In response to the many debates on ugrad quality

[greatestyen]

<p>

I don’t think that Berkeley gets hurt at all by laying off unneeded untenured lecturers and researchers. I think it is widely understood within the academic community that those jobs bring no obligation to the university. In fact, that’s the whole point of being untenured - that you don’t have the kind of job security that regular faculty members have. Berkeley has thousands and thousands of employees, only a small fraction of whom are tenured profs. If you’re a regular secretary at Berkeley, you don’t presume to have a job for life. If Berkeley wants to lay you off, then they will lay you off. It’s like any other regular job, in which you can get laid off at any time.

</p>

<p>Indeed, I am not opposed to most of the ideas you present and I am not opposed to “laying off unneeded untenured lecturers and researchers.” What I AM opposed to is laying off untenured professors and that was what some posters were proposing.</p>

<p>

Why not from other departments?

</p>

<p>Because if Berkeley took from other departments, Berkeley could potentially create even MORE problems for itself. </p>

<p>

No department has the “right” to the resources it currently has.

</p>

<p>Well I think we need to think holistically. Berkeley wants the best for all of its current programs. That means that to the present Berkeley administration, every department CERTAINLY has a “right” to the resources it currently has. After all, if it wasn’t for those resources, Berkeley couldn’t pride itself on groundbreaking research. </p>

<p>

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.

</p>

<p>Could you list some other resources besides space, faculty numbers, and money which can actually be “returned”? </p>

<p>

The entire field of Operations Management/Operations Research is all about identifying these areas and then rationalizing the resources.

</p>

<p>That is true. However, you must remember Berkeley’s educational rhetoric. It’s always about “expanding” educational resources, not “contracting” them. And sure you can point out that Berkeley contracts educational resources through impaction, but that’s just not how Berkeley thinks about the issue. I’ve actually heard deans speak of impaction as an “unfortunate consequence” of increased enrollment. Since there is no way that any carreer-conscious UC dean would object to increases in enrollment, it appears as if they largely ignore the impaction issue. </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>Well, most of that is more or less true. However, you seem to forget that Berkeley junior faculty members in a tenure-track positions are very often hired under contracts guaranteeing eventual tenure, so long as they continue to publish excellent research. Berkeley will be in a sticky legal situation if it breaks those contracts.</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>So, you only support reallocation for impacted departments?</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>If one department claims to not have all the resources it needs, why do you insist on harming other departments? Why can’t Berkeley just set up a committee to investigate impacted departments and make a decisions on whether or not to reallocate resources? That would be a much better option in my opinion. </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>I am not an expert on this example. However, let’s discuss it. Mining gets kicked out. But didn’t it come back? And wasn’t there a lot of friction when it came back? Isn’t it gone again? How much money did the department lose in this process?</p>

<p>Is that what you want for Berkeley in general to do? You want resources to be “shifted” every given period of time?</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>OK, I agree with that concept. However, it’s my general impression that enrollment has not decreased in many non-impacted, non-large department at all. Indeed, enrollment numbers have largely either stayed constant or increased with admission numbers. So would such departments be except from your “shift” plan? If they are, which departments do you want to hit? The large ones that aren’t impacted?</p>

<p>

So then you are implicitly admitting that the administration DOES have some control over the departments, right?

</p>

<p>Of course, but the administration does not seem to care enough about impaction as to force departments to unimpact themselves.</p>