i would just like to share with you guys that I....

[sakky]

<p>

That’s fine. The point I was making was it doesn’t matter whether you’re a good or bad student. You can learn just as much at Berkeley as anywhere else. If you are a bad student, it may be more painful. Doesn’t mean you won’t still get a good education.

</p>

<p>Isn’t that a self-contradiction. First you said that it doesn’t matter whether you’re a good or bad student. Then you say that if you are a bad student, it may be more painful. So then it DOES matter whether you’re a good or bad student, right? </p>

<p>

If there are sufficient resources, I completely agree. However, you must consider that redirecting money isn’t so simple. If Mr. Levis (he came from Haas, right?) donates 10 million to Haas, it isn’t going to go to patching up Cory. They’ll find a way to make Haas better. That’s what the money is marked for.

</p>

<p>In this simple case you proposed, yes. Nobody said that redirecting money was simply elementary. However, it is not as difficult as you are implying. A lot of the money is fungible. You CAN shift a lot of it around to meet demand, if you want. The real question is, do you want to? </p>

<p>

Okay, say we use Physics professors to help teach the lower division EE courses and the Math professors to help teach the lower division CS courses. That seems about right. Say we can stuff another 50 kids (or X kids) into each of CS61A, B, and C, and EE20 and 40 by doing so. We have an additional 50 * 5 = 250 (or 5X) students in the EECS department now. Now those kids are juniors and they’ve finished their lower div requirements. They want to take EE105 and EE120 (and comparable CS courses) now. But we don’t have those extra professors from Math and Physics to supplement now. So we’ve over-crowded our upper division courses and degraded the quality of education in the EECS department.

</p>

<p>And why are you assuming that these math/physics profs can only teach lower division courses?</p>

<p>Let me give you an example from MIT. I think you even admitted before that you would have gone to MIT if you had gotten in and if the costs were comparable (i.e. if Berkeley had given you a scholarship). For example, consider just a few of the following MIT CS courses:</p>

<p>6.042J - Mathematics for Computer Science - crosslisted with 18.062J
6.045J - Automata, Computability, and Complexity - crosslisted with 18.400J
6.046J - Introduction to Algorithms - crosslisted with 18.410J
6.337J - Introduction to Numerical Methods - crosslisted with 18.335J
6.338J - Parallel Computing - crosslisted with 18.337J
6.840J - Theory of Computation - crosslisted with 18.404J
6.841J - Advanced Complexity Theory - crosslisted with 18.405J
6.852J - Distributed Algorithms - crosslisted with 18.437J
6.854J - Advanced Algorithms - crosslisted with 18.415J
6.856J - Randomized Algorithms - crosslisted with 18.416J
6.875J - Cryptography and Cryptanalysis - crosslisted with 18.425J
6.876J - Advanced Topics in Cryptography - crosslisted with 18.426J</p>

<p><a href=“http://student.mit.edu/@2634887.19294/catalog/m6c.html[/url]”>http://student.mit.edu/@2634887.19294/catalog/m6c.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>What the ‘cross-listing’ means is that this class has TWO separate designations with 2 different departments, but they are the same class. In the case of these classes, they are cross-listed with 18.xxx classes, and department 18 is the Math department at MIT. What that basically means is that it IS considered both a math and a CS class. The class “belongs” to both departments, and hence can be taught by profs from either department, and will include students from both departments.</p>

<p>Now there is no perfect mapping between Berkeley and MIT courses, but i think the following courses are quite comparable </p>

<p>Berkeley CS 70 - Discrete Mathematics = MIT 6.042J
Berkeley CS 170 - Efficient Algorithms = MIT 6.046J
Berkeley CS 172 - Computability and Complexity = MIT 6.405J </p>

<p>And then there are other Berkeley classes that are arguably math courses. These would include:</p>

<p>Berkeley CS 174 - Combinatorics and Discrete Probability
EE 126 - Probability and Random Processes
EE 120 - Signals and Systems</p>

<p>I would also say that Berkeley EE 117 (Electromagnetic Fields and Waves) is really a physics class. </p>

<p>So the point is, there are PLENTY of EECS classes at Berkeley that can be taught by profs from other departments. I only listed above all of the MIT EECS classes that are crosslisted with Math (and hence are basically math classes). Many other MIT EECS classes are crosslisted with other departments, such as the Sloan School (a lot of the optimization and numerical analysis courses), BioEngineering/Bio (all that Bioelectrical stuff), and so forth.</p>

<p>What that means is that “true” EECS profs would be freed up from teaching classes that arguably could be taught by profs from other departments, which would mean that they could teach more of the classes that truly are highly EECS-specific. Honestly, you don’t need to devote EECS resources to teach a course on Complexity Theory or on Algorithms, as these are math concepts. This is especially true of algorithms. Mathematicians were studying algorithms literally for thousands of years before computers even existed. Even today, many of the best algorithm researchers are basically mathematicians. </p>

<p>To give you an example. I see that in the fall, CS 70 will be taught by Papadimitrou. But does he really have to do it? He’s a database guy, so shouldn’t he be teaching a database class? Why can’t somebody from the math department teach CS70 to free Papadimitrou up? </p>

<p>Furthermore, just because a EECS class doesn’t exist at Berkeley now doesn’t mean that it couldn’t. For example, Berkeley could offer an undergrad elective CS class on Numerical Methods, just like MIT does. And that CS class could be taught by a Math prof, just like what happens at MIT. The same thing is true for a wide range of CS algorithm classes - Berkeley could offer them to undergrads (not just grad students), and have them taught by Math profs. That would draw alleviate even more of the pressure that you are alluding to - those certain EECS students who really might overload certain courses that can only be taught by EECS profs could now have the choice of taking something that they not only find more interesting, but also not require more EECS-specific resources. In other words, you’d be drawing students away from the pressure points. It’s like how banks use ATM’s to serve people with simple transactions, therefore effectively eliminating them from the teller lines, so that the only people who have to wait for a teller are those with complex transactions. In that way, you don’t have to stand in line waiting behind a guy who just wants to withdraw 20 bucks. </p>

<p>Finally, why can’t you then backfill whatever demand you still have left with a bunch of adjunct lecturers and/or visiting profs? Other departments do this all the time. In fact, the EECS department right now has plenty of these lecturers. Mike Clancy, Dan Garcia, and Brian Harvey, the profs for many of the lower division CS courses, lecturers. The guy who teaches EE20, Ayazifer, is also a lecturer. The department also has a whole bunch of adjunct profs who aren’t “real” profs. So if the department is already doing this anyway, why not bring in some more to backfill the demand? </p>

<p>For example, I see in the fall, 61A will be taught by Harvey and CS61C will be taught by Garcia. So you’re already having plenty of EECS students being taught by lecturers. If this is not a problem currently, then why is it a problem if we bring in more of these lecturers or adjuncts?</p>