A series of discussions - Part I

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>I would just like to get some opinions/ideas from posters on this board about certain topics which I have been thinking about for the past weeks or so. Most of these topics have been covered many times before, so for those of you who are sick of seeing these threads, you're welcome to ignore them.</p>

<p>Note to prospective students: None of what I write is meant to deter people from attending. I would say that Berkeley is, for the most part, a great school, and that every school has its share of problems. If you need help picking colleges I would suggest starting another thread.</p>

<p>Part I: Impacted majors.</p>

<p>I'm sure this is not an unfamiliar topic. The current situation is: all engineering majors are impacted, 7 majors in L&S, and Haas (am I missing any?). The sad part is this problem doesn't seem to getting better. One explanation which I have seen is that the administration simply don't care that it's a problem, or that some departments actually prefer impacted majors. I thought this was a plausible explanation: the administration have a relatively indifferent tone towards undergrad and touts the "#1 public school" title to no end, no doubt to cover up some serious problems in its undergrad program.</p>

<p>However, recently I was searching through the Daily Cal archives and found this:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=8192%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=8192&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
With university enrollment expected to increase dramatically by the end of the decade, UC Berkeley will pour more than $10 million into uncapping impacted majors over the next three years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I couldn't find anything else about this, and it's a possibility that the funds somehow weren't allocated, but it looks like Berkeley already spent $10 million trying to uncap majors in 2002 (or at least tried to).</p>

<p>Yet, in 2006, there are still 7 impacted majors in L&S. COE is still impacted. Haas is still impacted. Not one major was uncapped. So why is the problem of impaction so hard to solve? One explanation, I thought, could be that efforts to uncap majors have did only enough for the university to sustain more students while keeping the number of capped majors from going up even more.</p>

<p>In any case, more evidence suggests that perhaps, Berkeley knows about impacted majors, knows that it's a serious problem, and have tried / are trying to fix it:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2000/09/20/letters.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2000/09/20/letters.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
One of the highest priorities is to review the issue of impacted major programs and create effective ways to help students who have difficulty getting admitted to the major of their choice, Shun said. Another important priority will be creating incentives to increase faculty participation in student advisory programs and interdisciplinary studies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Back to dealing with the problem. A quote from the Daily Cal article:</p>

<p>
[quote]
"Our problem is we can't accommodate everyone because we don't have enough computers or lab space," she said. </p>

<p>Since the major accepts approximately 100 students a year, competition is fierce among the many who try to get in.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Being probably the longest impacted major at L&S, one can logically deduce that Comp Sci might also be the hardest major to uncap. Yet, it seems like what we are missing is just computers and lab space.</p>

<p>Let's say we want to increase enrollment into the major from 100 to 200. I don't know if this is enough to make the major impacted, but in any case it will be a much better situation than it is now.</p>

<p>I will only be talking about labs as lectures tend to not be a problem when it comes to enrollment. It's really the lack of labs that screw people over.</p>

<p>Now, computer lab courses have...around 30 students each? So let's put these 100 students into 3 sections: one in MW mornings, one in MW afternoons, and one in TTh afternoons. That's 1 more lab / 30 computers. Now, let's assume each CS student takes, on average, 3 CS courses. That means 3 more labs / 90 computers. Now you can get a high-end computer for about $1,500. So 90 x 1,500 = $135,000. So to accomodate twice the number of students, we would only need $135,000 for computers. That's not a very large sum for Berkeley to cough up.</p>

<p>But what about the matter of space and instructors? Well I'm sure there must be some rooms that are vacated in certain buildings at certain times of the day. And the labs could be looked over by GSIs, which I don't believe are in short supply.</p>

<p>And it doesn't even have to come to this. A quick search of the computer science labs seems to show that the latest labs go until 8pm at night. Why not open up more labs at night? Say, from 8 - 10PM. The department says it's lacking computers/space, yet at night it seems like the rooms with computers are not being used at all. This way there would be no need to even spend more money on new equipment: it's already there.</p>

<p>Another related thought concerning impacted majors: it seems like those majors that are toughest to get into (EECS, Haas, etc.) also just happen to be the strongest majors at Berkeley with more money spent per student, and better job opportunities coming out of college. Is this just a coincidence? Maybe the quality of these programs are related to their impaction. Certainly we have seen that selectivity plays an important part in the quality of a program. It's probably no coincidence that the best undergraduate programs are also the most selective. Perhaps, then, the fact that these majors are impacted is a boon for the students who are in the major, at the cost of those students who don't get in.</p>

<p>To look at this another way: if tomorrow we were to uncap every single major at Berkeley, how would this affect currently impacted majors? It seems likely that such programs like EECS and Haas will suffer an inevitable decline in quality, if for no other reason than the dip in average student quality and that resources are spread among more people. Then, perhaps, there will really be no reason for the minority of top students to come to Berkeley anymore.</p>

<p>To combat this problem in an attempt to keep the Engineering program strong, the department may enforce even MORE weeding. This is probably not the situation we want. So, for now, impaction in certain areas may be the best situation, at least for the students who are already in the major.</p>

2

<p>At least in the case of engineering, if it was no longer impacted it should still retain its quality because the program is allegedly so difficult that even many of the students admitted now (while it is impacted) can't handle it. If just any student were to be allowed in there would be a natural selection of sorts where the weaker students would either not pick the major b/c of difficulty or not be able to finish. In fact, un-impacting might help since it would then also be easier for engineers who are doing poorly to transfer out to a diff major or college, leaving only the best students. It's win-win for everyone.</p>

3

<p>What is HAAS? I keep reading that here, but I can't seem to figure out what it means.</p>

4

<p>
[quote]
it seems like those majors that are toughest to get into (EECS, Haas, etc.) also just happen to be the strongest majors at Berkeley with more money spent per student, and better job opportunities coming out of college. Is this just a coincidence? Maybe the quality of these programs are related to their impaction. Certainly we have seen that selectivity plays an important part in the quality of a program. It's probably no coincidence that the best undergraduate programs are also the most selective. Perhaps, then, the fact that these majors are impacted is a boon for the students who are in the major, at the cost of those students who don't get in.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How do you know expenditure per student in each major? Bring up a chart, or do some calculations showing cost of the department and then divide by number of students. Are you talking about expenditure per student in a major?</p>

<p>What factors are you using to judge quality?</p>

<p>You should define impaction, or at least give a fairly exhaustive list of those programs you are talking about. "Etc." just doesn't cut it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What is HAAS? I keep reading that here, but I can't seem to figure out what it means.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Haas is the business school.</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
Now, let's assume each CS student takes, on average, 3 CS courses. That means 3 more labs / 90 computers. Now you can get a high-end computer for about $1,500. So 90 x 1,500 = $135,000. So to accomodate twice the number of students, we would only need $135,000 for computers. That's not a very large sum for Berkeley to cough up.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let's talk about some things: first of all, the computers in our CS labs cost way less than $1500. We use terminals that connect to the "real" computers--multiprocessors servers with many gigabytes of RAM. We have a number of them: quasar, solar, h30, h50, cory, pentagon, cube, rhombus, etc. Adding more terminals is cheap, and is not the reason why the major is impacted (disclaimer: this is solely my opinion).</p>

<p>Say you added 30 terminals for something like $10,000 (very rough estimate--order of magnitude; of course, we may have to add a server to support the increase in clients, which may add another $3-5000, but that is reasonable). First of all, where the heck are you going to put those terminals? You need a new building--there goes a couple million bucks. Say we had space already, or were willing to build some psuedo-buildings like those that exist at Hearst Field Annex to cut those costs. We're still talking big bucks for real estate we do not have. There are also minor costs associated with hiring TAs to teach sections, maintenance costs for the labs, etc.</p>

<p>If you want to talk about EE labs, then you're talking about a lot more than $1500. Yeah, the computer might cost that much (but really, almost all of our computers say "donated by <intel, dell="">" on them. Putting a digital oscilloscope, a HP-4155 parameter analyzer, digital multimeter, two DC power supplies, a function generator, and installing ICS Metrics (very expensive software, though Berkeley probably pays a bulk license so installing an extra seat costs nothing) is very, very expensive (we're talking, order of magnitude, $10,000 per station). Thirty of those seats isn't cheap, and again, that'd be in addition to the building to house those resources (maintenance is also an issue here--there's a lot of semi-functional or downright broken equipment in EE labs that could stand to be replaced).</intel,></p>

<p>
[quote]
And it doesn't even have to come to this. A quick search of the computer science labs seems to show that the latest labs go until 8pm at night. Why not open up more labs at night? Say, from 8 - 10PM. The department says it's lacking computers/space, yet at night it seems like the rooms with computers are not being used at all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If we simply made Soda one giant computer lab open 24/7 (and to CS students, it is open 24/7--you just have to request keycard access), that would not suddenly allow us to support 10 times the number of students. You need TAs to teach those lab sections, too, and they won't work 8-10PM.</p>

<p>I think you have some valid ideas, but talking about the EECS issue by bringing up irrelevant factors doesn't help the discussion. If you want my general opinion on why we have impacted majors and why they are simply a fact of life here (i.e. we'll never get rid of them), here it is:</p>

<p>Berkeley is big. We try to admit as many students as we can support reasonably. However, there is obviously a discrepancy as to which majors are more or less popular, causing higher demand for certain majors when the resources simply don't exist. We may try to put extra resources into that department, but that obviously hasn't solved the problem. I'm betting the reason why is because eliminated impacted majors doesn't benefit the majority of students at Berkeley. If I was looking to spend $1 million on improved education and I wanted to improve EECS education, would I put it toward making EECS un-impacted, or would I put it toward improving the existing EECS department?</p>

<p>Personally, I would choose to improve the EECS department first. Of course there is a balance: if we could only support 1 EECS student, but s/he was a super-genious, that wouldn't be a good balance. But we support and expect a certain enrollment and growth of that enrollment each year, and if we apply funds to support what we perceive as reasonable growth while putting the rest to improve (rather than increase) existing resources, I'd say we've struck a pretty good balance.</p>

<p>Of course, I could be completely wrong.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
At least in the case of engineering, if it was no longer impacted it should still retain its quality because the program is allegedly so difficult that even many of the students admitted now (while it is impacted) can't handle it. If just any student were to be allowed in there would be a natural selection of sorts where the weaker students would either not pick the major b/c of difficulty or not be able to finish. In fact, un-impacting might help since it would then also be easier for engineers who are doing poorly to transfer out to a diff major or college, leaving only the best students. It's win-win for everyone.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I fear may happen is if it becomes uncapped, weaker students who cannot handle EECS will apply anyway. That seems to happen now already. If there are people who got in EECS and flunking out, then it follows logically that those who are applying to EECS right now and not getting in are even weaker. So this means that there probably will be weaker students who will pick the major anyway, and not finish, resulting in more weeding and a lower graduation rate.</p>

<p>But I do agree that it should be easier for engineers who aren't doing well to transfer out. However, I'm not sure if we need to uncap engineering to have that policy.</p>

<p>
[quote]
How do you know expenditure per student in each major? Bring up a chart, or do some calculations showing cost of the department and then divide by number of students. Are you talking about expenditure per student in a major?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, one look at the computer equipment used by the EECS majors versus the...notebook paper and pens used by the English majors (which the students themselves provide anyway) should give you an idea of which department is spending more on students.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You should define impaction, or at least give a fairly exhaustive list of those programs you are talking about. "Etc." just doesn't cut it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wrote that in my post but I'll write it again. The ones I know of are: 7 capped majors in L&S, all engineering majors, and Haas.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Let's talk about some things: first of all, the computers in our CS labs cost way less than $1500. We use terminals that connect to the "real" computers--multiprocessors servers with many gigabytes of RAM. We have a number of them: quasar, solar, h30, h50, cory, pentagon, cube, rhombus, etc. Adding more terminals is cheap, and is not the reason why the major is impacted (disclaimer: this is solely my opinion).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I was trying to be generous on the estimate. I actually had no idea that the EECS equipment costs so much, so thanks for bringing that to light.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If we simply made Soda one giant computer lab open 24/7 (and to CS students, it is open 24/7--you just have to request keycard access), that would not suddenly allow us to support 10 times the number of students. You need TAs to teach those lab sections, too, and they won't work 8-10PM.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't say make it open 24/7. And I'm not sure that TAs won't work 8-10PM. There are many grad students who would like a TA job to support themselves financially, at least from what I hear. Out of about 10,000 grad students, we really only need to find 3-4 who are willing to work 8-10PM to open up a few more labs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Personally, I would choose to improve the EECS department first. Of course there is a balance: if we could only support 1 EECS student, but s/he was a super-genious, that wouldn't be a good balance. But we support and expect a certain enrollment and growth of that enrollment each year, and if we apply funds to support what we perceive as reasonable growth while putting the rest to improve (rather than increase) existing resources, I'd say we've struck a pretty good balance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, I've thought about this, which is that funds poured into these departments are only enough to support the slowly growing undergrad population, so the number of capped majors stay fairly constant. Ideally I would like students to be able to choose any major they want, but it looks like we may not have the resources to do that. I appreciate your opinion though.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]

[quote]

Quote:
How do you know expenditure per student in each major? Bring up a chart, or do some calculations showing cost of the department and then divide by number of students. Are you talking about expenditure per student in a major?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, one look at the computer equipment used by the EECS majors versus the...notebook paper and pens used by the English majors (which the students themselves provide anyway) should give you an idea of which department is spending more on students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Eh, i don't think this is not a satisfactory reply.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
I didn't say make it open 24/7. And I'm not sure that TAs won't work 8-10PM. There are many grad students who would like a TA job to support themselves financially, at least from what I hear. Out of about 10,000 grad students, we really only need to find 3-4 who are willing to work 8-10PM to open up a few more labs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think this is definitely true. Let's remember that there are a lot of unfunded engineering master's degree students who would happily jump at a late-night TA-position as opposed to not having a position at all (which is the current situation). Heck, it doesn't even have to be graduate students that we're talking about. Back in the old days, I knew qutie a few juniors and seniors who would have happily served as the TA for CS classes that they already took and did well in, if an offer was made to them. That would have included taking a late-night TA session as opposed to getting no position at all (which is what they ended up with). It allows them to make a bit of extra money and also looks good on the resume. </p>

<p>Let's keep in mind that CS people, by their nature, tend to be night people. Not once have I ever met a superstar CS guy who was a morning person. I'm sure they must exist, but they seem quite rare. Most CS people seem to be very happy working at night. Heck, some of the computer people that I know won't even get up before 3 in the afternoon if they don't have to. {Of course, that means that they are going to be at 7 in the morning}. Now, of course, I am not proposing that we have lab sections that meet until 7 in the morning. But I think sessions of 8-10PM, or even 10PM-midnight are quite reasonable, given the culture of the computer science community. Heck, go to the Soda labs at 2 or 3 in the morning and you invariably will see a bunch of hardcore hackers in there plugging away. I'm sure these people wouldn't mind going to a lab that lasts till midnight, because that seems to be when they're most active anyway. And I'm sure some of those guys wouldn't mind being a TA for those sections.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]

Eh, i don't think this is not a satisfactory reply.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Rather, I don't think that was a satisfactor reply.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
Yes, I've thought about this, which is that funds poured into these departments are only enough to support the slowly growing undergrad population, so the number of capped majors stay fairly constant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can only WISH that the number of capped majors was staying constant. In fact, 10 years ago, the number of capped majors in L&S was 1 (computer science). Now, it is 7. That is, of course, in addition to all of the capped majors that are not in L&S (like BusAd and every major in the CoE). </p>

<p>The point is, the number of capped majors isn't staying constant, it's actually growing. For example, it wasn't that long ago when economics was an uncapped major that took all students. Not anymore. Yet interestingly, economics was still considered a highly regarded major back then. So it's not as if economics became a strong program lately, therefore causing an upswell of interested students that proved to be too much for the department to handle, which therefore elicited capping. Economics was a strong program even in the old days. So why cap it now? You never had to cap it before. Why now?</p>

<p>Furthermore, it's not as if the economics students are taking up a huge number of resources. Economics students don't require lab spaces or equipment. I don't see them requiring much more than the pencils and papers that the English students use.</p>

11

<p>I don't like how IEOR classes are now bigger to incorporate the new ORMS students. Please just offer more classes each semester and make each class smaller instead!</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
I can only WISH that the number of capped majors was staying constant. In fact, 10 years ago, the number of capped majors in L&S was 1 (computer science). Now, it is 7. That is, of course, in addition to all of the capped majors that are not in L&S (like BusAd and every major in the CoE).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When you speak of "capped" majors do you speak of majors in which students who meet the requirements don't get accepted? Because if that's the case, then certain majors which are oftentimes described as "capped" are being mislabeled, like Psychology and Mass Comm. Those two majors may be impacted, but they are most definetly not "capped." If you meet the requirements, you'll get in.</p>

13

<p>Here's what advising says</p>

<p>
[quote]
Capped Majors</p>

<p>Some majors are harder to get into than others. "Capped majors" are departments that restrict admission due to very high student interest and demand. Each of these majors restricts admission in a somewhat different way. Some use heightened grade requirements in prerequisite courses. Some use special application deadlines and essays. Some use a combination of these. The capped majors in the College of Letters and Science are:</p>

<pre><code>* Computer Science
* Economics
* Mass Communication
* Psychology
* Public Health
* Social Welfare
* Operations Research & Management Science (ORMS)
</code></pre>

<p>You must apply for these majors when, including work in progress, you have reached less than or equal to 80 total units.</p>

<pre><code>With the exception of junior transfers, this unit cap applies to all students (including double majors, simultaneous degrees, and students appealing for change of college into L&S. The cap is effective beginning with freshmen admitted Fall 2004 or later.

Junior transfers (those with 60 or more units completed at the time of transfer to Berkeley) are given one semester - their first of the Berkeley campus - to apply for a capped major. The cap is effective beginning with transfer students admitted Fall 2006 or later.
</code></pre>

<p>You should come in and speak with a college advisor if you are planning to declare a capped major.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/choosingmajor/declare.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/choosingmajor/declare.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Could you make a case for you distinction?</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
When you speak of "capped" majors do you speak of majors in which students who meet the requirements don't get accepted? Because if that's the case, then certain majors which are oftentimes described as "capped" are being mislabeled, like Psychology and Mass Comm. Those two majors may be impacted, but they are most definetly not "capped." If you meet the requirements, you'll get in.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think this is a distinction without a difference. Capped majors are basically any major that doesn't allow free switch-in's by any student who is not on academic probation. </p>

<p>Look at it this way. Any capped major, even the most tightly capped, is open to any student who fulfills certain requirements. For example, even EECS, which is arguably the most tightly capped of all to continuing students, is still technically available to anybody who fulfills those requirements. If you get straight A's in all of your lower-division EECS prereqs, you are basically assured of switching into EECS. The question is, how many students can really do that? It's like saying that the top law schools are not really 'capped' in the sense that anybody who gets a straight A's and a perfect 180 LSAT score is basically assured of getting into at least one of the top law schools. Technically speaking, that's a true statement. But the vast majority of people can't pull that off. </p>

<p>As far as Berkeley goes, I'll give you the contrasting scenario. Any student at Stanford who wants to major in EE/CS is free to do so. If that student later wants to switch to some other engineering field, or to economics, or psychology, or whatever it is, nobody is going to stop him. He is free to do whatever he wants. Nobody is going to tell him that he can't switch and so he's stuck in a major that he doesn't really want. Frankly, that is a strong reason to prefer Stanford over Berkeley, because you know that you will have the power to freely switch your major anytime you want without restriction. </p>

<p>I know guys who went to Berkeley hoping to major in CS, and not getting into the major. If they had gone to Stanford, they would have gotten CS degrees. Probably not with top grades, but at least they would have gotten the degree that they really wanted. {Of course, they didn't get into Stanford in the first place, so it's a rather moot point, but if they HAD gotten in and they had gone there, they would have been better off because they would have been allowed to pursue the major they wanted.} </p>

<p>Speaking of Berkeley CS specifically, I don't see why CS can't be expanded. It seems to me as if the resources are there, it's just a matter of optimizing them. For example, why can't the Berkeley math department teach some of the CS classes? Let's face it - classes like CS 70, 170,172,174, and the like - come on, these are basically math classes. So why can't you have math profs teaching these classes? In fact, at MIT, the equivalent courses ARE math classes, in the sense that they are cross-listed and cross-taught between the CS and the Math departments. By having Berkeley math profs teaching these classes, you would free up some of the CS profs to do other things. </p>

<p>Also, about the issue of CS labs, I've never really understood why you need so much scheduled labtime anyway. First off, I believe lab-time should be optional. Let's face it. Berkeley has some CS students who are veritable programming superstars. They don't need to go to a scheduled lab, because they already know what they're doing. When these students were forced to go to lab, they would just sit around bored. They already knew the stuff for the lab, so they don't have to be forced to go. They should simply be allowed to complete the labs on their own time. Most (probably all) of these superstars also have their own computers and prefer to program at home (or at least via remote-access to a backend server, but they're still sitting at home doing the programming). So by forcing these students to come to lab, you are basically wasting lab seats on people who don't really want or need them. A lot of these hackers tend to be night people too, because, like I said, I have yet to meet a truly good programmer who was a morning person. If one of these superhackers wants to work on a lab assignment by himself at 3 in the morning as opposed to going to his regularly scheduled lab, then as long as he completes the assignment, who cares when and how he does it? </p>

<p>Hence, it seems to me that if lab space is the issue, you can free up lab spaces by not having them occupied by those students who don't really want or need them.</p>