In response to the many debates on ugrad quality

[sakky]

<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 are you opposed to that? That’s what happens all the time anyway! After all, that’s the WHOLE POINT of being untenured - that you can be laid off. </p>

<p>Perhaps you don’t understand how the tenure system works, not just at Berkeley, but at any school. A new guy gets brought in as an untenured assistant prof. If he proves himself to be good, using whatever criteria the school demands (i.e. research, teaching ,etc.), then that school will grant tenure. However, at many schools, especially the top ones, the the attrition rate is high. For example, I know that the tenure-rate at Harvard Business School is about 50% - meaning that about half of all new assistant profs at HBS are denied tenure and have to go work somewhere else (and usually end up in a consulting firm like McKinsey). At the MIT Sloan School, it’s probably more like 2/3, meaning that only 1/3 of new assistant profs will get tenure. There are other departments at MIT and Harvard that hardly ever grant tenure. In fact, I believe there is one department at MIT that hasn’t granted tenure to anybody in over a decade. </p>

<p>But the point is, it is perfectly NORMAL for many academics to not be granted tenure, whether it’s at Berkeley or any other school. This is NOT an uncommon thing. So I ask again, why can’t Berkeley lay off untenured assistant profs? This happens all the time in academia. That’s all part of the game of tenure, and every aspiring academic understands it. That’s why tenure is considered to be the brass ring. If you don’t want to play the tenure game, then don’t become an academic. </p>

<p>

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

</p>

<p>That’s where optimization comes in. Companes use optimization models all the time. In fact, that’s why the whole field of Operations Management came into being. In fact, Berkeley itself even TEACHES operations management to students within the IEOR department. So why can’t Berkeley use these same optimization techniques? Why should Berkeley be so unwilling to use the techniques on itself that it is teaching to its students? </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>

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>Rhetoric aside, Berkeley has engaged in ‘contraction’ before. For example, what happened to the Berkeley nursing program? According to the alumni database, Berkeley used to confer a LOT of BS degrees in nursing in the old days. So what happened to that? What happened to the mining engineering programs? The Hearst Mining Building doesn’t even house any mining engineering anymore. </p>

<p>So isn’t that contraction right there? Didn’t Berkeley basically “contract” resources in mining engineering? If Berkeley can contract these programs, then why is it so impossible to contract others? </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>No no no! Again, there is NO guarantee of tenure. If there was a guarantee of tenure, then that would be tantamount to tenure itself. After all, what is the difference between actual tenure and guarantee of tenure? Nothing. You either have tenure, or you don’t. This is the same tenure system that is used by ALL universities. In every department at every school, a significant percentage of new assistant profs will not get tenure. In fact, that’s why they have the entire tenure-placement system in the first place. The idea is to have these assistant profs duke it out to see who is the best, and the best will get tenure, and the rest will be dismissed. </p>

<p>I encourage you to actually talk to some of the new Berkeley assistant profs, and they will confirm that they are not guaranteed anything. Tenure-track does not mean that they are guaranteed tenure. In fact, I would surmise that there are some departments at Berkeley that almost never grant tenure. </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>That would be the next step. But the key is that we have to put reallocation on the table. </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>Uh, mining never came back. Once it was gone, it was gone. Some of it morphed to become part of the CEE department. But it never ‘came back’. </p>

<p>But on a general note, what is so bad about shifting resources from time to time? All schools do that. All schools shut down programs that are unpopular or do not otherwise fit the mission of the school. MIT also shut down all of its old mining programs. MIT shut down its old meteorology program. Harvard used to have myriad programs that no longer exist. </p>

<p>Look, what I am saying is that impaction is a problem that ought to be solved. But solving it will take willpower and the willingness to shift resources. People keep talking about how shifting resources will hurt some students, yet neglecting the fact that currently students are ALREADY being hurt by the impaction. Why is a guy who wants to major in CS but cannot because of impaction any less deserving of help than any other student at Berkeley?</p>