In response to the many debates on ugrad quality

sakky · July 4, 2006, 1:53pm

See, there it is again, somebody attempting to impinge upon my right to free speech. I have the right to express my opinions without censorship. Whether anybody reads them or not is up to them, but I have the right to say what I want.

Personally, I think the best thing to do is for Berkeley to simply not admit the low-end students, and instead, replace them with strong students, i.e. the students that Berkeley currently loses to HYPSMC. I agree that the problem is not necessarily that Berkeley has lots of students, but rather that Berkeley has lots of not-so-good students. You can still be a large school, but also improve the average quality of your students.

CardinalFocused · July 4, 2006, 2:04pm

sakky, I admire your eloquence but do not necessarily agree with your argument. Just curious, what is your background? Are you a current/former UCB student?

unlimitedx · July 4, 2006, 2:12pm

Private message sakky and you will know… :)

CardinalFocused · July 4, 2006, 2:15pm

"Private message sakky and you will know… "

Lol, I knew sakky was powerful on CC. But i didn’t know he had diplomats as well. ahaha, jk…I’m going to do so right now.

DRab · July 4, 2006, 7:01pm

From the experiences of my friends, I think this in inaccurate. Regardless, it is a very broad generalization, vague (top private schools- which ones?), does not include other public schools (which constitute many schools in the nation and are meaningful when compared) and not very valuble.

sakky · July 5, 2006, 9:54pm

I’m talking about HYPSM, as, after all, those are the private schools that Berkeley is usually compared to.

Now, if you want to nominate a different set of private schools and say that Berkeley should be compared against them, then I am game. But that would simply be an admission that, on the undergraduate level, Berkeley does not match up well with schools like HYPSM.

And which ones among HYPSM would you say this characterization is inaccurate?

pooty_pooty · July 5, 2006, 11:45pm

-----------------Summation of the Big Points--------------

First of all, I would like to clarify that throughout these arguments, Berkeley is compared to the top ivy league schools. Therefore, every term used to describe it is relative. I believe we often times forget this even though people like Sakky do repeatedly tell us that it is one of the top, if not the top public school. (which it is even according to USNews)
What that means is this, if it is said that Berkeley has some not-so-smart students, or it has low selectivity, this doesn’t mean that in comparison to Florida State University or Austin College, it has lows selectivity, but simply that in comparison to HYMPS, it has low selectivity. Putting that into perspective shows us that Berkeley, although arguably a step down from the top elite privates, it still ranks amongst the best.

<ol>
<li>Berkeley’s peer group is not nearly as strong as the top schools. This means that lots of students slip through the cracks. (I think it is greatest assumption to believe that everyone on CC are the top students, and not the ones who who slipped through). This affects many things such as the quality of education because, as Sakky said, if everyone around is goofing off, you would want to good off as well. (One question I’d like clarified then is that I heard Berkeley is real cutthroat and competitive, and this just doesnt seem to fit the image of a bunch of kids having fun)</li>
<li>Berkeley’s faculty is the best in the world. Not to mention one of the largest library systems in the US. It is the 3rd largest University library after Harvard and Yale I believe. The professors are amazing, and if research is you r thing, then you will be in fine company. Yes, you must seek out the professors, but at least they are there to seek. </li>
<li>Berkeley’s advising is quite poor. Also its clubs and extracurriculars need some work as well. This makes for a kind of unwelcoming and harsh feel to the campus at first. Yes, when you make friends things should get better, but the school as a whole is not very conducive to the undergraduate student. </li>
<li>Berkeley’s toughness is intense. This causes many students to do quite badly, and GPA suffers. This is especially deterimental to premed and prelaw students who need exceptionally high GPAs simply to get into med school/law school. </li>
</ol>

All said and done however, this is assuming one major thing that I think we leave out.

That we actually get accepted to HYPS. You are right, if we get accepted to one of these top schools, it would be foolish not to choose it because of the above reasons. However, the truth of the matter is, most of us, at least I did not get into one of these top schools. And Berkeley is the best choice I have. See, at first I found Sakky’s comments very disheartening, but I started to realize two things.

Berkeley is always compared to the top, so what if it falls a little short from the summit, it still is a damn good school, with a damn good name and reputation.

<ol>
<li>I think this the best thing about Berkeley that gives me comfort. Berkeley has the resources, if you choose to take advantage of them. Berkeley does have great research(people say its hard to get research, but I’ve been doing it for 2 years in USC and UNT, I bet i can beat out the other kids. But again, if kids are so unmotivated, why is it hard to get reasearch? I know that some professors don’t want undergrads, but I have emailed many, and lots of them would be glad to take in a helping hand), and great professors to learn from, and many courses to take, and overall a quite high level of education. This means that although Berkeley may not spoon feed me, and although my peers may not be the brightest, I still have the power to choose what I do with my time at Berkeley. I can be very successful, the sky is the limit.
And that, is very good to know.</li>
</ol>

ucbhi · July 6, 2006, 12:21am

Oooh I’ll regret getting into this :p

I’d admit to that and I’m sure others would too. You guys have already pointed this out. On the undergraduate level, HYPS and a few others, by nature of having private systems, help their students in ways that Berkeley never will, offer more opportunities per student than Berkeley, and post higher grad school acceptance rates. And before you chime in, no it doesn’t have to be that way , but unless Berkeley is much worse than 50 other schools then I don’t think that it’s urgent enough to merit debate this intense.

What causes so much debate I think, is that when you guys compare Berkeley to HYPS, you make it sound as if Berkeley doesn’t belong anywhere near HYPS without mentioning that the ten or fifteen schools coming after HYPS probably don’t belong anywhere near HYPS either. If you looked at those schools compared to HYPS, then just about every school would have as many flaws as Berkeley. Compared to HYPS, they would all have horrible grad school acceptance rates, selectivity rates too high, and terrible faculty. Every school after HYPS+M is a safety school.

I think that the general view of Berkeley supporters (when they’re not in the heat of battle) is that although the UG program isn’t equal to HYPS, it’s probably closer to the outskirts of the top 10 than the top 20. When someone says, “Simple message: Don’t go to Berkeley.” that is not giving Berkeley the justice it deserves. I mean, if you think Berkeley’s UG program is so terrible that fifteen schools besides HYPS are better than it, then you’ll have to compare numbers between Berkeley and those schools, not HYPS. The comparisons to HYPS are getting tired; we already understand that HYPS looks amazing to employers and grad schools.

greatestyen · July 6, 2006, 12:36am

This is a half-truth. The reality:: advisors are there to help you and are more than willing to do so. If a certain student encounters “quite poor” advicing it is simply because that student either failed to come at a proper time (you shouldn’t be shocked when theres a gigantic line at the beginning and end of the semester) or failed to properly read the advicing websites which describe and advise you on anything the actual representative would be able to tell you.

This is a ridiculous conclusion. All top research universities are “hostile” to their undergraduate with the arguable exception of Princeton and MIT. Likewise, there’s bad clubs and stupid ECs filled resume whores at HYPSMC and every other top research university. These criticisms are simply not Berkeley-specific, sorry.

This is a total lie. The reality of the situation is that, regular prelaw majors (Poli Sci, History, other minor ones,) grading is quite straightforward and “easy.” If prelaws with a “typical” undergrad major fail to get into a top law school, it’s because they did not spend all of their free time preparing for the LSAT or sucking up to their insanely nice humanities professors at office hours.

Many posters on this forum complain that Berkeley is overrun by “stupid” students. However, if we were to statistically measure Berkeley undergraduate “stupidness” as defined by those posters, I think the figure would be about 8,000 students. That leaves about 12,000 who might be “interested in their education.” I speculate that about half of those would want to do research. If I’m correct, that would mean that Berkeley has abot 6,000 undergrad competing for…say 300 spots research spots each year. Not a pretty picture.

pooty_pooty · July 6, 2006, 12:43am

Hey greatestyen,

Obout my points, this is just the impression I got from the boards, and you have to understand that what I am saying IS RELATIVE, which means that I bet if you compared the advising to HYPS, it is not as strong. That is all I am trying to say

And the rest of your claims, they get away from the essence of what I am trying to say. So what if your right about prelaw. Thank you for clearing that up, but it does not discredit my points in general. By simply stating pointless intricacies, you do not counter my arguments.

And about the research university environment. You keep forgetting that I am comparing to HYPS. That is my basis. Which means that when I say it is hostile I AM NOT comparing it to other research institutions, but rather the best institutions in the world. If you prove the point that Berkeley is better than Rice (arguably, it is), you are still not getting to the heart of the argument. The basis of the argument lies in Berkeley’s stake at a globally top university, which means it MUST be compared to the top universities HYPS

And ucbhi, I agree with you completely

greatestyen · July 6, 2006, 1:48am

Well I certainly hope you continue to contribute with your own experiences in the future.

But this just isn’t entirely true and I am concerned about accuracy on this forum.

As far as undergraduate advising is concerned:

Harvard is notorious for bad advising. And when I say bad, I mean bad. I don’t just mean lots of Berkeley-style red tape, I mean bad. Why? Because, as both Harvard current and former undergraduates tell it, advisors frequently respond to questions by saying: “What do you think is the best choice?” And “As long as you get good recs, any grad or professional school will take you. You go to Harvard for crying out loud.” But in essense what they’re saying is “Get out of my sight, I have email to check.”

Now if you’re talking about Yale, Princeton, or Stanford, than that’s entirely different. Those institutions have phenomenal undergraduate advising programs. But not Harvard. NOT Harvard.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Take my advice and don’t ever bring this kind of pseudo-logic to a Berkeley classroom. You’ll pay for it and rightly so. I mean, what you’re essentially saying is that if you claimed that the verity of X and the verity of Y have equal roles in creating the verity of Z, and I prove that X is not veracious, you would still be right. That is simply not the case and I hope you realize that.

Hold on there, tiger. It is not accurate to glorify Yale and Princeton as among the “best institutions in the world.” But both universities are great as far as some humanities, some social sciences, some hard science, and some professional programs are concerned but they both have severe deficiencies when stacked up against the likes of Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley in countless areas. It is my personal opinion that Stanford is the overall best of these three.

ucbhi · July 6, 2006, 2:50am

Late edit: For clarification, anytime I said “you” in my post I was addressing critics in general, not anyone specifically :)

vicissitudes · July 6, 2006, 12:08pm

That is, if Berkeley can convince these students to come. I think that part of the problem IS that Berkeley has perhaps a bit too many students, and resources become strained. It would be pretty tough to get 23,000 HYPSM quality students, and even tougher to get them to all come to Berkeley. I think Berkeley would benefit from admitting slightly less students than it is doing now. I also think that while the number of students overall hurts Berkeley a little, it can still improve in other ways.

Actually, there’s a sakky fan club on CC. PM me to join.

To be fair, I don’t think we should depict Berkeley too negatively. The fact is that it’s okay, just not as good as some really good schools like HYPSM. Also, I think freshmen at any college feel uneasy at first. Although Berkeley may be slightly on the impersonal side, I’m not sure I’m convinced that it’s making its freshmen feel THAT much more unwelcome than at other schools.

Wait, although it’s not as a big of a problem as the previous poster implied, I also think there is a difference. The fact is many clubs at Berkeley aren’t very active at all, with only a few officers meeting occasionally. This does tend to be a problem/nuisance for some students.

I also think this needs to be put into perspective. The thing is Berkeley is only intense in some specific areas, such as engineering, pre-med, pre-hass, etc. I think the average GPA at Berkeley is probably around 3.2 now and probably above national average. I do agree that it’s tougher to get into a top law/med school from Berkeley than say, from HYPS, but I think the acceptance rates overall are still above national average.

Boy, do you two like to go into extremes. I don’t think it’s a TOTAL lie. When the average GPA at Berkeley is around a 3.2ish while the average GPA at HYPS is maybe 3.5-3.6 it is easier for HYPS students to get into good law schools.

vicissitudes · July 6, 2006, 12:10pm

Wait, I think Berkeley belongs quite close to HYPS, and so do the other schools behind HYPS. I mean, MIT? CalTech? Duke? Columbia? They are all quite close to HYPS, but not entirely there. We’re just talking about how Berkeley can go from “close to HYPS” to “on par with HYPS.”

I think you are right about that. I think it should be in the top 15. Of course, I also think it could get even better than that. That’s why we’re having these discussions.

Yeah, I think this is over-exaggerated. I don’t think there are THAT many stupid students at Berkeley. Even at HYPS there are lazy, dumb students. It’s just that Berkeley has relatively more of them.

Well, I don’t think Harvard advising is THAT bad, or that judging it based on a few isolated incidents is fair. Maybe it’s worse than YPS, but it’s still not THAT bad. Hey, sometimes the Harvard name IS enough to get into a good grad school. But I think the point is, Berkeley’s advising isn’t as good as some school’s (like YPS) and could be improved.

shiva9809 · July 6, 2006, 2:39pm

My take on Berkeley: I feel Berkeley is an awesome school, with awesome facult, great campus and a nice location. But, I have some reasons why I dont like Berkeley. It has one of the loweset endowment per student ratios in the country that means no financial aid and a bureacracy thats extremely difficult to deal with. At the Undergraduate level, you are supposed to light a passion that is necessary to carry into the workforce or into graduate school. But, if you are competing in huge classes and the class is taught by TA’s (study’s have shown a majority of Cal classes are taught by TA’s) then it is extremely hard to light a passion. Its a huge school and it simply does not have the money to provide the education that people expect. Now for graduate school, Cal would be on the top of my list, simply because its tipped in favor of research and graduate education. I really dont think ugrad at Cal is worth it (same at any other UC’s) but that does not mean i dont respect the school, it just means they’ll see me in grad school probably

ucbhi · July 6, 2006, 3:28pm

Well you may think that, but it doesn’t seem like that’s the general consensus. For example, in the thread on the cause of Berkeley bashing, shiboing and sakky came in to argue that Berkeley’s med school acceptances are not close with HYPS. So while you may think that Berkeley is quite close, it’s obvious that critics in general are not having the same discussion from close to on par. It’s more like supporters are saying, “we’re pretty close” while critics reply, “no actually we’re pretty far.” If anything, the discussion is about “far to on par.” My belief is that the other schools are probably relatively far as well, so in context this debate is exaggerated.

Well when I say HYPS, I’m sort of generalizing to include MIT/Caltech at certain times. However, when you get into Duke and Columbia, I don’t think that they’re on the same level. Debating that is going to take almost as long as Berkeley vs HYPS, so as of now that’s just my opinion. But I think if people started laying it out as extensively as they do with Cal, the difference between those schools and HYPS would be very nearly as large as Berkeley’s difference.

greatestyen · July 6, 2006, 4:35pm

Excuse me? No financial aid, you say? Where are you getting that? Trust me, Berkeley has both financial aid AND Berkeley-funded financial aid. Where are you getting that Berkeley has “one of the loweset endowment per student ratios in the country”? The last time I checked, Berkeley was actually in the upper half of this particular continium.

This is true, but you type as if that’s not the case at the top private universities. That is simply not the case. Most classes at HYPS, since they are “sections” (just like at Cal,) are taught by GSIs/TAs.

g1a2b3e · July 6, 2006, 4:58pm

And Berkeley has GSIs that are easily superior to Harvard, at least according to Sakky and others who have said one should go to undergrad at Harvard and Berkeley for grad. The Berkeley grad program has gotten praise from the critics.

CardinalFocused · July 6, 2006, 4:59pm

Berkeley must have a really really good forensics team.

DRab · July 6, 2006, 9:48pm

This whole paragraph has major flaws. Grading in many history classes is far from easy (and you should see the reading loads). Poli sci is most assuredly considered to be a social sciences, and many consider history to be the same. Philosophy is considered by many to be a humanities subject, although many other say social science, it is a typical pre-law subject, but the grading is amongst the hardest in the humanities/social sciences, probably very comporable to some of the sciences. English, another common pre-law subject, is very serious at Berkeley, and getting an A is far from easy- getting Bs often takes very major effort, lots of reading, and huge (think 25 or more page long) papers. Econ, another subject commonly filled with pre-law students, also does not have easy grading. Now, if you’re looking at grade distribution relative to weeder science, many mathematics, and many technical courses, perhaps many of these look easy, but I won’t let you claim 1) grading in the humanities and social sciences is easy, especially when considering the difficulty to get full A’s in many of the subjects, 2) you aren’t saying relative to techical/weeder science/mathematics course distribution with regard to distribution, 3) pretend that students can whine for better grades, much less significantly better grades, and that if their grades are too low it’s because they did not whine enough. It’s not as if all humanities and social science professors are really nice or want to be really helpful, and few of them want to give As to students who do little work and seem to not care about the course they teach. Get out of your science-centric view and be realistic. In addition, your view on the LSAT seems a little off. Some students just can’t do better than a certain level, some don’t know how to train better, some would rather invest their time elsewhere, some can’t afford certain types of help (and I think these are true of students in all disciplines). While I agree with you if you say many students could study more or could study more efficiently or something, spending all of ones free time studying for the LSAT is only the way to go for a very limited amount of time in any person’s life- were you talking about then? Some just can’t do better than a certain level- I really believe that, for most people after studying a given time, say half a year (I’m not sure),there is a point beyond which months upon months upon months of studying are needed to improve a single point more, and this studying presents huge opportunity costs in life (inlcuding non-lsat factors that get you into law school and sanity).

About Harvard “student fellows” versus Berkeley GSIs, I would imagine they’re in the same league. In general, each got accepted into one of the best programs in his or her field.

Shiva, where did you read “It has one of the loweset endowment per student ratios in the country?” Could you show the document?

Again, show the study. In addition, it’s not as if this is a legitimate Berkeley-only complaint (and not perhaps a legitimate American higher education complaint).

Nah, all the best students just spend their time on cc all day talking about Berkeley and comparing it to other schools.

In response to the many debates on ugrad quality

CONNECT WITH US