Academia OtherSchools - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Academia:OtherSchools:
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2021/12/06 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2009/2/8-15 [Academia/OtherSchools, Academia/UCLA] UID:52534 Activity:moderate
2/8     Why does UC suck so hard? I did undergrad at UCB and I hated it.
        Professors couldn't teach, class workload was high, and the system
        was designed to "weed out" students and demoralize them rather
        than teach and encourage them. I always got lower grades than I
        deserved for the amount of work I put in. I don't know if this was
        because of the curve which insists that 50% of students should get
        C's and only 10% A's or what, but my GPA was mediocre and
        self-confidence shattered. After UCB I took classes at another
        (private) school, maybe not quite as good at UCB but Top 50 in
        order to remedy my "academic deficiencies". I got straight A's
        there and was usually one of the top 1-2 students in the class.
        Professors seemed to like to teach and when they gave exams they were
        on the concepts they told you that you should know. This is not
        the same thing as spoonfeeding answers, but just telling you what
        was important to know and what wasn't so that you don't waste time
        trying to memorize 500 pages of the text. So I finally got my GPA
        up and had the choice of a couple of different grad schools, one
        of which was UCLA. This is my first year at UCLA and it is like
        Cal all over again! Massive amounts of work to get a B-,
        professors who sneer at your inadequacies, and a tendency to give
        exam problems on exactly the material that was not covered in
        homework which means you have to read (and remember) 500 pages of
        technical text in 4.5 weeks and there is no chance to know if you
        are grokking the material not covered in homework until the exam.
        I am in the middle of the pack of my peers and getting discouraged
        again. I've started to talk to a few of them and for many of them
        they have taken the same class *BEFORE* at some other school. One guy
        told me he had taken it *AT UCLA* as an undergrad and got a C and now
        wants to retake it. Well, shit. I guess the school shouldn't care
        how you got to a certain level, but the playing field seems messed
        up to me. I was talking to a friend in grad school at a prestigious
        private school and he said it's not like UCLA at all. That same
        friend went to an exclusive liberal arts college for undergrad and
        then started grad school at UC Irvine, which he also hated, before
        switching. So it seems to me that the problem is with UC. My prof
        even told me he has battled the department about making some
        changes (such as having 2 midterms instead of 1 because of the
        amount of material covered) to no avail. Since UC recruits from the
        same pool of professors as every other school then why is learning
        at UC such a bitch? I told my professor I think I want out and to go
        to a private school, which is when he confided the above to me.
        Were all UC professors beaten as children? Is it some State thing?
        They seem to really enjoy watching you fail and only cater to the
        top 5% they see as elite enough to join their ranks. Yes, this is
        how academia is, but why isn't it like that elsewhere? Two classmates
        that went to much, much worse (by reputation) private schools for
        undergrad got their PhDs from Harvard and USC, crediting their
        professors for refusing to let them fail or quit and encouraging them
        and pushing them to achieve the best they can do. They love their
        professors/advisor and will probably donate $$$ back to their school.
        What I want to donate to UC is a swift kick in the ass.
        \_ I knew all of this when I went to UC Berkeley. I went anyways,
           because I couldn't get into any other school. I have to say
           your experience will vary greatly depending on your personality.
           If you're seriously upbeat in nature and have a thick skin,
           it'll work out greatly. But if you're just exploring and
           trying to understand yourself, it's not a very nurturing
           place to be at.
        \_ Totally agree with what you're saying. In the corporate world,
           your super l33+ coding skills don't mean much. CONFIDENCE wins a
           lot, like promotions and leadership. Cal totally lacks this. It's
           a great place to know how to hack. Great place to do publications
           and to get into academia. Not a great place to climb up
           in the corporate world.
        \_ Maybe you should stick with community colleges.  They seem to be
           more your speed.
           \_ Thanks, UC Professor! I'm surprised you didn't let me know
              Wendy's is hiring! I don't want to miss out on that opportunity!
        \_ I went to Caltech and UC both for undergrad and while the classes
           were smaller at Caltech, it was also a much harder workload. The UC
           is a really sink or swim kind of place. You don't think people are
           paying an extra $100k for a private school education for nothing,
           do you? Why did you go to UCLA at all, given your experiences, it
           sounds like you would have prefered a private school. Did you not
           want to pay the extra cost? -ausman
           \_ I think Caltech undergrad is an extreme example. Caltech is also
              known for being brutal to its students for no good reason. I know
              lots of people who went to Caltech and are now underachieving
              because Caltech destroyed them. That's not a plus in favor
              of Caltech. However, consider a school like Pomona College (where
              my acquaintance who tried UCI went) or Stanford. No one would
              consider them easy and yet the attitude is not "us" (professors)
              versus "them" students. They want their alumni to succeed. I went
              to UCLA figuring that: 1) It might be different, 2) Maybe
              the problem at UCB was my own creation. However, it's shocking
              how these first quarters at UCLA at like being at UCB all over
              again. Factor in all the standard UC bureaucracy and I probably
              will transfer to a private school. Cost was an issue, but
              not the main issue. UCLA's strengths were more closely aligned
              with my research interests than others I was accepted into.
              I think seeing how much UCLA is like UCB crystallized that:
              1) Somehow these issues are endemic to UC
              2) UC doesn't work for me
              However, what troubles me is *why* when I was able to get along
              just fine at other universities that just happened to be private.
              To me it seems like a problem worth investigating and fixing,
              because we waste a lot of talent at UC, just like Caltech
              wastes a lot of the top minds in the country. At least Caltech
              doesn't have an obligation to the public to educate, though.
              \_ Stanford doesn't seem all that different from Berkeley.
                 There are both asshole profs and nice ones. I'm not entirely
                 sure where you get this idea of UC being super different.
                 Maybe your problem is self-fulfilling prophecy.
                 \_ It's not really the profs. UCLA's profs are sometimes very
                    understanding. At UCB I would say I had too many profs
                    that were TAs or else visitors who didn't at all know what
                    the students had/had not covered leading to disjoint
                    curriculum because the tenured profs didn't like to
                    teach, but not that they were assholes necessarily.
                    However, the administration at private schools wants
                    students to succeed and more often listens to their
                    input. When a student at UCB wants to leave no one cares.
                    When a student elsewhere wants to leave they want to know
                    what went wrong and how they can fix it. Privates are
                    constantly reviewing the curriculum and addressing
                    deficiencies in order to retain students and be sure
                    that their alums succeed and bring glory to the
                    school. UC points to the 2% who succeed through sheer
                    god-given brilliance and claims that their system is
                    working and the other 98% must just be stupid and not
                    worth educating. Students at UC seem to have much less
                    leverage over the faculty, which is why teachers like
                    HH Wu are still teaching and there are Korean TAs teaching
                    who don't even speak any English. When the students at
                    privates complain the school does something like pair up
                    a non-native speaking TA with a native speaking TA or
                    whatever. You might call that coddling, but I call it
                    common sense. UC just doesn't care. Take it or leave it.
                    That's too bad. UC is really more a place to educate
                    yourself despite the school/faculty, not a place for them
                    to impart their knowledge to you. I think there's a much
                    less adversarial and more cooperative relationship at
                    Stanford from what I can see having talked to those
                    who attended and current professors there.
                    \_ Do you believe that only 2% of Cal students graduate?
                       \_ Muddling through the system will graduate you,
                          but it won't help you achieve your goals. Cal
                          students are bright and very motivated so they
                          deal, but it doesn't have to be that way.
                          Ironically, Cal profs I had outside of science
                          and engineering were usually extremely supportive
                          and interested in sharing their research and
                          promoting interest in their field. Science and
                          engineering profs mostly wanted you to go away.
                          Exception were astronomy profs, who always
                          seemed glad you came to office hours. Math profs
                          were the worst, often not even showing up to
                          office hours. Ridiculous.
                          \_ So it is not all UC profs that you think are bad,
                             just the science and engineering ones, right?
                             \_ Possibly. Too little experience in other
                                departments to say. I will say science and
                                engineering professors are worse in my
              \_ The UC does not have the resources to coddle students.
                 You never answered my question as to why people are willing
                 to pay so much more for private school. I think the answer
                 to your quesions are obvious.
                 to your questions are obvious.
                 \_ People are willing to pay a lot more for a lot of reasons,
                    one of which is snob appeal. State schools have a bad
                    reputation which is probably deserved in most cases,
                    although not necessarily deserved by good publics like UC.
                    I don't want to speculate what motivates people to pay
                    more. Why don't you, since you already have (speculated)?
                    It's partially a resource issue, but I think it's
                    cultural. Even if you gave UC 3x the budget the mentality
                    would not change, IMO.
              \_ The UC does not have the resources to coddle students.
                 You never answered my question as to why people are willing
                 to pay so much more for private school. I think the answer
                 to your quesions are obvious.
                    \_ I think it is obvious: you get a better education at
                       an expensive private school, that is why people are
                       willing to pay more for it. With the much higher teacher
                       student ratios, the money for better labs, better
                       libraries, full time live in professional advisors in
                       the dorms, more tutors, etc, you *should* get a better
                       education. I think your claim that the UC would do the
                       same job with 3X the resources is ludicrous. Do you know
                       any public college in the US that has the climate you
                       found at private school?
                       \_ Well, you said it: UC provides a poor education.
                          \_ I don't really disagree with you, though I would
                             use the word "mediocre" rather than poor. The
                             best, most inspiring teachers I had were the ones
                             at San Diego Community College, which is where I
                             went between Caltech and UCB. I learned much more
                             at the UC though, but that was outside the class
                             room, in The Web, from other students, etc. I also
                             learned how to fend for myself, which is a pretty
                             useful skill to have in life.
                \_ I don't believe that you know "lots of people who went to
                   Caltech and are now underachieving" since they admit less
                   than 300 people per year. How many do you know?
                   \_ A lot. I've known people at Caltech since I was in
                      high school through a mentor-type program and I know a
                      lot of alums who also know alums: both grad students
                      and undergrads. I would say I've met probably 100-200+
                      alums: maybe more than any other school other than UCB.
                      I even know some current grad students and current
                      and ex-faculty. I also have a membership at the
                      Athenaeum. They are not all underachievers, but many are
                      relative to their potential. In fact, I fired one that
                      worked for me. I don't think that Caltech brings out the
                      best in its students. I think a lot are exceptional and
                      do well in spite of Caltech, but I also know a lot that
                      don't even really have careers and just kind of drift
                      from one thing to another. BTW, lots of Caltech
                      students have the same opinion of Caltech and helped
                      shape my opinion of it. Many complain that Caltech
                      ruined their GPA. A surprising number who did undergrad
                      never went to grad school because of this. That's
                      sad, because I think most of them, if not all, are
                      capable. I think Caltech has among the highest % of
                      undergrads who then go get their PhD but they should
                      given who is accepted so that's a little misleading.
                      85% of Caltech undergrads graduate versus 97% at
                      Harvard. Do you think it's because Harvard students
                      are smarter? That Harvard spends more $$$? (Caltech
                      spends $200K per student.) It's pure culture.
                      \_ What percentage of Caltech graduates go on to get
                         PhD's vs. Harvard UG? Do you think the grad schools
                         don't know how tough the grading scale is at places
                         like UCB and Caltech? If you are sure you want to go
                         \_ I suspect no. Not at least, for say econ PhD
                            admissions. If you got a GPA of say 3.3, you're
                            screwed as rarely a top 30 department will bother
                            with your file. Usually it doesn't matter that you
                            have completed a bunch of honors or graduate
                            courses, have a math double major, good LoR, etc. I
                            know this based on my personal experience.
                            \_ I have heard otherwise, at least as regards to
                               Physics graduate schools. How were your test
                               scores? I am kind of surprised to hear that
                               you could not get into a good grad school with
                               a 3.3 from Cal. What was your UG major?
                         to grad school in science then Caltech is a good place
                         to go, if you don't know what you want to do with your
                         life and need some time to figure it out, it is a
                         terrible place. UCB is the same, just not as extreme.
        \_ I always summed it up as: "At Berkeley, you have a right to fail,"
           which was a refreshing contrast to HS, where you were coddled and
           reprimanded for not turning in a HW, even if you got 100% on all
           the tests. Also, by "refreshing" I mean a C- in my first semester
           math course (Math 53) because I had the bad habit of not doing
           HW, and then never really learned the material. Separately, I
           thought almost all the CS profs at Cal were good (Smith was the
           exception). What CS profs had curves and were not supportive of
           \_ I didn't take a lot of CS. I had Yelick and BH and Hilfinger
              and they were all OK. I took a lot of physics, math, chemistry,
              and engineering classes. I wasn't a CS major.
              \_ Physics seemed to have a combo of great and terrible profs.
                 7A in particular seemed to have good profs. Also, I've heard
                 only good things about profs that taught H7[ABC]. I only
                 had bad math profs. EE was mixed as well. What are
                 "engineering" classes? E45, E190? E190 was a great class.
                 \_ 7ABC all sucked. Dalven, Lys, and I cannot even
                    remember who else. I also had Clancy for CS now that
                    someone else mentioned him and he did the absolute
                    minimum. `
           \_ I had bad math profs and mostly bad chem profs, but mostly good
              bio profs and a really great biophysics advisor. (Glasser)
           \_ As a current undergrad, I must say every CS prof I've had
              so far has been pretty much awesome (with the
              exceptions of Clancy who basically didn't teach and instead
              left us to suffer with some godforsaken "web 2.0 teaching"
              thing... damn you UCWise, and Bodik who seemed like a
              smart guy but had the worst 164 curriculum ever (it was
              basically a "who can come up with the ugliest Greasemonkey
              hack class)
              Current list - Brian Harvey (61a), Dan Garcia (61c),
              Anthony Joseph (162), John Wawrzyneck (150), Michael
              Franklin (186), Dan Klein (188), and also Babak Ayazifer
              (EE20) have all been decent (and some of them very
              excellent) professors.  I have Patterson as my faculty
              adviser and he's been great too.  Maybe you just chose the
              wrong profs?  I've also had very good TAs for
              61a,c,162,and 150.  (Some grad some ugrad).
              Just a current student's opinion...  --steven
              \_ You obviously never had Alex Aiken. Charming personality,
                 awesome slides, horrible lecturer/speaker, does not care
                 about students (hates office hours).
        \_ At UCB, my best learning experiences were summer classes, less than
           30 students, taught by TAs.
           I took a class at Stanford.  It wasn't that different from UCB.
           The exams tried to throw twists at you so you couldn't directly
           apply what they actually taught in class, you'd have to figure
           new stuff out, and you don't have enough time.  In any case
           most of the class basically fails miserably so it's curved and
           you end up with like a B+ anyway.  The project was pretty wimpy
           in terms of time compared to engineering class projects at Cal.
           Stanford did have a strong student feedback mechanism and the
           prof changed some things in response to ongoing feedback.
           I would have doubts about sending a kid of mine to Cal as an
           undergrad.  I wasn't really happy at Cal, it was huge and I
           wasn't motivated to trudge to classes each day.  The whole
           "giant lecture hall" class style is pretty bad in general though.
           The pace is too slow or too fast and often the fancy professors
           are bored/boring.
             'furd had a nice online archived video system in place though.
           You could watch all the stuff on video, complete with a closeup
           view of what the teachers write, and you can replay it at multiple
           speeds with pitch-corrected sound, which definitely helped me
           stay awake and zip through boring bits but still hear them.
           \_ +1, my SITN experience parallels with yours. It's really great
              to log into one of their empty, powerful workstations to do work.
              I really hated having to fight through my ways in Cory Hall and
              Evans which most of you don't even remember. Stanford had superb
              computing facilities, and their professors really take the time
              to talk to you even though the classes were still big (40-80ish).
        \_ I agree with everything above. Well said. Berkeley fucks its
           students in the ass. No doubt about that. But then, so does
           every flagship state university. The only difference is
           that due to being the top state university in the country,
           may be in the world, at Berkeley you get the rat race
           experience of all flagship state schools SQUARED, and many
           other UC campuses are not that far behind. I remember how I
           had to fight like mad to get a B+ or A- even in a frigin
           Rhetoric 1B or History 7B class. Lots of professors look
           for ways to screw the students and lower their grades. I
           have utter respect for UCB undergrads in the hard majors
           who maintain a GPA above say 3.7.  At the same time, I do
           suspect that many of Cal's B+ students would probably
           strive somewhere at an Ivy League school, have a 3.95 GPA,
           beautify CV with multiple research experiences, graduate
           with honors, get glowing LoR from professors, and have no
           problems joining top graduate programs. At the same time, I
           wouldn't take it for granted that an average "honors"
           student from a private school (which is most students they
           have since most get some kind of honors) like Stanford or
           Ivies would necessarily even have a 3.5 GPA at Cal. I might
           want to add that things are not as bad as it might sound.
           You just need to learn how to navigate the system by the
           end of your second year or so. For example, most upper
           division courses in both of my majors (math/econ) had 30
           students or less (or had honors or advanced versions of
           those courses with small enrollements). I had no problems
           registering for undergraduate seminars with only 10
           students, which allowed for very good close interaction
           with professors. Most professors who taught my upper
           division courses really cared about teaching and did a
           pretty good job.
2008/5/9-15 [Academia/OtherSchools, Academia/StanfUrd] UID:49905 Activity:high
5/8     UC to raise fees to 18k a year or more:
        A report released in April by the UC faculty Academic Senate says
        the university has not recovered from the budget cuts earlier in the
        decade and that the governor's latest 10 percent cut to its budget
        will be devastating and force the university to rely more heavily on
        student fees and privatization of the university.
        To make up the difference, tuition and fees would have to be
        increased from the current $7,500 a year to about $10,000
        immediately, and to $18,000 in three years to keep the university
        from losing its prominence, the report says.
        \_ Yeah, privatize everything! Hooray!          -Republican
           \_ Hi Strawman Guy.  It should be obvious to anyone with two brain
              cells to rub together that the costs of some services should be
              spread across the population while others should not.  For
              example, vaccinations should be covered and mandatory because
              the cost of a plague in lives, suffering, and many other forms
              of loss outweighs the cost of a $5 shot for every child.  OTOH,
              covering your sex change operation or your breast implants is
              your problem and provides no societal benefit.  Somewhere in
              between those two extremes is a reasonable middle ground that
              people far more intelligent than a cheap shot troll like
              yourself are still trying to find.
              \_ Boob jobs don't provide any societal benefit???
                 \_ No more than your sex change operation.
                    \_ You must not be motd boob guy.
                       \_ Definitely not.  The 5 minutes a day I spend here
                          is already too much.  I don't compound that error
                          by following those sorts of links from here.
           \_ I don't see a very good reason to subsidize UC. Why not subsidize
              all universities? (i.e. subsidize the student, not the school)
              Also, why is there both Cal State and UC?
              \_ The last question, you could answer with only a moment of
                 thought or research.  Community colleges, Cal State and UC
                 have different missions and serve different populations.
                 I think it's safe to say that California gets excellent return
                 on its investment in UC, if you really want to look at it
                 from a pure economic perspective.  -tom
                 \_ If it does, then why not make that relationship explicit
                    in the form of loans?
                    What is the mission difference with CSU and UC? UC is
                    just better? I've good things about Cal Poly grads.
                    \_ read the mission statements, or the state constitution.
              \_ Did you go to Cal?  Please make out that check for 50k you
                 owe the state for your subsidies ASAP, thanks.
                 \_ Did you? I guess Cal isn't so great if it can't teach
                    basic logic. Do you really think that I should agree
                    with something because I supposedly benefitted from it?
                    I pays me taxes like anyone else. That doesn't mean I
                    agree with how it is used.
                    \_ I don't see the logical disconnect.  I bet you,
                       personally, have reaped great rewards from your
                       California taxpayer subsidized UC education.  I
                       have every right to mock you.
                       \_ Again: my personally benefitting or not has zero
                          relevance to the discussion. I would have
                          benefitted under a general subsidy as well, or
                          from loans etc., or from a more competitive
                          private market. Undergrad education is wasteful
                          as all get out. There is little reason to even
                          be at Cal for the first two years. The classes
                          are gigantic and you might near do as well by
                          or better just watching the class on video.
                          are gigantic and you might near do as well or
                          better by just watching classes on video.
                          My first two Cal years were mainly interesting from
                          a life/social perspective
                \_ We actually do both, right? We provide subsidized loans
                   and Pell Grants to any student, but we also provide public
                   schools for those who cannot afford private school, even
                   with a moderate subsidy. I know it goes against the
                   libertarian ethos to provide something of value on the
                   basis of merit, as opposed to the wealth of one's parents,
                   but that is what the People of California have decided to
                   do, and I agree with them.
                   \_ Why not just increase the grant and loan programs?
                      It's not against my ethos to provide something on merit.
                      I am fine with private scholarships and there are lots
                      of those. Communism is against my ethos.
                      \_ If the loan and grants were distributed equally and
                         all the UCs were privatized and charged whatever the
                         market would bear, then poor (and middle class) kids
                         would be shut out of attending the best schools. You
                         could fix this by granting additional State funded
                         scholarships on the basis of merit, but that would be
                         "Communism" again. I hope you can see how society as
                         a whole benefits when the brightest get the best
                         education, as opposed to simply the ones born to the
                         wealthiest parents. But you probably think working for
                         the benefit of the greater good is "Communist" as well.
                         the benefit of the greater good is "Communist" as
                         \_ Scholarships aren't the form of communism/socialism
                            I'm referring to here; I'm looking at government
                            entrance into markets it has no place in. So why
                            have the public schools at all instead of more
                            scholarships? Determining who the brightest are
                            is not clear anyway... I met many dumbasses at Cal.
                            If loans are guaranteed on favorable terms then
                            even the poor can attend the best universities.
                            \_ when did we give the Cato Institute a soda
                               login?  -tom
                               \_ Brit Humes is good looking!!!
                            \_ I see your point and don't really disagree with
                               it. Getting from here to there is kind of hard
                               though. Just because selecting for potential
                               ability is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't
                               try to do it. People have been doing so at least
                               somewhat successfully since the time of the
        \_ I believe in Turkmenistan the government actively attempted
           to slash education funds in an effort to make the population
           stupider (less unrest when you're stupid).  They have great success!
           Go Turkmen!
        \_ Reagan's dream will finally be realized.
           \_ Star Wars?
        \_ I will say this much. If UC is going to charge the tuition of
           a private school then they'd better match private schools in
           terms of the educational experience. I put up with a lot of
           crap at UC because I realized it was a public school. However,
           if was paying $20K per year my expectations would have been
           completely different.

           if was paying $20K per year my expectations would have been
           completely different.
           \_ Bingo!  All the Stanford folks I know had an infinitely better
              experience and got much more out of it and still do years
              after they graduated.
              \_ Well, they better for (when I was in school) $100K more.
                 However, if UC wants to charge like a private then they
                 need to realize that they can't offer the same product
                 they offer now.
                 \_ UC doesn't *want* to charge like a private.  UC,
                    along with every public service offered by the
                    government, is under assault from corporatist
                    ideologues; thus, its funding has been repeatedly
                    cut while costs have been rising, and it is being
                    forced to raise fees, which, you're right, puts it
                    in a disadvantageous position relative to comparable
                    privates, and which in turn is exactly what the
                    ideologues want.  -tom
                    \_ Wow, been re-reading your Little Red Book a lot
                       recently?  Corporatist ideologues?  Can you name a few
                       of these corporatist ideologues who are out to destroy
                       the public university system in this state?
                    \_ Do you feel it would be in a disadvantageous position
                       relative to comparable privates if it charged the
                       same as the privates? Because the feeling I get is
                       that it would be, which is a knock on UC.
                       \_ How many top private research institutions have
                          over 200,000 undergraduates?  How many campuses
                          have over 30,000?  The problem space is different.
                          \_ Is Cal becoming a factory assembly line of
                             \_ Becoming? I thought that was its purpose.
                          \_ Pick any given campus for your comparison.
                             \_ How about Stanford?  They have something
                                like 8K undergrads.  Their mission is not
                                to educate the top 12.5% of California high
                                school students; if it were, Stanford would
                                be a much different place.  UCLA and
                                Berkeley are #1 and #2 in the country
                                among top universities in enrolling Pell
                                Grant (low-income) students as a percentage
                                of the undergraduate population.  (35% and
                                32%, respectively).  That's part of the
                                charter and mission of UC, and while it makes
                                the environment more challenging to manage,
                                I also think it's part of what makes UC a great
                                institution.  -tom
                                \_ How would you know UC is a great educational
                                   institution?  Did you ever attend a UC
                                   class?  Where is your 4 year degree from?
                                   \_ I see you're out of arguments.  -tom
                                \_ Why is it more "challenging to manage"
                                   low income students? They are still
                                   among the best and brightest.
                                   \_ Dozens of reasons.  They have unusual
                                      schedules and take longer to graduate
                                      because they're working while going to
                                      school, or they have to take time off
                                      to help their family.  They are often
                                      the first person in their family to
                                      go to college, so their family can't
                                      provide them as much advice or support,
                                      and in many cases doesn't value
                                      higher education in the same way that
                                      a fourth-generation Harvard family
                                      does.  There's overhead in dealing
                                      with their patched-together financial
                                      aid package and work-study awards.  -tom
                                      \_ I don't think any of these reasons
                                         have to do with why students at
                                         private schools are treated well
                                         and students at UC are treated like
                                         crap in comparison. Kids at private
                                         schools are likely to receive
                                         financial aid as well from many
                                         sources. Just because some kids are
                                         low income doesn't mean they create
                                         much more overhead. MIT or Stanford
                                         will take the best students they can
                                         get - wealthy or not - and still
                                         provide better experiences for
                                         students because they have to in order
                                         to compete against Caltech and
                                         Princeton for your (or the
                                         government's) dollars, while UC gets
                                         the money (and the students) no matter
                                         what. Sure, UC might compete for some
                                         of the best students but judging
                                         by the scholarships awarded they
                                         don't compete very hard. Overall,
                                         UC seems to feel you need them
                                         more than they need you, which is
                                         not the situation at private
                                         schools where every student is an
                                         extra $30K a year. That's one reason
                                         why privates don't fail people out.
                                         It's like tossing away $30K.
                                         \_ look, it's simple; exceptions are
                                            expensive, and low-income students
                                            generate more exceptions.  For
                                            that matter, there are diseconomies
                                            of scale in managing students when
                                            one class is as large as the
                                            entire enrollment of Stanford.
                                            The student experience of being
                                            in an 800-person Bio 1B class
                                            will not be the same as the
                                            experience of being in a 200-person
                                            class.  The institutions are not
                                            directly comparable because their
                                            missions and resultant environments
                                            are totally different.  -tom
                                            \_ Why not look at a small UC
                                               campus and compare to Stanford?
                                               You may be correct that the
                                               missions are different, but
                                               consider the disincentives
                                               UC has to do any better. As
                                               far as "exceptions" I am
                                               going to guess there are
                                               more made at private
                                               schools. UC is very much a
                                               "no exceptions" environment
                                               whereas at private schools
                                               every single student is
                                               treated like an exception.
                                               \_ I'm willing to bet that by
                                                  any metric you can devise,
                                                  Cal is more diverse than
                                                  \_ *LAUGH* you talk as if
                                                     diversity is a good
                                                     thing that everyone
                                                     loves to have *LAUGH*
                                                     Take a look at Denmark
                                                     and Irvine. Economically
                                                     and socially homogenous
                                                     and nice to live.
                                                     \_ Shut up white man
                                                        \_ Asians tend to stick
                                                           to communities or
                                                           *towns of their kind
                                                  \_ What does that have
                                                     to do with anything?
                                                     Most high-caliber schools
                                                     are actually pretty
                                                     diverse, but are you
                                                     somehow implying that
                                                     diversity == crappy
                                                     staff, and policies
                                                     or that somehow
                                                     having many races of
                                                     people on campus
                                                     therefore makes it
                                                     more expensive to operate
                                                     and makes the environment
                                                     more hostile to
                                                     undergrads? Where are you
                                                     heading with this
                                                     \_ I don't mean ethnic
                                                        diversity (although
                                                        that's clearly also
                                                        true).  I mean that
                                                        Berkeley has more
                                                        students, more students
                                                        who take time off to
                                                        work, more work-study
                                                        students, more
                                                        community college
                                                        transfers than
                                                        Stanford.  All those
                                                        populations are
                                                        more expensive to
                                                        manage.  And 32K
                                                        undergrads are more
                                                        expensive to manage
                                                        than 8K undergrads.
                                                        \_ I'm not convinced
                                                           on your last point.
                                                           Why should that be
                                                           the case?
                                                           \_ Find me an
                                                              institution with
                                                              32K undergrads
                                                              that doesn't
                                                              have a huge
                                                              bureaucracy. -tom
                                                              \_ Just compare
                                                                 UCB and USC.
                                                                 It's not
                                                                 like USC
                                                                 doesn't have
                                                                 but the
                                                                 experience is
                                                                 much, much
                                                                 better. You
                                                                 believe what
                                                                 you believe
                                                                 because you've
                                                                 worked at UCB
                                                                 so long and
                                                                 into the
                                                                 "that's the
                                                                 way it has to
                                                                 be" mentality.
                                                                 It doesn't.
                                                                 UC sucks
                                                                 even compared
                                                                 to some other
                                                                 large schools
                                                                 like Texas
                                                                 and UVA.
                                                                 \_ USC is half
                                                                    the size of
                                                                    and less
                                                                    than 10%
                                                                    of the size
                                                                    of UC. -tom
                                                                    \_ USC is
                                                                       the same
                                                                       size but
                                                                       has more
                                                                       is one
                                                                       reason it
                                                                       makes for
                                                    USC has 15K undergrads, _/
                                                    less than half of Cal. -tom
                                                  And small UC campuses don't
                                                  compete with Stanford.  I
                                                  know a lot of people who
                                                  were quite happy at Santa
                                                  Cruz, but it's not a top
                                                  research university.  -tom
                                                  \_ UC is UC. My gf went
                                                     to UCSC and it's the
                                                     same crap everywhere.
                                                     Also don't tell the UCSC
                                                     PhDs in programs like
                                                     astrophysics and
                                                     linguistics (both Top
                                                     10 in the nation) that
                                                     it's not a "top research
                                                     university". You know as
                                                     much about UCSC as you do
                                                     about everything else
                                                     that's not related to
                                                     "UCSC astrophysicists, for
                                                     example, were recently
                                                     ranked first in a survey
                                                     measuring the impact of
                                                     research on the field."
                                                     UCSC is a top research
                                                     university and at the same
                                                     time schools like Harvey
                                                     Mudd are not, but we're
                                                     not talking about
                                                     research. We're discussing
                                                     undergrad education. UC is
                                                     great for the price, but
                                                     if the price becomes $20K
                                                     I'm sending my kids
                                                     somewhere else.
                                                     \_ UCSC has *one*
                                                        department which is
                                                        a top research
                                                        department, and that's
                                                        because they made the
                                                        guys who used to live
                                                        up at Lick Observatory
                                                        come down to teach
                                                        at UCSC.  There is no
                                                        comparison between
                                                        the research done at
                                                        UCSC and Berkeley,
                                                        UCLA, Stanford, or any
                                                        of the other top
                                                        research institutions.
                                                        UCSC's purpose isn't
                                                        to be a top research
                                                        institution.  There's
                                                        really no point
                                                        in continuing this
                                                        conversation if you
                                                        don't understand that.
                                                        \_ *THREE* top 25
                                                           departments and
                                                           more that are
                                                           still good. They
                                                           just got money
                                                           for a stem cell
                                                           research center.
                                                           They do a lot of
                                                           world-class research
                                                           in biology and
                                                           ecology. UCSC, by
                                                           virtue of offering
                                                           PhD programs at all,
                                                           is engaged in
                                                           Your arguments don't
                                                           hold water. Every UC
                                                           is engaged in
                                                           world-class research,
                                                           not just UCB and
                                                           UCLA. I'm not
                                                           sure why this
                                                           matters anyway
                                                           when discussing
                                                           Your point seems to
                                                           be that UC ignores
                                                           ugrads in favor of
                                                           research, which is
                                                           exactly my beef with
                                                           \_ My point is that
                                                              UCSC and Stanford
                                                              are not
                                                              any more than
                                                              Berkeley and
                                                              De Vry are.
                                                              They are not
                                                              competeing for
                                                              the same students
                                                              or the same
                                                              faculty.   -tom
                                                              \_ My point
                                                                 is that
                                                                 UCSC still
                                                                 sucks for
                                                                 even though
                                                                 it's not
                                                                 "large and
                                                                 because it's
                                                                 still UC.
                                                                 \_ prove it.
                                                                    \_ let's
                                                                    \_ Did
                                        Yes, but that proves nothing. -tom _/
        \__ Does Cal or UCLA make money from enrolling out-of-state and
            international students?  If so, maybe that's one way to help the
            financial situation.  (I think it doesn't get government subsidy
            for those students.)
            \_ no.
            \_ No, but they charge them a hell of a lot more.
            \_ They money all goes to the UC Regents.  Did you ever pay your
               own fees?
               \_ Yes, I wrote lots of checks payable to UC Regents.  But I
                  thought that was just for accounting purpose.  -- PP
2021/12/06 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2007/9/21-24 [Computer/SW/Editors/Vi, Academia/OtherSchools] UID:48141 Activity:nil
9/20    MIT student wears art to airport, almost gets shot.
        \_ I spent many winter and summer vacations in Boston, and I can
           testify that Bostonians are, in general, retarded.  And I'm not
           talking about the MIT student here.
        \_ when I first heard about this I thought it was an intentional act.
           after you look at it, well, it's been spun like mad by authorities.
2006/6/12-15 [Reference/BayArea, Academia/OtherSchools] UID:43367 Activity:nil
        Seattle is smarter than San Francisco.
        \_ These comparisons are idiotic. Where does Cambridge (home to
           MIT and Harvard both) rate? Is it more important to have 100
           MIT grads people or 200 U of Florida grads in your
           community? What if the U of F people also have Master's and
           the MIT people do not? What difference does it make if the
           community in question is 1000 individuals versus 2000? In
           short, there is no way to quantify "best educated" let alone
           what it might mean in terms of impact to a community.
           \_ hey, it's All Surveys Are Worthless Guy!
              \_ who?
                 \_ emarkp's follower
                    \_ Wha?  The trolls are becoming more nonsensical!
                       \_ Dunno, but he's making himself happy doing it so
                          whatever.  It's harmless.
2006/2/27-3/1 [Academia/OtherSchools, Academia/GradSchool] UID:42018 Activity:high
        I'm making more than my professors! HAHAHA! Proof that academia
        is for suckers.
        \_ As I recall, CS professors make a LOT more than that.  The
           100s of useless English PhDs are throwing off the numbers.
           \_ Indeed.  I know physics profs at top, well-funded research
              schools can start out at over 100k, when they're assistant
        \_ Well, they have tenure.  See you in New Dehli.
           \- The Chronicle WEEB site had the list of the compensation
              of a lot of the top paid University staff ... most of the
              big $$$ were medical school faculty and CS/Engineering profs
              but strangely Vaugn Jones was one of the top paid profs.
              Also, this doesnt factor in a lot of perqs like number of
              hours expected, outside consulting income, jobs for spouses,
              sabbaticals, travel opportunities etc.
              \_ Professors usually make a lot more through, as you
                 say, outside consulting income. They also receive perks
                 like free travel to conferences, free computers, and
                 so on. I know that at Caltech, for instance, certain
                 well-compensated faculty receive use of Caltech
                 facilities, which can include university-owned housing.
                 Even at Cal the Chancellor gets use of a house. At
                 Caltech (at least 8 years ago) tenured faculty often
                 received $400K interest-free to buy a house with the
                 condition that they split profits proportionally with
                 Caltech when/if they sell the property (and pay back the
                 $400K) I know one particular professor received $1M
                 interest-free for housing when he took an offer at Caltech.
                 This is their way of retaining faculty in an expensive place
                 like California. Certain individuals receive large bonuses,
                 large payments to their retirement plans, free medical for
                 life, and so on. There's a lot more to compensation than
                 mere salary.
              \_ Vaughn Jones is one of the top paid profs because he's a
                 fucking Fields Medalist.  Winning the Mathematical equivalent
                 of the Nobel Prize when it's not even awarded every year is a
                 big deal.  I imagine UCB's Turing award winners are similarly
                 compensated. -dans
                 \- yes i know VFJ is a Field's Medalist. I also know
                    the other fields medalists and nobels and turing
                    award winners are nowhere close by in the compensation
                    list. the highly compensated people in CS were people
                    list (i do not recall what year borchards and mcmullen
                    left). the highly compensated people in CS were people
                    like patterson, not KAHAN. BTW, the 2006 FM should be
                    interesting because of the uncertainty over the age
                    of that strange russian fellow. see wall discussion etc.
                    also there are some giant figures here much more famous
                    than the "avg" fields medalist, e.g. CHERN. i think
                    the fields medalists may be better compensated by the
                    university than econ nobels or turing award winners
                    because they have less scope for outside income
                    possibly. actually after some thought, my guess
                    is somebody tried to capture VFJ [as with CMCMULLEN
                    and say PSCHULTZ] and UCB managed to hold on to him
                    [unlike CMCMULLEN, PSCHULTZ].
                    because they have sless scope for outside income
                    \_ Compensation for faculty is largely set by
                       hiring and retention cases.  So the faculty who are
                       most highly paid probably got that way by getting
                       a lucrative offer from Harvard/MIT/Stanford and
                       getting Cal to match it.   -tom
                    \_ Clearly VFJ is a better negotiator than those other
                       Field's Medalists. -dans
                       \_ Which is different from "Vaughn Jones is one of
                          the top paid profs because he's a fucking Fields
                          Medalist." And the question still remains, do
                          the compensation numbers significantly miss some
                          of the accomodations to faculty ... maybe one guy
                          got a spouse hire in lieu of +40k to salary."
                          And why did VFJ beat superstars in say English
                          [this was post-GREENBLATT leaving, also post
                          [this was post-GREENBLATT leaving, alswo post
                          KARP etc.]
                          \_ Sciences bring in money, and English doesn't.
                             When a top science research prof brings in a 5
                             million dollar grant the University taxes that
                             at something on the order of 50%, in addition to
                             \- believe it or not, at a research university a
                                50% burden is pretty good. isnt harvard's
                                burden around 80%? also i am aware of this,
                                however somebody like GREENBLATT [or stanley
                                FISH] are special cases, in case you are not
                                familar with them. and this is also nicely
                                seen on small scale ... like people who work
                                on practical stuff liek microprocessors
                                [PATTERSON] vs airy fairy theory people.
                             the tuition that they charge the grad students
                             which gets paid out of the PI's grant.
                             I would also claim that science benefits society
                             and creates new ideas, whereas academic English
                             "scholarship" does neither.  Obviously this is
                             subjective, but I'm clealy not the only one who
                             thinks this way, and that is reflectded in
                             \_ A society is more than the flashy gadgets it
                                creates.  If we don't support the arts then
                                we're nothing as a people.
                                \_ I couldn't agree more.  The fact that you
                                   automatically equate university English
                                   "scholars" with the arts is laughable,
                                   however.  They're not writing novels, they're
                                   cranking out endless unreadable academic
                                   shit that no one but themselves will ever
                                   read, and that has no bearing on real
                                    \- well not everybody is a JUDITH BUTLER.
                                       for example an associate of mine did
                                       his phd in the english dept here
                                       ostensibly on HFIELDING but wrote a
                                       bunch on the history and develoment
                                       of copyright [since you need some
                                       protection for to make writing a career
                                       your could make money at] and he now
                                       teaches in at HLS. so some of this is
                                       actually interesting work which touches
                                       real world issues and isnt just trendy
                                       inscrutable humanities nonsense. of
                                       course he was sort of a rockstar here
                                       and the other eng phd i've met writing
                                       on thrid rate authors would be serve
                                       society better plugging holes in dikes/
                                   writing.  Their role as teachers is
                                   extremely important to society, but that
                                   always comes second at a school like
                                \_ A second quartile science/engineer is more
                                   likely to produce something of value than
                                   a second quartile medival historian. This
                                   is why an avg engineer gets $100k say for
                                   his dayjob and an avg musician needs a
        \_ I had no idea that being a prof was such a poorly paid job.
           I'm glad I choose law skool over grad skool.
           \- I'm glad I chose CS. --mstonebraker
        \_ FYI, starting salary at a Tier-1 research school (top 50) for a
           9-month appointment for CS/EE fresh-PhD assistant professors is
           in the $75k-80k range (so $100k-110k or so including summer
           salary, which is typically part of the startup package for a
           couple of years but needs to be covered by the professor's
           research grants in the long term). Benefits are typically very
           good compared to industry, but of course no stock options.
        \_ There are plenty of Cal professors who have become filthy stinking
                                    like Prof. Brewer *cough*__/
           rich during the .com boom.  So there are lots of side benefits.
           Haven't you ever had Hilfinger talk about being an expert witness,
           talking on the phone for a few hours and making a killing?
2005/11/30-12/3 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:40784 Activity:nil
11/30   How do I find back issues of the Jerusalem Post from
        the early 60's, like 1960-1965?
        \_ Build a time machine.
        \_ See if a university library near you has it on microfilm or
           microfiche. It looks like Berkeley only has 1960-61, but UCSB and
           UCSD both seem to have all the years you're looking for.
2005/5/16-17 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:37716 Activity:nil
5/16    Director of undergraduate writing at MIT thinks the new SAT is lousy:
        \- the last two lines are pretty funny. "the SAT is divided into
           3 parts ... i came, i saw, i bullshitted" --psb
           \_ Better than "I came, I peed, I shitted".
           \_ Sounds like it really is measuring ability to succeed in US
              universities then.
              \_ Not to mention the ability to climb the corporate ladder.
2005/5/7-9 [Reference/BayArea, Reference/History, Academia/OtherSchools] UID:37566 Activity:high
5/6     MIT Time Travel Conference:
        \_ You should go/have gone. We will have/had a great time. Even HG
           Wells will make/made an appearance.
           \_ well you can always travel back in time to make it.
        \_ Well, see you in the past, folks!
        \_ Well, see you guys in the past!
        \_ I showed up, but they weren't letting any more people into
           the conference hall.  Got to see the countdown at the (much to
           small) landing pad though.  The smoke machine was a little hokie,
           but the milk and cookies that someone had left was a nice touch.
        \_ Nobody from the future came because they already knew the party
           \_ I predict that in the future MIT will not be a place of choice for
              \_ We should try this again, but at CSU Chico instead.  -tom
              \_ Yeah, SF is the place of choice for parties. Why else
                 would they build Starfleet Academy there?
                 \_ If I had to bet money on the Bay Area of the distant future,
                    I'd put my money on the Philip K. Dick square, not the
                    Gene Rodenbery square.
2005/4/16 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:37223 Activity:high Edit_by:auto
4/16    MIT Prankster submits an auto generated paper, AND it gets accepted:
        \_ Old. This was posted several days ago here.
        \_ Keywords: bogus conference eddie kohler
2005/3/10 [Academia/OtherSchools, Academia/StanfUrd] UID:36621 Activity:high
3/10    So the University of Colorado won't fire Churchill (free speech) but
        they will fire a professor who's a christian.,1413,36~53~2748616,00.html
        \_ A totally one-sided opinion piece.  They could try actually
           asking the university more beyond the answer "his teaching
           was not up to the department standards." Note how they just
           sort of deflect that they're not quoting the school.  They
           quote the prof being fired quoting another prof (from whom
           they got confirmation), then say a dean denied the quote.  They
           never say what the dean said was the reason.
           \_ I agree.  I'm willing to believe that a double-standard is
              being employed, but that article is terrible.  You really
              shoot yourself in the foot by using that article to portray
              your point of view.
        \_ There is a HUGE difference between what a tenured prof can get
           away with a what a lecturer with a MS can do.  If Churchill had
           be the latter he would have been fired instantly.  That's the
           whole point of tenure.
           \_ It's actually more severe than that.  Some schools hire as many
              as twice as many junior faculty as they have tenured positions,
              *expecting* to fire half.  If you don't have tenure, you're
              really just a temp.
              \_ that's academia.  Are you surprised?
              \_ Expecting to fire them or just leading them on until
                 they eventually go away? I doubt that many are actually
                 fired. Do you mean layed off?
                 \_ You can call it whatever you want, but I know MIT works
                    this way.  If you get an offer as junior faculty there,
                    at least in physics, you know you have around a 50/50
                    chance of survival, and that you may get the axe just
                    because your field lost out that year.  I have a friend
                    who turned down an offer there for exactly that reason.
                    There are plenty of top places that do not operate this
                    way, however.
                 \_ At MIT the phrase is "hire three, tenure one". But neither
                    Stanford nor UC (any campus) work in that way.
2005/1/10-12 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:35641 Activity:nil
1/10    So why did Gordon Moore donate $600 million to Caltech and nothing
        (AFAIK) to Cal?
        \_ CalTech is the best. (iirc Moore has given several million to
           Cal for EECS and MSE).
        \_ Gordon Moore was Cal alumnus of the year a few years back. He's
           given lots of technical money (see above, also maybe go look at
           the nice plaque in Hearst Mining with his name high up there), and
           he's the main guy behind funding the UC Moorea research station as
2003/10/21-27 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA, Academia/OtherSchools] UID:10712 Activity:nil
10/20   UCB IS&T is hiring! /csua/pub/jobs/UCB-IST (Originally posted to
        BayLISA jobs mailing list.)
        \_ will I have to deal with tom holub?
           \_ if you don't want to deal with me, you'll fit right in.  -tom
              \_ Nice.
              \_ I thought UC only hired people with college degrees?
                 \_ Get some new material, already.
                    \_ That material is still working nicely.  I want to know
                       how someone without a degree can feel so superior to all
                       those around him who have accomplished something which
                       he failed to accomplish and never will.  Is it just
                       false bravado to soothe his damaged ego or does he
                       really truly feel superior and if so, what is the basis
                       for those feelings?  The ant walks among giants.
                \_ did tom fart really hard in E260 12 years
                   ago next to you and you've never forgotten? get a
                        \_ College degree is just a piece of paper.
2003/5/29-30 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes, Academia/OtherSchools] UID:28575 Activity:insanely high
5/29    Related to the career thread schools really help
        make a difference in terms of salary, career advancement, etc?
        Everywhere I've worked, people from Cal States make almost
        as much as me and I never have a fancier title either.
                \_ Actually, some economists have done studies of this
                   sort of thing. Controlling for your ability, school
                   doesn't have that much of an effect except if you
                   are really smart and go to a 3rd rate school. Then
                   you tend to make less money than a smart person who
                   went to a competitive school. -fab
                   \_ Hello.  Just thought I would point out that
                      taking a sample of people with the same ability,
                      and observing their school and their salary will not
                      tell you the effect of school on salary.  You cannot
                      determine effects from observations in general. -- ilyas
                \_ There are surveys that track people through the life course.
                   Random samples of people. For example, the national
                   longitudinal study tracks a random sample of seniors
                   through college and into the labor market. By "controlling,"
                   I mean "throw the ability variable" into the regression
                   eqn. Nothing wrong with that. -fab
        \_ First place I worked at, HR asked me if I had a degree.  I said
           that it was from Cal, and asked whether they'd like to see it, and
           was told "no, your having a degree from there means enough".
           Started at ~$75-80k.  Depends on company, country, area, luck,
           economic situation, but yes, it helps to have a degree from a
           good school to get the interview.  -John
        \_ education from Cal gets you in the door.  Once you are working,
           it is all up to you to advance your career.
           \_ For me, a degree from MIT gets you an interview, pretty much
              automagically.  A Cal degree gets you laughed at.  Seriously,
              it's moderately depressing how few resumes of Cal grads cross
              my desk.
              \_ I had four MIT co-workers. Three are smart. The fourth
                 is actually kind of dumb. All four were promoted, though.
                 Caltech gets similar respect. As for Cal, there are two
                 others, including one very respected but I am sad to say
                 that my old secretary had a Cal degree (current is from
                 UCSD). That was really hard to accept.
                 \_ Cal is a big, diverse school -- the degree in question
                    matters at least as much as the University.
                 \_ I've met 2 significantly stupid MIT grads, one of them
                    a MIT PhD.  The rest (certainly numbering in the many
                    10's) were all more than average bright.  That's a better
                    hit rate than any other school in my experience.
                    That's why MIT boys get the auto interview.
                    \_ I haven't met any really stupid MIT people. What is
                       an example of something dumb he/they did?  All the
                       people who did caltech undergrad have been really
                       smart.  Berkeley depts like MassComm or PhysEd are
                       of course a world of difference than say Physics.
                       I cant think of any "really dumb" UCB physics people.
                       \_ Something dumb: Used drop tests from a helicopter
                          to test a parachute instead of a wind tunnel despite
                          much contrary advice with predictable (bad)
                          consequences. Is this IQ 80 stuff? No. Is this
                          a credit to MIT, though? (The Cal guys were on the
                          right side of this one, FWIW).
                       \_ A MIT boy once interviewed with me who can't answer
                          simple 6.111-type questions.  Another guy I am
                          working with now with can't reason his way out of
                          a paper bag even with written directions.  I spent
                          an afternoon trying to explain cache associativity
                          to him and finally gave up.
                          \_ not my field, what's 6.111?
                             \_ It's the MIT version of CS150, except
                                much harder (or so the MIT boys tell me).
                                \_ how would they know unless they took both
                                   at which point they'd already have the
                                   experience from one to make the other easy?
                                   \_ Don't be so parochial.
                                      \_ You almost had something to say.
                                         Would you like to try again?
                                         \_ No.  I'm not in the business of
                                            providing people with directions
                                            to reason their way out of paper
                                   \_ Take a look at past exams, hws and
                                      projects for 6.111 and compare with
                                      150. 6.111 is *much* harder.
                                      \_ Did they dumb down 150 recently?
                                         \_ 6.111 was much harder than 150
                                            even 15 years ago.  It wouldn't
                                            surprise me (and in fact I'd think
                                            it likely) that 6.111 has always
                                            been more difficult than cs150.
              \_ Can I send you my resume?
              \_ If there are any insecure motd readers who are saying
                 to themselves, "Really?  People will laugh if they see
                 I have a Cal EECS degree on my resume?", the answer is
                 no, unless the company is run by Stanfurdites or MIT people.
        \_ Yes, they do. Not always the way you think, though. There are
           always certain schools preferred because their programs are good,
           past hires worked out well, or the boss likes students from that
           school for some reason (alum network). The company matters, too,
           as does the type of work. --dim
        \_ I've had a few former managers who've made side comments like,
           "he's from such-and-such school, he's smart".  Sometimes they
           really were smart but not always.  It's a matter of perception.
           Certainly, going to a good school won't hurt you unless you're
           at the kind of place that has hiring managers that don't hire from
           top schools because the hiring managers have small parts.
           \_ could you explain that last statement?
                \_ small dick = insecure = don't want anyone smarter
        \_ A few things I have learned:
           1)  Public schools have a lot of schmucks that I wouldn't trust to
               do anything worth while, but who successfully slipped through
               the system without offending anybody.
           2)  The top percent from any school is great (whether it is MIT,
               Cal, or CSUN).
           3)  Being able to communicate is extremely important (and if you
               haven't yet noticed, that isn't high on Cal's list for its
               EE grads).
               \_ But when the ya know, right, eh?  Whassup dauwg?  Know what
                  I mean?
        \_ I have a Chemical Engineering degree.  And I can tell you this,
           Cal is very respected in the Petroleum / Chemical Engineering
           field.  Also, my experiences is that Cal carry a big weight
           when you apply for grad school.  I would agree with the earlier
           post.  Cal degree give you an edge to get an interview.  It may
           not carry as much weight as MIT/CalTech or even Stanfurd, but
           it give you an edge over all other schools.  The rest is
           up to you.  Life is a struggle, and the struggle doesn't end
           even after you obtain the degree.
                        -career never took off, but felt that Cal
                         had treated me fairly.
           \_ interesting.  my career took off but I don't think Cal treated
              me fairly.  it was the worst few years of my life.  however,
              after the sheer Hell that was Cal, everything else is easy.
                       want, and got all A's for the final 3 papers.
              \_ care to elaborate on your career?  my life at Cal
                 was also the darkest days in my life...
                        -Chem Eng, age of 30, still need career advice.
                 \_ In brief: I make a shitload of money doing what I like.
              \_ ...yet somehow, either before or after your time at cal you
                 figured out how not to use phrases like "cal carry big weight"
                 unlike the above.  This comes back to the point above about
                 communication skills.
                 \_ Before, actually.  I learned at Cal that writing well was
                    of no value.  My papers in fuzzy classes would get C/B
                    grades because they didn't like the content even when the
                    classes were supposed to be graded on correct grammar,
                    spelling, etc as in Subject A, English 1A, etc.  I saw
                    other people's papers I'd be ashamed to turn into my HS
                    English teacher, which the reader bloodied with corrections
                    get an A+ and a note at the end about how great the paper
                    was.  I started writing crap papers with the right content
                    and my grades went up too.  Fuck Cal.  --bitter alum
                    \_ Me too.  For my English 1A class with 6 papers, my
                             and fucked her and gone over to Sproul to drop.
                       grades went B, C, D, and then I realized what they
                       wanted, and got all A's for the final 3 papers.
                       \_ well, it looks like we all learned a useful lesson
                          from 1A/1B.  Grad students in English and
                          comp lit are stupid assholes.  I actually told
                          one of them to fuck off once. I had gotten an A on
                          the first paper, but they told me that they would
                          give me a straight F for the class if my attitude
                          didn't change.  they had started talking about
                          how relativity meant that everything was relative
                          or some other horseshit, and were not interested
                          in what i had to say about what relativity is really
                          all about(i was a physics major).  So flipped the
                          stupid cunt off,  told her "fuck you" and
                          went straight over to sproul to drop.
                          \_ I would've rather flipped the stupid cunt open,
                             fucked her and gone over to Sproul to drop.
                             \_ No, you wouldn't.  You didn't see her.
        \_ The best thing about a Cal degree is writing right here on
           the MOTD with my homies and the one or two brave enough
           \_ YO DAUWG!
           \_ GO BEAH!
2003/5/6 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:28348 Activity:very high
5/5     What is the hot chick ranking for the UCs? I'm pretty sure UCB
        isn't ranked so high but I'm wondering if it's better than say
        UCD or other UC schools.
        \_ UCLA has h0t ch1x0rz.
        \_ Which school has more hot chix, UCLA or UCSB?
        \_ UCB = last.  How could you possibly think UCB >> UCD?  They've
           got all those healthy and friendly farm girls.  UCB has drug
           addict whores putting out for hits and taking third helpings in
           the food line at the dorms.
                \_ UCD=hot white chix. UCB=hot azn chix
           \_ so much hate!
2003/5/5-6 [Academia/UCLA, Academia/OtherSchools] UID:28334 Activity:very high
5/5     What are the rankings of the UC schools? I know that UCB=1 and
        UCSC=last, but what about the UCs in between?
        \_ Generally UCB=1, UCLA=2, UCSD=3, the rest suck.
           For some things UCSD > UCLA.
                \_ can you be more specific?
                   \_ CS theory for example.
                   \_ CS Networking (Protocols/Routing/Switching)
                      \_ I don't know... UCLA is very buff at CS networking.
           \_ Hmm, I hadn't heard that UCSF sucks.
              \_ UCSF isn't a general university.  UCSF is great, of course.
              \_ UCSF is the #1 med school in the nation. They
                 have a pretty good Law School as well.
                 \_ First, the law school isn't at UCSF, it is UC Hastings!
                    UCSF only does biomedical disciplines (and only graduate).
                    Second, they are never ranked #1 overall for med-school,
                    Harvard, Mayo, and JHU are often, and usually ahead of
                    them.  And anybody who cares about overall rankings instead
                    of discipline based is most likely going to the wrong
        \_ Heh. Then you're already starting from behind. UCSC!=last and
           never has been, except for its fledgling eng program.
        \_ since when is UCSC last? I thought UCI or UCR was last.
           \_ UCR is solidly in last in terms of difficulty to gain
              admittance. --dim
           \_ I thougt UCSB the party school is last.
        \_ Ranked by what? Hot chix? Reputation? Glaucoma sufferers?
        \_ It depends on the program, really.  UCSB is mostly pretty weak,
           but their physics program ranks very highly, for example.  -tom
           \_ As a physicist, I know about them kicking ass in physics,
              particularly high energy theory and condensed matter
              experiment.  I would have guessed that their EE would have
              to be first rate, given the massive army of 3-5 semiconductor
              people there.
        \_ All this stuff about best schools and just about every one of you
           babbles about academics as if it matters.  If you're not in a PhD
           program it doesn't matter.  If you are you already know the best
           schools for your field.  It's all about the hottest chicks.  The
           rest is bullshit.
           \_ If anything, the overall school reputation matters _less_ for
              a PhD student, not more.  I can see how hiring BS/BA people can
              be influenced a little by school prestige, but for a PhD grad
              looking for a job, it's all about their research really.
              I school prestige is something low self-esteem people care about,
              kind of like they care about their sports team performance.
2003/1/18 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:27142 Activity:nil
1/16    What is UCB's CS research funding compared to say, the Furd, CalTech,
        MIT, etc?
2002/10/4 [Academia/OtherSchools, Academia/StanfUrd] UID:26097 Activity:kinda low
10/3    Where can I get undergrad rankings? Interested in Harvey Mudd, etc
        \_ 1. harvard
           2. princeton
           3. yale
           4. mit
           5. - 9. various other east coast schools
           10. stanford
           11. cal
           12. - 200. more warm body environments
           201. harvey mudd
        \_ U.S. News and World Report?

          \_ US News' rating system is pretty arbitrary, and doesn't apply
             at all to schools which only have undergraduate programs (like
             Mudd).  -tom
             \_ sure, it's arbitrary, but when people say a school is ranked
                such and such, they are refering to the usnews ranking,
                wether it's stupid and arbitrary or not.  i've worked with
                several people from all of the schools listed above since
                graduating, and am damn glad i went to cal and not some
                stupid east coast school where all the students are
                \_ Identical can be good. Cal has so much variance, ymmv a lot.
                   There are really smart cal grads (like myself) and really
                   dumb ones (like you, heh). At your stupid east coast school,
                   what you see is what you get (alllooksame).
             \_ One can make the argument that providing teaching alone does
                not make a good undergraduate environment, especially for
                people who actually wish to become scientists and engineers
                themselves.  I agree with that argument.
                \_ i also agree.
                \_ The counter-argument is that at a school like Mudd,
                   undergrads work directly with their professors and are
                   given top priority, which doesn't tend to be true at
                   research universities.  It's a tradeoff.  -tom
        \_ CS ranking or overall?
        \_ Where do CalTech, CMU and Cornell rank?
           \_ Caltech
2002/10/3-4 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:26087 Activity:very high
10/2    I was talking to some punk who graduated from Mudd who claimed that
        MIT was a terrible ugrad school. Also talked about rampant grade
        inflation at MIT. Is MIT known to have grade inflation? I always
        thought that it didn't.
        \_ Mudd is psycho.  they have four majors, and the addition of the
                                      \_ 7: bio, chem, cs, eng, math, phys, ss
           "soft" field of bio was recent and very controversial.
           SEALs can talk shit about Marines, but Marines are still tough.
           \_ Mudd is a school with "little man's syndrome"; to some extent
              they are more interested in being difficult than in actually
              teaching.  -tom  (former Mudd ugrad)
              \_ Didn't know you were a quitter.
              \_ Oh so they're like CalTech?
                \_ I think they strive to be harder than CalTech--there's
                   definitely a rivalry between the two schools.  In the
                   school yearbook there's a "blackout" page where they take
                   a photo of the original freshman class from 4 years ago
                   and black out everyone who didn't graduate in 4 years.
                   There's sort of a perverse pride in their level of
                   difficulty.  -tom
                   \_ The rivalry is all in Mudd's mind. Tech students
                      are barely aware of Mudd. -former Tech'er
                        \_ When I visited CalTech they made a big deal
                           about the cannon and Mudd stealing it.  -tom
                           \_ The last couple of times I visited CalTech,
                              the people in flem would talk about it, and
                              the rest would brush it off as flem doing
                              its thing. I really don't think most techers
                              care about mudd whatsoever.
                \_ A HS friend left sometime after a class in which the
                   high on a midterm was 13 (of 100).
                   \- dont you need to ask "what would the high on the
                      midterm have been if it was given to caltech/mit
                      \_ we know if it were cal, it would be like 3.
                         \- i suspect if it were berkeley, the average
                            might have been lower but the top score would
                            have certainly been higher.
                   \_ that's farily common in P-Chem.  They have "honk if
                      you passed P-Chem" bumper stickers.  -tom
2002/6/27 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:25228 Activity:nil
6/27    Does MIT have a football team? How about CalTech?
        \_ University of Chicago is a school with very high
           addmissions standards, a good education, strong
           academics and grad programs, great research, tons of money,
           and no serious atheletic recruiting/scam programs
           at some point they decided they were sick of the bullshit,
           and it has not harmed them in any way.  that doesn't meand
           you can't have excellecnce in athletics, just not at the
           expense of everything else.  just look at the cal tae kwon
           do team: great athletes just competeing for the fun of it,
           not beacause they are supported by some athlete welfare program
           and provided with free cars and whores.  last i checked
           they were one of the best teams in the country, while our football
           teams always suck in spite of the cars and whores.
           \- Robert Maynard Hutchins got rid of the UChicago football team.
              [remember where Fermi build his reactor?]. There was a lot of
              alumni controversy. He then pushed a Western Civ program and
              did a lot to make UChi the "hardcore" school it is today.
              RMH was an interestin guy ... he was dean of Yale Law in his
              late 20 I believe an president at UChi in his early 30 I think.
              He used to say "sometimes i feel like exercising ... so I lie
              down until the feeling goes away." --psb
        \_ Harvard and Yale do.
        \_ I see where you're going with this. demonstrates
           exactly what sort of study body results when no
           athletes are enrolled.
        \_ Their team made the front page of Sports Illustrated in the
           late 80s.  Who knows if the team is still around.
           \_ How many (*good-looking*) women does MIT/Caltech have?
              Stanford? UCLA? USC? Chico State?
                \_ by answering that you just further my point.
              \_ I'm assuming you mean before they try to commit suicide
                 by immolation in their dorm rooms.
2002/5/3-5 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:24701 Activity:very high
5/3     What kind of idiot is MIT prof Stuart Madnick?
        \_ The best kind.  The kind that can be bought.
           \- yeah if i were an attorney or we could get him to a csua
              meeting i would ask him "are you stupid or bought off?" --psb
        \_ Apparently doctoral degrees from MIT can be brought too because
           he has one.
           \_ Holding a doctoral degree from MIT does not imply that the
              holder of that degree is an individual of good character.
        \_ There are plenty of professional expert witnesses.  Most of them
           don't get busted in such a public case.  They needed to prepare
           him better which is MS's lawyer's fault.  He's just your standard
           say-anything-for-bucks expert.
           \_ Maybe that's the problem: MS-lawyers teaching an MIT professor
              about the meaning of "Operating System".
              And MIT PhD's and MIT Professors are not your "standard
              say-anything-for-bucks" expert -- they are supposed to have
              higher ethics. Can you imagine a UC Berkeley prof testifying
              on the stand like that? We'd run him/her out of Berkeley.
                 \_ You can buy a UCB prof too, but MS didn't want to pay
                    the extra 10% fee.
              Shame on MIT.
              \_ ahh... to be young and idealistic..
                 \_ Why does someone always beat me to it?  I was thinking
                    exactly this as I read the naive post above and then BAM!
                    someone else has said it already... sigh.
                    \_ ahh... to be old and slow...
                 \_ You can buy a UCB prof too, but MS didn't want to pay
                    the extra 10% fee. Plus fly them cross country.
                    \_ Since when does a UCB prof cost more?  Who the hell has
                       heard of UCB when compared to the blaring bullhorn that
                       is MIT?  More like MIT/10 = UCB cost.
                        \_ it's funny how those of you who think so poorly of
                           Cal still have enough "self-respect" to stay at the
                           \_ It's not funny.  It's called "most bang for the
                              buck".  Not all of us are on the Parental
                              Payment Plan and have to go to the best that
                              we can afford, not simply the best.  BTW, you
                              called your mom and thanked her for all that
                              easy money lately?  You should.  She deserves
                              at least a phone call once a week.
                                \_ funny again. mommy didn't pay for me.
                                   or daddy.
                           \_ Not all of us *gasp* are smart enough (or had
                              good enough grades/scores) to get into MIT, but
                              still see its superiority (if in nothing else,
                              than at least in reputation).
              \_ preparing witness != teaching witness.  Please report to
                 slashdot for legal education immediately!  (yes thats a joke)
2002/5/1-2 [Academia/Berkeley, Academia/OtherSchools] UID:24668 Activity:very high
        MIT professor backs M$, what's next, Berkeley and Caltech?
        \_ Note that he is an IT, not CS, professor.
        \_ why shouldn't Berkeley back them up? they probably do already.
           universities aren't so gung-ho about open source and all those
           issues as csua'ers are; they just want everything to work
           seamlessly with each other, easy installations, etc.
        \_ Bzzzzt! You've been brainwashed by Bill and Co.
           Windows only works seamlessly with Windows. Integration
           with other platforms is only at Microsoft's will. They can
           and do take that away from you to charge you more for it
           at any time. It is always easy to install a virus into your
           system. The hard part is getting it out after you've sunk
           most of your IT budget into it. Microsoft makes the most
           pervasive and damaging virus ever known: Windows.
2001/6/22-23 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:21604 Activity:kinda low
6/22    Sexiest Geek Contest:
        \_ Xena needs Zex.
        \_ Mr. Lara Croft?
                \_ Noo.. some Mills College CS professor. She didn't look
                   that hot. I like Cindy Margolis better.
                   \_ . I think the CSUA
                      can do better. --dim
                      \_ I agree.  You think you can beat some of them dim?
                         One of them has a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. from MIT.
                         \_ Hell, I work with PhDs (CalTech and MIT) who are
                            hotter than her. --dim
                                \_ would they actually show up for that
                                   stupid contest?   -tom
                                   \_ No. So I guess the title is deceiving
                                      since the sample was self-selecting.
                                      "Sexiest Geek Without A Life or
                                      Self-Respect" is a better name. Heck,
                                      Kathy Yelick (MIT) is better than
                                      the winner. --dim
                      \_ Aria Giovanni is good too.
                                      \_ Damn!!1!
                      \_ Aria Giovanni and Tara Patrick are good too.
2001/6/14-15 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:21518 Activity:very high
6/14    "10 toughest colleges"
        Hmm, we're not on the list. :-(
              \_ Kalamazoo?? Basically, in order to assess
                 toughest colleges you probably have to distinguish
                 between technical and non-technical. Among
                 technical schools, I'd include MIT and Cal Tech
                 and then add the millitary academies (real curriculum +
                 millitary training). Among liberal arts schools,
                 I'd probably put the schools that take seriously
                 great books and foreign languages: St. Johns,
                 Deep Springs and then maybe Chicago, Swarthmore.
                 After that, you would add schools have tough majors -
                 if you want to take them: Berkeley, Michigan, the Ivys
                 and places like Amherst.
        \_ "MSN"?  gee.
        \_ Any list headed by CalTech, I don't want to be on.  -tom
           \_ Thus spake the wise one, whose widsom was not good
              enough for admission into the high temple of science
              and learning.
        \_ they smoke a lot of crack at Reed
           \_ they smoke pot.  especially at "Ren Faire".  Portland is nice
              tho.  Rains a fuckload of a lot.  Lotsa hippies and burrowood
                \_ What's the name of the festival where they do
                   do the most digusting thing imaginable, and then
                   you get the cute girl next to you to do something
                   worse, like eating mealworms out of someone's
                   \_ CU73 42N CH1X W0U1D ! D0 7H47!
              \_ That's just 23rd Ave, Portland's version of Haight-Ashbury.
                 \_ and the Reed Campus.  I was there.  No, Really, I was.
                    were you?  Did you live in the mac-only dorms?  Did
                    you see your roommates make bongs from soda cans and
                    drink microbrew peach ginger ale?  Or are you a sodawanker?
                    drink microbrew peach ginger ale?  Or are you a motdwanker?
                    \_ Yes, I've visited Reed. But I had more sense to go
                       to Cal than to go to a school like Reed. Portland's
                       not exactly the place to go for higher education
                       unless you want to go to OHSU and become a doctor.
                       Most of Portland is pretty well maintained. It's
                       a fairly liberal city but it's nothing like Telegraph
              \_ I feel gritty already just by reading this!
        \_ what?  did you really expect Berkeley to be on this list?  are you
           \_ i'm glad berkeley is n't on this list.
        \_ there's a world of difference between "10 toughest colleges" and
           "10 colleges with students who whine the most". sure, mit and
           caltech are most likely on both lists. the rest look verrrrrry
           \_ The Coast Guard Academy is on the list. That tells you all
              you need to know. --dim
              \_ What's wrong with the Coast Guard Academy?  Thx.
                 \_ It's not exactly West Point, not that West Point is
                    all that. For fun, find out where celebrities went:
           \_ MIT and caltech _AND_ Swarthmore.  Swarthmore is a pretty tough
              driven place. --chris
        \_ Swarthmore I'll buy.  Reed, KZoo (Kalamazoo), Grinnelle?  Yeah,
           right. -dans
                \_ Swarthmore.  Anywhere else it would have been an C-
        \_ I think basically these colleges run real curriculums but accept
           average students, who have to work at a killer pace juts to keep up.
           \_ Caltech and MIT have killer curriculums and admit only the
              best of the best and then work them to the bone. The other
              universities have average curriculums but accept shitty
              students, the kind that would find Cal hard (hint Cal is
              not hard).
              \_ well, what is our criteria of hardness? if there are some
                 really hard classes but most people don't take them, what
                 does this mean? if most people are L&S weenies, then what?
                 if you do 16 units or more a semester of solid technical
                 classes, is that "easy"?  or even less, since in the end
                 it comes down to time. is it hard because your peers are
                 smarter than you and set high standards on the exams?
                 is it hard because the material itself is hard to learn?
                 \_ The material covered is much more detailed and the
                    expected understanding of that material is much higher.
                    For example, you could not pass MIT's equiv. of the
                    7 series without attending a single lecture, section
                    and lab. At Cal it is trivial. Same for ld math. Its
                    harder to pass a ud or grad course with zero work, but
                    it can be done with a fraction of the work required
                    at CalTech or MIT. The Farm is no better than Cal,
                    and in fact its worse in some ways. (I've never seen
                    bigger bunch of whiners and sisses in my life. I keep
                    hearing things like, no fair, don't change the rules
                    half way through the course, we need extensions because
                    life is too hard when your dad make $1e6 a year, etc.)
2000/1/25-27 [Recreation/Dating, Academia/OtherSchools] UID:17325 Activity:high
1/24    And you thought Cal reshalls were bad:
        \_ not that anyone reads this thread anymore, but one of the other
        "great pieces of legislation" that McGrath introduced was a bill
        requiring grade-school teachers to carry handguns on campus...
           \_ What's wrong with that?  I think *everyone* should be required
              to own and maintain a firearm.
        \_ Cal reshalls are totally liberal and open.  Even other UC's have
                more restrictive dorms.  Go to a religious schools and UC
                dorms seem incredibly permissive ("You can have members of
                the opposite sex in your room?  Wow...")
                \_ coed bathrooms.  nuff said.
                   \_ Try the USCA co-ops if you want to learn what the true
                      meaning of "permissive" is all about.  Cal dorms are
                      super nazi control freaks in comparison.  In fact, you
                      really can't fairly compare.  Different worlds.
                      \_ Exactly.  Co-ed bathing.  Co-ed rooms (though I saw
                         that go bad one semester).
                        \_ What happened?
                                \_ The obvious: they broke up, hated each
                                   other but had to finish out the semester
                                   because there was no where else to go.
                                        -ex house manager
                         \_ Define "co-ed bathing" por favor.
                                \_ Members of opposite sex engaging in sexual
                                   foreplay/intercourse in hottub/shower/tub.
                                   \_ Happens in Cal dorms too.  Even *gasp*
                                         \_ are you on crack?
                                      \_ Uhm, no, not like the co-ops.  I doubt
                                         any dormy has ever seen a hungry post-
                                         sex couple emerge from their cave or
                                         the hot tub, etc, and walk naked into
                                         the kitchen to get food and return to
                                         fuck some more.  There's more sex in
                                         the smallest co-op houses every night
                                         than the entire dorm system.  You
                                         really shouldn't try to put "dorm" &
                                         "co-op" in the same sentence.
                                                --seen it in co-ops
                                         \_ well damn. I should have been
                                            in the co-ops.
                                            \_ MUHAHAHAHAHA!! (evil laughter)
                                      \_ Speak for yourself.
                                                -Done it in bot places
                                        \_ Not on a co-op quantity scale. We've
                                           had honest Presidents too.  Not on
                                           a large scale, unfortunately.
                                      \_ Foothill?  Rape doesn't count.
           \_ UC Santa Cruz has the most liberal on-campus dorms by far. --dim
              \_ if you ignore the fact they close off the campus at 8pm
              \_ How so?
                 \_ Co-ed everything. Underage drinking. Rampant drug use.
                    Tolerance to noise. Preceptors and RAs who turn a blind
                    eye to (or participate in!) parties and smoke-outs. I've
                    heard it's more strict now that they had some "problems",
                    though. I can't confirm. Cal seemed Fascist in
                    comparison. We always had to be secretive here. --dim
                    \_ Back when I did that kind of thing, I used to smoke
                       pot with my RA all the time -- what's the big deal?
                        \_ I wasn't smoking out in the Cal dorms but saw plenty
                           of it.  What's the title for the student they put in
                           charge of the whole building?  She was using the
                           freshman boys like they were going outta style.
                            \_ Hall Coordinators.  And I was an RA, and I
                               drank with my Residents, but I only dated
                               Residents from other areas.  You don't shit
                               where you eat.
                                \_ Speak for yourself!
                                \_ HC.  That's it.  Holly.  She was hot.
                                                         Any pics? _/
                       \_ The deal is that at UCSC nobody cared. At UCB
                          the door had to be closed. There was always an
                          element of secrecy. I remember people having to
                          dump their beer down the drain in the shower. I
                          also recall an RA losing his job because he was
                          caught drinking with the students. At UCSC, it
                          didn't matter. No one cared and anything went.
                          It was similar to the co-ops. --dim (former USCA)
                          \_ Oh, hell, UCB's best policy was the I-don't-see-
                             policy.  Prepped me for life in the CIA.^H^H^H^H
                          \_ Until someone's daddy files a law suit against
                             UCSC.  We were spending house money on acid at
                             my co-op.
1998/5/6 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:14059 Activity:nil 50%like:14602
5/6     sysadmin job at caltech /csua/pub/jobs/caltech-sysadmin --jon
2021/12/06 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Academia:OtherSchools: