 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - The paradox of the Berkeley-esque college |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
SamuraiX Broom Hatter                    Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| It was a link titled "Find out what's on all those ipods around campus..." on the Berkeley website that sparked my interest in this thread. (Also, it's iPods, not ipods.) That's something I'd expect on some socially-active teen's website, not an accredited university.
It has become a established social norm that universities like Berkeley are the "best of the best" and so on. But from my experiences, the students I know that have got in are mostly showoffs and charletons. Berkeley is one run-down...of a town. It's filled with beggars on the streets, and has a markedly negative social atmosphere. Conveniently, the actual university is sheltered from the harsh reality so close outside. As is the case with some other "university towns." So they're a supposed establishment of "top scholars" who cannot even remedy the situation around them. Might I be so absurd as to suggest that such places are simply overated, or just hype, a place for rich kids? Is it possible that such places just leech off the few who do carry intellect? I don't want any replies saying that this is just a jab at something I know I can't get into, since that is completely irrelavent. One should look at the words, not the person, or else make an fallacious ad hominem attack. |
|||
Young Guru Snifit  Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6285 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I wouldn't say it's some place for rich kids to go to, because if you really want to prove how much your wealth is worth you'd be going to a private school where one or more of the buildings are named after your family. Berkeley, while not the cheapest school in the world, is by comparison much cheaper to go to than Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, etc., especially if you live in California. I do agree that it is full of charlatans and showoffs, I feel like it must be said that the majority of people, in the lines of the great Steven Tyller, "just fake it til they make it." Look at government (and I'm not talking about Bush, I'm talking about just about everyone in government claiming to have knowledge and expertise in fields they know next to nothing about), look at enron, look at american auto companies, many succesful people really aren't amazingly intelligent, they're just good at faking it. For example, one of the guys in my dorm graduated high school 5th in his class of about 300. Now that he's in college he tries to pull the same bs he pulled in high school and he's pulling a nice 2.0 yet he still thinks that he's going to be making 100,000 out of college with mediocre grades in accounting. Alas, some people just can't hack it. Bah, this is getting all discombobulated so I'm done. | |||
neotransotaku Sledge Brother Liberated from school...until MLK day  Since: 11-17-05 From: In Hearst Field Annex... Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I go to Berkeley and I hardly see people showing off their "knowledge" in my 4.5 years there. Every one in class is afraid to ask questions, to speak up in discussion, and aren't attending the class to prove the professor or the TA wrong. If such people with intellect know everything, then why are they in school?
Perhaps my opinion is biased but I know I don't go around gloating the fact that I take so many units per semester, or that I have two degrees, or that I'm a TA and such, etc. I don't see people who do that either. Perhaps these people inflate their performance, which is understandable if you are in a major with a lot of competition, such as biology. But in other majors where curves don't matter, then well I haven't seen much. In terms of universities being best of the best, those are all influenced by rankings put out by U.S. World as well as what industry says when the come to various universities to recruit people. Perhaps much of the hype comes from people who don't know the real truth and only see things at a superficial level. I don't see what you mean by "Is it possible that such places just leech off the few who do carry intellect?" Institutions only leech of the few who carry intellect from those willing to do research, who are willing to teach. But majority of people go to industry upon graduation and do not do that much to enrich the school in the sense of leaving a legacy as what I think your question implies. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| In a country full of elite and elitist private universities it seems strange to attack a top public university for elitism and catering to rich kids... | |||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon Why is that? One does not debate whether an evergreen green, but "why is this tree rotting"? (edited by SamuraiX on 01-14-07 08:35 AM) |
|||
MathOnNapkins  1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Your response has me scratching my head. Was it poor grammar or am I unable to interpret it?
Let me first say that you have this strange idea that it is the job of a university to turn the city that it is in into a utopia. Scholars most likely do not specialize in Urban Renewal. The closest thing you'll find to that in a university is probably something like Labor Studies. The University of Chicago is one of the top schools in the nation but it's practically in a slum. I attended a state school that was in a relatively nice area, but still had all kinds of problems anyway. Washington University has hundreds of beggars on the nearby strips, for example. It's not like the schools cause these problems themselves. In fact, they supply many many jobs to local residents. From janitorial to food service, to pretty much anything else a student would need, you can find a job in a service industry. And many schools are in larger cities that already have an established industrial sector if you want to work in that. If the students are gone for the summer in a smaller college town, everything slows down. So this is not a phenomenon strictly associated with elite schools. What I think of when I think of Berkeley is ultra smart students who are still kind of hippies at heart. I thought about trying to visit or attend Berkeley more than once, but I've never been there so I can't comment that much. One of my professors got his Doctorate there and he seemed like an honest, hardworking mathemetician. Not a genius by any means but humble and disciplined. So all I feel that what you are doing is introducing a stereotype, a poorly supported stereotype at best. Much like neotransotaku, I don't really understand what you mean by "leeching off the few who do carry intellect." What is this in reference to? In general, I think you need to support this argument more for it to fly, otherwise it just sounds like a rant. I could go on all day about how I don't like Notre Dame kids that much (mostly the spoiled, out-of-staters), but I do like Notre Dame the university as a whole. It provides us with tons of sports entertainment, jobs (my mother works there) and education (my dad graduated from there.) Any city has its problems and you can't expect a university to fix them all. That's why cities have these things called governments. |
|||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon  Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6285 days |
| ||
| Who wants a bunch of college students living in their town? Nobody. Did you ever think that maybe they put alot of colleges in bad neighborhoods on purpose? They're trying to build dorms at CSI, a college on Staten Island where I live... and they're have a really hard time doing that because nobody wants to deal with a bunch of drunk college kids running around wreaking havok. How many car crashes happen around universities because of poor choices made by students? Nobody wants to deal with that. Not unless it's like Harvard where kids barely, if ever, show reckless behavior.
I think they build colleges in bad neighborhoods on purpose. Every college I've applied to I've had people tell me "Oh, that's in a terrible neighborhood"... I've applied to 7 colleges. It's just how it is. (edited by Snow Tomato on 01-26-07 06:59 PM) |
|||
Silvershield  580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Snow TomatoAs has been mentioned before, the presence of a university is a huge boon to virtually any town. The economy of the surrounding area is supplemented substantially, both by the influx of college-age kids who have daddy's money to throw around, and by the creation of jobs. Even at my school, which is in Poughkeepsie and only has around 4500 undergrads, there are a great deal of locals working in food service, as janitorial and cleaning staff, and certainly in miscellaneous office jobs and whatnot. The image of "drunk college kids running around causing trouble" is usually tolerated when the locals see all the cash they pump into the economy. Originally posted by Snow TomatoI think that's an untrue stereotype. Not that it's offensive or anything - not to most people, at least - but it is fairly far from the truth. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by Snow TomatoAs has been mentioned before, the presence of a university is a huge boon to virtually any town. The economy of the surrounding area is supplemented substantially, both by the influx of college-age kids who have daddy's money to throw around, and by the creation of jobs. Even at my school, which is in Poughkeepsie and only has around 4500 undergrads, there are a great deal of locals working in food service, as janitorial and cleaning staff, and certainly in miscellaneous office jobs and whatnot. The image of "drunk college kids running around causing trouble" is usually tolerated when the locals see all the cash they pump into the economy. Dude, student ghetto? They bring a boon to a local economy, but students are noisy and messy. The cost of low housing on property values around the areas is usually damage enough. Particularly in bigger universities, which is why university towns can get run-down. Several thousand residents disappear for 4 months of the year. Property values fall around the student housing area, all of a sudden that economic boon leaves town. Damn. |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by Snow TomatoAs has been mentioned before, the presence of a university is a huge boon to virtually any town. The economy of the surrounding area is supplemented substantially, both by the influx of college-age kids who have daddy's money to throw around, and by the creation of jobs. Even at my school, which is in Poughkeepsie and only has around 4500 undergrads, there are a great deal of locals working in food service, as janitorial and cleaning staff, and certainly in miscellaneous office jobs and whatnot. The image of "drunk college kids running around causing trouble" is usually tolerated when the locals see all the cash they pump into the economy. That's what people said about "big-box retailers."  |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff"Noisy and messy," maybe. But I'll be you most people will accept that population in exchange for the money they bring, the businesses and industries they support, the cultural center they tend to create, etc. Not to mention, many local governments are working to improve the generally sub-par conditions and aesthetics of these regions. |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins 1100 In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Students may tend to be messy but there are plenty of people who are messy who are also not students. Keep in mind that professors like to live in nice neighborhoods or apartments. Just like any normal city you will have a mixture of the bad and the good. It's also up to the city to write and enforce city ordinances that keep students from trashing their neighborhoods. For example, one of my friends got cited for having couch outside that was not suitable for being outside. After being rained on a few times the thing looked and smelled terrible. So kudos to the gubmint of Bloomington, IN for sticking it to the students. One thing in particular that I think is bad is students leaving 20+ trashbags in or near their house. My cousin at his old house had probably 40 bags of garbage in his backyard at one point. | |||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins But you see, citizens don't pay each normal "messy" person $10000 a year through taxes. The format of the UC system, and many others revolves around a system that caters to the upper class. Let me explain. First of all is the standardized testing system, which is in itself a ridiculous system. Without proper eduction in adapting to this "standardized" test, most people would not be accustomed to the test. However, the SAT score is a key indicator for grouping people in the admissions process. Second of all, the multiple-choice format of the test, especially on the writing section, probes for descriptive answers, ironically, ones which are often put in essay format in College Board's Advanced Placement (AP) testing. Despite this, the Advanced Placement tests are not given a score as the SAT is, but a 1~6 score, not allowing it to be a rank-able score as the SAT is. Even in the math sections, I'd be presumptuous enough to say that not all students have the luxury of a TI-83, or a TI-89, which computes most material on the SAT math tests with ease(And greatly assists AP math test-takers as well). There are also a good deal of services that college board provides to those with the money, including regrading and revaluation. But that seems perfectly fair, I suppose. |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6285 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SamuraiX When is the college board going to rid these tests of calculators. I took SAT, SAT II Math 1 and 2, and AP Calc tests without bringing a calculator. I did fine (more like spectacular) without the calculator and I haven't used a calculator in college exams either because they're not allowed. The classes where they are allowed don't really matter because you go through most of the math symbolicly then start plugging in the numbers later because there are usually series of values you have to test. I think that the AP and SAT tests should just say, no calculators on the tests because we're testing simple concepts. |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Not to mention that the only test you're ranked on is at such a low level level that a university can't really draw any conclusion from.
But one must admit, there's a marked advantage to those using calculators, given two identical people, and assuming that both are proficient in the material, the person with a calculator has a reduced chance of error in arithmetic, and increase speed in testing--I'm not sure if this is good or not, but most proficient calculus students might take longer than someone with a calculator to solve ln(34.23). Our friend Young Guru might be faster though. O= |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| I realise the SATs are a bit bollocks, but if we accept the abstract principle of a common test determining rankings for university entry... what better way is there to choose who gets accepted into universities? They have to choose *some* people over others, so what would you propose for when there's more applicants than positions? Your argument seems to be that the universities are elitist because they accept people based on these tests and these tests are biased against those with the money and resources to do better than others, but if you eliminated the tests... wouldn't those with the ability to pay their way just get in anyway?
Also, I still feel you're singling out the public system unfairly. (edited by Arwon on 01-29-07 02:44 AM) |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon I never said anything about eliminating the tests. Higher difficulty, more free response, and taking out calculators would help to curtail the problem, for example. When you say there are more applicants than positions, doesn't that mean that the admissions process should more discriminating, don't you think? And if there are too many talented students and not enough capacity, shouldn't the overall system, and not just the university public system be a lot better? Shouldn't there be a lot more funding in the state and community colleges, if I take what you're saying correctly?
'Kay. Do you know it firsthand? |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SamuraiXHigher difficulty? When a great many people I know couldn't even hit 1100, and virtually none did any better than 1350? From the perspective of the common student, it's hard enough as it is. Originally posted by SamuraiXSo that you have to pay more to take the test because, instead of having the majority of the test as computer-graded, it would be hand-graded? Wouldn't that favor the wealthy (who can afford to take the test more often in order to maximize their grades), which is what you're trying to correct for? Originally posted by SamuraiXWhy? So that the kids who are good at math but not too smart otherwise have their grades artificially inflated, while the kids who are smart but not very good at math have theirs artificially deflated? Originally posted by SamuraiXTrust me, if you're talented enough, you'll go somewhere. There are a bunch of kids that I know who are not as smart as I am, but who are going to schools that are as good as, or nearly as good as, the one I'm at. And you can bet that anyone at a level higher than mine isn't exactly going to be struggling for an acceptance, either. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Well is, say, Stanford, any better?
Also, you can never have infinite supply of top university places. Bear in mind that Berkeley is one of the most top, and in demand, universities in a multiple university system. Of course it's gonna be hard to get into. The same goes for Sydney and New South Wales universities here... theoretically anybody can go, but you have to get pretty good marks to beat out all the other applicants. Everyone else either has to go to other universities or do different degrees or find something else to do. The problem isn't necessarily that people don't get in... that's kind of what *defines* a top uni... the problem exists when entrance isn't a possibility for all. I'm having trouble understanding whether you think the bar is too high (when you call them "elitist") or too low. As far as elitism and catering to the upper class goes... aren't fees for state systems substantially cheaper than private universities? And yeah, I seem to recall taking an SAT or something similar while I was in the US and those problems you outline were exactly the big issues I had with it. Multiple choice is a farce at the best of times. Calculators I'm not so sure about... those big fancy ones shouldn't be allowed, but to some extent higher level mathematics necessitates them. They were ridiculously proscriptive and exploitable, and the fact that university admissions is mostly based on maths and English scores rather than a wider mix of subjects kinda bugged me. At any rate, for the record, our Year 12 exams were almost exclusively essay-based (though I didn't do mathematics so I'm not sure how they worked) and the entrance system to university seems to e workably fair, if a bit exploitable by rich kids to the extent that all systems are. The thing to bear in mind though is that these exams are the sole determiner of uni placings... everyone in the state does the exams, everyone gets ranked, the highest ranked applicants to a degree get in. Editted to add: Wait a second, people have to PAY to take the main university admittance exam? Shouldn't it be, like, part of the fucking cirriculum? (edited by Arwon on 01-29-07 03:10 AM) (edited by Arwon on 01-29-07 03:13 AM) (edited by Arwon on 01-29-07 03:14 AM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonThe main test is in the range of $30, if I remember. And, sure, it's a joke that you need to pay to take the test when virtually any school you'll apply to requires it. But the College Board is a business, after all. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - The paradox of the Berkeley-esque college |
| |
