<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>So you agree with me that the situation isn’t right. I don’t think it’s right either. I don’t think it’s right that someone from Stanford can do very little work, who honestly deserves an F, receives a B or a C, because Stanford doesn’t give out Ds or Fs. So, I don’t think Berkeley should do the same. I think both Stanford and Berkeley should give out SOME Ds and Fs, if the students really deserve them.</p>
Caltech is P/F for the first 2/3 of freshman year. It doesn’t change your point, but I mention for the sake of accuracy. P/F isn’t deceptive at all - it’s about giving students time to adjust the system and develop collaborative networks for approaching problems. It’s also gives some kids some free time to ‘enjoy’ their college as well :-).</p>
<p>My head hurts from reading so many repetitious posts on the same topic, recycled and reused, with a few new words mixed in. So for everyones sake (and especially for those who are new to this thread and do not want to sift through eleven pages of attacks and counterattacks), lets summarize the three major viewpoints presented in this discussion:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Sakky and his allies believe that definite change is needed in Berkeley, because the UG quality is not-so-good. Massive grading inequality among the different concentrations, along with Berkeley’s lack of reputation as compared to the top private schools, result in a overall lower result for Cal undergrads when trying to apply for tough PhD programs, law school, and/or jobs. They recommend that Berkeley drastically even out its grading policies, and become much more selective in acceptance of new freshmen. Interesting solutions to a problem that does indeed exist at Cal, but almost impossible to implement in a fair and efficient manner. Clearly, change would have to be gradual.</p></li>
<li><p>Vicissitudes, Eudean, and their allies strongly oppose Sakky’s recommendations on how to fix the undergraduate quality problem, because they think the problems are overstated and exaggerated. They do a decent job in pointing out the weaknesses in the other sides arguments, but fail to present effective solutions of their ownthey are more content to simply fend off attacks aimed at Berkeley. Some have agreed in part with Sakkys call for a revamp in the grading system, but there are no original ideas on this side of the fence.</p></li>
<li><p>And the last viewpoint consists of some posters who simply attack Sakky in short, declarative sentences, clearly offended by the notion that Berkeley is not as incredibly great as they think it is.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In conclusion, #1 presents several compelling ideas for change, but I fail to see how they could be implemented in a fair manner. #2 is understandably irked at the slight exaggeration of the poor quality of Berkeleys undergraduate program, but still needs to think up some ingenious solutions of its own. #3 needs to stop posting entirely if it has nothing meaningful to say except insults.</p>
<p>Sakky has stated that he think one of the reasons impacted majors exist is becuase they don’t have enough “resources” (money, faculty, “space,” etc.) He has also stated that it’s because the department chose to make it so. I believe that only the latter explanation is true and I proposed a solution. Sakky chose not to respond to it. </p>
<p>“Berkeley” is not a centralized political body which chooses to make some of its majors impacted. That decision is entirely decentralized and rests entirely with each department. If certain students want to change that, I suggest they stage a massive protest against the Chairs of impacted departments. </p>
<p>They are…</p>
<p>Steven Russell
Professor and Chair of Computer Science
387 Soda Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-1776
(510) 642-4964
<a href=“mailto:russell@cs.berkeley.edu”>russell@cs.berkeley.edu</a> </p>
<p>Benjamin Hermalin
Economics Professor and Chair
510-642-3581
<a href=“mailto:hermalin@econ.berkeley.edu”>hermalin@econ.berkeley.edu</a></p>
<p>Thomas Goldstein
Mass Communications Director
347 Campbell Hall
<a href=“mailto:tomgoldstein@berkeley.edu”>tomgoldstein@berkeley.edu</a></p>
<p>Ilan Adler
Professor and Chair of Operations Research & Management Science (ORMS)
4143 Etcheverry Hall
(510) 643-8214
E-mail: <a href=“mailto:adlerieor@berkeley.edu”>adlerieor@berkeley.edu</a> </p>
<p>Stephen Hinshaw
Psychology Chair & Professor
<a href=“mailto:hinshaw@berkeley.edu”>hinshaw@berkeley.edu</a></p>
<p>I truly believe that if enough students protest against impacted majors a la 60s, the administration force the departments that have declared themselves to be impacted to unimpact themselves. This will be easy for them because they do have enough “resourses.” What they don’t have is the desire to teach more students, even though they certainly have the “capacity.”</p>
<p>Whoa whoa, I do not strongly oppose sakky’s recommendations. I think the problem of impaction, while sometimes overexaggerated, is a very real problem and needs to be fixed. I’m just not sure getting rid of all Ds and Fs is the way to go about it. It could work…I’m just personally not convinced. I think sakky’s other solution which is just to wipe the slate clean after a few years is a much better one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if I find enough Berkeley students who feel strongly about it, maybe I will…but first, like sakky said, I think people need to want to see changes happen. I’m guessing those who get into these majors just laugh at those who don’t and go about their daily lives, while those who don’t just stay bitter and curse at Berkeley and their own inepitude maybe, but don’t take any action.</p>
<p>Are there any specific proposals you have in mind? If you do, stop and ask yourself if they’re actually realistic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, its probably true that students who are admitted to impacted majors laught at those who don’t. But what exactly is fundamentally wrong with a cutthroat academic environment? Isn’t that the way academics are SUPPOSED to work? </p>
<p>If PhD holder A in field X has proven, through the quality of their published research, that s/he is a better fit for a certain position than PhD holder B in field X, why shouldn’t A get hired at the expense of B? Clearly, A is more deserving of the position. That is the worldview of the impacted major departments. “Why should we take 3.0 Jon when we can get 3.5 Stacy?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you will ever find “enough” Berkeley undergraduates to stage a massive protest against the Chairs of impacted departments. But you’d be surprised at how effective well-managed special interest groups can be. So if you care “enough,” do it and validate the stereotype of Berkeley students as agents of change.</p>
<p>You’re using the analogy in a different way than I see it. In theory, if you get into a selective private that doesn’t have impacted majors, then you’ve got a different, comparable world except that it doesn’t have disease. If you have that option, it’s a good option to take. If you’re a good student, it won’t matter.</p>
<p>My idea of the analogy was whether to have impacted majors at Berkeley or not–one world, two possibilities, both with negative consequences in some respects. It is my view that not having impacted majors at Berkeley would be disease-like, and the slight pain of a shot–having impacted majors–is worth the improvement in quality of education. For some students, it goes down. For the vast majority, it goes up. Simple choice for Berkeley to make.</p>
<p>I know, you’re argument is that this attracts students away from Berkeley (to schools where impaction isn’t a big deal), and therefore detracts from the quality of education. I simply disagree, as always.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, I don’t have to. I’m not arguing that one set of professors is more harsh than the others. If you want to argue that, then doing so with anecdotes only is a pretty weak way of going about it, even if that is the only way (which I don’t strictly believe–random survey would get you reasonable results).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why ask only those that have been antagonized by impacted majors? Why not ask everybody? Certainly, those other students deserve to be heard on the issue because they attend Berkeley, too, and are also affected by impacted majors. Take a fair poll. I don’t know what the results will be, but I do know what would happen if you asked a bunch of republicans if Bush is a good president or not–just like you know what people that didn’t get in to their intended majors would say about impacted majors. But that statistic isn’t relevant–just like mine wouldn’t mean Bush is a good president, yours wouldn’t mean impacted major are bad. It would mean it was bad for those students, but only if it is bad for the majority of students is it actually bad overall.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but I’m not arguing Berkeley’s advisors are good. You’re arguing that they’re not. I’m arguing that you can’t argue that without evidence (besides one or two anecdotes, because I’ve got my own anecdotes to counter those). Further, to argue that the advising is bad is vague. I agree, the college of engineering advisors are useless for telling you what classes to take, and are bad in that respect. But that’s not their job. That’s what your department advisor is for. That’s what all the professors in your department are for. If the professors at Berkeley are significantly worse than the professors at other universities at telling students what classes to take, you’ll have a strong point. But you can’t just say it is so without real support.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m looking at it from the eyes of students educated at Berkeley. Certainly there is on better authority on what the education is like at Berkeley. Prospective students can’t possibly know. Their opinions as to the quality of Berkeley’s education are almost meaningless. I’m not saying Berkeley is as attractive to prospective students as other schools, I’m saying that Berkeley quality of education is on par with those other schools. Again, completely different things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, those students would’ve been better off elsewhere. Too bad for those students. It’s great for every single other student in the CS major that those students didn’t get in, though. Unless there are more 3.5GPA students applying and getting rejected from the CS major than there are students in the CS major in total, I don’t see how this is a bad thing for Berkeley education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, why not shut down all but the 10 most popular majors. Screw all those people that wanted to major in other things! They don’t matter. Only those in the impacted majors matter, because well people wanted to major in them.</p>
<p>Oh, but if we shut down majors that people were applying in to, we’ve got the same damn problem! One way or another, someone’s not getting the major they want at Berkeley. Yes, there’s a certain point at which I’d say you could drop a major. You’ve already cited the fact that Berkeley does drop unpopular majors. It’d better be damn unpopular, though. How many students couldn’t get into Econ? How many students were in the major that was dropped? If the former isn’t greater than the latter, it isn’t worth it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the question is whether it significantly affects the quality of education at Berkeley (because that IS what we’re talking about, right?). I say it doesn’t. You?</p>
<p>Look, give me reasons to believe the same quality of education at HYPSM cannot be had at Berkeley (or is significantly more difficult to have). That’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about what propsective students prefer or about people that didn’t get into their desired major UNLESS you can tie any of that to the quality of education at Berkeley.</p>
<p>Well, it’s harmful for those who are weeded out. Why is this the way academics are supposed to work? Academics at schools like Harvard, Stanford, and even places like CalTech aren’t very cut-throat competitive, and they somehow remain the best universities in the nation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think a better analogy is, Stacy gets more funding to continue her research, while Jon is forced to stop his research. Is that right? Why should Jon be banned from what he wants to do? There should be enough funding for both Jon and Stacy to do their research. HYPSM provides this, why can’t Berkeley? After all, Berkeley used to have fewer impacted majors with about the same number of students, so why has this changed?</p>
<p>While I can’t speak for my “allies”, I want to clarify that not only do I feel the problems are overstated (or not problems at all), but that the solutions to the so-called problems (at least those that have been presented) seem completely impractical and possibly detrimental to the quality of Berkeley education.</p>
<p>See, the thing is, we don’t have to come up with solutions until it can be shown there are problems. If I’m convinced there is a problem, I’ll start thinking of solutions. I’ve got to see evidence of the problem first (and the purported problem is that the quality of undergraduate education at Berkeley is significantly worse than HYPSM and similar schools), though, because I won’t waste timing solving a problem that doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>Like I said in a different thread, I think the lack of professor ratings is a huge problem. I think the EECS department has shown us a wonderful solution (which I use endlessly). I think it would be relatively easy and extremely worthwhile to impelement this system in every department. We know how to do it, we have the resources to do it (the resources are minimal, really, since many departments already seek student ratings for courses and professors, just not the standardized and digitizable fashion of the EECS department), and the benefits to the education students would get would be tremendous.</p>
<p>Then again, while it could be a boon to the students, it could hurt the faculty. If Berkeley’s faculty became too competitive or cutthroat, it could detract from the desire to work here and reduce the quality of education as a result. Only because this hasn’t happened in the EECS department do I believe the system would succeed widely–it’s been tested and shown to work. So, how does that sound for improving Berkeley?</p>
<p>Maybe Stacy is trying to cure cancer and Jon is trying to show that the color pink causes men to feel uneasy in social situations. One is more valuable than the other (I’ll let you pick which is more valuable). We should allocate resources accordingly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aren’t they? I haven’t attended those schools, so I can’t say. How about you? Have you read a survey? I haven’t. I don’t know if they’re competitive or not, but I’m not going to take your word without proof. I can speak about Berkeley’s amount of competitiveness (which I’d say is completely student-dependent–some view it as competitive because they’re competitive, while I personally don’t see it as particularly competitive), since I actually attend Berkeley and have experienced its level of competitiveness.</p>
<p>In response to “isn’t that how academics are supposed to work”, the answer is: ideally, no. If we had enough teachers and classrooms to educate every student that wanted an education to the highest levels of academic rigor, we would, because that’s how it is supposed to work. Like all institutions, however, colleges have budgets, so a better answer is: we should take as many as we can, but those should be the best we can get. And that’s what we do.</p>
<p>Also, though we may hurt those that are weeded out, it is to the benefit of those that aren’t. It’s a trade-off between crappy education for all, or solid education for a select amount that we can support, and we have a gradient of choices in-between. We pick somewhere in-between, so we take some extras that won’t cut it (some will, though), but not so many that we hurt everybody’s education.</p>
<p>From that quote, it sounds like you think I was referring to undergraduate education. I was not. I was referring to faculty hiring practices. They are hired almost entirely based on the quality of their “intellectual showpieces” (published research.) Why can’t impacted departments judge undergraduates by their “intellectual showpiece(s)” (GPAs)? Sure, HYPSMC isn’t cutthroath at the non-admissions related undergraduate level. But it certainly is at the faculty hiring preference level. Why should there be a double standard in relative expectations?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you trying to say that undergraduate research at Berkeley has stopped? If that is what you are trying to say, you may want to make sure you can back that up. The last time I checked, Berkeley undergraduates research was thriving. In fact, I believe that Berkeley undergraduates do MORE research as a whole than their counterparts at the top privates. That’s why more Berkeley undergraduates go to graduate school than any university’s undergraduates. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t think about these issues in a vaccum. Is Stacy smarter than John? Is Stacy’s research more appealing to the department? If that’s the case, why should Jonh be hired? Stacy is a better fit-just like every undergraduate now at Berkeley was a better fit according to the admissions office than the three other students who got rejected so that one could get admitted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because he isn’t smart enough, perhaps? Is it really that difficult to understand the logic gatekeepers use? </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>
</p>
<p>Ok. So you DO want socialization. Gotta fight for it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it doesn’t have enough money. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How many times must I say this? </p>
<p>Each department at Berkeley chooses when and if it wants to declare itself impacted by undergraduates.</p>
<p>Many departments, notably the Psychology department, seem to have no reason at all to declare that they are impacted. After all, Psych has more money than say, the non-impacted History department. It has about the same number of faculty members as History. And it has more “space” (a whole building, basically…) than History. Both departments have comparable numbers of undergraduate students who want to major in them. Yet, only Psychology has declared itself impacted.</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>Because that’s what it decided to do to itself. If undergraduate students do not like that, they should voice their concerns to</p>
<p>Stephen Hinshaw
Psychology Chair & Professor
<a href=“mailto:hinshaw@berkeley.edu”>hinshaw@berkeley.edu</a></p>
<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>In our hypothetical example, greatestyen has already said that both PhD holder are working in field X.</p>
<p>
</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>
</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>
</p>
<p>No. It’s an ANALOGY. The analogy is, Jon is forced to stop his research even though he wants to continue it, like how some students cannot get into their major even though they want to major in that subject.</p>
<p>
</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>
</p>
<p>That’s interesting because HYPS environments aren’t as competitive and they are PRIVATE.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Berkeley had enough money 10 years ago when the only impacted major was CS and the number of undergrads was about the same. What changed?</p>
<p>Well, ratemyprofessors.com certainly can be useful (I myself have used it just to make sure there was nothing hideously wrong or strange with a couple of the professors I will have this fall), but it is but a small sample of the student body. This relatively tiny slice could be accurate (after all, that’s how statisticans do it!) but then again, many people who leave comments on ratemyprofessors.com are the ones who got D’s & F’s in a certain professor’s class (and I am guessing it’s not always the professor’s fault either). It is pretty easy to guess what sort of comments they would leave (not nice ones).</p>
<p>The regulated, anonymous ratings system that Eudean suggets might actually increase professor accountability, and it would certainly increase student participation in the ratings, which would make for a much more representative and accurate rating of each professor. Then again, it could as easily backfire, as he mentioned, by making it too competitive for the professors.</p>
<p>Now building off Eudean’s interesting proposal, how about instead a rating of a specific professor(s), make it so students rate a specific class–so it’s not so discouraging to the professors, who can say “Hey, Jim, why don’t you give teaching my Economics 1 class a try, and see how the ratings go.” It wouldn’t be as much a personal affront as it would be if students directly rated a professor. After all, professors can teach more than one class in a semester, and might teach one type of class better than another. Also have ratings breakdown into seminar effectiveness, large lecture hall effectiveness, and office hours effectiveness, etc.</p>
<p>I have never been a fan of analogies in issues of policy. They occlude the tangible variables and highlighy nothing but theoretical obfuscations. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. I guess I’ll have to say it again. </p>
<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>
</p>
<p>It probably is. But the undergraduate admissions office does not envision itself as a non-pain inducing institution. Are you saying that it should? Well it currently doesn’t want to. If you want it to, then you will protest on the steps of Sproul every day until you get what you want. </p>
<p>
</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. I then said that it’s not illogical for departments to be equally cut throat when it comes to impacted majors. You might say that, under the current system, the departments can do whatever the hell they want. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing and I’m not saying it’s a good thing. I’m saying that’s the situation and if you want to change it you should take political action against the impacted departments in general and towards their chairs in particular. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you read? </p>
<p>Each department at Berkeley chooses when and if it wants to declare itself impacted by undergraduates.</p>
<p>It should be obvious that “what changed” was departamental choices.</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>
</p>
<p>Again, I just think the proposed system is a waste of time and money. Students seem to have plenty of resources to find out about their professors. Not only is there ratemyprofessors.com, but there are other students, and numerous other websites. I mean, I’ve never heard of a student complaining about having no idea that their professor would be “horrible.” What DOES tend to happen is that students complain about the horrible quality itself. </p>
<p>
</p>
<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>
</p>
<p>But wouldn’t “office hour effectiveness” counter your desire to not discriminate against specific professors?</p>
I don’t think it’s right either. I don’t think it’s right that someone from Stanford can do very little work, who honestly deserves an F, receives a B or a C, because Stanford doesn’t give out Ds or Fs. So, I don’t think Berkeley should do the same. I think both Stanford and Berkeley should give out SOME Ds and Fs, if the students really deserve them.</p>