<p>Because history is already easy, and it’s clearly not helping students get into law school. After all, look at the Berkeley pre-law placement stats. They aren’t that good, and most prelaws are history majors, poli-sci majors, or those traditional pre-law majors. </p>
<p>Hence, I think that if you try something and it doesn’t work, you have to try something else. You can’t just do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. That’s the definition of insanity. So if history is easy and the prelaws STILL have difficulty getting into law school, then I think it’s time to perhaps try making history difficult. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I think the real issue is not with at the top end of the grading spectrum, but at the bottom end. The REAL issue is that it’s far easier to get a truly bad grade (i.e. something below a C-minus) in certain majors than it is in others. Let’s face it. In certain majors, it’s practically impossible to get anything below a C-minus. In other majors (i.e. engineering), it’s very possible. Those kinds of terrible grades will really kill you when it comes to calculation of honors or Rhodes Scholarships or any of these honorifics. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, the key is in that lower spectrum. Grade inflation, when it exists, tends to present itself most prominently within the lower spectrum. Like I said, even the worst student in a humanities/social-science class is unlikely to get a grade lower than a C-minus. However, the worst student in a science class can easily be staring at an F. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I would expand that to say that most science and engineering grading at Berkeley is pretty dumb. </p>
<p>However, I disagree with you that the best way to deal with them is solely through them. I think the way to deal with them is show that their grading is completely off the mark relative to that of other majors, and then show how that puts students at a disadvantage. Hence, by its nature, it has to be a collective strategy.</p>
<p>"Because history is already easy, and it’s clearly not helping students get into law school. After all, look at the Berkeley pre-law placement stats. They aren’t that good, and most prelaws are history majors, poli-sci majors, or those traditional pre-law majors. </p>
<p>Hence, I think that if you try something and it doesn’t work, you have to try something else. You can’t just do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. That’s the definition of insanity. So if history is easy and the prelaws STILL have difficulty getting into law school, then I think it’s time to perhaps try making history difficult. "</p>
<p>It may be time to try something new, but making the history major is foolish. If its not working for MCB and Chem majors applying to med school, guess what, it aint gonna help the history majors applying to law school. Its time to do something, but not making the same mistake as what has happened to the MCB majors applying to med school</p>
<p>Well, I’m not sure where the mistake is being made. The premed success rate is not substantially different from the prelaw success rate. In fact, in some ways, the premed success rate could actually be considered to be BETTER than the prelaw success rate. Hence, if there is a mistake, we can’t automatically assume that it’s on the MCB side. It could very well be on the history side.</p>
<p>Hey sakky, do you have acceptance rates to the engineering schools? If it’s really like you say that harder grading may actually be better for grad school placement, then the engineering students will probably be getting into the engineering schools at a rate higher than pre-laws are getting into law schools. Engineering is clearly hard at Berkeley and well-respected, so if engineering students are not getting into engineering schools at a higher rate, then the problem is probably somewhere else.</p>
<p>My friend’s son who graduated from Berkeley (EECS) 3 yrs ago with a 2.2 gpa is making $89,000 a year as a software engineer. The kid is very happy.</p>
<p>So reading this thread one can conclude that; he who spends the most money wins the most sought after diploma and has the best social network. So much for the ideals of public education, even at Cal.</p>
<p>Uhh…how on earth did you conclude that? About 99% of HYPS students didn’t get in because they have money. And even if this were true, how would it affect the ideals of public education?</p>
<p>This just doesn’t make sense to me. You really think making the grading in history (or poli sci) harder, or perhaps making the classes tougher in addition to that, students will do better with law school admissions? On the whole students will be hurt greatly, and what you say might be true in two insignificant ways. 1. students might do better on the lsat with more rigorous classes, but the difference won’t be significant. 2. fewer people will apply to law schools because more students have lower grades so it will look as though things are better. But they won’t be. When including those who are considering it and decide not to apply, as many will with their now lower grades, things will be generally worse. If 100% of the students get into law schools and half as many apply as before apply, things aren’t better. Like with John Hopkins premeds, the percentages might look awesome, but the reality is far from it.</p>
<p>If the grading in soft majors are harder the following will happen as a result:</p>
<p>1) Many students will be more likely to pick majors that reflect their interests rather than their need to get a good gpa.
2) Those students who truly challenged themselvevs will benefit greatly because Berkeley’s average GPA will go down. Since the LSAT scores will more or less be the same, Law schools will now adjust Berkeley GPA’s upward due to grade deflation. Because there are now History/IB majors inflating their GPA’s anymore to 3.9-4.0 and diluting the strength of a ChemE/Math Major with a 3.6; the best students will benefit.</p>
<p>If Public schools don’t want to deal grade inflation that is fine, but they should be fair and equitable about it. ALL classes should have the same requirements for grade distribution and the university should be unafraid to fail people out. If Berkeley really wants its grads to be known as hard-workers and knowledgable, as it does for its engineerings and science programs, then it should apply this standard to all students.</p>
<p>wow…i cannot believe i am hearing all of this. First people complain about how Berkeley is such a bad school to go to because some of the majors are grade deflated…now, people want ALL the majors to be grade deflated…get it straight guys.</p>
<p>I’m about a week behind on this thread and don’t want to get into it in detail. But things like this…I mean really, you’re supporting the idea that making it easy to get a good GPA means you are providing a good education. If you start an argument like that, how can I even begin to take it seriously?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People aren’t often shut out of classes at Berkeley, especially not students that need those classes. A very high-demand upper division class might have to exclude some waitlisted students, who are almost definitely lower-classmen who can take that class later, when they have higher Telebears priority. Further, to cut down our student body to 10,000 students so they could all get into whatever classes they wanted would harm the other 12,000 students that could be taking those classes and making it marginally harder for lower division students to get into upper division courses. Again, this goes back to the “providing more students more opporunities” mantra.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and there are a lot of exceptional students that come out of Berkeley and employers are well aware of that, too. Of course, the number of poor students is naturally greater than the number of exceptional students, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t exceptional students. There’s a reason why many, many major Silicon Valley companies recruit from Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, this is a poor argument. “Just because this is all that exists, we should believe it and play by its rules”. That’s bull. As I stated before, saying that, for example, the University of Connecticut is better than Brigham Young University because it is ranked higher on US News (68 vs. 71) is a ridiculous argument. To say they are comparable, given US News’s ranking system is probably fair. US News isn’t a terrible metric, but it is just a metric, and like all others, it has flaws. You can admit those flaws and consider their rankings with those flaws in mind, or you can ignore them and say “College A is better than College B because US News says so!” Just because something is popular doesn’t make it true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What the heck does this even mean? What does UVA do that shows it cares about its undergrads more than Berkeley (or any school, for that matter)? Tell us WHAT is so wrong with how Berkeley treats its undergrads, not just that it does. I mean, real issues, not “oh I was waitlisted for Math 53 so I had to take Math 54 instead”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I know. Alright, last post. I think I should just stay out of threads you’ve already posted in. It always comes back to the same point. Again, you can choose your peers, join TBP, find smart people to hang around. Again, if you are truly an exceptional student, you won’t get distracted by potheads and lazy people (not saying potheads are lazy people, though) and won’t be hindered even if you are too antisocial to find a coherent group of friends. Impact is minimal either way.</p>
<p>I think you underestimate the maturity of college students, too. You act like most will completely collapse to peer pressure when it is applied to them (positive or negative). In reality, I find that one person’s habits rarely change another’s. Living with an extremely studious student will not magically make you studious, and will likely not even make you want to be more studious. Same the other way. A very studious student living with a partier won’t suddenly become a partier, or even want to go to parties. By the time students get to college, they generally know what they like and don’t like (since 4 years of high school tends to allow lots of time to explore those things), and their behavior won’t dramatically change based on peer pressure.</p>
<p>While true to an extent, what should really happen is universities should come up with a fair standard that can be applied across multiple universities. In the absence of this (and, frankly, this will probably never happen), universities should try to match their grading policies with other universities they view as their main competitors, because it is better to adhere to a pseudo-standard than to define a standard that is only used by one university.</p>
<p>BTW, I lied when I said that would be my last post.</p>
<p>See, I find this funny. One of my roommates was a sub-3.0 student his freshman year, and when he went to see his advisor the beginning of his sophomore year, he found the guy helpful and friendly (and gave him good advice regarding classes to take), but he did tell my buddy he needed to do better. I think that’s just the advice he needed to hear.</p>
<p>In another instance, I was waiting to see my own advisor and she was speaking with one of her students (not one for which she was an advisor, but one that wasn’t doing so well in her class and took the initiative to come to ask for advice). That professor gave the student advice on how to improve her performance in the course and generally encouraged her to try harder.</p>
<p>Most professors aren’t a-holes. I know I’ve taken a very small slice here, but I think you’d find it hard to say that most Berkeley professor just want to berate bad students without helping them. In reality, professors do make an effort to help students, and while that may include some (deserved) berating, that doesn’t mean that the advising is bad.</p>
<p>Further, if you’d rather not be berated and have indifferent advisors that don’t advise, well here’s your option: don’t go to your advisor. You almost never have to actually talk to your advisor if you don’t want to. Just ask for your advisor code and leave.</p>
<p>You also NEVER have to talk to your general advisor (the one that does administrative stuff, the non-professor). If you don’t find him/her helpful, don’t go to him/her. Finally, if you find your assigned advisor is bad, just ask another professor for advice. I’d bet the vast majority of the time the professor would be happy to meet with you to discuss your major. Whoever originally stated that Berkeley provides ample advising as long as you seek it was right. There are dozens and dozens of professors and administrative people that can help you, and hundreds of students (TBP and HKN, for example, offer advising for engineers and EECS students) that you can go to for advising. If that isn’t enough, then there doesn’t exist enough advising for you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? Impacted majors are a bad thing? We should let everyone in? NO! We should let in as many as we can support. Just like any other school. And the people that can’t get in? What do we do with them? Oh, we just make our university more selective and let them go to other schools or to community colleges. Yes, that’s best for them. Sure. Because giving them a choice to come here is baaad. Not like they could, you know, transfer if they couldn’t get into their desired program here. Better to leave them without even the choice.</p>
<p>Excuse the sarcasm, but the argument is just plain wrong. Your arbitrary defining line for where a school doesn’t have enough resources for its students is not an issue. If students were sitting on the floors in classrooms, or we had to hold lectures in our stadium, that’d be going over the edge. Putting limits on enrollment into a major isn’t an issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now there you have a valid point. Berkeley would probably be better if the professors taught sections (although I’ve seen a number of cases where the GSIs were better teachers than the professors). Here’s a point where undergrad suffers because Berkeley also considers research important, and would rather have professors in labs than leading discussions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, completely agree. You have here a valid point as well. However, as I stated before, if the grading policies in our history department are on par with those in similar universities, I can’t argue much. If that’s the (crappy) standard, then so be it. It would be unfair to our students to use a completely different set of standards and expect graduate schools and employers to know about those standards.</p>
<p>However, again, this doesn’t hurt the top students. Any such student that would take the easy way out at Berkeley would do the same at HYSPM and gain an equally crappy education (somehow I thought you were praising easy grading before, though). All schools have their “easy” majors.</p>
<p>No one said we want ALL the majors to be grade deflated. We’re just saying, maybe some of the really easy majors could be made harder to balance things out. That means if you barely do any work, you get what you deserve, not an A. I don’t think that’s grade deflation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think he said that. I think he said getting a good GPA is beneficial for getting into a med/law school, which is true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think what he is saying here is that getting a higher rank in U.S. News will help in attracting better students and improving the student body, thus the school, not that it proves that the school is better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UVa is often said to have better advising, networking, and a closer-knit community. For example, I’m reading the US News magazine and it lsits UVa as one of the colleges with first-year seminars or some other programs that bring small groups of students together with faculty or staff on a regular basis. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are partially right, in saying that you can find motivated people. However, I also think you overestimate the maturity of college students. I have seen so many students opt UCLA over Berkeley because Berkeley is “too cut-throat” and has “weeders.” Huh? UCLA has plenty of weeders and is just about as cut-throat. When making the decision on where to go to college, I have seen way too many students sway back and forth based on trivial factors. Sometimes the fickleness of students really surprise me.</p>
<p>I think it really depends on the student. Some students will just seek out other hard-working students. Others, I think, will simply be too lazy/shy to do so, and drift towards laziness if their dormmates/classmates do the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think most students would prefer helpful advisors to not talking to their advisors at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it would certainly benefit the students if they were allowed the major they wanted, 100% of the time. The thing is, according to sakky anyway, 10 years ago the only impacted major in L&S was CS, and now there are quite a few. So, the problem is getting worse, and that’s what needs to be fixed.</p>
<p>Well, no, I don’t have acceptance rates for Berkeley engineers going to grad engineering school.</p>
<p>But what I do know is that plenty of MIT and Caltech students with rather mediocre grades nonetheless get admitted to many of the top PhD programs in the world. One of the most brilliant physics students I have ever known had only about a 2.8/4 GPA coming out of MIT. He nonetheless get admitted to a slew of top physics PhD programs, including MIT itself. That’s because MIT has developed a strong reputation for rigor that, at least when it comes to PhD admissions, is widely respected for its rigor. </p>
<p>If Berkeley could develop a similar reputation, then it might also have a similar success rate. But, in the present state, it can’t. That’s because there really are a conspicuous nmber of Berkeley students who are just sitting around, doing nothing.</p>
<p>First off, greater rigor will spur a better work ethic, and I think that’s the biggest problem that currently exists. A lot of Berkeley students are, simply put, just not serious about studying. That’s because, sadly, they don’t have to be, and they know it. They lolly-gag their way through classes, and get good grades anyway because of the lack of rigor. So then when it comes to the things you need to do to get into graduate school, they lolly-gag through those things too, expecting to have the same easy results. For example, (in the case of law school), they don’t take their LSAT studying seriously. They don’t take their rec letters seriously. In the case of PhD admissions, they don’t take their undergraduate research seriously. </p>
<p>What you are talking about is the simple one-off phenonemon of harder grading. There may be a case that harder grading may hurt people in getting into professional school (although it doesn’t hurt people who come from rigorous undergrad programs who apply to PhD programs, as evidenced by the high success rate of MIT, Caltech, and Harvey Mudd students into top PhD programs). Hence, we can come up with a compromise. How about we make the grading harder, but also institute a policy that students have the option to simply retroactively drop any class in which they get a grade lower than, say, a C? That will shield people from truly harsh grading, because those who get bad grades will simply drop those classes. But they will also not earn credit for those dropped classes, and hence their graduation will be delayed. And if they don’t pass enough units within a given unit of time, then they will land on academic probation and/or will have their financial aid affected (because they are not truly ‘full-time’ students if they don’t pass a certain minimum number of units per semester, and hence they shouldn’t be eligible for full-time financial aid). </p>
<p>I think that would be a great way to capture all of the benefits of more rigor, namely the increased motivation and responsibility that it engenders, while protecting students from the harsher elements of tough grading. </p>
<p>But the point is, the present situation is clearly not as good as it ought to be. Come on, when you see the top law schools admitting Berkeley students who actually have HIGHER GPA’s than the average admitted GPA, that’s a problem. Clearly something has to change. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look at the admit rates and stats of Berkeley undergrads admitted to the top law schools and the top med-schools. I don’t see much difference in terms of admit rate and in terms of stats. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When did I say that making it easy to get a good GPA necessarily means that you are providing a good education? Please point to the quote where I said that. Can’t do it, can you?</p>
<p>What I said is that some people just want a high GPA. For example, the engineers that I know who flunked out of Berkeley would have almost certainly have preferred going to someplace that would have given them a higher GPA. It is far far better to graduate from Stanford than to flunk out of Berkeley. </p>
<p>But even that is ultimately missing the point. A high GPA means little by itself. What many people really seem to want is to get a good job and/or to go to a good graduate school. And like I have been saying on this thread, Berkeley is not as good on these respects as some of the top private schools. It is hard to deny the success rates of the top private schools in getting its graduates good jobs and good grad school placements. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you don’t see that if you have the choice, why would you want to put up with this? Even if what you are saying is correct, then given the choice between going to a school where you might not be able to get into a class you want in the semester you want, and going to another school where you will get the classes you want at any time, who really wants to choose the former? This all gets back to how Berkeley is going to compete for students who are also admitted to schools like HYPSM. What you are saying is simply another reason for people to prefer HYPSM. Why put up with problems when you don’t have to?</p>
<p>Furthermore, I would characterize this as a far far greater problem than what you are saying. For example, one of the greatest problems in the lower division happens to be the labs. Sure, you may not be shut out of the lecture itself, but you can easily find yourself shut out of the labs. For example, I know quite a few people who couldn’t take Chem3AB when they wanted to because they only had a few lab spots that their schedule would fit, and all of those lab spots were taken. The results is, if you can’t get into the lab, you can’t take the class. Hence, they ended up having to drop the class. They got into the lecture just fine, but the lack of lab spots killed them. </p>
<p>Again, the issue is, why put up with problems like this if you don’t have to? And how is Berkeley going to attract students who have other options if Berkeley students continue to have problems like this if students at other schools don’t? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, I never said that USNews was gospel. But it does serve to highlight some problems. My point is, you can’t complain about USNews all of the time, because the fact is, sometimes USNews is right. Not all of the time, but sometimes it is right. </p>
<p>But in any case, all of that is neither here nor there. Complaining about rankings isn’t going to make Berkeley’s problems go away. Even if USNews didn’t exist, those problems would still exist. Complaining about the rankings is just a distraction that detracts from solving Berkeley’s problems. I am becoming rather convinced that there is a large contingent of people who simply aren’t interested in solving Berkeley’s problems, and would rather spend all of their time scapegoating USNews.</p>
<p>I never said that ‘most’ will collapse from peer pressure. What I said is that social factors affect your behavior. Again, this is why it’s so hard to quit smoking when people around you are smoking. The fact is, people’s behavior is affected by what they see others doing. Surround yourself with lazy people, and you will tend to be lazy yourself. Guananteed? Of course not. You can make the choice to work hard even when surrounded by a sea of laziness. But it’s a hard choice to make. Similarly, you can choose to quit smoking even though people around you are smoking. You can choose to diet when others around you are gorging on pizza. But it’s a hard choice to make. </p>
<p>So, again, the question becomes, if you are admitted to a school like HYPSM, and money isn’t a problem, then what does Berkeley really have to offer to get you to choose it? At the present time, the answer is, sadly, not much. If Berkeley wants to compete for the best students, then Berkeley has to figure out a way to offer a more compelling product. That is how Berkeley can upgrade its student body.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if Berkeley simply doesn’t want to compete for these kinds of students, then fair enough. Then we should just admit that Berkeley is not really a good choice for those who have the alternative to go to those other schools. Then we will simply have to put up with constantly losing students to those schools. </p>
<p>So the question to me is, do you want Berkeley to get more competitive at the undergraduate level or not? If the answer is no, then, fair enough, we can just leave the situation alone. But I believe Berkeley has the potential to be a far better undergrad school than it is now.</p>
<p>‘Bad’ is in the eyes of the beholder. What you are saying is ‘not that bad’, others can (and have) called ‘very bad’. </p>
<p>But that is not the point. The point is, why would you even want to take the risk of being berated if you have the choice to go elsewhere for engineering, i.e. Stanford? It all gets back to what Berkeley can do to make itself more competitive with the top private schools. Now, again, if you say that you’re not interested in making Berkeley more competitive with those schools, then fair enough. Then we will simply have to put up with Berkeley constantly losing prospective students to those schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh huh, and what happens if they refuse to give it to you unless you meet with them? It’s happened to a number of former students I know. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? How’s that? Perhaps you’d like to talk to somebody who couldn’t get into the major he wanted and now he has to choose something he doesn’t like, and how that’s a good thing. Prepare to get punched in the mouth after you say it.</p>
<p>It’s all well and good for a person to talk about how impacted majors are no big deal - that is, until YOU find out that you are the one who didn’t make the cut. Sure, you could say that that person could transfer out. But that’s a pretty painful step that involves uprooting oneself from your comfortable milieu and your friends. Not to mention the fact that transferring to a top school is not easy if you don’t have top grades (and if you didn’t have the grades to get into an impacted major, then you probably don’t have the grades to transfer into a top school either). So the question boils down to how this situation is good for the students? </p>
<p>Again, I invite you to talk to students who tried to get into impacted majors and were denied, and try convincing them as to why that is a good thing. I am not going to hold my breath waiting for them to get convinced. I think the response you would get is that YOU should be denied from the major you want, and then we will ask you what you think about the situation.</p>