<p>I think it’s far less of a problem at schools like Stanford and Harvard, because the fact is, those schools are more selective to begin with, and thus tend to cut out most slackers in their admission process. Obviously, not all slackers are cut out, but most are. </p>
<p>But who cares what those other schools are doing? We are talking about what Berkeley is doing. I think we can all agree that Berkeley is doing something wrong here, and so it is Berkeley that needs to do something about it. What other schools may or may not be doing is not relevant to what Berkeley should be doing. Like I said, if Berkeley fixes its problems, and other schools don’t, then Berkeley will be better than those other schools. </p>
<p>If we go up to a lazy Berkeley student and demand that he work harder and then he says “Well, other students aren’t doing anything either, so that means that I should be allowed to do nothing too”, are we going to accept that as a valid excuse? I don’t think so. So why should we accept it from the Berkeley administration?</p>
<p>Oh come on, conor. You know and I know what would happen if I named specific courses and profs. There would be a gold-rush of lazy students who would sign up for them immediately. I don’t think I want to contribute to that stampede. You even said it yourself - you were only “sorta kidding” when you said that if I named them, you would sign up for them. Those are your words, not mine. Do you really think I want to name them now, and contribute to the very laziness that I am trying to fight? </p>
<p>And conor, do you really think that all other schools have grade inflation and lots of lazy students hanging around, doing nothing? Tell that to MIT. Tell that to Caltech. I think we can all respect the academic rigor of those 2 schools. Wouldn’t it be better if Berkeley were to move towards what MIT and Caltech represent?</p>
<p>I agree that in this context, Berkeley fixing its problems is all that matters. But the way you frame this debate, <em>only</em> talking about the fluff major problem as a Berkeley problem, makes it appear like it’s this widespread problem specifically at Cal. </p>
<p>And it’s really not. For the most part, Berkeley students are among the most hard working in the country. The lazy-Berkeley student concept you’re pushing goes against the traditional stereotype (Berkeley students spend their life studying).</p>
<p>Sakky, MIT and Caltech are institutions without fluff majors because they don’t even bother to teach most of the humanities etc. subjects in the first place. Should every university become an institution of technology? Do we not need poets?</p>
<p>Come on Bigbrother, if I were to sit here and talk about every single possible nuance and caveat, my posts would be even longer than they already are. I can only be responsible for what I say, not by what they ‘appear’ to say. I never said that laziness was a problem specific to Berkeley only. But that doesn’t mean it’s OK for Berkeley to not fix it. </p>
<p>And I would say that Berkeley needs to fix it more urgently than those other schools do, if for no other reason, than that Berkeley is in financial crisis and those other schools are not. So Berkeley is the one that needs to economize and optimize itself if for no other reason, than to save money. On the one hand, Berkeley has to cut all these student services and academic resources, and on the other hand, Berkeley still feels obligated to run these degree programs that are full of lazy, do-nothing, deadwood students.</p>
<p>I point to MIT and Caltech as possible models of how Berkeley can run its programs. I never said that Berkeley can’t run poetry classes. But I do have a problem with Berkeley running poetry classes where students can get top grades while never showing up, never studying, and never doing anything. And we both know that Berkeley has classes (not necessarily poetry classes) where that happens.</p>
<p>Well sakky, you’re in a bit of a bind. I see your point about not giving up names, but I also think you’re giving Cal students too little respect in assuming that everyone would run out and take the easiest class there is just to boost gpa, no matter what the subject. Yes, it would happen, but not as much as you’d think. But anyway, I still believe you are being unfair to those PHDs who teach them and those students who take these fluff classes. I know in the past that you’ve mentioned majors that end in “studies,” but from my experience, every teacher here is very bright and worked very hard to get here and, like I said, would argue like crazy that theirs is the class that’s ruining Cal.</p>
<p>Dstark, why don’t you just send me email. Click on my name, choose “send email to sakky”.</p>
<p>Now, to conor, when you said that you were only “sorta kidding” when you were ready to rush out and sign up for a bunch of easy classes that I name, that doesn’t exactly make me champ at the bit to reveal those classes. If you are only ‘sorta kidding’, that leads me to believe that others are ‘not kidding at all’ - meaning that they would stampede out to get those classes. Why would I want to contribute to that? </p>
<p>What I would say is that if you REALLY want to know what are the easy classes, it isn’t that hard to find out. All you have to do is ask around, see who is doing nothing and never studies, ask what they are taking, and so forth. I don’t think I want to contribute to the phenomenom, but believe me, it isn’t hard to find out. </p>
<p>And finally, first off, I don’t think I am being fair at all. Hey, what can I say, sometimes the truth hurts. You know and I know that there are certain classes that some students take because they heard they were easy. Yes, there are other students in those same classes who are there because they actually want to learn the material. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that there are some students who are in those classes because they’re easy. It may be a painful truth, but it’s the truth. </p>
<p>If those strong students don’t like that truth, and I’m sure they don’t, then they should be the ones to be the most supportive of my ideas of eliminating those lazy students. It is those lazy students that are making all of them look bad. If people don’t like their major being called a ‘fluff’ major, then they should be pressing to increase the rigor of the major.</p>
<p>I don’t know, I’m still not convinced. And yes, there was an element of truth to my “sorta kidding,” and I consider myself a pretty serious student. But I would like have a class that I didn’t have to kill myself to get an A in. That said, I wouldn’t take a class that I wasn’t interersted in, no matter how easy it was.</p>
<p>They kind of do offer that. They have some class called sex, drugs and rock and roll, or something like that. It is supposed to be taught by one of the best professors at Stanford.</p>