple GSIs with multiple discussions and office hours for you to talk to them in. You can become their friends if you really want, and hang out and talk about whatever you want.



I’ll give you a sports analogy. If Michael Jordan had practiced and played only against middling-quality players, he would not be the greatest player in history. In order for him to achieve his potential, he had to practice and play against the best players in the world.



You’ve already stated that the top at Berkeley are equivalent to the top elsewhere. I think the fallacy here is obvious.



If Berkeley decides it wants to compete in a different segment, they can do it too. Now, obviously Berkeley can decide not to compete in that segment. If that’s the decision that Berkeley makes, then fair enough.



You stated this earlier. That’s what my non-sequitor was about. Berkeley DOES compete in that segment. That segment is HYPSM and the students they produce. Those are their products, the results of the education at those schools. You snag our top-of-the-line models, and we’ve got the same stuff going on. And just as many of them.



Usually companies do not do two different things really well. Besides, like I said, exceptional students often times prefer to study at another school.



These aren’t two different things. It’s different levels of the same thing. There aren’t two “Berkeleys”, you can’t get two different educations by coming here in one way versus another. We have a gradient of qualifications in students. We put them through the same machine and get a result. Some will be sub-par, some will be exceptional. Those that are exceptional will not suddenly become un-exceptional because of a sub-par student. If that were the case, then that student was not, in fact, exceptional (unless s/he was maimed/killed by the un-exceptional student, which is a rare case).



As you may have gathered, I disagree with this, for many reasons. There are a lot of hassles that Berkeley makes its undergrads undergo that those other schools do not. To give you one example, those other schools allow you to freely choose whatever major you want, and then change at any time. Not Berkeley, with its impacted majors and college-transfer policies.



If it’s true that at any time you can change your major at HYPSM, then that’s great. Giving students power is good sometimes. I have personally never seen or heard of a student that wanted to go into some major but was unable to at Berkeley. That obviously doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but it isn’t a common occurrence. The fact of the matter is that if you can decide on a major within your first two years here, you should have no problem getting that degree in 4 years. If you can’t, you’ll be in trouble. I would imagine it rare that an exceptional student wouldn’t know his/her primary field of study after 2 years of college, don’t you?

I think this’ll be my last post in this thread. We’re running around in circles now. I’ll just summarize the point of this whole thing so maybe it will be enough to give us some definite point where we just say “okay, we disagree, let’s move on”:

Berkeley, due to its acceptance of poorer quality students than HYPSM, hinders (to some non-negligible degree) students from obtaining as good an education at HYPSM. I feel that simply because we have many students equal to HYPSM students at Berkeley demonstrates that such students have just as good (minus the negligible degree) a chance at succeeding here as at HYPSM. The argument that peers significantly affect educational quality is somewhat valid, but also flawed. If deemed valid, then we have a set of students that match HYPSM students for peer quality, and since forming friends is, IMO, a non-random process, it is no problem to find such a set of peers at Cal. Issues with Berkeley’s red tape are overexaggerated and do not significantly affect education there.

Okay, I’m done.