Is what every says about Cal Berkeley true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The STEM side of Berkeley is difficult, nothing really else to say. I know a person who did physics and LOVED Berkeley, but he was also the top 0.0001%, spent most of his undergrad doing graduate courses, got a PhD at MIT and is now an endowed professor at a top research institution. The average kid from my high school who went to Berkeley worked their ass off, but did enjoy it

Agreed. STEM is really, really hard at Cal. It’s great for the right kid, but I would look elsewhere if you need a more supportive environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS is a math and humanities major. The math classes were brutally tough and like another person mentioned DS was shocked to get his first C+ but has now learned to do better. The choices in math classes are amazing. The history classes are also a lot of work but getting As is not as difficult. Overall, he has learned to adapt and hustle and has had great internships every summer through friend referrals. He even found a 5-week internship at a startup for winter break. He is a very adaptable kid and is fine with large settings so that may have helped. After freshman year, he found his own housing.

It sounds like your child is the type of self-starter who can do well there. Congrats, they should do well wherever they go. There are many very bright people there and the very self-reliant can learn alot. But, that is very different from receiving an 'elite' education. It is making the most of a fast-paced factory education.

Not PP. Pretty sure the history proseminars or taking econ classes with Bates Clark/Nobel winners aren’t a “factory education.”

The point is those opportunities don't really happen though people like to tell themselves otherwise.

A Nobel winning economist at UCB (or anywhere else) will rarely (read virtually never) teach an undergraduate course. It is a waste of their time which is a valuable resource.

I have a close friend who is a full professor at Stanford who very matter of factly states that he hasn't taught an undergraduate class in over 20 years and that it would be a waste of his time and Stanford's money for him to do so. The same factors come into play at any top research university. UCB is a great grad school but nothing special for undergraduate studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why but Cal really embraces undergraduate kids who are willing to do anything to succeed. Cheating and sabotage have risen to a level of sophistication and pervasiveness across some largely represented groups that it isn’t the same place it used to be. Stress and depression is common with kids who don’t cheat and simply can’t compete by breaking the rules. If Cal removed the unethical students but kept the same level of rigor, students would bond more over failing together. Instead, they become isolated.

It’s sad because you grow and learn more by being challenged to failure. However, you can’t do that anymore.

huh?

They are talking about rampant cheating by Asian students. Pretty well known.

Asiana make up 40% of Harvard and other elite institutions so is this cheating only at Cal or also at other top schools as well. Somehow the biggest scammers like Trump, SBF and Holmes seem to not be Asians.

I have no idea whether Harvard turns a blind eye to cheating and sabotage the way Cal does. At Cal it is particularly bad because you have a much larger population of international Asian students and Asian American students whose families are still connected to their home countries. Cheating is not seen as immoral or unethical in several of these countries. If you can’t earn a A you are expected to cheat to get a A. Kids across cultures will be tempted to cheat but the Asian cultures support it at the family level. Large industries exist in their home countries to enable the cheating. The faculty do not like this at all but what can they do? Classes are large, the cheating methods are sophisticated, they can’t kick out a third of the class, and TAs are spread too thin to deal with this.

Years ago it used to really just be pre meds sabotaging each other’s labs but it happens pretty frequently in engineering too. The deflationary curve, coupled with cheating, makes kids desperate. Cal doesn’t really do anything about it either. The attitude is more you should never take your eyes off your lab or walk away from your screen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why but Cal really embraces undergraduate kids who are willing to do anything to succeed. Cheating and sabotage have risen to a level of sophistication and pervasiveness across some largely represented groups that it isn’t the same place it used to be. Stress and depression is common with kids who don’t cheat and simply can’t compete by breaking the rules. If Cal removed the unethical students but kept the same level of rigor, students would bond more over failing together. Instead, they become isolated.

It’s sad because you grow and learn more by being challenged to failure. However, you can’t do that anymore.

huh?

They are talking about rampant cheating by Asian students. Pretty well known.

Asiana make up 40% of Harvard and other elite institutions so is this cheating only at Cal or also at other top schools as well. Somehow the biggest scammers like Trump, SBF and Holmes seem to not be Asians.

I have no idea whether Harvard turns a blind eye to cheating and sabotage the way Cal does. At Cal it is particularly bad because you have a much larger population of international Asian students and Asian American students whose families are still connected to their home countries. Cheating is not seen as immoral or unethical in several of these countries. If you can’t earn a A you are expected to cheat to get a A. Kids across cultures will be tempted to cheat but the Asian cultures support it at the family level. Large industries exist in their home countries to enable the cheating. The faculty do not like this at all but what can they do? Classes are large, the cheating methods are sophisticated, they can’t kick out a third of the class, and TAs are spread too thin to deal with this.

Years ago it used to really just be pre meds sabotaging each other’s labs but it happens pretty frequently in engineering too. The deflationary curve, coupled with cheating, makes kids desperate. Cal doesn’t really do anything about it either. The attitude is more you should never take your eyes off your lab or walk away from your screen.

When DCUM becomes Stormfront . . . . Take your racist jackassery elsewhere, my dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why but Cal really embraces undergraduate kids who are willing to do anything to succeed. Cheating and sabotage have risen to a level of sophistication and pervasiveness across some largely represented groups that it isn’t the same place it used to be. Stress and depression is common with kids who don’t cheat and simply can’t compete by breaking the rules. If Cal removed the unethical students but kept the same level of rigor, students would bond more over failing together. Instead, they become isolated.

It’s sad because you grow and learn more by being challenged to failure. However, you can’t do that anymore.

huh?

They are talking about rampant cheating by Asian students. Pretty well known.

Asiana make up 40% of Harvard and other elite institutions so is this cheating only at Cal or also at other top schools as well. Somehow the biggest scammers like Trump, SBF and Holmes seem to not be Asians.

I have no idea whether Harvard turns a blind eye to cheating and sabotage the way Cal does. At Cal it is particularly bad because you have a much larger population of international Asian students and Asian American students whose families are still connected to their home countries. Cheating is not seen as immoral or unethical in several of these countries. If you can’t earn a A you are expected to cheat to get a A. Kids across cultures will be tempted to cheat but the Asian cultures support it at the family level. Large industries exist in their home countries to enable the cheating. The faculty do not like this at all but what can they do? Classes are large, the cheating methods are sophisticated, they can’t kick out a third of the class, and TAs are spread too thin to deal with this.

Years ago it used to really just be pre meds sabotaging each other’s labs but it happens pretty frequently in engineering too. The deflationary curve, coupled with cheating, makes kids desperate. Cal doesn’t really do anything about it either. The attitude is more you should never take your eyes off your lab or walk away from your screen.

When DCUM becomes Stormfront . . . . Take your racist jackassery elsewhere, my dude.

A few years ago UCLA publicly broke up a Chinese cheating ring. The LSAT is suspending giving the exam on mainland China due to many students with perfect LSAT scores arriving at top schools with very low English skills.

If you have any connection to current faculty or students at Cal, you’d know it is a reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why but Cal really embraces undergraduate kids who are willing to do anything to succeed. Cheating and sabotage have risen to a level of sophistication and pervasiveness across some largely represented groups that it isn’t the same place it used to be. Stress and depression is common with kids who don’t cheat and simply can’t compete by breaking the rules. If Cal removed the unethical students but kept the same level of rigor, students would bond more over failing together. Instead, they become isolated.

It’s sad because you grow and learn more by being challenged to failure. However, you can’t do that anymore.

huh?

They are talking about rampant cheating by Asian students. Pretty well known.

Asiana make up 40% of Harvard and other elite institutions so is this cheating only at Cal or also at other top schools as well. Somehow the biggest scammers like Trump, SBF and Holmes seem to not be Asians.

I have no idea whether Harvard turns a blind eye to cheating and sabotage the way Cal does. At Cal it is particularly bad because you have a much larger population of international Asian students and Asian American students whose families are still connected to their home countries. Cheating is not seen as immoral or unethical in several of these countries. If you can’t earn a A you are expected to cheat to get a A. Kids across cultures will be tempted to cheat but the Asian cultures support it at the family level. Large industries exist in their home countries to enable the cheating. The faculty do not like this at all but what can they do? Classes are large, the cheating methods are sophisticated, they can’t kick out a third of the class, and TAs are spread too thin to deal with this.

Years ago it used to really just be pre meds sabotaging each other’s labs but it happens pretty frequently in engineering too. The deflationary curve, coupled with cheating, makes kids desperate. Cal doesn’t really do anything about it either. The attitude is more you should never take your eyes off your lab or walk away from your screen.

Interesting—does the same thing happen in high schools? I’ve heard rumors that some students gain access to test answers before exams. I’m also curious whether college AO or regional AO are aware of this. It’s puzzling to me that some students can earn an A yet struggle to solve many problems or conduct lab in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why but Cal really embraces undergraduate kids who are willing to do anything to succeed. Cheating and sabotage have risen to a level of sophistication and pervasiveness across some largely represented groups that it isn’t the same place it used to be. Stress and depression is common with kids who don’t cheat and simply can’t compete by breaking the rules. If Cal removed the unethical students but kept the same level of rigor, students would bond more over failing together. Instead, they become isolated.

It’s sad because you grow and learn more by being challenged to failure. However, you can’t do that anymore.

huh?

They are talking about rampant cheating by Asian students. Pretty well known.

Asiana make up 40% of Harvard and other elite institutions so is this cheating only at Cal or also at other top schools as well. Somehow the biggest scammers like Trump, SBF and Holmes seem to not be Asians.

I have no idea whether Harvard turns a blind eye to cheating and sabotage the way Cal does. At Cal it is particularly bad because you have a much larger population of international Asian students and Asian American students whose families are still connected to their home countries. Cheating is not seen as immoral or unethical in several of these countries. If you can’t earn a A you are expected to cheat to get a A. Kids across cultures will be tempted to cheat but the Asian cultures support it at the family level. Large industries exist in their home countries to enable the cheating. The faculty do not like this at all but what can they do? Classes are large, the cheating methods are sophisticated, they can’t kick out a third of the class, and TAs are spread too thin to deal with this.

Years ago it used to really just be pre meds sabotaging each other’s labs but it happens pretty frequently in engineering too. The deflationary curve, coupled with cheating, makes kids desperate. Cal doesn’t really do anything about it either. The attitude is more you should never take your eyes off your lab or walk away from your screen.

Interesting—does the same thing happen in high schools? I’ve heard rumors that some students gain access to test answers before exams. I’m also curious whether college AO or regional AO are aware of this. It’s puzzling to me that some students can earn an A yet struggle to solve many problems or conduct lab in person.

There are problems in certain public high schools because the pressure is immense. When you have a school that is 85% Asian and 80% of the class is going to apply to UCB and UCLA knowing that less than 10% of them will get in the pressures are huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS is a math and humanities major. The math classes were brutally tough and like another person mentioned DS was shocked to get his first C+ but has now learned to do better. The choices in math classes are amazing. The history classes are also a lot of work but getting As is not as difficult. Overall, he has learned to adapt and hustle and has had great internships every summer through friend referrals. He even found a 5-week internship at a startup for winter break. He is a very adaptable kid and is fine with large settings so that may have helped. After freshman year, he found his own housing.

It sounds like your child is the type of self-starter who can do well there. Congrats, they should do well wherever they go. There are many very bright people there and the very self-reliant can learn alot. But, that is very different from receiving an 'elite' education. It is making the most of a fast-paced factory education.

Not PP. Pretty sure the history proseminars or taking econ classes with Bates Clark/Nobel winners aren’t a “factory education.”

The point is those opportunities don't really happen though people like to tell themselves otherwise.

A Nobel winning economist at UCB (or anywhere else) will rarely (read virtually never) teach an undergraduate course. It is a waste of their time which is a valuable resource.

I have a close friend who is a full professor at Stanford who very matter of factly states that he hasn't taught an undergraduate class in over 20 years and that it would be a waste of his time and Stanford's money for him to do so. The same factors come into play at any top research university. UCB is a great grad school but nothing special for undergraduate studies.

Except David Card taught undergrads up until the point he went into emeritus status.

Emmanuel Saez and Emi Nakamura regularly have undergrad teaching responsibilities.

Not to mention other professors without the awards that are still notable (Eichengreen, Delong).

They all teach undergrads there. That’s hardly a factory education.

We’ve seen your posts before about your one friend that is a professor at Stanford, but it’s a sample of one and isn’t particularly useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS is a math and humanities major. The math classes were brutally tough and like another person mentioned DS was shocked to get his first C+ but has now learned to do better. The choices in math classes are amazing. The history classes are also a lot of work but getting As is not as difficult. Overall, he has learned to adapt and hustle and has had great internships every summer through friend referrals. He even found a 5-week internship at a startup for winter break. He is a very adaptable kid and is fine with large settings so that may have helped. After freshman year, he found his own housing.

It sounds like your child is the type of self-starter who can do well there. Congrats, they should do well wherever they go. There are many very bright people there and the very self-reliant can learn alot. But, that is very different from receiving an 'elite' education. It is making the most of a fast-paced factory education.

Not PP. Pretty sure the history proseminars or taking econ classes with Bates Clark/Nobel winners aren’t a “factory education.”

The point is those opportunities don't really happen though people like to tell themselves otherwise.

A Nobel winning economist at UCB (or anywhere else) will rarely (read virtually never) teach an undergraduate course. It is a waste of their time which is a valuable resource.

I have a close friend who is a full professor at Stanford who very matter of factly states that he hasn't taught an undergraduate class in over 20 years and that it would be a waste of his time and Stanford's money for him to do so. The same factors come into play at any top research university. UCB is a great grad school but nothing special for undergraduate studies.

There's a lot of top faculty at all of these schools teaching undergraduate courses. Shankar is still teaching undergraduate physics, so is Susskind and Alex Fillipenko, Hitoshi Murayama, and Saul Perlmutter are consistently teaching undergraduate students at Berkeley. The idea that these people never touch undergrads is...well, wrong.

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS is a math and humanities major. The math classes were brutally tough and like another person mentioned DS was shocked to get his first C+ but has now learned to do better. The choices in math classes are amazing. The history classes are also a lot of work but getting As is not as difficult. Overall, he has learned to adapt and hustle and has had great internships every summer through friend referrals. He even found a 5-week internship at a startup for winter break. He is a very adaptable kid and is fine with large settings so that may have helped. After freshman year, he found his own housing.

It sounds like your child is the type of self-starter who can do well there. Congrats, they should do well wherever they go. There are many very bright people there and the very self-reliant can learn alot. But, that is very different from receiving an 'elite' education. It is making the most of a fast-paced factory education.

Not PP. Pretty sure the history proseminars or taking econ classes with Bates Clark/Nobel winners aren’t a “factory education.”

The point is those opportunities don't really happen though people like to tell themselves otherwise.

A Nobel winning economist at UCB (or anywhere else) will rarely (read virtually never) teach an undergraduate course. It is a waste of their time which is a valuable resource.

I have a close friend who is a full professor at Stanford who very matter of factly states that he hasn't taught an undergraduate class in over 20 years and that it would be a waste of his time and Stanford's money for him to do so. The same factors come into play at any top research university. UCB is a great grad school but nothing special for undergraduate studies.

Except David Card taught undergrads up until the point he went into emeritus status.

Emmanuel Saez and Emi Nakamura regularly have undergrad teaching responsibilities.

Not to mention other professors without the awards that are still notable (Eichengreen, Delong).

They all teach undergrads there. That’s hardly a factory education.

We’ve seen your posts before about your one friend that is a professor at Stanford, but it’s a sample of one and isn’t particularly useful.

True, but if you've seen my posts you would also know that I taught at UCB while in grad school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why but Cal really embraces undergraduate kids who are willing to do anything to succeed. Cheating and sabotage have risen to a level of sophistication and pervasiveness across some largely represented groups that it isn’t the same place it used to be. Stress and depression is common with kids who don’t cheat and simply can’t compete by breaking the rules. If Cal removed the unethical students but kept the same level of rigor, students would bond more over failing together. Instead, they become isolated.

It’s sad because you grow and learn more by being challenged to failure. However, you can’t do that anymore.

huh?

They are talking about rampant cheating by Asian students. Pretty well known.

Asiana make up 40% of Harvard and other elite institutions so is this cheating only at Cal or also at other top schools as well. Somehow the biggest scammers like Trump, SBF and Holmes seem to not be Asians.

I have no idea whether Harvard turns a blind eye to cheating and sabotage the way Cal does. At Cal it is particularly bad because you have a much larger population of international Asian students and Asian American students whose families are still connected to their home countries. Cheating is not seen as immoral or unethical in several of these countries. If you can’t earn a A you are expected to cheat to get a A. Kids across cultures will be tempted to cheat but the Asian cultures support it at the family level. Large industries exist in their home countries to enable the cheating. The faculty do not like this at all but what can they do? Classes are large, the cheating methods are sophisticated, they can’t kick out a third of the class, and TAs are spread too thin to deal with this.

Years ago it used to really just be pre meds sabotaging each other’s labs but it happens pretty frequently in engineering too. The deflationary curve, coupled with cheating, makes kids desperate. Cal doesn’t really do anything about it either. The attitude is more you should never take your eyes off your lab or walk away from your screen.

Harvard turned a blind eye to the plagiarism of its president. If you are saying its an Asian issue, it is happening at all schools since most top schools have 30% Asians. Btw, most recently my daughter's private school had a cheating issue where 4 girls cheated. All the girls are white but I am not going to say all whites cheat. But I will say the punishment was not that bad because one of the girls is the daughter of a board member. At this school the math is very tough and parents hire tutors costing $600 per hour to tutor the kids. Why? Because the school stopped giving math papers back to students and the tutors seem to have math papers from the past years and through current students (who tell the tutor the questions as soon as the exam is over). Multiple kids have tutors in every subject to maintain an A average. Parents who went to top schools start their kids in obscure sports and activities at a young age. Half the kids have extended time on tests. These are all the ways the rich continue to use to get ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS is a math and humanities major. The math classes were brutally tough and like another person mentioned DS was shocked to get his first C+ but has now learned to do better. The choices in math classes are amazing. The history classes are also a lot of work but getting As is not as difficult. Overall, he has learned to adapt and hustle and has had great internships every summer through friend referrals. He even found a 5-week internship at a startup for winter break. He is a very adaptable kid and is fine with large settings so that may have helped. After freshman year, he found his own housing.

It sounds like your child is the type of self-starter who can do well there. Congrats, they should do well wherever they go. There are many very bright people there and the very self-reliant can learn alot. But, that is very different from receiving an 'elite' education. It is making the most of a fast-paced factory education.

Not PP. Pretty sure the history proseminars or taking econ classes with Bates Clark/Nobel winners aren’t a “factory education.”

The point is those opportunities don't really happen though people like to tell themselves otherwise.

A Nobel winning economist at UCB (or anywhere else) will rarely (read virtually never) teach an undergraduate course. It is a waste of their time which is a valuable resource.

I have a close friend who is a full professor at Stanford who very matter of factly states that he hasn't taught an undergraduate class in over 20 years and that it would be a waste of his time and Stanford's money for him to do so. The same factors come into play at any top research university. UCB is a great grad school but nothing special for undergraduate studies.

Except David Card taught undergrads up until the point he went into emeritus status.

Emmanuel Saez and Emi Nakamura regularly have undergrad teaching responsibilities.

Not to mention other professors without the awards that are still notable (Eichengreen, Delong).

They all teach undergrads there. That’s hardly a factory education.

We’ve seen your posts before about your one friend that is a professor at Stanford, but it’s a sample of one and isn’t particularly useful.

True, but if you've seen my posts you would also know that I taught at UCB while in grad school.

You’re not the only one with access to a course catalog at Berkeley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS is a math and humanities major. The math classes were brutally tough and like another person mentioned DS was shocked to get his first C+ but has now learned to do better. The choices in math classes are amazing. The history classes are also a lot of work but getting As is not as difficult. Overall, he has learned to adapt and hustle and has had great internships every summer through friend referrals. He even found a 5-week internship at a startup for winter break. He is a very adaptable kid and is fine with large settings so that may have helped. After freshman year, he found his own housing.

It sounds like your child is the type of self-starter who can do well there. Congrats, they should do well wherever they go. There are many very bright people there and the very self-reliant can learn alot. But, that is very different from receiving an 'elite' education. It is making the most of a fast-paced factory education.

Not PP. Pretty sure the history proseminars or taking econ classes with Bates Clark/Nobel winners aren’t a “factory education.”

The point is those opportunities don't really happen though people like to tell themselves otherwise.

A Nobel winning economist at UCB (or anywhere else) will rarely (read virtually never) teach an undergraduate course. It is a waste of their time which is a valuable resource.

I have a close friend who is a full professor at Stanford who very matter of factly states that he hasn't taught an undergraduate class in over 20 years and that it would be a waste of his time and Stanford's money for him to do so. The same factors come into play at any top research university. UCB is a great grad school but nothing special for undergraduate studies.

Except David Card taught undergrads up until the point he went into emeritus status.

Emmanuel Saez and Emi Nakamura regularly have undergrad teaching responsibilities.

Not to mention other professors without the awards that are still notable (Eichengreen, Delong).

They all teach undergrads there. That’s hardly a factory education.

We’ve seen your posts before about your one friend that is a professor at Stanford, but it’s a sample of one and isn’t particularly useful.

True, but if you've seen my posts you would also know that I taught at UCB while in grad school.
You’re not the only one with access to a course catalog at Berkeley.

No idea what you are trying to say, none at all.

PP: I enjoyed my time at UCB, it's a great grad school. I learned a lot and I went on to have a very lucrative and fulfilling career. But, based on my observations and experiences while I was there as a grad student it is not a particularly great option for most for undergraduate education. People will keep on saying otherwise but most full professors do not teach undergrads, they do not want to teach undergrads, and it is a waste of their time if they are.

[Anonymous]

Lots and lots of Asians at Cal. Definitely the dominant group.