In response to the many debates on ugrad quality

[vicissitudes]

<p>

Students are admitted into L&S, the college which has most of the impacted majors, by the undergraduate admissions office. That office functions independently from the departamental offices-which are the ones that determine whether their department will declare itself impacted or not. In other words, there is no guarantee that a student “accepted” into Berkeley will get the major “he wants to major in.”

</p>

<p>Well then, maybe this policy should change. Berkeley is obviously aware that it is accepting students who are not getting into the major they want right? So it needs to do something. Like…have the administration decide which majors should be impacted by allocating resources more efficiently.</p>

<p>

UGH. Please acknowledge the distinctions I explicitly typed. I said that HYPS departments were just as cut throat as Berkeley departments in hiring faculty.

</p>

<p>I posted in response to this:</p>

<p>

If you want to bury cutthroat academic environments you have to socialize the national economy. You can’t just sit there and whine and expect somebody to do it for you. That’s not how societal change works.

</p>

<p>I didn’t realize academic environment = departments in hiring faculty, since they seem to be two different things. If you are talking about departments in hiring faculty please say so.</p>

<p>

It should be obvious that “what changed” was departamental choices.

</p>

<p>So, WHY did it change? Let’s question that, instead of saying “oh well it was the departments’ choices. Berkeley can’t do anything about it and we can’t do anything about it so let’s ignore it.”</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>

Well then, maybe this policy should change.[

</p>

<p>But HOW can you do that? Perhaps you want students that want to major in currently impacted majors to be admitted INTO that major and nothing else? But do you know how bad that is? It will cause even more problems when student aren’t able to swith either in or out of the major. And yes, I know this already happenes at Berkeley, especially between colleges. I do not support it. I think undergraduates should all be admitted without regards to what college or major or field they want to go into. </p>

<p>

Berkeley is obviously aware that it is accepting students who are not getting into the major they want right?

</p>

<p>Actually, I’m not even sure that’s the case. Again, there is no such thing as a centralized “Berkeley” like you seem to think there is. “Berkeley” is a loose orgnaization of political associations. One entity in particular, the Office of Student Research, is in charge of finding out whether undergraduates like their education or not. But you know what? OSR has undergraduates carrying out much of its research in the form of URAP courses. How well are those undergrads carrying out their research? What are they researching? (<a href=“http://research.berkeley.edu/urap/projects/detail.lasso?-Search=Action&-Table=details&-Database=urap_web&-KeyValue=12622275[/url]”>http://research.berkeley.edu/urap/projects/detail.lasso?-Search=Action&-Table=details&-Database=urap_web&-KeyValue=12622275&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

<p>OSR then presents the findings to the Office of Student Affairs and it goes upwards from there. Somewhere along the way, the desire to do away with impacted majors by shifting “resources” to them is not being supported. I highly suspect, as I have already said, that it’s at the Dean level. Deans by and large would not support acting against the departments that have classed themselves as impacted because there would be negative repercussions for their career prospects. The rhetoric in higher education is “expansion” of “educational opportunity,” not “contraction.” Taking “resources” away, and especially from small humanities departments in order to give them to impacted departments would definetly be classed as “contraction.”</p>

<p>

So it needs to do something. Like…have the administration decide which majors should be impacted by allocating resources more efficiently.

</p>

<p>My argument on this thread is very simple and I’ll say it again. </p>

<p>The reality of the situation is that BERKELEY’S IMPACTED DEPARTMENTS ARE NOT SHORT ON “RESOURCES.”</p>

<p>Resources as defined by sakky: money, faculty, “space,” and “everything else” that keeps students from majoring in what they want to major in. But obviously, those three things are the most important. </p>

<p>All of the impacted “departments,” with the possible exception of Mass Communications, have plenty of money. (But it should be made clear that Mass Comm is not a department.) All of the impacted “departments,” have plenty of space and they all have plenty of faculty. The reason they are impacted is because they choose to be. </p>

<p>

So, WHY did it change? Let’s question that, instead of saying “oh well it was the departments’ choices. Berkeley can’t do anything about it and we can’t do anything about it so let’s ignore it.”

</p>

<p>Holy mother of Fush, did you read my posts? I explictly proposed that students who care enough about the issue stage mass uprisings against the impacted department Chairs/Deans. I also provided the emails of the “devils” in question. If you care enough about the issue, you will email them and one way or another, get them to change their policies. There is no other realistic way. “Berkeley” (the campus administration) cannot make these kinds of choices for its departments. Sure, you can protest that “Berkeley” should be more centralized and maybe then it could make decisions for its departments, but that would open up another HUGE can of worms. </p>

<p>Now, if you want to know “why” they did what they did, I’m not so sure I can answer. It seems to me as if they just did it because they wanted to teach less students so they could focus more on research. That is most definetly what happened in the Psychology department. Berkeley Psych professors want USNEWS to always rank them at #1, not #2 as is often the case. Psych is not happy at #2 like say, the comparably large Anthropology and Hisitory departments are.</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>

Berkeley is obviously aware that it is accepting students who are not getting into the major they want right?

Actually, I’m not even sure that’s the case. Again, there is no such thing as a centralized “Berkeley” like you seem to think there is. “Berkeley” is a loose orgnaization of political associations.

</p>

<p>I’m using “Berkeley” loosely. In this case of course I mean the Berkeley admissions committee. You’re not sure if the admissions committee are aware of impacted majors? Come on, of course they are. They are admitting students and they know about impacted majors, so they know some of the students they admit will not get the major they want. So why admit them? One thing they can do is look for trends. For example, if one high school sends kids year after year who do poorly and often don’t get into the majors they want, then accept less people from that high school.</p>

<p>

Deans by and large would not support acting against the departments that have classed themselves as impacted because there would be negative repercussions for their career prospects. The rhetoric in higher education is “expansion” of “educational opportunity,” not “contraction.” Taking “resources” away, and especially from small humanities departments in order to give them to impacted departments would definetly be classed as “contraction.”

</p>

<p>But majors have been shut down before, as sakky have said repeatedly. That was an example of shifting resources from unpopular majors to popular majors. Why not do it again?</p>

<p>

All of the impacted “departments,” with the possible exception of Mass Communications, have plenty of money. (But it should be made clear that Mass Comm is not a department.) All of the impacted “departments,” have plenty of space and they all have plenty of faculty. The reason they are impacted is because they choose to be.

</p>

<p>I doubt that they have money and space and faculty but for some reason they choose to restrict the number of people in their major. Can you explain why they would possibly do that? Why does a major like MCB support so many students while a major like Mass Com. doesn’t? What possible reasons do the department have? You seem to just say “well that’s just how the departments do it so oh well.” </p>

<p>

Now, if you want to know “why” they did what they did, I’m not so sure I can answer. It seems to me as if they just did it because they wanted to teach less students so they could focus more on research.

</p>

<p>But majors like MCB teach far more students. I don’t see why these professors don’t want to focus more on research while professors in something like mass com. would want to focus more on research.</p>

<p>

Holy mother of Fush, did you read my posts? I explictly proposed that students who care enough about the issue stage mass uprisings against the impacted department Chairs/Deans.

</p>

<p>So, you really don’t care about the issue then, don’t want to discuss it, and would rather let those who do care take it up with the administration right? If that’s true then fine, I won’t discuss it any further.</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>

You’re not sure if the admissions committee are aware of impacted majors? Come on, of course they are. They are admitting students and they know about impacted majors, so they know some of the students they admit will not get the major they want. So why admit them?

</p>

<p>But how could they possibly know in advance which of the thousands of seventeen year olds will not be accepted into their first choice of major? Do they have a crystal ball? </p>

<p>

One thing they can do is look for trends. For example, if one high school sends kids year after year who do poorly and often don’t get into the majors they want, then accept less people from that high school.

</p>

<p>I’m sorry, but that’s just stupid. What if the “underperforming” high schools improves? What if a student that graduated from one of the high schools in question graduated at the top of their class and did so great that Berkeley decided to award him or her with the Regents Scholarship. Yet, college is different. And the former “genius” could very well find him or herself at the lower end of every curve. Why should a third party, the “underperforming” high school, be penalized for creating a kid that Berkeley welcome with open arms but then proceded to step on? I’m not even sure of the legality of this plan. For Berkeley to carry out you plan would be like the courts going after a non-pedophilic mother because her grown son is a child molester. It just doesn’t make any sense. </p>

<p>

But majors have been shut down before, as sakky have said repeatedly. That was an example of shifting resources from unpopular majors to popular majors. Why not do it again?

</p>

<p>That is true. However, that simple historical fact fails to take in to account the fact that higher education is now radically politicized and liberalized. After all, doing away with Mining was favorable to almost all parties involved. The students benefited. The campus benefited. Companies benefited, etc. The only ones who truly lost were the professors who only taught mining and graduates who only held mining degrees. In other words, few people had anything to gain from Mining staying open. But that is just not the case for many of the smaller departments nowadays. For example, say you were to do away with the relatively/numerically unpopular ethnic studies department. You would meet with vicious rhetoric AND action not only from URMs, but from white and asian political actitivist like myself who fully support ethnic studies departments. There are hundreds of people standing by ready to fight anyone who attempts to do away with the resources of the ethnic studies departments in any university all the way to the Supreme Court if needed and possible. This is of course ultimately idiotic and counterproductive for both parties, since it would take up lots of money - money which could go to departments which people like sakky might claim need “resources.”</p>

<p>

I doubt that they have money and space and faculty but for some reason they choose to restrict the number of people in their major.

</p>

<p>Is that “doubt” supposed to have “don’t” in front of it? Because otherwise that sentence doesn’t make sense to me given the context of your argument. Could you explain what you mean or otherwise expand? </p>

<p>

Can you explain why they would possibly do that?

</p>

<p>No, I have never been present at a single impacted departament voting committee. If you are curious enough, why don’t you ask them? I provided the emails of departamental heads and some of their phone numbers and even some of their office locations. If you’re afraid of losing anonymity, email them from a web-based account under an alias. They’ll never know. </p>

<p>

Why does a major like MCB support so many students while a major like Mass Com. doesn’t?

</p>

<p>Heck if I know. My guess for MCB is that it knows that if it caps itself it will encounter massive student resistance. My guess for Mass Comm being impacted is that it has far too many course requirements from other departments and those departments have told Mass Comm that if it wants to continue having so many of its upper-division students in their courses, it needs to be impacted. </p>

<p><a href=“http://ls.berkeley.edu/ugis/masscomm/major/requirements-courses.php[/url]”>http://ls.berkeley.edu/ugis/masscomm/major/requirements-courses.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

But majors like MCB teach far more students.I don’t see why these professors don’t want to focus more on research while professors in something like mass com. would want to focus more on research.

</p>

<p>Exactly, MCB teaches more students. Which means more students will revolt if MCB declares itself to be impacted. I stronly believe that if MCB had less students, it would declare itself impacted so that it could do even more research. Mass Comm on the other hand, is much smaller and it’s tougher to get a mass protest going. But not only that, it should also be understood that even though gaining admission to an impacted major like CS is pretty damn hard since the prerecs are pretty damn hard, its extremely easy to be accepted into Mass Comm because the prerecs are extremely easy. Something else you need to understand about Mass Comm professors is that they have plenty of time for their research, since they do not teach the vast majority of classes in their “department” (which is more like a “program.”)</p>

<p>

So, you really don’t care about the issue then, don’t want to discuss it, and would rather let those who do care take it up with the administration right?

</p>

<p>I “care” about the issue just the same as I “care” about any other topic of intelligent conversation. But I’m not interested in personally SOLVING the problem. That would make me an activist. I am an analyst at best. </p>

<p>

If that’s true then fine, I won’t discuss it any further.

</p>

<p>Well, if you want to SOLVE the problem, I’ve told you how to do it. So stop typing to me and start typing to the heads of impacted departments if that’s what you want. If what you would rather do is explore the issue some further, I am always here.</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>

I’m sorry, but that’s just stupid. What if the “underperforming” high schools improves? What if a student that graduated from one of the high schools in question graduated at the top of their class and did so great that Berkeley decided to award him or her with the Regents Scholarship.

</p>

<p>If the high school improves, the students who did get in from that high school (notice I didnt’ say stop admitting completely from that high school) will perform better and Berkeley should then accept more students from that high school. But you know that high schools don’t improve dramatically within a few years. The good ones tend to stay good and so on.</p>

<p>If a student did really great at the top of the high school then admit him and give him regents. I didn’t say stop admitting everyone from that high school. I said admit fewer. Maybe those with less impressive qualifications.</p>

<p>And you can certainly look for other trends. For example, if students who apply for economics majors did really badly in their high school economics class don’t generally get into the economics major, then accept fewer students who apply for economics and did badly in their economics class.</p>

<p>

But that is just not the case for many of the smaller departments nowadays.

</p>

<p>You’re right, it’s not the case for many of the smaller departments. But it probably still is true for a few. Or we don’t even have to shut them down. We could just make some unpopular (not necessarily small) majors smaller. Just find out which majors have unused resources and direct those to those majors that need those resources.</p>

<p>

Is that “doubt” supposed to have “don’t” in front of it? Because otherwise that sentence doesn’t make sense to me given the context of your argument. Could you explain what you mean or otherwise expand?

</p>

<p>No it’s not supposed to have “don’t” in front of it. I doubt that [they have money and space and faculty but still make the majors impacted]. Why would they have money, space, and faculty, but still limit students from enrolling in the major?</p>

<p>

No, I have never been present at a single impacted departament voting committee. If you are curious enough, why don’t you ask them? I provided the emails of departamental heads and some of their phone numbers and even some of their office locations.

</p>

<p>Once again you tell me to email them, which suggests that you don’t want me to discuss this with you, but with them. If that’s the case then say so, and I will stop posting here and send them an email.</p>

<p>

My guess for MCB is that it knows that if it caps itself it will encounter massive student resistance.

Exactly, MCB teaches more students. Which means more students will revolt if MCB declares itself to be impacted.

</p>

<p>Well the students who apply for all the impacted engineering majors, business administration, economics, mass com, and other impacted majors haven’t revolted strongly, and together they number more than MCB students. So I’m not sure MCB students will revolt either.</p>

<p>

But I’m not interested in personally SOLVING the problem.

</p>

<p>Okay GOOD. So you have admitted that you don’t want to solve the problem. That would explain why you have only debunked my ideas and haven’t come up with any solutions of your own. In that case we obviously have different goals and there is little incentive for me to keep up this debate with you.</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>

If the high school improves, the students who did get in from that high school (notice I didnt’ say stop admitting completely from that high school) will perform better and Berkeley should then accept more students from that high school. But you know that high schools don’t improve dramatically within a few years. The good ones tend to stay good and so on.</p>

<p>If a student did really great at the top of the high school then admit him and give him regents. I didn’t say stop admitting everyone from that high school. I said admit fewer. Maybe those with less impressive qualifications.

</p>

<p>Once again, it all boils down to politics. Your proposal is antithetical to current UC admission criteria. Currently, the high school a student attends doesn’t really count THAT much. What counts is that the student takes advantage of the resources his or her high school offers, no matter if they’re among the best in the nation (Harvard-Westlake School in North Hollywood, Troy High School in Fullerton, etc.) or among the worst in the nation (Richmond High School in Richmond, Jordan High School in Long Beach, etc.)</p>

<p>Whoever cares enough about changing the current system to and instituting vicissitudes’ proposals will have to take some major political action. </p>

<p>

And you can certainly look for other trends. For example, if students who apply for economics majors did really badly in their high school economics class don’t generally get into the economics major, then accept fewer students who apply for economics and did badly in their economics class.

</p>

<p>I am of the opinion that this proposal is just too unrealistic. What you are essentially saying is that you think that the box seveteen year old applicants check on their UC application should be taken seriously. In other words, you believe freshmen should be admitted into Economics directly from high school. I dislike this just as I do the current practice of admitting EECS and other such students directly from high school. </p>

<p>

You’re right, it’s not the case for many of the smaller departments. But it probably still is true for a few. Or we don’t even have to shut them down. We could just make some unpopular (not necessarily small) majors smaller. Just find out which majors have unused resources and direct those to those majors that need those resources.

</p>

<p>Ok that seems more reasonable. I am actually not opposed to shifting resources (faculty, “space,” and money.) What I’m trying to stress is that I don’t think resources need need to be shifted at all. And if they were, I’m still not clear on how Berkeley could do it. </p>

<p>Resources::</p>

<p>Faculty members - almost impossible to fire. If one retires/leaves and Berkeley does not replace him or her, Berkeley will suffer in terms of research output, graduate student enrollement, and prestige among the academic community. </p>

<p>“Space” - there is no shortage of space other than for faculty in the humanities. To end this problem, I believe a new building should be built right behind Dwinelle on the spot which is currently a parking lot. </p>

<p>money - to be perfectly honest, the vast majority of Berkeley departments are at or almost at the top of the academic ladder. That wouldn’t be possible if it these departments didn’t have enough money. It’s clear that they have the money needed to do well. Whether or not they share it with undergrads is another matter but I do beleive they share it. If they did NOT share it, we wouldn’t see so many Berkeley students going to PhD programs and graduate school. </p>

<p>So if “resources” are abundantly used, I don’t understand were all this talk of the need to “shift” resources stems from. If anybody can actually point to an area that needs mass amouts of “resources” and is not getting them, I would be happy to change my position. </p>

<p>

Once again you tell me to email them, which suggests that you don’t want me to discuss this with you, but with them.

</p>

<p>No, if you want to gain more knowledge on Berkeley, you can definetly discuss it with me because I am a Berkeley undergradute student that is pretty well informed about many aspects of Berkeley’s inner workings for the simple reason that I actually work within the Berkeley bureaucracy. </p>

<p>

If that’s the case then say so, and I will stop posting here and send them an email.

</p>

<p>If that’s what you want to do, nothing is stopping you. Don’t expect a fast reply. </p>

<p>

Well the students who apply for all the impacted engineering majors, business administration, economics, mass com, and other impacted majors haven’t revolted strongly, and together they number more than MCB students. So I’m not sure MCB students will revolt either.

</p>

<p>YEAH. “Together” is a key word. MCB is one gigantic major and students can easily politically communicate with each other within it. Not so for the other majors, although the argument can be made for Haas and Econ students. </p>

<p>

Okay GOOD. So you have admitted that you don’t want to solve the problem. That would explain why you have only debunked my ideas and haven’t come up with any solutions of your own. In that case we obviously have different goals and there is little incentive for me to keep up this debate with you.

</p>

<p>To each his own.</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>

I am of the opinion that this proposal is just too unrealistic.

</p>

<p>Alright, I guess we disagree. It could be too unrealistic I guess, but it’s just an idea.</p>

<p>

Faculty members - almost impossible to fire. If one retires/leaves and Berkeley does not replace him or her, Berkeley will suffer in terms of research output, graduate student enrollement, and prestige among the academic community.

</p>

<p>Well, only the tenured professors are hard to fire. I do agree that it’s hard to find new professors but if we know that Economics is going to be impacted year after year then just hire a few more economics professors. It’s a one-time thing so it shouldn’t be too difficult.</p>

<p>

It’s clear that they have the money needed to do well. Whether or not they share it with undergrads is another matter but I do beleive they share it. If they did NOT share it, we wouldn’t see so many Berkeley students going to PhD programs and graduate school.

</p>

<p>Well, I don’t think Berkeley, or the entire UC system is doing that well off financially.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/uc2025/funding.html[/url]”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/uc2025/funding.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In fact, I think lack of funding is what could have caused these majors to become impacted.</p>

<p>

No, if you want to gain more knowledge on Berkeley, you can definetly discuss it with me because I am a Berkeley undergradute student that is pretty well informed about many aspects of Berkeley’s inner workings for the simple reason that I actually work within the Berkeley bureaucracy.

</p>

<p>Alright. Sounds reasonable. :)</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>

Well, only the tenured professors are hard to fire.

</p>

<p>That is true. So, are you proposing that when “faculty resources” need to be “shifted,” non-tenured faculty should be the first too go if a department is found too have too much “faculty resources”? If that is what you are proposing, then you must also recognize that research output, graduate student enrollment, and academic prestige among peer institutions will STILL be NEGATIVALY affected. After all, say it was determined that the History department needed to fire some of its non-tenured faculty. Since all of its associate/assistant faculty members are equally good at what they do, they choose to drawn a name out of some hat. The name is…Josh Connelly, arguably the most accomplished young American historian of Central Europe. Yet, you say “FIRE!”? How cool is that? As a prospective graduate student in that area, would you be turned on by Berkeley’s History program? Of course not! Would anybody else in the History departments nationwide? Of course not! The same process would happen across all disciplines that were to fire faculty in other that other faculty can be hired in one gigantic “shift.” In effect, I believe that your proposal could potentially destroy Berkeley’s research powerhouse. Is that what you want? For Berkeley research to suck? </p>

<p>And besides, Connelly is tenure-track. When new faculty sign their contracts, there is usually a clause that says they will get tenure as long as they continue to publish. Are you proposing that Berkeley not comply with a legal document it signed? That would cause lawsuits. Lots of them. And when I say lots, I mean LOTS.</p>

<p>

It’s a one-time thing so it shouldn’t be too difficult.

</p>

<p>That’s not true. It will be HUGELY difficult and, if sakky got his way, the process would continue until Berkeley ceaced to exist. After all, after a certain time undergraduate students might be perceived as demanding other “shifts” in faculty. And that brings up an old problem that the first faculty “shift” would have created. What kind of PhD holder would want to come to a university that has a history of breaking its legal contracts with faculty? I can only think of two kinds: the dumb and the desperate. Either way, it’s bad. </p>

<p>

Well, only the tenured professors are hard to fire. I do agree that it’s hard to find new professors but if we know that Economics is going to be impacted year after year then just hire a few more economics professors. It’s a one-time thing so it shouldn’t be too difficult.

</p>

<p>Did you read my post on faculty numbers in different departments? If you didn’t, here it is::</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2693035&postcount=147[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2693035&postcount=147&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Economics clearly does NOT need more faculty. It has about 70 faculty members. That’s about 20 more than Political Science, which only has about 50 faculty members and is WAY larger than Econ. So if you really believe in your little proposal, you should not support increases in the number of Economic faculty but in Poli Sci faculty. </p>

<p>But let me say it again. Both departments are have a good number of faculty. They don’t really need more and they don’t really need less. The reason Economics declared itself impacted is because it chose to. Now I don’t know the reason WHY it chose to do it, but it did it-in spite of the fact that it is much smaller than non-impacted Poli Sci and probably has MORE money and arguably has more “space.” Clearly, it’s not an issue of “resources.” So stop talking about the need to shift these “resources”!</p>

<p>

Well, I don’t think Berkeley, or the entire UC system is doing that well off financially.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.e…25/funding.html%5B/url%5D”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.e…25/funding.html</a></p>

<p>In fact, I think lack of funding is what could have caused these majors to become impacted.

</p>

<p>I just don’t buy that explanation. I mean, how much more expensive can it be to have a few more classes so that everyone can be in the classes that they want to be in? It’s not like faculty salaries are contingent on teaching hours. Are you saying that it’s too expensive to hold the actual classes? Has the price of classroom lightning suddenly skyrocketed? Are pieces of chalk, erasers, and chalkboards now worth as much as Jlo’s behind? Does it now take 5 zillion dollars to sit in a chair for an hour and a half and be lectured to?</p>

[liferunsby]

<p>I wasn’t aware that Jennifer Lopez’s rear end had an actual monetary value. Although, it certainly is valuable ;)</p>

<p>I think Greatestyen successfully demolished any calls for a “shift in faculty resources” or any sort of arbitrary faculty reduction (except in the case of incompotence, of course).</p>

<p>So does anyone have any input on WHY some majors such as Economics are impacted, even though they don’t need to be? Perhaps to make it more tantalizing to get into? Perhaps to lure students with the position of being an “IMPACTED” majoree? It certainly sounds plausible. After all, it would be just an academic spin on the hard-to-get strategy (much like how some females like to draw in hapless yet determined males). Heh.</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>

I wasn’t aware that Jennifer Lopez’s rear end had an actual monetary value.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nyrock.com/features/1999/lopez.asp[/url]”>http://www.nyrock.com/features/1999/lopez.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Enjoy. ;)</p>

[eudean]

<p>

Why should the other departments waste their time and money to do that when students can easily find out about their professors for free by using <a href=“Rate My Professors”>www.ratemyprofessors.com?

</a></p>

<p>If you’re never used HKN’s professor and course rating service (and from your comment, it’s clear you haven’t), please don’t bother trying to claim ratemyprofessors.com is even close to the quality of the HKN service.</p>

<p>The fact is, many departments ask for students to rate their professors in some manner at the end of a semester (I know the music department, EECS, and math departments do this–maybe physics, too, I can’t remember). If they simply gathered data on scantrons (still allowing for separate fields for comments) and scanned that data into a solid, web-accessible system, it would be of a huge benefit to almost every student.</p>

<p>

Well, let’s look at what we do know: GPA at HYPS are higher. This means less competition is needed to get good grades. There is no major impaction at HYPS. This means no competition to get into a major. There are really no weeders at HYPS. This means less competition since there is a lot of competition in weeders.

</p>

<p>Unless everyone’s getting 4.0s, having higher GPAs doesn’t mean there is less competition. It just means the scale is skewed, so instead of normally competing for a 3.5, you’re competing for a 3.8. Lack of weeders or impacted majors does mean less competition, and in some cases that’s good, but as I stated before, I believe impacted majors are a good thing.</p>

<p>

You seem to imply that Berkeley need to take in fewer students, or major impaction must be continued. 10 years ago L&S only had one impacted major yet the number of undergrads was about the same. What’s up with that?

</p>

<p>There are three factors here: 1) number of students, 2) number of impacted majors, 3) (this is the one you forgot) quality of education. If we had the same number of students (and faculty–that’s a fourth factor if it has changed) and fewer impacted majors, quality of education in those majors must’ve gone down. If not, we must’ve had more faculty & resources in those majors. There’s no way you can improve on every aspect unless you have extra faculty & resources.</p>

<p>

If a student isn’t smart enough to get into the major he wants to major in, why is he accepted at all? Why does Berkeley accept students who aren’t smart enough to get into the major they want? Isn’t that just causing pain for the student?

</p>

<p>No, it gives the student options. Many, many (isn’t it something like 60%?) of students will change their major before graduating. Maybe the student will come here, won’t get into an impacted majors, but will find something else s/he enjoys. It’s nice to give them the choice, isn’t it? Or would you rather not have the choice to attend Berkeley at all? Point is, give the student a chance and leave it up to the student to make it. It’s better than excluding that student completely.</p>

<p>

I’m not very sure abou that. I would say that ratemyprofessors.com is known by pretty much the entire student body. “Everyone” uses it, no matter if they did good or bad. When there’s praise to be given, it’s given. When it’s not, filth is given. For every single “so-so” professor I’ve had, the ratings accurately describe him or her as “green face” which is a standin for “average.” Overall, I feel the site is extremely accurate and unbiased. If students notice that comments are way off, they will speak up and “balance” the comments.

</p>

<p>Go to ratemyprofessors.com and try to find all of these professors: Nikolic, Varaiya, Chenming Hu, Subramanian, Chang-Hasnain, Gastpar (all EECS, if there’s any ambiguity). Tell me how many ratings there are for each professor, and if there are any comments about the course they taught that semester. Then go to hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu and try it again. Just because you’ve only used a sub-par system with sparse amounts of information that can, at many times, be completely useless, doesn’t mean there isn’t a better solution out there that would be easy to implement.</p>

<p>The only time the professor ratings at HKN’s site aren’t useful is when the professor is new and doesn’t have any ratings yet. That’s to be expected, though. There have been way too many times where I haven’t even been able to find a professor at ratemyprofessors.com.</p>

<p>

I just don’t buy that explanation. I mean, how much more expensive can it be to have a few more classes so that everyone can be in the classes that they want to be in? It’s not like faculty salaries are contingent on teaching hours. Are you saying that it’s too expensive to hold the actual classes? Has the price of classroom lightning suddenly skyrocketed? Are pieces of chalk, erasers, and chalkboards now worth as much as Jlo’s behind? Does it now take 5 zillion dollars to sit in a chair for an hour and a half and be lectured to?

</p>

<p>I don’t know. Do you? You speak from ignorance. I won’t say that financial resources are definitely to blame, but I won’t say they definitely aren’t. Just because you don’t buy the explanation doesn’t mean it isn’t true, or doesn’t have merit at least.</p>

<p>

So does anyone have any input on WHY some majors such as Economics are impacted, even though they don’t need to be?

</p>

<p>Nothing “needs” to be, ever. Why are you, when you don’t need to be? Because being alive is presumably better than being dead (or I guess not existing would be a better comparison). Why is economics impacted? Because there’s a trade-off in the quality of education in economics if we don’t have an impacted major. We have so many professors and so many classrooms. We want to fill those classrooms to a certain point and give each professor a certain number of students. To go over our limit would be bad in our eyes, so we don’t.</p>

<p>

But let me say it again. Both departments are have a good number of faculty. They don’t really need more and they don’t really need less. The reason Economics declared itself impacted is because it chose to. Now I don’t know the reason WHY it chose to do it, but it did it-in spite of the fact that it is much smaller than non-impacted Poli Sci and probably has MORE money and arguably has more “space.” Clearly, it’s not an issue of “resources.” So stop talking about the need to shift these “resources”!

</p>

<p>Maybe econ has a different way of gauging their limit than Poli Sci. Don’t you think the department probably knows best how many students they can take without degrading their quality of education? Or do you think you know best, and the department should take everyone? I’m sure they have a lot more information to decide from than you do. Unless you can show me some realistic cost per student number and the budget of the econ department, why should I believe your assertion that the econ major shouldn’t be impacted is true?</p>

[eudean]

<p>

I still think its a waste of money and time for the same reasons that I typed ^. But not only that, this “class rating” would ALSO target specific professors. You don’t seem to realize that, but it’s pretty obvious. After all, faculty members in all departments are hired because they bring scholarly diversity to the department. What does that mean in terms of teaching? Well, say you have two political science professors. One is the leading scholar of transracial Muslim nationalism. Another is an expert on post-industrial Mexican labor systems. Both professors probably could teach an upper division class in each other’s fields, but they way the poli sci (and every other) department does it is by having professors only teach in their principal field. That means that if you take that course on post-industrial Mexican labor systems and you think it sucks and you grade it as such, there is no way to not know that you think that that class/professor, sucks.

</p>

<p>Say I’m an EECS student. There’s something like 30 upper division classes I could presumably take (105, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 150, 152, 160, 162, 164, 169, 170, 172, 174, 182, 184, 186, 188, 192).</p>

<p>Now, I don’t know which class is good–I know I want to take a EE class, though. I go over to this site: <a href=“http://hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu/student/CourseSurvey/courses/EE/?recent=1[/url]”>http://hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu/student/CourseSurvey/courses/EE/?recent=1&lt;/a&gt; and get an immediate idea of what thousands of other students have viewed as good classes in the past. Probably don’t want to take 117, 118, 122, or 129.</p>

<p>Okay, so I want to take 120, 130, and 140. All pretty typical for a EE student. Who should I take them with? Let me check 120: <a href=“http://hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu/student/CourseSurvey/courses/EE/120/[/url]”>http://hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu/student/CourseSurvey/courses/EE/120/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Looks like Gastpar, Ramchandran, Fearing, and Lau are top picks. Varaiya and Kahn maybe a little lower. Avoid Anatharam like the plague. That takes about 20 seconds for a class. I can even get more in-depth ratings, like how hard a class is given the unit load, how good the lectures are, etc., if I really want.</p>

<p>Say I was looking up that info for Physics courses. I know professor Crommie is teaching physics 110A next semester. Let’s say I don’t know if he’s a good professor (I in fact do know, and he is quite good). So I go to ratemyprofessors.com and look it up. I see there is ONE rating for him. How useful. Gastpar has hundreds of ratings on HKN’s site. Both are relatively new, but for one I have data averaged over many students, while for the other I have one person’s opinion. Which do you think would be more useful?</p>

<p>I mean, the Berkeley professor with the most ratings at ratemyprofessors.com has 105 ratings. Professor Ayazifar, who has two semesters listed at HKN’s site, has 200 ratings. There difference in reliability is immense.</p>

<p>Yes, it’s possible to get this information elsewhere. Ask your friends. Say you’ve got 3 friends that’ve taken the course. They can give you one opinion on each of three different professors, or maybe 3 opinions on one professor. That’s still not nearly as useful as HKN’s service.</p>

<p>Anyway, I don’t think you realize the quality and quantity of information coming from HKN. It’s one of the best things about the EECS department.</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>

If you’re never used HKN’s professor and course rating service (and from your comment, it’s clear you haven’t), please don’t bother trying to claim ratemyprofessors.com is even close to the quality of the HKN service.

</p>

<p>I never claimed such a thing.</p>

<p>

The fact is, many departments ask for students to rate their professors in some manner at the end of a semester (I know the music department, EECS, and math departments do this–maybe physics, too, I can’t remember). If they simply gathered data on scantrons (still allowing for separate fields for comments) and scanned that data into a solid, web-accessible system, it would be of a huge benefit to almost every student.

</p>

<p>Indeed, many departments do that. In fact, I think all of them do. However, I’m not too sure, it would be a “huge benefit” to “almost every student.” I mean, just look at how undergrads who choose to respond to surveys in which every student is asked to perticipate in have to say about how their professors. A whooping 62.1% are, at the least, “satisfied,” with the “quality of faculty instruction.” And that’s without most departments releasing their faculty’s ratings! So perhaps what you really mean is that releasing ratings will be a “huge benefit” to “many students.”</p>

<p><a href=“https://osr2.berkeley.edu/Public/surveys/ucues/2005/core2005.html[/url]”>https://osr2.berkeley.edu/Public/surveys/ucues/2005/core2005.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Go to ratemyprofessors.com and try to find all of these professors: Nikolic, Varaiya, Chenming Hu, Subramanian, Chang-Hasnain, Gastpar (all EECS, if there’s any ambiguity). Tell me how many ratings there are for each professor, and if there are any comments about the course they taught that semester. Then go to hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu and try it again. Just because you’ve only used a sub-par system with sparse amounts of information that can, at many times, be completely useless, doesn’t mean there isn’t a better solution out there that would be easy to implement.

</p>

<p>OK. I accept that. Now I would like to know how much NKH costs EECS. If it’s a lot, how are smaller (especially humanities) departments going to pay for such a system? Would the central administration pay?</p>

<p>

The only time the professor ratings at HKN’s site aren’t useful is when the professor is new and doesn’t have any ratings yet. That’s to be expected, though. There have been way too many times where I haven’t even been able to find a professor at ratemyprofessors.com.

</p>

<p>That is true. But in my experience, the professors who aren’t listed on ratemyprofessors.com don’t really teach that much. When they do, it’s to a very small and sporadically held class. That means few students are affected by not having the professor listed on ratemyprofessors.com. If few students are affected, it’s relatively unlikely that the departments themselves OR “Berkeley” will seriously attempt to solve problem by releasing faculty ratings. But again, that’s just in my experience. </p>

<p>

I don’t know. Do you? You speak from ignorance. I won’t say that financial resources are definitely to blame, but I won’t say they definitely aren’t. Just because you don’t buy the explanation doesn’t mean it isn’t true, or doesn’t have merit at least.

</p>

<p>I speak from ignorace? Really? </p>

<p>No, I don’t. Make no mistake about it, not one of the impacted “departments” with the probable exception of Mass Communications are short on money. The departments that ARE short on money are USUALLY the ones that AREN’T impacted. That list would include departments like:: French, Film Studies, Women’s Studies, etc. </p>

<p>

Maybe econ has a different way of gauging their limit than Poli Sci.

</p>

<p>Maybe they do. I highly suspect their “limit” is measured by faculty willingness to teach. </p>

<p>

Don’t you think the department probably knows best how many students they can take without degrading their quality of education?

</p>

<p>Of course I do. I explictly said on this thread that I have never been present at a single departamental voting committee meeting. On another thread I stated that I blindly support the decisions of the impacted departments to impact themselves. </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2693810&postcount=43[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2693810&postcount=43&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Or do you think you know best, and the department should take everyone?

</p>

<p>I don’t think I know “best.” But I do know one thing. Many professors in the impacted Psychology department feel that it is grossly unfair that their groundbreaking research is only recognized by USNEWS as 2nd best in the nation. I believe they want to be number one and the decision to declare themselves impacted was so that they would have to teach fewer classes and focus more on research. Again, as I’ve already stated, I suspect that the Econ department feels the same way. As to the latter part of your statement, I support the departments in what they each want to do because I think it’s best for research and I think research is relatively more important than teaching undergraduates. But that’s not to say that I wouldn’t change my thinking if the national economy was socialized. If that happened, departments could teach countless students and not live under the constant fear that if their professors don’t research enough, the department will lose much of its funding. </p>

<p>

I’m sure they have a lot more information to decide from than you do.

</p>

<p>Yes, I agree.</p>

<p>

Unless you can show me some realistic cost per student number and the budget of the econ department, why should I believe your assertion that the econ major shouldn’t be impacted is true?

</p>

<p>Look. The reality of the situation is that departments that don’t use laboratories don’t really need THAT much money. Now, I’m not an economics major and I’m certainly no expert on economics, but from what I gather, undergraduate economic classes are usually made up of Lecture and Discussion. No Lab. </p>

<p><a href=“http://sis.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=FL&p_classif=U&p_deptname=Economics&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=&x=38&y=8[/url]”>http://sis.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=FL&p_classif=U&p_deptname=Economics&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=&x=38&y=8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Can someone confirm this? Undergraduate economics classes DO NOT have laboratories, right?</p>

<p>So, that leaves us with lectures and discussions. Let’s start lectures. What goes on in economics lectures? I remember sitting in one and observing that they are really no different than lectures in Political Science or in most other departments. Professor shows up, goes to the front of the class, and lectures. There may be some…</p>

<p>slides - usually on PowerPoint. Not very expensive for professors to make. </p>

<p>projectors, overhead, white screen, microphone, speakers, podium, chalk, chalkboard, dryerase boards, dryerase markers, chairs, air conditioning, lighting, etc. - all come with lecture hall</p>

<p>There are NO “expensive” Chem 1A-style demonstrations, right? </p>

<p>Now for Econ undergrad discussion. I admit I’ve never been in one. But isn’t it just like Poli Sci where you sit in a room with other students and are given clarification, extra help, quizzes, and smaller assignments, etc. by the GSI? If that’s the case, I don’t see how the department is actually spending much of any money on the classes themselves. After all, it’s not like Berkeley has to pay itself to use of its own classrooms. That would be stupid. </p>

<p>The only real cost I can think of that the Econ department and every other department directly spends on undergraduate classes is on copies, especially for midterms and finals. Now, I have NEVER heard of ANY student not being provided with a copy of the midterm, final, etc in ANY department. </p>

<p>So really, WHAT are these costs you seem to think the Econ department is spending on its undergraduates? </p>

<p>Maybe you think it’s in the form of GSIs? Well let me tell you that that’s a bunch of crap. GSIs are paid directly by the central administration, not the departments.</p>

<p>In the end, you’ve got to realize that the “realistic cost per student number” for the Econ department is a VERY SMALL sum and Econ DEFINETLY has much more money than said sum. Someone who is majoring in Econ, could you make it “official” that the department doesn’t really spend much of anything on undergraduates? Remember that faculty salaries are not dependent on teaching hours.</p>

[eudean]

<p>

A whooping 62.1% are, at the least, “satisfied,” with the “quality of faculty instruction.” And that’s without most departments releasing their faculty’s ratings! So perhaps what you really mean is that releasing ratings will be a “huge benefit” to “many students.”

</p>

<p>Okay, it will be a huge benefit to any student who otherwise would’ve been stuck with a bad professor at some point during their college career. That would be significant portion of the campus, and I don’t think “almost every” would be overexaggerating that number.</p>

<p>

OK. I accept that. Now I would like to know how much NKH costs EECS. If it’s a lot, how are smaller (especially humanities) departments going to pay for such a system? Would the central administration pay?

</p>

<p>The system consists of: one or two students per class to pass out, then collect scantrons; the scantrons themselves; a scantron machine (though I’m sure departments could share a machine–there’s no rush to scan these things); someone to scan the forms; and a website with the code running the HKN website.</p>

<p>We already have students that gladly volunteer to pass out and collect scantrons. Scantrons are relatively cheap, even if we got all 22,000 students to participate that’d be around $2,000 total for the scantrons (their website indicates that they’re around 10 cents a piece in bundles of 500). Any administrative secretary could scan the forms. I don’t know how much a scantron machine costs, but considering their usage on campus already, I doubt we couldn’t get by with using existing machines. Websites cost nil, and the software is free (GPL license).</p>

<p>

If few students are affected, it’s relatively unlikely that the departments themselves OR “Berkeley” will seriously attempt to solve problem by releasing faculty ratings.

</p>

<p>Professor Chang-Hasnain, who’s taught EE40 (~100 students) at least twice, has 4 ratings. Gastpar, who’s taught 120 (~100 students) at least 3 times, has 9 ratings. I think it’s pretty clear ratemyprofessors.com is lackluster at best.</p>

<p>

Make no mistake about it, not one of the impacted “departments” with the probable exception of Mass Communications are short on money.

</p>

<p>PROVE IT! You say you’re not just guessing, so show me, how are you not ignorant of the costs necessary to run these departments and their budgets?</p>

<p>

I believe they want to be number one and the decision to declare themselves impacted was so that they would have to teach fewer classes and focus more on research. Again, as I’ve already stated, I suspect that the Econ department feels the same way.

</p>

<p>Have quotes, do you? References? I’d like to know. If that’s the case, then I’d say it’s a trade-off, bad for undergraduate education certainly, but since Berkeley is research-oriented, I could understand the trade-off.</p>

<p>

Look. The reality of the situation is that departments that don’t use laboratories don’t really need THAT much money. Now, I’m not an economics major and I’m certainly no expert on economics, but from what I gather, undergraduate economic classes are usually made up of Lecture and Discussion. No Lab.

</p>

<p>How much money do they need? How much money do they get? I’m well aware that econ classes don’t have labs (what the heck would they do in a lab?). How much do their professors get paid? GSIs? Is it more costly to hire prestigious econ faculty than comparable faculty in other fields? Do you know?</p>

<p>

In the end, you’ve got to realize that the “realistic cost per student number” for the Econ department is a VERY SMALL sum and Econ DEFINETLY has much more money than said sum.

</p>

<p>I’ll believe you if you give me some type of evidence to back your claims. I don’t know the economics department budget. I don’t know how much it costs to educate a class of students. You haven’t told me those things, either. You’ve given me some vague reasons to believe it costs less to run an economics department than it does a chemistry department.</p>

<p>Also, I don’t know if it makes sense to say that the economics department has the resources to be a non-impacted major. If saying that comes with a qualifier like “if they moved 20% of their research budget into their education budget”, then that effectively means, to me, that they don’t have enough money. Having enough money would mean allowing them to perform top research and to support so many students. It’s like saying Berkeley has enough money to educate everyone in the city of Berkeley, if we stopped doing research, bought out 10 warehouses to make into classrooms, and promoted every grad student to a professor. Well, yeah, you can now educate everyone in the city, but I wouldn’t really say you had the resources to do it in the sense that you could maintain quality everywhere else in your program.</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>

The system consists of: one or two students per class to pass out, then collect scantrons; the scantrons themselves; a scantron machine (though I’m sure departments could share a machine–there’s no rush to scan these things); someone to scan the forms; and a website with the code running the HKN website.</p>

<p>We already have students that gladly volunteer to pass out and collect scantrons. Scantrons are relatively cheap, even if we got all 22,000 students to participate that’d be around $2,000 total for the scantrons (their website indicates that they’re around 10 cents a piece in bundles of 500). Any administrative secretary could scan the forms. I don’t know how much a scantron machine costs, but considering their usage on campus already, I doubt we couldn’t get by with using existing machines. Websites cost nil, and the software is free (GPL license).

</p>

<p>Ok. All of this sounds pretty reasonable. My guess is that if it does happen, it will be because an EECS and _______ double major demands it of his or her second major department. It’s unfortunate that EECS majors are not famous for being activists.</p>

<p>

Have quotes, do you? References? I’d like to know. If that’s the case, then I’d say it’s a trade-off, bad for undergraduate education certainly, but since Berkeley is research-oriented, I could understand the trade-off.

</p>

<p>Let’s just say I was talking to some professors in the impacted Psychology department and they strongly implied that the reason the department decided to impact itself is because the majority of its professors wanted to teach less and, if possible, not teach at all. </p>

<p>

How much money do they need? How much money do they get? I’m well aware that econ classes don’t have labs (what the heck would they do in a lab?). How much do their professors get paid? GSIs? Is it more costly to hire prestigious econ faculty than comparable faculty in other fields? Do you know?

</p>

<p>I am not aware of any website where that precise information is given. The best I can do is </p>

<p><a href=“http://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/scales0506.html[/url]”>http://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/scales0506.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In general, the more technical the field, the higher the salary for professors.</p>

<p>Not so for GSIs, since they are not paid by the departments. </p>

<p><a href=“http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/pay/uawwg.htm[/url]”>http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/pay/uawwg.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

PROVE IT! You say you’re not just guessing, so show me, how are you not ignorant of the costs necessary to run these departments and their budgets?

</p>

<p>I do not have any numbers to show you. What I DO have is the knowledge that all of the departments in question are producing outstanding, “leading” research in their respective fields. That would not be possible unless they had all the money their faculty demanded in their paychecks and then some.</p>

<p>The reason I claim Mass Comm probably doesn’t have too much money is because it’s not a department. It’s a program. “Programs” very frequently find themselves underfunded at Berkeley. </p>

<p>

I’ll believe you if you give me some type of evidence to back your claims. I don’t know the economics department budget. I don’t know how much it costs to educate a class of students. You haven’t told me those things, either. You’ve given me some vague reasons to believe it costs less to run an economics department than it does a chemistry department.

</p>

<p>Well then I guess you won’t be believing me, since no such data is known to me. But it should be pretty obvious that the paper, pens, and computer programs used by the Economics to think out its research inside ONE building (Evans Hall) are much less expensive than over in Chemistry where they need to use rare and expensive machines, operate about 5 gigantic buildings to keep their research going, etc. </p>

<p>

Also, I don’t know if it makes sense to say that the economics department has the resources to be a non-impacted major. If saying that comes with a qualifier like “if they moved 20% of their research budget into their education budget”, then that effectively means, to me, that they don’t have enough money.

</p>

<p>But let’s be realistic here. It probably doesn’t take THAT much money to do research in economics. In fact, isn’t economics research carried out by simply sitting around thinking about economics? Of course, after that, the researcher would want to sit down and write out his or her “brilliant” observations. But that’s basically “it.” Sure, some areas of economics, especially non-theoretical economics appear to depend on empirical research. But economists rarely go out and DO that research. Instead, they choose to go to the library or talk to collegues in other disciplines about their research. These activities certainly DO NOT take much (probably no) money away away from the Economics department. </p>

<p>So, if Berkeley’s Economics research doesn’t take THAT much money (if any at all…) how can you claim that we need to “shift” some of the pretty much non-existent “research budget” to the “educational budget”?</p>

<p>And I’m still puzzled by just what might be included in this Econ “educational budget.” The only thing I can think of besides copies are advisors, commencement speakers, and post-commencement reception/catering. If there are indeed money shortages in that area, I do indeed support more money for Econ.</p>

[greatestyen]

<p>Are you going to reply?</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Let’s just say I was talking to some professors in the impacted Psychology department and they strongly implied that the reason the department decided to impact itself is because the majority of its professors wanted to teach less and, if possible, not teach at all.

</p>

<p>Exactly! Greatesteyn, once again we find something that we agree on! I also agree that one of the main problems of impacted majors is not so much that Berkeley is lacking resources, but simply that they don’t want to spend those resources to teach undergrads. </p>

<p>I mean seriously - profs who just don’t want to teach? Uh, pardon me, but isn’t that your job? It’s like saying that I want to be a cop, but I don’t want to catch criminals. The job description of all professors is that they are supposed to undertake teaching responsibilities. If they refuse to do that, then I think that is one of the few grounds for revocation of tenure. </p>

<p>If you don’t want to teach at all, then don’t be a prof, simple as that. Go join one of those think tanks or research labs where you can spend all of your time researching and publishing. By becoming a prof, you agreed to take some teaching responsibilities. That’s the deal that was made.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

But that screws over all of the Berkeley students. While the Stanford students get cushy rides in grade-inflated classes, Berkeley kids have to kick and scream for four years. And don’t say that will come back to bite Stanford in the ass, b/c I don’t think a lot of Stanford grads are hurting for job placement/grad school placement. In the US at least (debateable for International) Stanford is generally seen as a better school than Berkeley. Now, that doesn’t mean that it IS, but I don’t think it’s fair for Berkeley students to work so much harder than Stanford student when they aren’t even getting the same recognition.

</p>

<p>But what about MIT/Caltech students? I think we can all agree that MIT and Caltech are extremely rigorous - in fact, far more so than Stanford and even Berkeley. But that doesn’t seem to have ‘screwed over’ MIT/Caltech grads. Look at the job placement of MIT and Caltech graduates.</p>

<p>Again, let me give you an example. I know a guy who got a 2.9/4 GPA in physics at MIT, and still got admitted to many of the best Physics PhD programs in the country, including MIT itself. I know a number of other MIT engineers with quite poor grades who nevertheless got primo job offers from some of the best employers in the country. That’s because MIT, while tough, has also developed a fierce reputation that is highly respected by PhD programs and by employers. Many employers are happy to take an MIT grad even with bad grades, because they know that those guys basically went through hell. </p>

<p>The other aspect is that MIT’s own graduate schools have great respect for its undergrad program, to the point that MIT grad school sweeps up many of its own undergrads. MIT undergrads are far far more likely to go to grad school at MIT than grad school anywhere else, by a factor of almost 8 compared to the next most popular grad school choice (Harvard). </p>

<p>So why can’t Berkeley do that? The truth is, Berkeley’s grad programs don’t seem to have much respect for their own undergrads, as evidenced by the fact that so few Berkeley undergrads (on a per-capita basis) actually get into Berkeley PhD programs. Or, as you can see from the law school stats, Berkeley undergrads have difficulty getting into Boalt, compared to applicants from peer schools. For example, the admitted Berkeley undergrads to Boalt actually have HIGHER grades than the Stanford undergrads it admits.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/undergrad/uac/preprof/05prelawstats.pdf[/url]”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/undergrad/uac/preprof/05prelawstats.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm[/url]”>http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>My point is this. If you want to compete against HYPSM, then you have 2 models to follow. You can either be like Stanford (and to a lesser extent HYP) , and invoke institutional grade inflation. Or, you can do what MIT has done and make yourself extremely rigorous, but then communicate to the world how rigorous your programs are. But you can’t just stay in the middle, which is where Berkeley is now, with some rigorous programs, but other programs which are, quite frankly, jokes.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

When I describe what you say as “out of proportion” I do not mean that it is not a serious issue for many individuals. But you must surely recognize that the vast majority of Cal students do not run into problems due to the impacted majors.

</p>

<p>Hey, the vast majority of people in the world do not suffer from daily hunger, but that doesn’t mean that daily hunger is not a problem. The vast majority of people in the world do not have malaria, yellow fever, tuberculousis, hepatitis, or AIDS, but that doesn’t mean that these diseases are not a problem for those who have them. </p>

<p>Berkeley should be trying to eliminate the problem of impacted majors. Nobody at HYPSM has problems with impacted majors, because there is no such concept at those schools. </p>

<p>

But NES undergraduates are instructed in the same, though wattered-down, subject matter as AHMA students. It is more than fitting for me to describe NES as AHMAs “corresponding UG program.”

</p>

<p>I would hardly say characterize the PHD program in AHMA, or any Berkeley PhD program, is ‘watered-down’. As I have always said, the Berkeley PhD programs are among the most best in the world. </p>

<p>

But I thought you were in agreement in that space wasn’t a problem outside of certain areas and departments? I thought you thought, like I do, that the reason some departments are impacted and others are not is simply because the department decided to do things like that.

</p>

<p>You, I, and greatesteyn strongly suspect that the real problem is within the department.</p>

<p>But this is all part of a STRATEGY. This is about taking away excuses. For example, right now, I suspect that the reason why economics is impacted has nothing to do with resources, but has to do with the fact that the econ department simply doesn’t want to teach more undergrads. But how do we prove this? After all, if we tell them to drop their impaction policy, they will probably respond that they are lacking resources. Ok, fine, so how do we solve this? I think the way to do it is to simply offer them the resources in order to take away that excuse. If they STILL say that they can’t teach more students, then we all know that they were just making excuses. But the key is to exhaust their excuses. </p>

<p>This is the way you solve interdepartmental political problems. You expose departmental excuses for the lies that they are.</p>

<p>Think of it this way. We offer them resources. One of 2 things will happen. Either they will take those resources and drop impaction. Good, problem solved. Or, they will simply throw up another excuse. If they do that, then at least we are closer to knowing what we are really dealing with. </p>

<p>

I would agree with that, if I thought any departments had extra resources. I don’t. You could say I think resources in terms of faculty, physical space, and money, is fine as it is currently distributed.

</p>

<p>Oh, I HARDLY doubt that is the case, simply because there is barely an organization in the world that is completely optimized. Even organizations such as Toyota, Dell and Walmart that are famous for their operational efficiency are STILL finding more and more ways to optimize themselves. For example, Toyota has been on the vanguard of lean manufacturing initiatives within the auto industry for several decades now, and yet they are STILL increasing productivity and yield. If even an extremely tight ship like Toyota can still find ways to optimize themselves, then I have to imagine that a far looser organization like Berkeley can do so also. </p>

<p>I’ll give you an example. Not that long ago, Berkeley got rid of all of its undergrad mining engineering programs. These programs had long-standing histories within Berkeley, and specifically within the old College of Mining (which then became part of the CoE). But Berkeley got rid of them, even though they still had students, but just not enough students to justify the programs as ongoing concerns. I am quite certain that other programs like this exist at Berkeley. </p>

<p>

Yes. </p>

<p>Now it’s your turn. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Allright! Now we have gotten to the truth. So why are you even giving me reasons for why Berkeley has to be impacted? The fact is, you LIKE impaction, so to you, it wouldn’t matter if I was able to come up with a way to fix impaction, because you don’t want it fixed anyway. So now I think you ought to explain why impaction is good, and specifically, I would invite you to explain it to those students who couldn’t get the major that they wanted. You may want to do that with some police protection, however, as I’m sure that their response to you won’t exactly be positive.</p>

<p>And, for the record, I strongly dislike impaction and want to get rid of it, because I believe that a fundamental aspect of education is the freedom to shop around majors.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Right. I’m fine with P/F because there is still the F option. I don’t think schools should get rid of Fs entirely.

</p>

<p>But there is no ‘F’ option in reality, at least in the case of freshman grades at MIT. The freshman grading at MIT is actually P/No-record and ABC/No-record, meaning that if you fail, no record of that failure exists on your external transcript at all. There is a record on your INTERNAL transcript, but that transcript is only seen by people at MIT and is almost never shown to anyone, and particularly not to other schools except in extremely rare and constrained cases.</p>

<p><a href=“http://web.mit.edu/firstyear/advisors/advyear/gradesprivacy.html[/url]”>http://web.mit.edu/firstyear/advisors/advyear/gradesprivacy.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Yet MIT, as we can all agree, has managed to maintain a ferociously rigorous reputation despite the concealment of F’s (at least, in freshmen year). Hence, I ask again, if MIT can do this, why can’t Berkeely?</p>