In response to the many debates on ugrad quality

[sakky]

<p>

Stop making these ridiculous analogies. The situations are vastly different.

</p>

<p>I’m merely saying that it sucks to be one of those guys who couldn’t get into the major they want. Eudean would have you believe that just because the majority get what they want, that everything is peachy. I do not see it this way. </p>

<p>

Well, what I actually meant was that undergrads in NES are more or less being taught what AHMA studenres are being taught, though in a much more “watered-down” fashion. That should be obvious. It’s like that in all fields.

</p>

<p>If that’s what you meant, then fine. But still, the point is, there is no necessary link between the number of undergrads you have and the quality of your graduate programs. Some Berkeley doctoral programs do just fine with NO undergrads. For example, the Ed.D. program in Berkeley’s College of Education. </p>

<p>One can also simply think of an entirely different model of education. UCSF has some excellent PhD programs despite not having a true undergraduate program whatsoever. </p>

<p>

Ok, give them resources. But not the resources of other departments.

</p>

<p>Why not from other departments? No department has the “right” to the resources it currently has. It is entirely possible (indeed almost 100% certain) that some departments have been allocated too many resources, and thus should be made to return them. That is simply because, in any organization in the world (a company, a government, etc.), some resources have been allocated inefficiently, with certain subsectors being given too much and others too little. The entire field of Operations Management/Operations Research is all about identifying these areas and then rationalizing the resources. </p>

<p>

There may indeed be better ways for Berkeley to allocate its “resources.” But I still don’t believe that faculty numbers should be “shifted” or departments forced to give up the “space” they currently occupy.

</p>

<p>Why not? I am not saying that we HAVE to do that. But it should be on the table. All options should be on the table. Like I said, no department has the “right” to the space it has, or to the number of faculty it has. The Berkeley history department, for example, doesn’t “own” the building space that it occupies. Neither does any other department. </p>

<p>To give you an example, Hearst Mining used to be occupied by, unsurprisingly, the Mining Engineering Department. Over the years, that department was forced to ceded more and more space within Hearst Mining to other departments, notably Materials Science. Now, I think Hearst Mining is ALL Materials Science (as well as part of CITRIS). </p>

<p>The point is, departments are forced to cede building space all the time, especially as enrollments decline. The Mining Engineering department couldn’t just hold Hearst forever until the end of time. The department doesn’t “own” Hearst Mining. UCBerkeley owns Hearst Mining. </p>

<p>

Money is probably the one “resource” that could be reallocated. However, I question the assumption that money needed by say, a massive department liek MCB can or should be taken from say, a smaller department like History-mainly because History just don’t have much money. After all, MCB has plenty of money that it uses to train undergraduates in research labs and get large numbers of them into medical On the other hand, History has just ONE small grant available to undergraduates who desire to explore an original historical topic for which “resources” cannot be found in the Bay Area.

</p>

<p>I never said anything about reallocating anything from MCB to History, because both of these majors are non-impacted. </p>

<p>I am saying that resources may have to be reallocated to impacted majors. If the majors are resources-constrained, then more resources would lift that constraint. Or if it is something else entirely, then at least the offer of more resources would expose that fact. </p>

<p>

But let’s leave History aside. Say you were to take from Chemistry, which obviously has LOTS of money. I think you would actually be hurting Chemistry. And that’s of course, to be expected. It’s expensive to do research in chemistry, probably just as much or more as it is to do research biology. So, these departments obviously cannot look towards small humanities departments to find money because that money just isn’t there. Yet, that is exactly what it seems that people like sakky want to do.

</p>

<p>Like I said, Chemistry and history are not impacted.</p>

<p>But more to the point, obviously taking any money from any program will hurt that program. But RIGHT NOW, some programs don’t (or at least, claim not to) have the resources they need. So RIGHT NOW, some programs are being hurt (or at least, are claiming so). Hence, we may have to create some pain in some departments in order to lessen the pain in others. That’s what optimization is all about.</p>

<p>Again, look at all of the cancelled programs in the history of Berkeley. There is no more undergrad mining program at Berkeley. There used to be an Agricultural Engineering program. Not anymore. In fact, there even used to be a Nursing program at Berkeley. It got shut down in the 1960’s despite being one of the most popular programs at Bekeley. </p>

<p>My point is, no department has the “right” to the resources that it is currently getting. Just because you have certain building space now doesn’t mean that you get to have it forever. </p>

<p>

But as I already said, this example fails to take into account the changing nature of politics. Closing Mining was profitable to almost anybody. But that’s no longer the case with many of the smaller departments. After all, let’s say Berkeley were to close down Ethnic Studies. You really think radical political activists, especially in California, are going to stand for that? No, they are not. They will take it all the way to the Supreme Court if they have to and they will probably win. So why should Berkeley spend so much money on fighting legal battles when it can use that money to expand “resources”?

</p>

<p>First off, on what grounds would they take it to the Supreme Court? Every university has the right to shut down whatever programs it wants. That breaks no laws. </p>

<p>Secondly, I never said anything about Ethnic Studies, except in the general sense that any department with extra resources ought to give them up in favor of departments that are resources constrained. If Ethnic Studies turns out to have extra resources, then they should have to give them up just like any other department with extra resources. </p>

<p>

I’m not going to list my reasons unless you answer the question that you have now ignored three times.

</p>

<p>First off, I am under no obligation to answer anybody’s question, or to do anything at all, for that matter. After all, plenty of my issues/questions have been ignored by plenty of people, and that doesn’t phaze me. Perhaps we should go back and have you and others answer all of my questions that have been ignored?</p>

<p>But secondly, so what are these questions that I have been supposedly ignoring?</p>