I've visited Sci-Arc, UCLA and Berkeley. I'm an undergraduate at Roger Williams University and as a Californian am hoping to come back for grad school on the West coast. I don't know what program you're looking at for graduate schools but I've ruled UCLA off my list because there's a required 3 year residency even for students who come in with a BS in architecture. From what I've seen UCLA seems to be a bit more of the blob architecture like Sci Arc or Columbia and Berkeley seems to be into sustainability, and the dean of the architecture program I've heard is big into pattern architecture.

I hope that's some help

im pretty sure you're mistaken nell about the 3 year for BS candidates. that's what the MArch II program is for, its post-professional and its only one year.

but yes, thanks for the input.

I'd say that, in terms of faculty, Berkeley is pretty evenly distributed amongst the conceptual, sustainable, historical, and theoretical areas of architectural study. For the first you have faculty like Anthony Burke, Lisa Iwamoto, Tom Wiscombe, Roddy Creedon, David Ross, Mark Anderson, etc.—they're probably responsible for a lot of the school's energy right now, and they've been behind a lot of the equipment and software acquisitions going on over the past few years. Burke and Wiscombe are interested in similar areas of Sci-ARC/Columbia-esque architectural study. Iwamoto specializes in architecture using CAD/CAM and 3D printing technology; she was involved with 3d printing research up at LBNL/Berkeley Labs up on the hill until she got a grant to buy some for the school. Mark Anderson's studios often do really creative projects that involve building some sort of big fancy thing; last semester he built a water-filled, sun-warmed seating thing that looked like a giant open orange, and a few semesters ago he did a sort of tensed wood beam, cloth covered tube deal. Creedon's known for, ah, very precise critiques, and Ross is sort of Burke's side-kick (his main claim-to-fame is a Pamphlet Architecture issue he did a few years back). Together with Rene Davids, Ravi Choksombatchai, etc., they're sort of the design-oriented faculty front against the more practical/sustainable/technical faculty, like Galen Cranz, Gail Brager, Mike Martin, etc.

The architecture deanship recently came up (Martin's stepping down)--the design faculty wanted to hire someone from outside the school, but the more practical faculty won out and a current prof who specializes in urban economics and earthquake engineering research is going to be the next dean. I'm not sure what effect this will have except to say that the deans here seem sort of behind-the-scenes (i.e., we're not talking Mark Wigley-types)--it's really the faculty, rather than the official administration, that are behind the lectures, workshops, and other school happenings.

Oh yeah, the library's great and the Bay Area kicks LA's ass all over the place.

One thing I considered was attending both. If you are accepted to UCLA and Berkeley, you can (you could a few years ago, at least) go one year at one and one year at another. I opted to stay at UCLA, though, as I thought the move would be large inconvenience.

I did work for someone that did this, though, and he loved it. Something to consider.

im at ucla right now. just because greg lynn is there doesnt mean the whole school does blobs. im confident that you could go all three years without ever doing one/some. as for the 3 year deal... if you're not in a rush to get school over with (and you shouldnt be) its not that bad. i think 2 yrs is too little and i also already have a bs arch.

i just finished my first quarter there (some say the most intense one) and could not be happier. the faculty is diverse and extremely strong. i think the only school that can match ucls'a faculty is harvard. the students are great, the weather is great, the courses offered are diverse, and the weather is great.

the only frustrating thing was the shop, but things look to be getting back into order for next quarter.

attending both would be a horrible idea.

I always get a kick out of people dismissing programs or entire schools because they "weren't being challenged." As if school isn't now and hasn't always been WHAT YOU MAKE OF IT. Oh well.

43N, please correct me if I'm wrong (because you would know better than I), but in response to Dooho's assertions, the 1 year MArchII program is only open to people with a 5 year degree. I have friends (probably in the same studio as you) with 4year BArts in Arch degrees who are in the 3 year program at UCLA.

The only complaint I've heard from over there is having to find ways to make the early projects more interesting and challenging (GASP! Self motivators? No way! What a concept!) because they were more geared towards getting the people with no architectural background caught up.

.mm

MMatt:

i agree absolutely, the school is what you make of it. but until you've been to sci_arc.....
that school is in trouble, financially and otherwise. they admit students they shouldn't and keep them around because they need that check every semester. faculty at any school is great and all but you go to battle with those around you 24/7 and sci_arc i didn't feel as though we were all on the same page. i tried to 'make it' everything i wanted it to be, but in the end i was surrounded by people who were interested in following recipes while i was interested in writing them.

43N88W:

thanks for the insight. can you elaborate a little more on this shop issue? coming from sci_arc where the lines were long and the machines were always broken [laser, mill] and there wasn't enough money to fix them im looking forward to having that technology more readily available to me

I attended Berkeley undergrad, and did summer graduate studio with people mentioned. I had or am friends with each of the faculty listed and would say they are each design savvy in their own regards, but should not be perceived in the one-dimensional aspect suggested above. Each is concerned with a couple different conceptual premises and utilize different tools to investigate potential outcomes.
While a Berkely graduate education is conducive to those interested in sustainability, that is not the driving factor there. Faculty appreciate exploratory and sophisticated design regardless of its impact on the environment. I had a friend who attended UCLA post-grad MARCH 1 and they told me the last good thing to come from the program was Tsien!

Can't argue with the comment that sci-arc admits students they shouldn't (but c'mon, we both know the dead weight is minimal), although the overcrowding in my particular studio is due to 9 or 10 deferred admissions from last year. I have to make the comment, though, that sci-arc, more so than any other school I've attended or visited, is the epitome of the "it is what you make of it" mantra. If you can't find a way to challenge yourself within the structure and professors at sci-arc, best of luck to you elsewhere.

I appreciate your general professionalism in this conversation, but I have to call you out on one thing: the "i was surrounded by people who were interested in following recipes while i was interested in writing them" is SUUUUCH a typical cop-out, don't lower yourself to those kind of self-inflating one-off comments. They're generally only heard being uttered by one of two types of people: people who didn't really do much research into the school they went to before the semester started (which sounds like it might be you, hence your disillusionment... who goes to sci-arc and is suprised or disappointed by so-called "blobbiness?") or people who knew what they were getting into, but just couldn't hack it (which I don't think is you, considering your interest in UCLA and continuing education in general).

On a side note, the lines for the laser cutter and CNC machine aren't bad, you just have to know how to play the game. If it weren't for undergrads trying to use the CNC machines as high-tech band saws, there wouldn't be any issues at all. But I degress.

My reservation about UCLA in regards to the shop (again, second-hand) is that even grad students can't so much play with the fun toys (CNC, laser, etc) until after their tech seminars, which is in the second year.

.mm

UCLA:
I graduated 6 months ago from the M.arch2 program.

TECHNOLOGY:
the machines ARE screwed up, I repeat ...really screwed up. The whole damn concept of using the mill is like putting together a cut and paste at UCLA. Nevertheless it still works and i used it a lot. The 3D printer is a crappy machine that WILL break down on you, and the LAZER CUTTER was a beautiful sculpture that was not operational.
Also, the Vacuum formers from the 1950's crash more than MS Windows, so make sure you have enough time / or learn how to fix them.
The wood shop and other power tools are UNSAFE.

And yes they always say it will be better next quarter, but trust me that never happens. At least not while i was there.

FACULTY:
The big names at UCLA, huh! While they have exciting theories, and methods, watch out for some of those stars.
Starchitects do not necessarily make good teachers.

So, you're thinking i had a horrible time at UCLA. Yes and No.
+ I learnt a lot of software, made some good friends, and worked my butt off for a decent portfolio.
- Was unfortuante to have some really bad studio's in the one year. Neil for one is an excellent person to have a chat with, but damn, he f****d up the research studio big time. He came across as bored and lazy, and wasted my/everyones time.
- The crits pissed me off since they were more about X architect selling his studio brief to Y architect over donuts and coffee.

So watch out.

And one more thing- UCLA makes you fit to be an employee not an architect.

Someone mentioned taht school is what you make of it, well, that's true but all the more difficult at UCLA, because you're going to be a production monkey.

Needless to say this is my personal opinion after spending a year there. So formulate your own.

MMatt:

this discussion has really nothing to do with blobiness, i was just trying to steer the conversation away from UCLA being computer driven and berkeley being concerned with sustainability. these things i know and while they are factors when considering a school, they really don't concern me THAT much. certainly not something that would make me consider or not consider a school....because believe it or not i DO believe the experience anywhere is what you make of it.

however, it is nice when that is supported by resources and intelligent people.
i didn't realize that you attend or attended sci_arc [what's your story there?] whatever the case may be i strongly disagree that the dead weight is minimal, you may have a different perspective with your class, but mine was unmotivated and simply there for the piece of paper. anytime within a course of one semester studio instructors need to sit us down more than once and tell us we aren't working hard enough...that's a problem. last time i checked most of these people are 25+ and are responsible adults who made the conscious decision to go to grad school. why they need to be babysat and motivated is beyond me. but my experience is people do just enough to get by, but no more. and beyond studio they show up late for other classes...we're not talking 5 min, more like an hour. there is just a general disrespect i feel and this selfish attitude makes it extremely difficult for me and others to engage in a positive discourse, the discourse i was looking for. add this to the overall disorganization of the school in general [disorganization is being nice].

IMO, people are too concerned with the politics of the school and how eric or ming or chris has wronged them. i wish most of these people would put that energy into their studios. i came to school to learn, not to argue.

but perhaps you're right, maybe i didn't fully understand this dynamic, because im not that interested in it. but what drew me to the school was the reputation of the students, out of the box thinkers, tireless workers, etc, etc....
but as i've said these students don't exist in my class...at least not enough of them. i've seen too many people blow off reviews because they weren't finished only to get that review weeks later. i've seen too many people receive conditional credits one semester and deserve them the next, but alas they are saved by ming because the school needs their money. perhaps you can work through this all and see past it. good for you. for me i want more and deserve a whole hell of a lot more for my $20k.

i went to washington university for undergrad so i know a good school when i see one and for me sci_arc is far from that, i still respect lots of people there and i believe in the school, its just not for me....not now at least.

ret:

thank you for your honest review.
i agree with you that starchitects don't always make great teachers, but i was at least under the impression that at UCLA most starchitects are at least local and not on the stage of the starchitects at say the GSD. maybe its my own false impression, but i felt from going there that they were at least more approachable. i had a friend at the GSD and while you think you're taking a studio with [insert your favorite architect here] you're actually taking a studio taught by a TA as that architect shows up only a few times. but again, it wasn't the name necessarily at UCLA, but the diversity of those names and their links to los angeles.

interesting that the CNC facilities there are less than impressive. is this due to a lack of UC funding, because i know its not from a lack of interest?

i guess my final question for you is, would you go there again or would you do things differently? where else had you applied and/or considered?

thanks.

Star architects at UCLA are approachable, you can talk with them, about their work, and other things.
What i meant was that the "big name" does not necessarily correspond to "learning" or having great "studio design briefs", so it would'nt be very high on my list for important criteria in choosing the school i go to.

I guess its due to a lack of UC funding that they have less money and hence problems with technology, but i never really ventured into how the department handled their finances. What i do know is that its ambiguous and meant to be.

I won't say i made a mistake going to UCLA, since it was a conscious choice, and i'd hate to say i made a wrong decision. What i do realise now, is that the criteria for choosing what school you go to seems to change once you're there. Star architects / technology for example in the case of UCLA.

I found, much to my chagrin that many students were somewhat overawed by the faculty, and there is'nt much of a culture of rebellion (which to my mind is what architecture school should be, idealistically, of course). And then of course theres the vouyeristic pleasure in the childish politics between the Sylvia faction, and the "others".

But hey, UCLA is set up to be a great learning experience, one way or another, just do your s*** the way you want to, and remember that your teachers do not deserve demi-god status.

Ok, so now one quick comparison and i'm outta here:

SCI_ARC:
Make cool forms, and say that's what we do.

UCLA:
Make cool forms and never tell anyone its what we do.

BERKLEY:
Don't make cool forms.

All the best.

thanks ret. appreciate it!

ret - good comments.

To me, UCLA was great because I had a strong undergrad, with no stararchitects. It was ALL about design and making moves that made sense and you could back up. At UCLA, they didn't care why it was round or pointed, and that's great for some, bad for others.

Ultimately, though, I am a sucker for cool forms.

berkeley is totally off the radar. for real, it's not a relevent program. old timers still teaching christopher alexander...

Disregard Philip Gentleman. Christopher Alexander is long gone, so are all of his protégés with one exception. Similarly "sustainability" is not a major component of the design curriculum at UC Berkeley. Kusteroo is the only person who seems to paint an accurate picture of UCB. I just graduated from Berkeley and never even opened "A Pattern Language"

sammyboy:

any chance i can get you to elaborate on your feelings about the school and your experiences? lots of UCLA chatter, but not much info about berkeley from people that are/were there.

thanks.

greetings dooho
graduated from the m.arch I program at ucla last year and found it to be a generally satisfying experience. i did have a couple of lousy professors and some lame classes, but typically the studios compared very favorably with at least columbia and sci-arc (two schools with which i have some experience).

my experiences at ucla ran counter to ret's. for one thing, there isn't a cult of personality surrounding any single faculty member, even thom mayne, who i would consider to be the school's only bona fide star-architect. there are a certain number of students who "drink the kool-aid"; that is- they seem to unquestioningly tow the party line espoused by a minority of the faculty; but these are very few (literally, i'm thinking of specific individuals). there are a few professors whose work has a strong digital bias (dagmar, greg, jason, david), but one can choose to take them or not. the work produced by these studio's does tend to get the most attention- it is often the most eye-catching; however you'll never need to use maya in a studio if you don't want to.

hence, ucla's reputation as a blob school is undeserved in my mind- compare the products of the research studio's at ucla with thesis at sci-arc. despite the good graphics and models that generally accompany finals at ucla, the school is (again with exceptions, jason and david come to mind) considerably less production-oriented than sci-arc, though less by intention than necessity- the result of 10.5 wk quarters rather than semesters.

finally, i would question the assertion that ucla produces production monkeys rather than architects. a casual assessment of where ucla students end up in the years immediately following their graduation does not bear this out. of course, there is not a strong professional practice or technical bent, but the same is true of most top-tier schools. anyone self-directed enough to take a range of studio's and electives will have a portfolio diverse enough to appeal to any employer.

i concede that denari’s research studio was pretty weak- he didn’t seem particularly invested. however, he was excellent when i had him. many of the faculty, particularly those with full time professional engagements seem to be similarly hit-or-miss.

great post. thank you.

I was in Dooho's studios last year. I know who he is.

Anyway, I think his assessment of certain things at sci-arc are correct. There are some internal problems within the school. And it is disorganized. Anyone who's gone to a well reputed university would instantly see that sci-arc does indeed have its problems when it comes to organization.

However, I do not think that bashing the collective intelligence and work ethic of the students should be tolerated. Unlike the great dooho who took architecture in undergrad, a lot of the students in the first year MArch 1 class did not have a background in architecture. So they are there to learn about it. Perhaps what you should have done dooho was apply to the MArch 2 program. You really have to take a realistic assessment of things before you start bashing it.

From my experience, most of the students in the class did work hard especially in the first semester. I didn't like some student projects, I liked some. I mean I think it is the same everywhere else.

For the fellow viewer's on this board, I am not gonna hesistate and i'm gonna bash Dooho a bit. But first I want to say that I did like some of his work. However, he never did receive the best reviews.

Regardless, the guy is a grade A - elitist - @sshole for no reason. He consistently disregards others and was selfish. For example, in first semester, he was basically making his resin blocks right in the middle of studio and some people were getting sick from the fumes. When asked to move, he simply moved downstairs but the studio still smelled of his toxic resin shit. In another example, we were having a class meeting around the beginning of the school year and here he was not giving a shit about what's around him and putting his table or something together. No one could hear what anyone else was saying cause dooho was being so damn loud.

These examples just make you sort of look at dooho and really question whether he is aware of his surroundings and actually gives a damn about other people. To say the least, many people disliked him but he never knew cause the dude's clueless when it comes to anything else outside of his bubble.

wow. did that make you feel better? this wasn't a sci_arc bashing post. im sorry if you're offended by my claims of lack of passion. but people are dropping like flies from that program, its time you opened your eyes.

and i apologize i wasn't your apparent best friend. my intentions weren't to make friends, my intention was to learn. so happy holidays to you and good luck in your future.

hater.

nixietube-
I hear you. I guess you're qualified to be a better judge than i am, since you were there much longer than i.
My perspective and goals were probably a little different to yours:
Thom was'nt there, neither was Sylvia Lavin. Neil was in his "bored" phase, and the research studio was way less exciting than what the initial brief explained.
I did do what i had to, and that was fine, like in any architecture school. I expected much more, and hence was disappointed.
As far as the "production monkeys" comment goes, well i guess that was a below the belt generalization, and i might be wrong. I owe you an explanation so here goes:
What i meant was I did'nt really see too many students get the chance to be "leaders", since they were almost always trying to put together 24x36 panels in illustrator for a review, and in some cases the professors were a little bit pushy about what the project/boards should look/be like. That i thought was disappointing too.
Of course there are exceptions, but i think an architecture school, especially in a graduate program has to help more people find their own "authorship".
In the end it looks like everybody got what they wanted, so thats good.

Ok nixietube. I know who you are but who is ret? ret, you were in my research studio.

ret, about all of your comments about the technology, I can understand your frustration having dealt with those machines for 3 years, but it may be a comment made with blinders. Other universities have similar problems. Find a mill that works all of the time, and I'll find you a pig - the kind with wings.

garpike. Of course i don't think i should be complacent and say that the technology should work perfectly all the time. I would though, compare it with other non-arch schools such as the Art Center in pasadena. They have a much more organized shop, better/newer machines. the reason why i mention technology at all is because people are under the impression that UCLA employs state of the art technology, which as you know is not entirely accurate.

With all those breakdowns i did learn how to fix the vacuum former though, so thats an additional qualification. :)

I was in your research studio all right. But i can't tell you who i am because i'd lose my pseudo archinect persona, and i'd hate that.

p.s: "we are the robots" was a fun song!

Ha ha. Ah yes. I know who you are (I think). You helped me with that song, no? Hmmm... No, I do not want you to spill your true ID onto Archinect's pages. I am just a lazy dog-dangling afternoon wondering who ret is - but don't get me wrong. I am at work.

Oh, I am not attacking you in any way. Though I should say the Art Center is much more well endowed then our poor poor Alma Mater.

can't claim helping you with the song. did'nt do it!
:) have a nice day- evening

that was from a friends laptop...damn i do this all the time

Ah... I have an idea still.

What are you talking about – “I wasn’t there to make friends.” Architecture is about interaction. The more people you know the better off you will be. That will come back to bite you in the ass really quick. So you have an under grad degree in architecture – people will catch up to you and pass you. Trust me you skill level is not that high. Plus what the fuck are you talking about 'blobitecture.’ You’re a little behind.

reading comprehension is key for you. i said i wasn't there to make friends, didn't say i didn't meet and make friends. there is a difference. some people think architecture school is one big social hour, not me. i do my work. of course its about interaction and once again that reading comprehension thing, i wasn't getting the interaction i wanted or hoped to get....hence this whole post in the first place. right over your head. no worries.

but thank you for your negative attitude and inarticulate post. have a great new year.

"surrounded by people who were interested in following recipes while i was interested in writing them" What the fuck are you talking about - You're first year grad - Trust me, you aren't doing shit that is very interesting- Maybe you did get stuck with a bad class but you are extremely dismissive. I have a feeling you are missing out on the real discourse of SCIArc - which is thesis. UCLA is a great school and aside from the conversation of star architects teaching (you should know what you are getting into) the facultly is incredible. By the way - Why didn't you get into the MArch II program? Or at least move into second year of the MArch I program?

who are you? thanks so much for caring about me and my situation. i have my reasons for leaving which are perfectly acceptable to me. sorry if you disagree. but im not here to argue, so unless you have something constructive to say....

but i will answer you this, i had and have NO interest in the MArch 2 program at sci_arc, doesn't interest me in the least. that's not architecture to me. i want my education to be focused on more than learning to become a maya monkey.

I agree - most people use school for social hour but just doing you work isn't going to cut it unless you are content working for someone else. You keep talking about learning but the two schools you mentioned are completely different. If you really want innovation you should get to the east coast

im from the east coast. i've had enough of it. and i realize the two schools are different that's why i wanted to hear from past or present students from each school. and innovation isn't what i seek necessarily, i mean pretty much any school is going to be a good school. sci_arc is a good school, its just not for me, that's all. i want a little but more structure and organization and i'd rather be in an environment that is created by high admission standards. and for all sci_arc is, im sorry to everyone this offends, but that school lets anyone and everyone in.
so for me i think UCLA/berkeley are better choices for ME. maybe not you or someone else, but for me.
this wasn't a post to argue about sci_arc or to question my logic for leaving or anything else like that. it was a post to get some information on two specific schools. no more no less.

this quickly constructed character ggg does have one major point: comparing UCLA and Berkeley is like comparing apples and oranges. You should really research their programs much more carefully than simply asking the extremely biased Archinect crowd to help make a decision.

Having graduated from UCLA I can say that it is not only blobitecture - in fact that is a small part of it. And it is not only Greg Lynn - again, small part. Check out the website and see a list of faculty. Do some research... Some serious research.

maybe you guys are misunderstanding me or missing my point. i just withdrew from a program because it wasn't for me. im not going to let that happen again. i've done the research i know its apples and oranges. what im looking for are just personal accounts, what people liked and didn't like.
websites are very deceiving, i know who teaches where and i know the ideologies of each school. that's not where im confused or seek information.
i think nixietube's post above best illustrates the kind of info i seek. i want personal accounts, i want people to set the record straight.
im certainly not looking solely for archinecters to make my decision for me. give me a little credit. but thanks to all for your candid comments.

dooho, you seriously think you made friends? it wasn't 'many' people who disliked him, it was most. maybe if you actually made an effort to get to know people in your class, you would have had a better experience. part of education is working with other people and sharing knowledge. you were obviously in a class with people who had a variety of backgrounds, did you ever talk to them about it? did you take the time to share or learn from other people? you said that sci-arc lets anyone and everyone in, but did you get in the first time you applied? with your personality and attitude, i'm sure you will find major faults with both of the schools. if you get into either of them, good luck.

nixie tube is my roommate. I'll have to beat him up for out-illustrating me... or better. I've beaten you up once nixie. Don't make me do it again!

here we go again. captain negative has friends. so you know who i am if you're going to come on here talk shit about me, tell me who you are. or are you one of those internet tough guys, you know someone who saw me and studio and smiled and now you come on here behind the guise of your computer to talk shit.
im flattered you're so concerned with me and my life. i really am. but to answer your question, yes i got into sci_arc the first time i applied and yes they do let in people who have no business there. they may be great people, im not commenting on that. if you truly believe that sci_arc is a community filled with top notch caliber students than why concern yourself with me...someone you and no one else apparently liked? quit being a shit disturber. if you have a problem come to my face and say it. good luck at sci_arc.

Jesse, you would be getting nothing but straight up, helpful, UCLA/ Berkley information if you’d stuck to your “intention”. No one asked you if people in our studio were “unmotivated and simply there for the piece of paper”. First off, SCI-arc accepts everyone???? You are the LAST person who should even be formulating an idea like that. You got in the first time? Dude, c’mon you’re so full of $hit, it’s embarrassing. You applied to the M.Arch II program and got REJECTED, then how you applied to the M.Arch I program and got REJECTED. You got into SCI-Arc through the summer Making and Meaning program. Your major in undergrad was Architecture, so if you’re so talented and felt that the school wasn’t challenging- why did you have to get into the M.Arch 1 program through the back door? Why did you even have to take a fundamentals course meant for people with little or no visual representation experience? The dead weight IS minimal, as you know, it tends to eliminate itself from the equation after the first year. It’s a small school buddy. Don’t come on here and talk about students being this and that when you’re EXACTLY the kind of student that you’re describing. Hater…pleeeease! Secondly, the students around you were following recipes and you wanted to write some???? Well you did, it was called mediocrity. You came to SCi_arc having a lot more knowledge and skill than the average first year - so why didn’t you challenge YOURSELF? I’m sorry that Darin or Roger or whoever didn’t hold your hand and tell you to. You should have been the most unbeatable, unstoppable, crazy out there student - but you weren’t even close.
At the end of the day, I hope you find a school that suits you, but don’t try to bag on the people in my studio. It’s funny how you’re calling people out for not identifying themselves. Give us the same respect and come by school and say this stuff to our face- first 3 bays after the vending machines to the left. I like how tough you are in writing though, miles and months away from the situation. It's fun, really, but just get your information and stop talking trash.

actually man, i'm pretty sure those posts aren't from the same person, because i think you just pissed off a few of your previous classmates enough to inspire them to blog for the first time. and i like how you go on these diatribes, ridiculing us and the school (yes, i too was in your class), and then follow it up with "i left with no bitterness...i'm not attacking anyone." are you serious??? not at all bitter??? not talking any shit??? it's just really funny to know who you are and to see you write this. wow.

write what? what did i ever do to you or anyone else? not get to know you/them, that's my crime? voicing an opinion over admission standards?
and no im not attacking anyone at all. because again no one is disputing my claims you all are just personally attacking me. instead of having a normal conversation with me you are all instead spewing hatred and lies. i love how im criticized for not making effort to get to know people when you guys sit here and say things that you would have no way of knowing. do you know me?
i apologize if you or anyone else is taking my comments personally. the things i said happened, im sorry if you don't agree or don't want to hear them. i never said what class i was in or even what program, didn't mention names, etc. that's you guys.
i have a very good idea who our angst ridden friend is above and i find it ironic that he criticizes me. there were many conversations, initiated by him regarding students around us. i guess that's the beauty of the internet, it breeds internet tough guys.
so last time, if you guys have problems with me i implore you to contact me personally. email me, i'll give you my number and we can talk right now. but this is not the forum for hatred and name calling.
im done here.
happy holidays.

no way, keep it public, this is fun to read.

that it is....that it is.....

actually I think it's quite painful. I unfortunately have nothing on UCLA or Berkeley except my ingrained prejudice that Bruins suck (sorry, it's a well taught lesson). But this is ridiculous. I'm sure there are lots of people that are stuck at schools that either don't get them, or don't teach in a way that they can get, and dooho was bright enough to know when to get the hell out. I don't think any of us know enough about each other to condemn like this, and your trying to drive away and/or denegrate someone who is looking for advice and help is completely unwarranted and silly. Go troll somewhere else.

Unless you really are his former classmates, in which case, lets take this outside!