<p>“Nah, all the best students just spend their time on cc all day talking about Berkeley and comparing it to other schools.”</p>
<p>Haha, then we would have like a dream-team of Berkeley forensics if the CC server crashed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, and have you had personal experices with this? Are you a history major? Well I am, and what I say is entirely true. History professors and GSIs are notoriously easy graders. In my three years at Berkeley, I have taken an obnoxiously large number of history classes. I now know virtually all professors in the department and let me tell you, I’ve sat in dozens upon dozens of undergraduate prof-led courses and students who get Cs on essays, Bs on midterm, don’t talk in discussion, normally walk away with solid As. How is this possible? It’s possible becuase Berkeley history professors are out to inflate grades any way they can. More often than not, they will not specify % values for specific assignments. That means that the final or essays or midterm or participation could singularly be worth anything from 0 to 100%. There is no way of knowing. And it’s clearly not just the final. I’ve personally known many students who walk into history finals entirely unprepared and with Cs in all other course work. They assure me they failed the final, yet they get As. How can you explain this if not by acknowledging the history department’s unprecedented grade inflation? </p>
<p><a href=“and%20you%20should%20see%20the%20reading%20loads”>quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you think I haven’t? Most of it consists of information students can find on wikipedia or spark notes in summary form. And even then, it’s not like they actually expect that anybody read everything. Since tests and essays are theme-based, you can choose to only read the documents on women or only the documents on diplomacy. Also, many history classes assign novels. The blurb on Amazon is all a student needs to know to get an A. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certain aspects of history could be considered social science, certain other parts could be considered humanities. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only part of this which I dispute is your thinking that Philosophy is a “typical pre-law subject.” Typical is synonymous with “average” and “average” implies “majority.” The majority of Berkeley prelaws are not Philosophy majors. This is proven by the Daily Cal reported fact that about 70% of Berkeley’s Poli Sci and/or History majors self-identify as prelaws. Keep in mind that these departments graduate more than 1,200 kids a year. Since the Philosophy department is MUCH smaller, it is logical to assume that there is simply not as many Philosophy prelaws at Berkeley. </p>
<p>I don’t dispute Philosophy grading being tough. I know it’s tough. But that doesn’t mean that Berkeley prelaws are “typical[ly]” enrolled in that department. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All of this is true expect for your implied claim that English is a “typical” prelaw major. It’s not. Poli Sci and History make up for more than 2/3 of Berkeley prelaws.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Commonly” is simply not the right word. Econ is “commonly filled” with Haas-rejects. Sure, after that they may “turn” into prelaws, but they have clearly not had a “typical” prelaw major/mindset and shouldn’t be counted in our dicussion since they most likely did not go into Econ with the intention of going to law school. Rather, they were forced into it because they were rejected from Haas (or simply did not apply, knowing they would be rejected.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When did I ever say “all” humanities and social science professors “are really nice or want to be really helpful”? I never said anything like that in the paragraph which you quote. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse me? Science-centric view? I have no such view. I am a humanities/social science student and aren’t afraid to acknowledge that my chosen fields are inherently easier than math/science/engineering fields. That, DRab, is being “realistic.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a larger debate. Nature vs. Nurture to be exact. I don’t have time to get into it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well that is really quite unfortunate. There are plenty of free resources out there on the internet and I am of the opinion that if a student can find CC and spend countless hours on it, s/he can certainly find more information on how to “train better” for the LSAT. Either way, perhaps it’s good that these students don’t know what to do to help themselves. It’s not like Law School will be an overgrown playground with lots of helpful peers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well if they want to get into Law School more than anything, that’s a very stupid decision. GPA and LSAT “pretty much” determine Law School acceptance. This isn’t college. The admissions committee will not care very much about how well rounded or unique you are. Some exceptions: if you are a URM, woman, messed up in undergrad but cured cancer or some BS like that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course it’s true. However, all LSAT prep books, audio, video, etc Berkeley prelaws could possibly want to prepare is kept on reserve at Moffitt Library. That means it’s free. And available. If an item is checked out, it will soon be returned. Not having money is simply not an excuse. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What are you trying to say? That if a student wants to get into a “top” law school and s/he isn’t “naturally” gifted at the LSAT, s/he shouldn’t spend all of his/or/her time studying for it? If that’s what you think, I strongly disagree. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well I don’t believe that genetic BS. If you do, good for you. </p>
<p>LSAT and GPA are still the most disproportionally important factors in law school admission and if anyone who wants to get to “the top” and doesn’t spend spend every waking minute improving GPA/LSAT, they are in my opinion, fools. (This presupposes that they don’t have to work and other such issues.)</p>
<p>I must admit I do not have any direct experience, but have some friends who are history majors, most of them obsessed with history and quite smart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think a significant amount of campus notoriety comes from people who have little to no experience (either direct or indirect) and from lower division and non-major courses. You may say I am one of these people, but I feel that I have a decent amount of indirect experience. Of course your experience is more significant and valuable than what I heard second hand, and there was a lot of it, but I still feel what Ive heard is somewhat voluble. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Over 50 (and that does not include any affiliated faculty, emeriti faculty, and other types of faculty members)? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you mean this, or are you exaggerating? Perhaps this partially explains the very high student satisfaction numbers the department receives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did they actually fail, or a sort of perfectionist I failed? In any case, that is not important. Im not denying that the department has a fairly high average GPA, comparable to the average GPA at say, Harvard a few years back, the good ol 3.5 if I remember correctly. Nevertheless, that still means half the grades are very likely below 3.5, and I think its pretty obvious that not everyone is getting As. Do you deny many students are getting Bs, and some receive Cs (with perhaps some receiving even lower than that)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, they are not the majority of Berkeley pre-law majors, but I dont think thats too important. I think they comprise a good amount of them, and that nationally, philosophy, English, history, political science, and economics are the most common majors for law students. If you dont want to call it a typical major for pre-law students at Berkeley, feel free. Id like to see the article if you can find it, and would be surprised if large percentages of philosophy majors (compared to almost all majors) dont call themselves pre-law. I disagree with that at Berkeley philosophy is still not a typical pre-law subject, but I really dont think you can claim correct that it isnt a typical pre-law major nationally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Same as with philosophy above (although probably a smaller percentage of English students call themselves pre-law than philosophy, but perhaps Im wrong- wheres the article?).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Id like to see you make the case. I agree that econ is commonly filled with Haas rejects or those that didnt apply to Haas (because they knew they would be rejected or because they did not want to do Haas). Law schools often have many business majors, just not as common as the big five I mentioned. I question how many students denied Haas or who did not apply to Haas later decided that they needed to be pre-law now they theyre in economics. What are the enrollment numbers for econ each year? In addition, how much does the intention matter? If a huge chunk of a major decides to go to law school, yet each one when entering has no thoughts of doing so, does it matter that they originally didnt plan on it? I think the number who decide they must go to law school because they couldnt get into Haas and have to do something else is fairly small. Again, nationally economics is one of the most common pre-law majors in thee country. About what you think is far more important, the total number of students who call themselves pre-law, how many were econ majors? And keeping that number in mind, we may want to think about combining it or partially adding to it the numbers who call themselves business majors (as the survey probably included at least some students who intended to do Haas then law school but didnt get into Haas). I think many students who end up going to law school dont come in as pre-law, so if people in other disciplines change (even though they stay within the same discipline), is that more relevant than someone changing because they were denied and decided to study a related subject? </p>
<p>You may have not said it, but you imply that so many of profs are caring and helping, its uncommon to find one who isnt willing to give you whatever grade you want.</p>
<p>
You just happen to sound like so many science/tech/math students on cc and at Berkeley. Sorry to misidentify you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with much of what you say about the LSAT, I dont know if I agree with it. Its not a huge issue either way. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you, and was clarifying the time in ones life when one should study intensely for the test, for about a year or so before one takes it. Other than then, its far more likely that intense studying will be detrimental to other aspects of life, such as grades, sanity, the amount you are burnt out, relationships with peers and professors, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didnt say it was genetic, and like you, I dont want to get into long threads about nature vs. nurture. I intended my statement to take into account both, and if you think that what I said was wrong, thats fine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dont feel as strongly as you do, but since you include GPA (and if you include at that goes with it), then fine, I generally agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, actually, I would say that there is far more to it than that. Many advisors, especially the faculty advisors in the College of Engineering, are completely hostile to their undergrads, especially the ones who are not doing well (of which, in engineering, there are a lot of them). I don’t think that it has to be that harsh. If a guy has poor grades and meets his advisor, he doesn’t need to hear about how badly he is doing. He KNOWS that he is doing badly. This is incidentally why a lot of engineering students absolutely loathe meeting their advisors - because they know they are just going to get a harsh lecture that they don’t need. </p>
<p>Which is why the comparison between Harvard and Berkeley advising is off-base. I agree that Harvard undergrad advising is rather indifferent. But I think a LOT of Berkeley students would rather have indifferent advising than advising where they are basically just getting yelled at and belittled. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aha! Very good. So you are saying that Berkeley has some majors that are, quite frankly, not very difficult. This is something that I have been trying to demonstrate to others who don’t want to believe it - that while certain majors at Berkeley are quite difficult (notably the technical majors), others are not very difficult at all, in which you really can get high grades while not working very hard. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that Berkeley has too many students. The key is that I don’t think that big schools are necessarily bad (heck, HBS is the best business school in the world), but rather it’s a matter of having the resources necessary to handle a large number of students. It’s perfectly fine to have lots of students as long as the students are good and the resources exist to handle lots of students. But I think Berkeley has reached the point of overstretch. Specifically, when a school has to implement ‘impacted majors’, where students are no longer free to shop around to see what they really want to major in, and in which many students end up majoring in subjects they don’t really want to major in, then that’s an indication that you don’t have enough resources for your students. </p>
<p>I’ll tell you this. 10 years ago, the only impacted major with L&S was Computer Science. All of the majors in engineering were impacted, and Haas was impacted, but L&S had only 1 impacted major. Now, within L&S, Economics, Psychology, Mass Comm, and several other majors are impacted. Hence, the problem of per-capita academic resourcs at Berkeley has evidently gotten WORSE. If we leave it alone, then in another 10 years, even more majors will be impacted. </p>
<p>I am convinced this is a big reason why people prefer to go to those private schools than go to Berkeley. People want to be able to freely shop around and choose their major. At Berkeley, you can’t really do that. Nobody wants to get stuck in a major that they don’t really want, but at Berkeley, there are students who get stuck this way. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the case of Princeton, very few sections are taught by GSI’s.</p>
<p>Look, the fact is, Princeton is basically a LAC. It’s a LAC that happens to also have some quite good PhD programs, but it’s still basically a LAC. LAC’s are noted for their high degree of undergraduate emphasis and undergrad teaching. Princeton is little different in this regard. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Superior at what? Berkeley has some brilliant GSI’s just like it has some brilliant profs. But just because you are a brilliant GSI or prof doesnt’ mean that you know how to teach. Trust me, I have had some TERRIBLY taught sections and lectures by some otherwise brilliant GSI’s and profs. The worst is when the GSI can barely speak English. Sure, we all knew the GSI is brilliant, but what’s good about that if you can barely understand him?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Greatesteyn, we finally found something we can agree upon wholeheartedly! This gets back to a point I have made in other threads in which there really are certain majors at Berkeley in which you can be quite lazy and irresponsible, and get high grades anyway. This is exactly WHY a lot of students at Berkeley are so lazy, because they know they don’t really have to work that hard and will still graduate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, this is why I think some people are turned off by the “negativity” that’s on this board. I think sometimes in the heat of discussion, things aren’t being put into perspective. Sure, acceptance rates to top medical schools aren’t THAT close. And pre-law too. And some other problems that are clearly worse at Berkeley than some other schools. But on the WHOLE, when you are talking about the top five schools (HYPSM) and #20 (Berkeley) among thousands of colleges, I would say that’s pretty close. Heck, even sakky often says that Berkeley is better than the vast number of other schools out there, but just not as good as HYPSM.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, okay. Here’s what I think: HYPSM(C) are at about the same level, then there is a small but noticible drop when you get into Duke, Columbia, Berkeley, etc. But I think to say that these schools aren’t “close” I think is exaggerating the difference a little.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hehe…are you referring to yourself, DRab?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm…well if this were really true, it would put a new spin on the “Berkeley is bad for pre-laws who need very high GPAs to get into law schools” view that someone posted here earlier. Does this mean that it’s actually not very difficult for pre-laws to get high GPAs to get into law schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, I admit I exaggerated. Of the 50is regular faculty (8 retirees this last year,) I believe that I’ve at least audited a class with about 40 of them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not exaggerating on that point. It’s entirely true that a student can perform B or lower quality work for the entire semester and end up with an A in the department of history at UC Berkeley. Keep in mind that many, if not most history classes don’t assign % values to specific requirements. Sometimes I feel as if numerous professors who shall remain nameless grade based solely on participation. (Which basically consitutes of attending and saying one or two things throughout the semester.) </p>
<p>I think this factor helps to explain why the department is ranked so highly in student satisfaction. Obviouslt, it’s not just that. The professors and the classes they teach are usually very interesting and well taught. There may also be an added “wow” factor from the students since the department is so accomplished and books the profs themselves wrote frequently used. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. The majority of grades given out in history undergrad (and grad…) classes at Cal are some kind of “A.” Bs are pretty much unthinkable. There is an unspoken rule in Dwinelle Hall that a B is really a C and a C is really a D. When a student is “borderline,” the prof/GSI will give him or her “the benefit of the doubt.” I actually had this experience my first semester. Since the % values of each assigment were not revealed, I emailed my history GSI to find out the % breakdown and he basically replied by saying that “X professor usually instructs us to use holistic grading. Just make sure you do well. There’s still lots of time to improve.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the Daily Cal I’m talking about was printed some five years ago. I don’t they they were online back then. You can go search for IT at Doe Library’s Newspapers and Microfilms Collection. (Now located in the basement which seems more like an atrium.) About all these prelaw majors, I remember looking at a “how to” get into law school book and it said that the vast majority of “prelaws” are statistically either history or poli sci majors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I have heard many “horror stories” about faculty advising in COE. I don’t know what to say other than…it’s the faculty. I’m not an expert on this, but it seems like most if not all other majors have specific staff to advise undergrads-not faculty. And it seems that most of those non-CEO students are actually pretty happy with advising. (There is a survey that showed this.) Perhaps students should rally and force COE to hire an undergrad advisor like so many of the L&S departments do? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. Although I disagree with you on whether or not it’s possible to make these “easy” majors “hard.” I don’t think it’s structurally possible. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, this is true. I was careless in incluiding the “P.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah yeah, but I think it must also be stressed that Harvard has impossible-to-understand-TAs, as well. It’s not a Berkeley-specific misfortune. I’m sure there’s a pretty equal number of these kind of GSI/TAs at both institutions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, in my honest opinion, it’s not “very difficult” for Berkeley prelaws to get a high or perfect GPA if they major in history, which is a very “typical” prelaw major. But of course, some people may find history very hard because they find that writing essays is very hard. Maybe I should stress that. </p>
<p>History requires “good” “essay” “writing” “ability.” But it’s not as hard as you’d expect. As long as you’re able to spit out some crucial points which the professors tend to repeat time and time again in lecture, you’re set. It’s not uncommon for GSIs to yell out at final exams for history classes::</p>
<p>“If you’re running out of time, just make a few bullet points. I’ll know what you meant.” </p>
<p>There’s a rumor that in certain anthropology classes, “essays” that turn out to be nothing but “outlines” get top marks. </p>
<p>If you’re a lazy student, you’ll probably like that. For the rest of us who actually bothered to study the material beyond glancing at the notes and looking up the books on Amazon, it can often be depressing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would expect that of the graduate courses, where rarely is anything below a B given out, at least in the humanities and social sciences (I don’t know about other fields). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe this is the case. I’m not familiar enough with enough departments (and aren’t there a ridiculous amount in Dwinelle?) to make such claims. To clarify, you claim this is true of at least half of the departments in Dwinelle?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This could very well be the case. I would believe it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t you also have to write a thesis to graduate as a history major? That’s no cakewalk.</p>
<p>
Yes, many philosophy majors are pre-law, but there are VERY FEW philosophy majors, so it really pales in the numbers to poli sci, etc.</p>
<p>As far as people doing history to get high gpaS, law schools actually look at your major and coursework so they could value a history major with a 3.8 less than some other major with a 3.6–it can be very subjective–but they do factor it in!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, Dwinelle is a big place. It’s mostly languages and history. Yes, I do feel that at least half of those departments are huge grade inflaters. Although some are notoriously hard. Comp Lit, definetly. (I’m pretty sure this is in Dwinelle…) Rhetoric is also a tough cookie. Not so with History and the departments it trains its grads in (language departments.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah yeah. This is true. History 101 (thesis) and History 103 (prep for thesis) are much more challenging than the regular lower/upper history courses. They are not to be taken lightly and if you don’t do well on them, you will not graduate. Level of honors also hinges on 101 performance. </p>
<p>But you want to know how I personally feel about History 101? </p>
<p>I think the only reason so many students find it “hard” is because they are so used to “easy.” When you break it down, it’s not that hard::</p>
<ol>
<li>Pose an original historical question</li>
<li>Tell your professor about it</li>
<li>Professor provides you with primary sources </li>
<li>You read the sources</li>
<li>You summarize what the sources say in your 30-50 page thesis</li>
<li>You turn in said thesis</li>
</ol>
<p>When you think about it, it’s really not very different than regular undergrad history classes. The only difference I can spot is that instead of buying the primary sources in bookform, you have to check them out from the library, or ask a historical society if you can photocopy them. Some students might whine about the lenght, but as you’ve said so yourself DRab, English students over at Wheeler are writing non-thesis 25 pagers. That fact only adds to the mounting evidence that Berkeley’s undergraduate history program is, in fact, “easy.”</p>
<p>I wish that people would post their grades they get in classes.</p>
<p>We could see how it averages out per major and PER CLASS.</p>
<p>Some comp sci major needs to make that software and get it rolling!!! Let’s do it–CC project…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>25 is low for many of the upper-div classes I’ve heard about. I’ve heard as much as 50-60, and I bet there is higher. And yes, that is one class one semester!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps Boalt’s practice of adding points for Harvard applicants while giving no such benefit to Berkeley applicants isn’t quite as ridiculous as it may first seem…</p>
<p>vicissitudes, the entire adjustment is based very largely on the LSAT score, and Harvard students on average did much better on the test than Berkeley students on average. It makes sense if you consider SAT scores and other factors. It’s no shock that the average Harvard student, and the average Harvard pre-law, comes in very prepared from high school in many ways. The adjustment seems(ed?) only slightly based on GPA in my eyes.</p>
<p>hey, DRab, if Harvard students did BETTER on the LSAT, why do they get an additional boost? Why not give Berk students who did good on the LSAT a boost for being standouts from berk? </p>
<p>why not just let the higher lsat scores win out from harvard, why extra boost</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>College of Chemistry advising (especially the faculty advising for chemical engineers) ain’t exactly the nicest in the world either, especially if you are doing poorly. I also hear that even within L&S, many of the science students aren’t exactly getting a whole lot of useful help from their prof’s, and the advisors they get don’t help them much. I think this explains a lot of why Berkeley premeds have more difficulty in getting into med-school relative to the premeds from the top private schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I disagree. ANY major can be made easier or harder by simply adjusting the minimum standards necessary to pass. </p>
<p>Since we’re talking about history, let’s use it as an example. As I’ve seen you mention, history undergrads have to complete a thesis before they can graduate. What you can do is make the standards of that thesis very high, such that if you submit a so-so thesis, you don’t graduate until you are able to revise it until it is acceptable. Yes, this will cause some people to be forced to delay their graduation. But you know what? Tough. After all, the history PhD students have no guarantee that they are going to graduate on time, or even graduate at all. Their graduation hinges upon producing and defending a successful doctoral dissertation, and only a very high quality dissertation will be accepted by the doctoral committee. Some Berkeley history doctoral students spend literally over a decade writing, revising and editing their dissertation. And many of them never graduate because they just can’t produce a successful dissertation.</p>
<p>Now, obviously I’m not saying that a history undergrad thesis has to be THAT tough. Clearly a doctoral dissertation is supposed to be tremendously better than an undergrad thesis. But the point is, you can set a tough standard and force students to meet it, or else not graduate. Yes, the department will have to put up with some initial political heat in that some students will not have their graduation delayed (or not even graduate at all) and will probably protest. But all the department has to do is point to the PhD students and note that plenty of them graduate late, or don’t graduate at all, and they’re not protesting. They’re not demanding that Berkeley just hand them a PhD. Over a period of time, the Berkeley undergrad history program would be known as a tough program with high standards, not the milquetoast it is now. </p>
<p>Heck, I think this is such a good idea that I think ALL of the current cheesepuff undergrad majors should implement a tough thesis requirement. That would go a long way towards reducing the laziness within the student body. Berkeley shouldn’t be in the business of handing out degrees to people who did little more than partied and drank for 4 years.</p>
<p>While that seems reasonable Sakky, some majors just couldn’t do it cause some majors are just naturally not very rigorous.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t understand your use of the word “milquetoast.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, I think what Berkeley should do is print the median grade of each class you take on your transcript, next to the grades that you got. Berkeley should then also mark your grades in color. For example, if you got an A-minus in a class where the median grade was an A, then your grade should be clearly marked to show that you actually did BELOW AVERAGE. However, if you got a C+ in a class where the median grade was a C (or worse), then it should be clear to see that you actually did above average. Furthermore, next to your computed GPA should be the GPA of a theroetical ‘median student’ who took the exact same courses you did, and got the median grade each time. That would be a way to judge how easy or how hard your course schedule was.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I believe all honorifics such as graduation-with-distinction, or Dean’s List, or any of these other status honors should be adjusted on the courses that you took. Right now, to graduate with distinction (i.e. cum laude) requires you to graduate with a GPA in the top x% of your college - but your WHOLE college. Hence, Physics students are being compared to American Studies students (for Physics and American Studies are both within L&S), without regard for the fact that Physics is graded much harder than American Studies is. That needs to stop immediately. Physics students should be granted distinction (cum laude) status based on having a top GPA compared to other physics students, and ideally, to that theoretical median student who took the exact same courses you took. The same should happen to those students put on Academic Probation. If you get below a 2.0 GPA, you will be put on probation (and on the road to expulsion) without regard for the fact that it is far far easier to get below a 2.0 in some majors than it is in others. For example, as stated above, it’s almost impossible to get below a 2.0 in history, but it is VERY possible to do so in engineering. We need to have a dynamic GPA cutoff that takes into account the difficulty of your major. For example, perhaps the probationary GPA cutoff for engineers needs to be reduced to a 1.5 or so. Maybe the cutoff for American Studies students needs to be a 2.5. </p>
<p>As a corollary to this, I believe that all lower-division language classes should be graded P/NP. This will eliminate the problem of people who are already fluent in that language taking the intro sequence in it anyway just to rack up a whole string of easy A’s to boost their GPA. Right now, Berkeley tries to implement a system to try to eliminate fluent speakers from taking those classes, which leads to these students then pretending that they don’t know the language just so they can weasel their way into the class. It would be far more optimal if Berkeley simply removed the incentive to weasel into the class by not handing out letter grades. </p>
<p>Now I admit that one problem that this proposal doesn’t solve is the fact that certain majors simply have lower or higher quality students than others do. Hence, that theoretical median student for each of your classes would be affected by how good the other students are. Hence, being an above-average student in a major where the student quality if weak will still not be as impressive as just being an average (or perhaps a below-average) student in a major where the students are very strong. </p>
<p>But I think this proposal is certainly a whole lot better than what we have today, which is nothing at all. Right now, we really do have a lot of people getting high nominal grades, getting onto the Dean’s List, and graduating cum laude or better just because they took a whole bunch of easy classes. This should not be. You should not be rewarded for taking easy classes. If you insist on taking easy classes, fine, but that fact will be clearly communicated on your transcript.</p>