Stanford Video Mocking Berkeley Students
When I originally saw this movie, it struck me as vaguely humorous, but not really worth mentioning. Turns out I was wrong (and thank you to everyone who e-mailed me about it.) The Stanford kids stop by a Kappa Sigma party and wander around campus mocking Berkeley students in various ways. It’s mildly entertaining, and flirts with racism/sexism/lookism/pseudo homo-eroticism/public urination, and probably more isms. They took down the original video, but a newspaper site is hosting it here.
Turns out a newspaper columnist got all bent out of shape and thinks the video might be racist. Her column is here
Here is a snippet:
But some of the video has truly eyebrow-raising moments. Like the freeze-frame of a young Latina dancing at a party that has a superimposed arrow pointing to her gold hoop earring and the accompanying words “Quinceanera gift!” The Gipsy Kings play in the background, and a Baja Fresh logo zooms across the bottom of the screen.
Then there’s a segment about “Famous People” who supposedly attend Cal. There’s a “Mexican Hootie” lookalike call made on a guy walking down some stairs who doesn’t look anything like the lead singer of Hootie and the Blowfish. There’s a “Will Smith” call made on a black student — presumably just because he’s, well, black.
That’s not the only black reference — the film opens with the question of why Stanford hasn’t done well in recent Big Games. Text on the screen then asks rhetorically: “Is it because … black people in audience and not on field?” .
P.S. The video also features a couple of Berkeley campus “celebrities”.
dam bezerkeley juss got smashT crushT ownT
shiT is s@d m@n. dey must have found da dumbest kids to videotape. and dose street ppl and daT bookstore owner… GJ CONFIRMING DA STEREOTYPES ABOUT OUR SKOOL. FUKIN LOSERS
oh yea, daT girl and guy pissin out da window. no self respect no dignity. our fukin civilization is crashin wen daT shiT is permitted. fukin kids needs to learn some manners and have some dignity bout demselves nomesayin?
-smashT
“at least stanfurd will be smashT on da field tomorrow”
Comment by smashT — November 18, 2005 @ 10:04 pm
I’ve got to agree with SmashT on this. This video makes us look bad, and its not like those scenes were fabricated. It is a shame that I attend the same school and live in the same town as all these losers. Berkeley isn’t all it is hyped up to be.
Comment by Fan — November 18, 2005 @ 11:17 pm
Berkeley is filled with people who have fun. OH NOES!!! How shameful.
Comment by Beetle — November 18, 2005 @ 11:53 pm
The video was also mentioned in the SF Chronicle. For such a small video its created quite a bit of bad press for them.
I wish they had asked me about Cal, there are a myriad of reasons why we are better than Stanford.
Comment by Clifton — November 19, 2005 @ 1:58 am
“Berkeley is filled with people who have fun. OH NOES!!! How shameful.”
yea cuz pissin out da window while ur being videotaped = having lots of fun right? ur right daT shiT is shameful. waT has dis world cum 2 wen u gotta piss out da window in public while da camera is on to have fun?
point is u can have tons of fun while also maintaing your dignity…
-smashT
“smashT trailer trash kids”
Comment by smashT — November 19, 2005 @ 2:22 am
“yea cuz pissin out da window while ur being videotaped = having lots of fun”
such activities are only fun if you hit the stanford student below you. bonus points if you damage his camera.
Comment by Dan the Yank — November 19, 2005 @ 6:52 am
how embarrassing? i guess some of you wieners share the attitude of the video makers. personally, ill take sloppy drunken morons over racist misogynist elitist pricks anyday…
plus, in the morning those video makers will wake up and they will still be racist, misogynist, elitist assholes. the cal students will just be hungover.
Comment by mano — November 19, 2005 @ 7:44 am
or on smashT. id piss out the window sober if i knew he was down there.
Comment by mano — November 19, 2005 @ 7:45 am
yap. did you see how one of the peeing people uses the same IMing language as smasht - such as saying “son”, although maybe lots of people have adopted that. I was wondering if it was him.
The Telegraph vendors were the most honorable.
oh - they’re starting BART allnight service. yay.
Comment by cp — November 19, 2005 @ 9:02 am
yap. did you see how one of the peeing people uses the same IMing language as smasht - such as saying “son”, although maybe lots of people have adopted that. I was wondering if it was him.
The Telegraph vendors were the most honorable.
oh - they’re starting BART allnight service. yay.
Comment by cp — November 19, 2005 @ 9:03 am
there are a lot of morons at berkeley, i think this video was a decent representation of a good number of our constituents. the only reason the reputation of cal is so high is that it gets to select from california high school students as its applicant pool, and ends up with everyone who didnt get into stanford and some of the better private schools out of the state, and would rather pay in-state tuition to go to cal than go to a non-ivy caliber private school. with an applicant pool of this size, youre bound to get a ton of people with really high gpa’s that end up boosting the school’s reputation, but does this school really have that much to offer? ive never been all that impressed with any of my professors, or of the research opportunities offered, and there’s not even an honors program at this place. dont give me that crap about the entire school being an honors program, because ive met people here that have scored 1200s on their sat’s and barely had above a 3.4 unweighted. i guess that’s the whole “diversity” think cal loves to brag about.
ive never heard a good reason as to why anyone would choose berkeley over stanford, aside from tuition and having some homeless bums to mess with on the walk home when we’re drunk. i doubt there are many students at our school that “chose” to go to berkeley rather than stanford, i think it’s more a matter of admission.
Comment by slam it — November 19, 2005 @ 9:16 am
think = thing
Comment by slam it — November 19, 2005 @ 9:17 am
Slam it is right. Stanford is a better school than Cal. Just admit it. Their admissions standards are much higher, and Stanford ISN’T just for rich kids (they are much more generous with financial aid). They even hold their recruited athletes to pretty high academic standards (here any dumbass football or water polo player can get in, no matter their HS grades, at Stanford, academics count). I’ve been very dissapointed with Cal. Going to school here is like going to the DMV with slightly smarter people. Berkeley is a dirty city full of homeless and druggies (and a fair ammount of violent crime). But I didn’t let this get in the way of me coming. I figured I would be having discussion with world class professors and learning more than ever. This isn’t the case, as I’m stuck in 100-600 person (upper-division) classes WATCHING a lecture. The fact that our classes can be “webcast” and the student can still get just as much out of them from the comfort of a dorm room is a little disconcerting. There is no student-techer or student-student interaction (and GSI discussion sections don’t cut it). Professors here (making 300k a year) couldn’t give a rats hoot about teaching–the only thing the UC system values is cutting-edge research to boost their “reputation.” Everything at this school is a bureaucratic mess, my classes are mostly boring and not very useful (I learned so much more in my 35 person high school classes because the teachers actually TAUGHT), and I have to worry about being mugged/raped every time I walk home from class (and I live only 3 blocks from campus). This is not worth the price of a UC “education.” I’d rather spend a little more on a more elite private school (elite public schools, by nature, are not as good as elite private schools) than waste my cash at UC Berkeley. Although I did not get in to Stanford coming out of high school, I will be trying to transfer there (in addition to some other better private schools, such as Dartmouth, Princeton, and Rice). That is right, I have been at Cal for 3+ semesters, and I want to transfer to Stanford. I am not a poser Stanford student. I AM a real Cal student. I have know idea why the video creators decided to be racist, but they sure gave me a good reason not to stay at Cal. Everything the showed (besides the racism) on the video is true (no photoshopping or doctoriing). It is sad that some Cal students (i.e. the ones at the party) have so little dignity and respect for each other as human beings. I guess this is just another reason to steer clear of the greek system. Frat boys, in general, are pretty lame. I’d rather be friends with a racist Stanford student then some frat boy (”brother”) who is going to flog me, make me piss in public, shoot me with a BB gun in the chest 30 times, run me over when he is drunk driving, etc, etc, etc. Stop beating around the bush. We all know that Stanford is higher-caliber school (academically) than Cal. It is time to come to grips on this one.
Comment by Fan — November 19, 2005 @ 9:58 am
i chose to come to berkeley over stanford for numerous reasons that go deeper than their boring and isolated campus that perpetuates their sheltered existance. cal offers a myriad of interdisciplinary majors that are much more interesting and rigorous. some of the most well known and key figures in my field teach here–this goes for a lot of other fields as well. our study abroad programs are much much cooler (when i was abroad i met the stanford group and they were separated out from a real university and babysat. our proximity to cultural centers is def a plus. etc etc. there are soooo many reasons why berkeley > stanford besides the tuition.
Comment by Anonymous — November 19, 2005 @ 10:35 am
The grass isn’t greener on the other side. Sometimes I feel Cal students go “Oh well if I had gone to a private school things would have been better”. I’ve spent a great deal of time at private schools like Stanford and MIT, and while there are something that are improved overall it’s quite literally the same experience. They have HUGE classes as well… some with 999 students, for the most part their dorms are run down, the administration is hard to deal with, and there are sometimes students who just don’t belong.
However, Cal is significantly better than Stanford for so many reasons. Not the least of which is that we are the only university to have all of our both undergrad and grad programs in the top 10, 90% of which are in the top five. Our graduate school has been the best since rankings were started three decades ago. Our L&S college alone has more programs in the top 10 than Harvard. We also have more nobels, fields medalists, and other distinguished professors than Stanford and almost all the ivies could ever dream.
Combine that with a lively student body that is unparalled (we have 700 student organizations!), and a beautiful campus (our campus is always ranked at the top of landscaping and beauty… Harvard and Stanford have ugly buildings too!), and a tuition that is still less than most major public schools and you have an education that can’t be beat.
Comment by Clifton — November 19, 2005 @ 11:02 am
yes, the big game rivalry is righteous, because they are elitist and sheltered. Did you see how those filmers couldn’t understand the reporter’s questions? It points to that their only exposure to different cultures was via television and internet in their bedroom at their home in suburban newport beach. It was their choice to be that way too, because many people from upper class suburbs can choose to have a clue.
Comment by . — November 19, 2005 @ 11:17 am
I’m sure most people go to Cal, over most other universities, do so in order to be able live in a suburb in Newport Beach. Anyone who’s here for personal selfenrichment and diversity conditioning should stop wasting the school’s resources in this time of budget cuts. There’s nothing glamorous about being poor and people should be more appreciative of those people who pay for thir own tuition AND increased financial aid for others.
Comment by HB — November 19, 2005 @ 11:43 am
hahaha. in the wtf does that mean department:
smart career move though: now that plamegate is widening, Gdubya is going to need a replacement undersecretary of lame excuses.
Comment by mano — November 19, 2005 @ 11:46 am
“or on smashT. id piss out the window sober if i knew he was down there.”
dis kis is pisT. nexT
-smashT
“kids are pisT”
Comment by smashT — November 19, 2005 @ 11:52 am
this is from an article about their band, in a newspaper today:
“The 1990 “Spotted Owl Incident” resulted in the band being banished from Oregon following a show in which a stuffed owl was chain-sawed to satirize Oregon’s logging policy. Following a 1999 skit in which the band mocked traditional Irish stereotypes and the 19th century potato famine during a home game against Notre Dame, then-university president Gerhard Casper deemed the band’s conduct “uncivil and improper,” and the band was prohibited from playing at games against the Fighting Irish.
Last season, the band parodied polygamy during a home-game halftime show against Brigham Young University and had to issue a public apology, despite Holt’s claims that “the Mormon faith doesn’t believe in polygamy, and we never mentioned polygamy, the state of Utah, or BYU in our program.”
The skit featured five women in wedding veils.
Comment by . — November 19, 2005 @ 1:04 pm
[robot voice]
ex-cu-se me while i ad-e-quate-ly pro-cess this hu-mor….
con-clu-sion…
ma-king fun of mor-mons: fun-ny.
cal vi-de-o: most-ly not fun-ny.
[/robot voice]
Comment by mano — November 19, 2005 @ 1:23 pm
and look at how these student dress in suits at a Brown-Yale ivy league game. “casual elegance” , and they’re drinking with stemware and eating pate’ on fine crackers. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/nyregion/19yale.html?8hpib
Comment by . — November 19, 2005 @ 1:25 pm
There are sveral reasons why Cal is better than Stanford. Academically Stanford is not as strong and their students don’t work for their grades. That is a fact.
Politically, Stanford is similar to Cal, with Cal’s undergraduate probably being more conservative and far more Asian. As a conservative this makes me feel at least a little better. However, there is the negative correlation between better schools and conservatism.
Stanford produces public figures left to be desired: Gray Davis, Sandra Day O’Connor, Larry Tramultola (who forces taxes through the roof in my community), Alan Ross.
Cal has produced and contains some brilliant public figures: Earl Warren, Pete Wilson, John Yoo, A. James Gregor, Tom Campbell, Dan Schnur.
Comment by Anonymous — November 19, 2005 @ 1:53 pm
j/k about Alan Ross btw he’s pretty cool
Comment by Anonymous — November 19, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
agreed with the folks and their comments about stanford. tons of reasons why berkeley is better–i chose it over stanford partly for financial reasons, but also because it’s way more intellectually stimulating and represented more of what i thought college should be. ever walked around the stanford campus at noon? it’s totally dead. you can’t go across the street and grab a latte at the cafe, or browse bookstores, or even be exposed to the socioeconomic diversity there is at cal.
slam it, you should potentially transfer if you’re so upset. however, i do agree with you that we can and should attract a stronger student body. the administration simply hasn’t made it the priority that it should be (diversity rules).
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 19, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
“and Stanford ISN’T just for rich kids (they are much more generous with financial aid)”
Probably because they *have* to be since they are so much more expensive. You can have parents making 150K a year and still receive financial aid to go there.
The fact is that 1/3 of Cal (and UCLA) students receive Pell Grants, and less than 1/10 of Stanford students do. Cal has a higher percentage (and greater number) of lower-income students than Stanford does.
If in fact it is true that Cal has more “rich” kids, and Cal also has more “poor” kids, then that simply means that Cal has fewer middle class kids. So if Stanford students want to go around saying their school is better than Cal because they have more middle class kids, then why not go right ahead and say it: Stanford is, like Harvard, a school for the externally-motivated middle-class climber bourgeoisie. Stanford kids *have* to believe they’re better than everyone else because to believe otherwise would shatter their self-images and expose themselves as complete frauds and failures as people.
Comment by H+M — November 20, 2005 @ 10:59 am
And for what it’s worth, they video’s “humor” style is typical of that of the Long Island Jew — which make up a disproportionate share of the resentment-filled climber population at many east coast private schools (and I include Stanford as one). I gues that’s what happens when your director of admissions comes from Swarthmore.
Comment by H+M — November 20, 2005 @ 11:05 am
the thing that makes Berkeley so much better than Stanford is the ambient humor level. do Stanford students get to experience the hilarity of stuff like the Sherman Boyson ni**er incident? that’s right erika, we’re laughing at you.
Comment by captain anoymous — November 20, 2005 @ 12:46 pm
“Cal has produced and contains some brilliant public figures:
Earl Warren, Pete Wilson, John Yoo…” Oh yes why don’t we praise the person on campus who preaches about the government’s right to flagrantly breach International Human Rights Law through the use of torture. But returning to the video, it was sort of funny, I know some of those frat guys and I can tell you, they are that stupid. As for the racism, come on take a joke people, Im sure the black people feel terrible that the filmmakers think all black people are good at sport, It was meant to be light-hearted fun, leave it at that.
Comment by anon. — November 20, 2005 @ 2:47 pm
H+M, that’s absolutely spot-on.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 20, 2005 @ 3:17 pm
If you don’t like Cal, please leave. Go to another college, university, or just get on a goddamn jet plane and go away.
But don’t hang around here and bitch about the school. There’s plenty of willing, and probably far more deserving students that will happily take your place, and enjoy how-many-ever years they spend at the Greatest Uni in the World.
Comment by WantsToPrankFurd — November 20, 2005 @ 6:18 pm
Fan, your grammar is awful. You were lucky as [insert expletive here] to get in here, and probably won’t get into that jr. uni across the bay
Comment by The Grammar Police — November 20, 2005 @ 6:20 pm
“This video makes us look bad, and its not like those scenes were fabricated.”
It makes us look bad? SHOCK! HORROR!
Other than the borderline (insert here)-isms, the only faults of the video are that it’s just as stupid as most of its stars and that it’s certainly as witless as its directors.
So they went to frat party at a U.S. university, and taped some coeds in drunken revelry. They could have taped that just as easily at Stanford. So they randomly Jay-walked some Berkeley students, and aired the most embarrasing footage. You mean at a school with 24,000 undergrads, they found a dozen or so with no on-the-spot answer to why Berkeley is better than Stanford? Well, I’ll be damned.
I don’t understand why people get so defensive when our rival makes fun of us or makes us look stupid. THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO DO. What Stanford is doing, what grades they’re making, and what income their parents are earning does not reflect my tenure at Berkeley one whit, and I may be mistaken, but it doesn’t affect any other Berkeley student’s either.
Comment by 2411 — November 20, 2005 @ 8:07 pm
“Reflect?” Definitely meant “affect.”
Comment by 2411 — November 20, 2005 @ 8:46 pm
Grammar Police, luckily the admissions committee didn’t look on calstuff.com for examples of my abhorent grammar. And if some 3.3 GPA minority from an upper-class neighborhood deserves to get in to Cal, then I certainly should get a spot as well (message board/blog grammar excepted).
Comment by Fan — November 20, 2005 @ 11:30 pm
are all Cal girls into golden showers? damn, that was hot.
Comment by chetchet — November 21, 2005 @ 9:42 am
I think Cal should cut its admissions rate by 1/4. I’m tired of dumb people coming to this school and complaining about why their privileged lives are so bas even though they’re from Marin County and happen to be some minority.
Comment by Anonymous — November 21, 2005 @ 1:30 pm
1/4, that’s it? more like 1/3.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 21, 2005 @ 2:06 pm
I was going to say 1/2 but I was afraid that would actually hurt the revenue. Fuck it, 1/2. And those people should be 1/2 out of state students.
Comment by Anonymous — November 21, 2005 @ 2:09 pm
why not just admit everyone, and THEN cut them in half.
or thirds…
Comment by mano — November 21, 2005 @ 2:36 pm
mano, the voice of reason, speaks again! *applause*
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 21, 2005 @ 2:51 pm
if you’re so worried about affirmative action taking your spot, then that 1/3 kicked out would include you.
Luckily there are some adults who run this school, and your perspective is rare in the outside world.
Comment by . — November 21, 2005 @ 3:07 pm
Actually, I would argue that the “adults” who run the school–which I take you to mean the administrators–are totally out of the touch with “the outside world”. Not good for a public university.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 21, 2005 @ 3:17 pm
The students are conservative at Berkeley. But which issue are they conservative on. Is it on the role of US in the world, or abortion, or direction of the economy, or more social issues. Is it a conservatism matching the national republican party, or paleoconservatives, or silicon valley ayn randites? I ask because I’ve been trying to figure out which issue my father is a conservative on, because he started listening to Limbaugh, but he’s doesnt oppose abortion, doesn’t support foreign intervention. it’s more like the anecdotes Limbaugh uses with stories about welfare people and black people unfairly getting into law school, etc. strike a chord.. yet if you listen to Al Franken, he brings up some of the same incidents (that werent pure fabrications) and also has a populist take, but says it goes in favor of liberals - such as an incident where a school district suspended an elementary student under under a zero tolerance rule- Limbaugh blames PC teachers, Franken the idea of zero tolerance.
Comment by . — November 21, 2005 @ 3:47 pm
1) Berkeley is conservative, mostly socially. 58% of the students oppose race-based admissions while nationally, college students support it. I attribute this to the number of Asians on campus. On other issues Berkeley is also very socially consevrative, like on religious issues.
2) Intervention is not a conservative idea. Most people attribute intervention as a liberal idea or at least neither, imposing American values on the rest of the world.
Comment by DTI — November 21, 2005 @ 4:28 pm
While Berkeley students are generally opposed to race-based admissions, Birgeneau is on a one-man crusade to overturn 209. Nice!
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 21, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
I think it’s funny when conservative bloggers try to insult liberals by calling them neoliberals because it is such a big vocabulary word. The thing is, so many democrats *are neoliberals. Even though the majority opposes intervention, the climate in the federal house of reps. makes it so that only the smallest minority will advocate the majority opinion.
Comment by cp — November 21, 2005 @ 7:17 pm
That is funny! Now, if only it had something to do with… uh… anything.
Comment by Beetle — November 21, 2005 @ 8:35 pm
“Even though the majority opposes intervention, the climate in the federal house of reps. makes it so that only the smallest minority will advocate the majority opinion.”
The majority has always been for intervention, whether it’s “liberal” intervention under Clinton or “conservative” intervention by Bush. I’m sick of people telling us that war with Clinton was good but war with Bush is bad and vice versa. Deaths are deaths.
Comment by DTI — November 21, 2005 @ 10:47 pm
The harder BAMN looks like they’re working the more the stduent oppose affirmative action. Look at the big deal they made out of Boyson’s comments. WAH WAH! Someone called me a name! I want him fired!
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 21, 2005 @ 10:59 pm
Transfer admissions.
Here lies the deep, dark secret of Cal. It’s the backdoor through which 90% of the “idiots” represented in that video enter into this school.
Before I keep going, let it be known that I’m a transfer student myself. But it’s been my experience, from the people I’ve met, that the average transfer student tends to be less qualified than the average incoming freshman. Plain and simple. Transfer apps require fewer materials (no SAT/SAT II scores, for example) and, let’s face it, most community colleges aren’t exactly the most rigorous of academic environments.
It sucks, and sometimes it makes me question my own achievements– but most of all it makes me want to prove there is still that 10% that doesn’t suck.
Bottom line: more stringent transfer admissions, fewer embarrassments at Cal. Or so one would hope.
Comment by Will — November 21, 2005 @ 11:36 pm
Just make transfer students get a 3.9 in order to transfer to Cal. That gets rid of a majority of the idiots. I, too was a transfer student and transferred with a 4.0, so I know it’s not impossible.
And get rid of the ELC for Berkeley, another way for idiots to get in. UCLA is a fine school for ELC students to get into.
And sorry, not barring Asians in even the slightest respect in admissions (comprehensive review) would make the student body a lot stronger.
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 21, 2005 @ 11:47 pm
Rep sez:
Yep, you are a great example of how hard it is to filter out “idiots” just by looking at their grades.
Comment by mano — November 22, 2005 @ 7:31 am
disagree. From a teacher’s perspective, lecturers who have classes both at Berkeley and community colleges often would say that the community college students who don’t drop the class after 4 weeks are more enthusiastic in class discussions, and less likely to skip class if there isn’t a quiz, or to sit there texting or doing the crossword. Secondly, the state deserves a return on its investment, and moving the most students through is to its advantage. The freshman/sophomore curriculum of composition/intro. to languages and area studies/calculus can typically be carried out anywhere equivalently, by many instructors, which is why those sections are typically run by grad students at Cal. 3rd and 4th yr is where students can do projects and receive the benefit of faculty talents. If you have AP credits, you are closer to your junior year.
Comment by . — November 22, 2005 @ 7:54 am
.:
these wieners dont understand the function of public education and the role it plays in the larger economic/social scheme of things.
thats why you hear crap like calls to “cut enrollment by 50%” to fix some wholly perceived problem (lack of “exclusivity”). its the same kind of alienated thinking that gives rise to the “were lucky to get money from the state” mentality, as if the state govt. is neutral on the subject, or independent from, public education.
Comment by mano — November 22, 2005 @ 8:16 am
mano: ah the ad hominem attacks start. I was also class valedictorian of my community college.
We have a public education system that serves people of all intellects in California. Community colleges, the California State University system, the University of California and Berkeley. Berkeley as the flagship school should be more elite than the rest and only cater to the best. Name one other state that has such an extensive system to serve the students of their state.
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 22, 2005 @ 10:28 am
“Yep, you are a great example of how hard it is to filter out “idiots” just by looking at their grades.”
lol mano just smashT u kid. sux to be u gettin smashT by such a loser.
how did this fukin thwead turn into a jerk of fest between mano and cameron? wtf is up with these losers always hijacking topix for their circle jerk contests?
anywat back to da original topic. im glad stanford got smashT. i juss wish we didnt have rejects at this school with no human dignity.
-smash TOWN OUT
“rep and mano smashT yet again”
Comment by smashT — November 22, 2005 @ 10:43 am
rep: the quality of the school is not the issue. it is a great school.
your assumption, along with numerous other wieners, is that our elite status is in danger because we contain two populations of people, those that “deserve” to be here and those that dont.
your suggestions for this “problem” revolve around getting rid of the “undeserving”. of course, such simplistic ideas are a recurring and convenient fall back for people of small minds, who are hung up on ideas of merit and worth, generally because they doubt their own.
and its not at all surprising that the morons that advance these cracked out ideas always presume to be among the population that “deserves” to be here. im sorry to burst your bubble, rep, but whatever you got on paper, on the basis of your writing and argumentation here, youd be lucky if you were running an average intelligence.
Comment by mano — November 22, 2005 @ 10:53 am
mano, i think there’s some truth to what you’re saying, in that it’s somewhat convenient to “pull the ladder up behind you” once you’ve made it in.
that being said, i’d (and i’m guessing many of the posters here) be willing to go back in time and weather a more difficult admissions process at berkeley, and take my chances. as someone once told me, “as important as where you go to school is who goes to school with you.” we can learn a lot from our peers.
there’s nothing wrong with wanting your school to be more selective–selectivity is, in the minds of most people around the country (perhaps not yours), a marker for quality.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 22, 2005 @ 11:20 am
Also, i think your perception of public education is very limited. there’s nothing inherently “non-elite” about a public institution–just to to Cambridge or Oxford or IIT (India) or Tokyo University. All government-sponsored, yet elite.
Apparently you don’t believe that a highly selective school can add benefit to the “state” in myriad ways. For example, I’m guessing that Stanford may have contributed more to the California economy than Berkeley, through its incubation of Silicon Valley–yet it’s private. There are reasons that foundations and government organizations continue to contribute to Stanford’s coffers.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 22, 2005 @ 11:24 am
Bhanu, I disagree about Stanford contributing more to the California economy just because of sheer numbers of Berkeley students graduating.
smashT, losers like me and you who post here without doign anythign useful for society? That must also include mano, Bhanu and every person who wastes time on here.
mano, and yes there are a lot of people who don’t deserve to be at Cal. Why do we have 4,000 undergraduates per class? Do 4,000 people (most of whom are in-state) deserve a Berkeley education? Or do they deserve an education that isn’t a Berkeley education? And yes, for the record, many Asians would have to be weeded out as well and, since they’re overrepresented, at a higher rate than other groups just by virtue of being overrepresented.
And I’d appreciate it if you would stop calling me dumb. Maybe we’re not all as smart as you, mano, who spends his life protesting for thigns that will never come true and posting on blogs about how everyoen else is a worthless “wiener”.
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 22, 2005 @ 11:37 am
Who makes the greater contribution isn’t easy to measure, since different folks will assign different weights to different factors.
My point was that it can certainly be argued that Stanford has given more to California economically than any other CA school. Consider the state without Sili Valley, which is largely there due to Stanford’s presence (like it or not).
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 22, 2005 @ 11:46 am
um, and it will almost certainly be a weak argument, if not dead wrong. rep has it right: the sheer scale of Cal when compared to Stanford makes it almost impossible that Stanford would have a bigger impact economically.
but you insist that it “can be argued”. is this an intelligent design argument? seriously, im curious EXACTLY what cracked out economics you want to use (or think could be used hypothetically, speaking theoretically, of course) to advance this. my hunch is you just pulled this idea, like, TOTALLY out of your ass, and its entirely a construction of what you would prefer to believe, and there is nothing and nobody out there to back you up. but feel free to prove me wrong.
i mean, because if your point is that a jackass MIGHT argue that stanford has a bigger economic impact on CA, then yes, a JACKASS might.
Comment by mano — November 22, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
Mano, you’re a fool. Are you even kidding me?
Sheer student numbers mean nothing–this is where you always make your mistake. Look at the companies that have been started out of Stanford over the last ten years alone, and look at how many jobs they’ve created/how much money they’ve brought into the economy (Google alone has contributed to an improved budget outlook for this year–lots of tax revenue for the state).
Apart from that, world class universities attract the best people from all over the world. Stanford is much smaller than Berkeley overall but has more foreign students. That’s a boon to California. Keep your eyes closed if you want; the facts won’t change.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 22, 2005 @ 1:21 pm
why is it so good to concentrate those people in one place, where they will drive up the cost of housing and other goods for the working class who haven’t been pushed out, while the places they left in the midwest, south and other countries suffer from a lack of people in the professions and their tax revenue.
Comment by . — November 22, 2005 @ 2:26 pm
“smashT, losers like me and you who post here without doign anythign useful for society? That must also include mano, Bhanu and every person who wastes time on here.”
ur assuming daT posting here pwecludes me from contributing useful things to society. considering dis takes up less dan 1% of my day i tink u are assuming 2 much s0n. smashT
its not wasted time for me kid cuz i get to laugh @ morons liek u and manoob argue about bs. keep entertainen me kid while i keep smashTing u and ur fwends wen u get out of line. smashT
-smashT OUT
“smashT squishT crushT ownT”
Comment by smashT — November 22, 2005 @ 2:42 pm
e’er a place more liberal than UC Berkeley, it’s Stanford University.
Comment by Anonymous — November 22, 2005 @ 3:55 pm
Bhanu, just as I thought, yours is not an economic analysis. Its hot air. You can use words like “boon” all you want, but if you are talking about comparing economic importance of two institution you need hard numbers, and real analysis, otherwise, you are talking out of your ass. which is ok, but you should be upfront about it if you dont want me to call you a jackass…
The one example, and its a paltry one, that you cite is google. This is laughable, and I suspected you would pull google out of your ass, because yes, you are that dumb. Please explain exactly how
how much did google pay in taxes, you nitwit? Do you even know how to find out? these things are public information, so you have no excuse for ignorance. go take a look. yes, they “contributed”. so technically you are right. but was it more than a drop in the bucket? nah, not so much.
now, see when you start talking about $, but you refuse to talk numbers, it raises all sorts of red flags. heres 3 red flags for ya:
you
fucking
moron.
Comment by mano — November 22, 2005 @ 4:25 pm
do people blow hot air while fellating stanford? people do.
Comment by mano — November 22, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
jesus mano. of course i could pull up numbers for google. the point is that your metrics for “contribution to the state” could be different from mine. there is no “right answer” here.
anyway, i would be happy to provide further color on this, but your last three words killed that motivation. i’m not sure why you’re incapable of having a rational discussion. you say others are full of “hot air”, while at the same time resorting to personal slander. hypocrite.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 22, 2005 @ 5:00 pm
who pissed in your cheerios today, chris?
i bet it was the girl sticking her ass out the window.
Comment by chet — November 22, 2005 @ 5:20 pm
hahaha! good one chet.
bhanu, keep your “color”. it is clear you talk out of your ass.
you have no idea how much google puts into the state coffers. but you like to make shit up. in 2004 google paid over 200 million in taxes (a quick check of income statements for ex.). most of that $ is obviously federal, not state. and that hardly puts a dent in californias “budget”, state alone is almost 100B.
the whole conversation, taking it seriously is stupid. your understanding of economics (even what passes for mainstream economics these days) is nil (a mainstream economist would answer the question by crediting stanford and cal with a portion of GDP, and Cal would blow stanford away if you do that). even crediting stanford with google itself, all of it, is just dumb. so your point is stupid. talking about it is stupid, so im going to stop berating you and stop talking about it, cuz im making myself look stupid too by taking this seriously…
PS: and you still suk.
Comment by mano — November 22, 2005 @ 5:46 pm
crediting google to stanford is dumb?
you do realize that stanford OWNS google’s IP, right? and that brin and page dropped out the stanford computer science phd program? and came to stanford in the first place (from maryland and michigan respectively) because they wanted to pursue grad school there?
yes, let’s not discuss further.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 22, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
Herbert Hoover, Ehud Barak, William Perry, Alejandro Toldeo. The fact that Pete Wilson is on your list is laughable.
btw, mano, if you don’t want to credit Google to Stanford, why not Yahoo! Or HP, or Netflix, or PayPal? What about Sun, Capital One, Charles Schwab…
booyakasha
Comment by anonymous — November 22, 2005 @ 6:18 pm
yes, im aware of the history. if stanford “gets” google, fine, then the UC “gets” Bechtel. and the scores of other corporations and practices and etc that our alums founded. guaranteed to beat stanford. do you get the picture or not, mr. new economy?
probably not is my guess.
Comment by mano — November 22, 2005 @ 6:32 pm
oh, absolutely. “guaranteed to beat stanford”–even though you haven’t offered any data (where are those specifics now, chris?). however, it doesn’t matter–we should all take your word for it because, well, it’s YOU who’s making the blind assertion.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 22, 2005 @ 6:37 pm
fine, dickhead.
if you are playing a numbers game the uc wins hands down because of the size of the student body. those are real numbers. contrast 30K students to 6K students. on average, a cal student can produce a fifth of what the average stanford wiener does. not to mention that the numbers arent simply added, you have to consider the economy Cal represents simply by existing, even just here in berkeley.
but go ahead and compare bechtel to google. revenue: bechtel - ~$17.4 billion google - ~$3 billion. and bechtel has been around almost a hundred years. google has only been making money for a few years. multiply that out. oops. ill trade you a bechtel for, er, 200 googles. better make it 400, just to be on the safe side. and then throw in all those other computer and internet companies that other wiener mentioned.
and then of course, there is american nuclear superiority, largely due to the advances in physics made at uc berkeley. give uc berkeley the atom bomb and the economic gains made as a result of atomic energy and global military superiority. not to mention, how much of our economy is tied up in spending on nuclear weapons. ha. guess we “get” that too. oh, uh, still want to put a “website” up against that?
the importance of this particular school to this country cannot be understated. and its a better grad school than stanford, and any of the ivies, anyway. not to mention that all these technologies that these wieners at the farm monetize, a lot of them are partially developed here. so dream on. if the california state govt had to choose between losing UC berkeley or stanford, there would be no contest.
this is a stupid discussion. stupid.
Comment by mano — November 22, 2005 @ 7:02 pm
32,000 overall at berkeley vs 14,000 overall at stanford.
the other companies the other “wiener” mentioned are stanford spin outs.
agreed–end of discussion.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 22, 2005 @ 7:42 pm
The day I would hear mano use nuclear technology in Berkeley’s defense has finally come. =)
Comment by Anonymous — November 22, 2005 @ 9:09 pm
haha. i used it in defense of my position, which is that ucb has a great deal of importance to the state/country/system. more than stanford. but whatever, im not against nuclear energy, and im far from a pacifist (or a liberal). but ive been over that before.
Comment by mano — November 22, 2005 @ 9:13 pm
Mano, you criticize Bhanu for not posting hard numbers or hard facts, but you don’t seem to offer any of your own. Simply put, the issue (Stanford’s economic importance vs. Berkeley’s economic importance) is far too complex to be solved by anyone on this message board. There are WAY too many factors to be considered. Now I will enter the argument: UC Berkeley probably has made more advances with regards to physics and nuclear technologies than Stanford. But that is a thing of the past. Recently all the University of California has been up to in that arena is screwing things up (stolen laptops, money mismanagement, Los Alamos, etc). That being said, Bhanu’s examples of Stanford’s contributions are much more recent and relevant. Stanford IS the backbone of the Silicon Valley. And quite frankly, from an unbiased point of view, if I had a choice of a random Berkeley student vs. a random Stanford student to start a succesful company, I would go with the Stanford student. There are kids at UC Berkeley that are as smart as (if not smarter) than the best and brightest at Stanford, but, on average, I would stay Stanford students are smarter and have more potential to be “movers and shakers.” I think Berkeley needs to take an honest look at itself if it is to improve. Major reform needs to occur (starting first with the abolition of the money-burning ASUC).
Comment by Observer — November 22, 2005 @ 9:43 pm
“Major reform needs to occur (starting first with the abolition of the money-burning ASUC).”
RIGHT ON!
I do disagree on the Stanford students being smarter. I think they’re probably about equal, but Berkeley has both brighter as well as stupider students.
Comment by DTI — November 22, 2005 @ 10:31 pm
The video was notable not as a Stanford video mocking UC Berkeley students (they come over to campus to make those on a pretty regular basis) but as a re-telling of a re-telling of a classic: a live-action version of Grendel wherein a couple of manipulative, psychopathic Stanford students watch the Dane-frat festivities from the outside looking in, unable to participate as they stew in their own neuroses with hearts full of fear and loathing. A Beowulf figure didn’t appear but if one did he’d probably rip an arm off of the Stanford student — ideally the arm holding up the camera.
Comment by silverlake — November 23, 2005 @ 3:07 am
Mano *heart* Hillary Clinton
Comment by clodwig der groesse — November 23, 2005 @ 8:28 am
Observer, I think it’s not so much a matter of pure academic “smarts” (where Berkeley is at no disadvantage), but rather with street smarts. Stanford students are generally more well-rounded. Also, VCs drool over anything coming out of Stanford. They are better connected. Berkeley could certainly do better in that arena–taking advantage of the proximity of Silicon Valley.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 23, 2005 @ 8:55 am
The difference between the schools can be observed in their current websites.
Stanford’s homepage has a link for its 2 Rhodes Scholars this year (where are ours, Birgeneau?), while Berkeley’s features a lost turkey.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 23, 2005 @ 9:30 am
economics is stupid. let’s talk about girls peeing in public.
Comment by chet — November 23, 2005 @ 10:23 am
Birgeneau is by far not the best thing for Berkeley. Not only does he take stupid positions on issues he can’t control (Prop 209) but he can’t even do his goddamn assigned job. No one can name one good thing he’s done, yet we can already name a few bad things he’s done. It looks like he’s too busy fighting corporations that are willing to DONATE US MONEY instead of working college out to be more affordable and raising the funds he needs to raise.
The best thing that ever happened to Berkeley was Dean Edly. I admit I didn’t like him at first when I saw him debate Ward Connerly. But now that he’s here he’s done phenomenal things with the law school, things our Chancellor should learn. I tip my hat to Dean Edly and hope he becomes Chancellor. Even on affirmative action, which he supports, he’s willing to listen to both sides and be fair.
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 23, 2005 @ 11:17 am
Rep, I think you should write a letter voicing your concerns to Birgeneau. I have. Adding stuff to this board doesn’t really change much.
I think Edley is much better than Birge, but who knows what will happen once his Harvard sensibilities wear off and he becomes entrenched at Berkeley.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 23, 2005 @ 12:11 pm
Why are so many people shocked by what went on in the video? It looked like a pretty average raging frat party to me. The same kind that goes on at just about every large University in the country. Just because people in the video were intoxicated and performing embarrassing acts (peeing out a window) does not mean that they are poor students. Has anyone here ever met a really intelligent person who likes to party hard on the weekends? That girl pissing out the window could have a 4.0 GPA for all we know. I don’t see how activities one partakes in at a party reflect a person’s academic capacity. To the people here who seem to think that this video makes our school look bad, I’d like to say welcome to college. it’s a place where you can get educated and have an embarrassingly fun time if you so desire. You can also pee out of windows if you like.
Comment by Anonymous — November 23, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
I’m afraid his Harvard admin sensibilities will wear off and he’ll start acting like a Professor. Completely out of it (Birgeneau), or completely inept (Berdahl). He should be doing the best job he can at the world’s top University, but it sems like he’s already headed to hell. I’ll write to him as an alumnus.
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 23, 2005 @ 12:21 pm
My point being that if you find the video disgraceful, then you should have a poor opinion of college students at all universities, not just Berkeley. I guarantee that the same sort of party scene can be witnessed at Stanford as well as any other ivy league.
Comment by Anonymous — November 23, 2005 @ 12:25 pm
that would be even hotter if the girl peeing out the window had a 4.0 !
Comment by chet — November 23, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
“To the people here who seem to think that this video makes our school look bad, I’d like to say welcome to college. it’s a place where you can get educated and have an embarrassingly fun time if you so desire.”
Yeah, but that’s just it. There are lots of Stanford kids who seem to think the video somehow makes Cal look bad when in fact it just makes Stanfod look like a bunch of ugly, socially inhibitied self-loathing gelheads. To say “welcome to college” at Stanford apparently means doing exactly what your parents tell you to do, all the time, in the meantime being extremely judgmental and nasty towards people who are actually capable of enjoying themselves.
Comment by silverlake — November 23, 2005 @ 9:56 pm
Making fun of someone who pees out of an open window in front of a video camera is not being “extremely judgemental.”
Comment by Observer — November 24, 2005 @ 7:40 am
I’m guessing you didn’t see the rest of the movie…
Comment by silverlake — November 24, 2005 @ 8:46 am
I watched the entire movie…twice.
Comment by Observer — November 24, 2005 @ 8:53 am
Anybody know of any other videos involving Cal students? I remember one from waaay back that had some guy in Unit 2 having sex with a prostitute. Do you guys know about any other famous ones?
Comment by anon42 — December 1, 2005 @ 8:20 am