Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

From reading some postings on this board, I bring forth this question/observation. People say that Berkeley is the school where SoCal kids go to get away from home and UCLA is where NorCal kids go to get away from home. People also say that Berkeley is filled with uglies. If Berkeley is filled with uglies and it is where SoCal kids go to get away from home, does that mean that SoCal kids are ugly?

Just a simple deduction from what I've read on this board.

By Leftykev13 (Leftykev13) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:28 pm: Edit

LOL

By Andrew1218 (Andrew1218) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 02:20 pm: Edit

haha i think a good percentage the socal hotties end up at UCSB and san diego state

By Tdizzo (Tdizzo) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 03:14 pm: Edit

and Sonoma State...randomly

By Jon (Jon) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 09:43 am: Edit

it seems most of the hot girls at cal are from socal, lets just leave it at that

By Kryptic (Kryptic) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Certainly an audience intelligent enough to get accepted to Berkeley will also be intelligent enough to realize that there are not genetic differences between people between NorCal and SoCal. (or even, largely, the West Coast) The average attractiveness between any location here is going to be largely the same, with only regional differences in makeup usage and fashion preferences. In so far as attractiveness and intelligence tend to be inversely related, the only other claim you might be able to make is that lesser tiered schools are more likely to have more attractive students - but this is obviously independant of region.

By Sbpnoi112 (Sbpnoi112) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 01:41 am: Edit

i got this mad chinese superstitious theory that im'a impart cuz im bored...for the record...im not chinese...but i read "the joy luck club" and i drink a lot of boba...do not make assumptions to assume that i assume to know about chinese culture...jess chill and ignore me....

there's this girl...she used to have bangs...she used to be nice, an amiable person...when she cut off her bangs...it exposed her shiny forehead...all the goodness that used to go to her and make her good bounced off her shiny forehead, like a mirror. she became incapable of absorbing goodness (she had black hair and black absorbs)....she became a mean person...reclusive...on antidepressants...crazy, huh?

correlation to norcal v. socal? none really...but check this - in socal we got lots of sunshine. sunshine tends to make some people happy...its a radiance of energy...the sun...literally...and it moves onto the people and gets absorbed. in norcal...its cold. i must say a lot of places have sun...but there are also a lot of trees up in that area...and trees create shade that block the radiance of the sun...and those people do not absorb the energy.

this leads me to another musing...sunglasses create an authoritarian presence. sunglasses are like shade...they prevent positive energy from flowing. the highway patrol wears shades..and the are authoritative. with sunglasses...people can hide themselves from others...and hiding leads to falsehoods and darkness.

so people who aren't enshrouded in shade are more candid and seemingly more open and fun than those who are and thusly more attractive...then there's the people who enshroud themselves in shade but in the sun...those who wear shades...they are attractive because they harbor the postive radiant energy but the shades create mystery and intrigue...which is also attractive...

aight y'all academics....im ready for y'all to blow up because of this...or ignore it

By Princess_Banana (Princess_Banana) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 02:16 am: Edit

i wear a single eyepatch but like to frollic in the sun... so where does that put me, Sbpnoi112

By Hwtf (Hwtf) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 02:30 am: Edit

haha wtf are you smoking Sbpnoi112

By Eliteconnect (Eliteconnect) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit

The girls at Berkeley are definitely some of the ugliest people I've ever seen. I know, it's pretty sad...but true. The girls walking around the UCLA campus are usually just downright gorgeous...and I think the Westwood atmosphere really promotes good looks seeing as the area is really young, hip, affluent, and full of celebrities. Compared to the UCLA girls, Berkeley girls are all that much more ugly.

By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Lol, there are over 20,000 girls at berkeley. You think they ALL are ugly?

By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit

Random rant... I think they should put all the attractive girls in a closely-packed cluster of residences, and then have all the campus tours in that area only. This way, all the horny guys who choose colleges based on the hotness of the female population will get a good impression.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Sbpnoi112
do u fung swhei your room?

By Theman002 (Theman002) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 05:14 am: Edit

"I think they should put all the attractive girls in a closely-packed cluster of residences"

its called sorority row

By Eliteconnect (Eliteconnect) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 05:39 pm: Edit

"Lol, there are over 20,000 girls at berkeley. You think they ALL are ugly?"

Well, the ugrad population of the school is 23,000...so there can't be over 20,000 girls. lol. However, I definitely do think that the VAST majority of girls on the Berkeley campus are hideous. I've seen so many troll-looking, pimply, lardy, heifers waddling about on the campus. Berkeley has to have the ugliest female population among all universities in the country. To call Berkeley girls "homely" is definitely a compliment.

By Sackingsballa (Sackingsballa) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 02:08 pm: Edit

With all this talk about the ugliness of the girls at Cal...what about the guys? I'm going to go to UCLA in a couple weeks, and I was told the guys at Berkeley were hideous as well (not that that was part of my decision to go to UCLA...)

By Lilpopers (Lilpopers) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Amen,
Guys think that throwing on some basketball shorts, a t-shirt and some flip-flops is dressing up. Come on...if a girl wore that you would be like "Damn why does it look like she just woke up". AND its those same guys who try to go after girls who are way out of their league. What happened to looking beyond the way a person looks on the outside to whats on the inside. Or are we all just that shallow?

By Polka (Polka) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:18 am: Edit

i always thought i was really shallow but i kinda find myself being attracted to people because of their intelligence lately. wow, lack of beauty causes breakthroughs.
i've been having 10 days of classes and i haven't seen any guys who really caught my eye. well there was a gsi or two who were attractive. there are a lot more fat girls than there are fat guys. once i saw a really short ugly guy holding hands with a tall pretty girl.
i don't think this stuff is really a big deal though because anyway it's been great here so far.

By Dmcwhiz123 (Dmcwhiz123) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:55 pm: Edit

there ARE pretty berkeley girls...in fact, i'm surprised there are so many, i guess the uglies are referring to engineering girls or something

By Kryptic (Kryptic) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Most likely, it refers to the girls with so little self-respect as to run in the same circles as them. What I find ugly is such pettiness and shallowness. I'd date a 'normal' chick over some vacuous sorority girl, more worried about her nails and the next lambda lambda lambda kegger. Fortunately, there's a ton of smart -and- cute girls at Berkeley - but these women are probably smart enough not to hang around a bunch of simps that think they're in a different league than they are, only value people in relation to some internal f*ck-ability quotient, or who chose their college based on the co-ed attractiveness. How... totally... immature.

By Dmcwhiz123 (Dmcwhiz123) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 01:49 pm: Edit

kryptic, you speak wise words

By Qwerasdf (Qwerasdf) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 03:48 pm: Edit

3 misconceptions about Berkeley:

1) There are no hot girls - ••••••••. Maybe the EECS girls, but seriously with 23,000 undergraduates, tell me you aren't bound to find someone.

2) There are no parties - Um. Yea, yesterday was Cal vs. New Mexico State, and we won. I went back to my dorm to chill for a few min and then went out to dinner. Every frat had a party going on.

3) The town is boring - Telegraph > Westwood. It's a culture of its own. Telegraph is awesome in the morning too when you walk by when its still quiet. It's even more awesome in midday when people are crowded on the streets and when the street vendors come out. It's great at night too.

If all this isn't enough, catch a FREE bus to SF anyday, and there's plenty more to do.

Where I come from (San Jose area), that's a boring area.