An overview of Berkeley: First Year Experience from a current Undergrad

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
61

<p>
[quote]
How does berkeley go about identifying students who don't have what it takes to cut it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have explained this numerous times on other threads. It's not that hard. You perform a statistical data mining experiment. You go back through all of the old student records, and regress the variables that correspond strongly with a high chance of flunking out. </p>

<p>It wouldn't be that hard to do. Think of it this way. Berkeley has elite graduate CS and statistics departments. All you would need to do is create a summer research project fpr some of the graduate students in those departments to create this model. As an added bonus, you could allow them to publish their model in an academic journal (you could just scrub the model for privacy purposes, and just allow them to publish something generic). You let them publish, and you probably wouldn't even have to pay these students (or, at worst, only have to pay them a nominal fee) as graduate students are always looking to publish interesting research in order to boost their academic careers. </p>

<p>To give you an example of some possible results, perhaps it is found that one particular high school seems to produce an disproportionate percentage of students who come to Berkeley and flunk out. So then the answer is to simply start admitting fewer future applicants from that high school. Either that high school is just doing a poor job of preparing its students for Berkeley. Or students in that town are just not prepared for Berkeley. Whatever it is, it doesn't matter, all that you need to see is that, for whatever reason, those from particular high schools just don't do well. And if it turns out that other high schools produce plenty of students who do extremely well, then you should start admitting more students from those high schools. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Is this more of the school's problem (ie should they make it easy to graduate) or is this something the student should identify and deal with?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You could do it either way. It doesn't matter to me. I happen to think that the first option is more feasible, in the sense that if it's the school's problem, then the direct answer is for the school to stop admitting those students who are highly likely to flunk out anyway. I never said anything about making it easier to graduate, but I do advocate tightly matching admissions decisions to the likelihood of graduation. </p>

<p>However, if you want to invoke the 2nd option, you could do that too. I think it's harder, but you could do it. For example, you could run a system where people are admitted despite the fact that they may have a relatively low likelihood of graduating, but then we warn the student ex-ante that the data indicates that he is relatively unlikely to graduate. Then we leave it up to the student to decide whether he still wants to come to Berkeley. Perhaps to make the process less harsh, we could then strongly recommend that these students bone up on a bunch of refresher texts regarding those particular subjects for which it is statistically shown to be likely that he will have problems. For example, perhaps it is shown that students from a particular high school who come to Berkeley are unusually likely to fail Chem1A. Then the answer would be to counsel all future admittees from that high school to carefully review their basic chemistry before they come to Berkeley. Or just not take Chem1A at all. Or get them a chem tutor. Whatever.</p>

<p>My major concern about the 2nd option is that it does seem to place a large onus on the student to do the right thing. Let's face it. These are just kids we're talking about here. Kids do short-sighted things all the time. We can warn a kid that we think he really needs to bone up on his basic chemistry. But what if he just chooses not to do it? We can tell a kid that we think there's a high chance that he wil flunk out of Berkeley and so maybe he should consider another school. But what if he matriculates anyway? By placing the onus on the students, you are presuming that they are all perfectly rational, mature, and responsible players, but if that really were the case, then you wouldn't have these problems in the first place. All students would then be very hard working and serious about their studies, and they would all choose majors that are completely appropriate for them, and they would all know how to leverage the strengths of Berkeley while avoiding all of the weaknesses. But we know this is not happening.</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
Well, one is mentally ill.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And exactly who would that be?</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
I would imagine it is the same at all large public universities, but certain posters try and steer clear of the fact; it doesn't work with the agenda.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"Certain" posters? Don't be shy - why not just name names? </p>

<p>As for the "agenda" of which you speak, I can only think of one reasonable one, which is to improve Berkeley. Just think of it this way. If Berkeley fixes its problems and the other schools don't, then Berkeley will be better than those other schools. That sounds like a pretty worthwhile agenda to me.</p>

64

<p>well put sakky</p>

65

<p>Pulkit, ok. So forget academics. Which clubs, organizations, or intramural sports have you joined or participate in?</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
Don't be shy - why not just name names?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't really feel like posting names, I thought that you would realize that wouldn't be good for anybody, I think most of us know who they are. I am not comfortable answering such questions.</p>

<p>What I find interesting is that you seem to be a very vocal person, yet I know very little about you academic/professional relationship with berkeley? Do you mind telling us what you relationship to berkeley is? Graduation year/major...anything? I'm sure that it wouldn't kill you, so you can provide some context in regards to your opinions/experiences.</p>

<p>I'm a 2nd year, MCB major...who should be studying for a certain Bio exam tomorrow.</p>

<p>
[quote]
...certain posters try and steer clear of the fact; it doesn't work with the agenda.

[/quote]

[quote]
As for the "agenda" of which you speak, I can only think of one reasonable one, which is to improve Berkeley. Just think of it this way. If Berkeley fixes its problems and the other schools don't, then Berkeley will be better than those other schools. That sounds like a pretty worthwhile agenda to me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The agenda is to discuss berkeley and keep the focus on berekley and its problems/strengths... this is the berkeley forum. It may have come off as negative however I never said that the agenda was not worthwhile, you are putting words in my mouth. I respect people who want to improve berkeley, I choose to argue the points from a different side.</p>

<p>
[quote]
To give you an example of some possible results, perhaps it is found that one particular high school seems to produce an disproportionate percentage of students who come to Berkeley and flunk out. So then the answer is to simply start admitting fewer future applicants from that high school. Either that high school is just doing a poor job of preparing its students for Berkeley. Or students in that town are just not prepared for Berkeley. Whatever it is, it doesn't matter, all that you need to see is that, for whatever reason, those from particular high schools just don't do well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is an interesting proposition, however do you not believe that in certain instances a student rises up beyond their surroundings and what is expected of them. It may not happen often, but I assure you that it happens.</p>

<p>I remember reading something that made me think. It may or may not have relevance (I'm sure that you can extrapolate if you want).Would you rather, guilty murderer go free, or risk the chance of putting an innocent man in jail? Think about it.</p>

<hr>

<p>You seem to be the most prolific poster in terms of what cal needs to do in order to step it up, you also present support your arguments very well. I respect that and I believe that you have good intentions.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
Pulkit, ok. So forget academics. Which clubs, organizations, or intramural sports have you joined or participate in?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now I don't know what his response will be, and I don't agree with a lot of his complaints, but I will say this...</p>

<p>If you're a new student and you don't live in the dorms, it makes almost every social event that much more difficult/daunting. Think about it: You're alone in your room with a flyer for some club meeting, you think about it and decide to go, you go and half the people brought their dorm buddies. But you meet people and you go through the standard introductions and make a new acquaintance or two. Then what do you do? Say "So I live 5 blocks down wanna be my best friend?" (sarcasm). You're only going to see these people at the meetings and maybe a few times randomly, while they're going to see other people nearly everyday. The best you'll get most of the time is, I don't know, a lunch buddy every other week. It's very hard to translate these types of acquaintances into <em>good</em> friends.</p>

<p>I know a girl that was a new student living in an apartment by herself. She hated it, she was very sad about it, she complained just like this, and she had little friends. A month or two later she moved into the I-House and now she has a bunch of good friends and she's happier than ever. She's having a complete blast.</p>

<p>Not living with other students when you're new is a huge blow that really can't be made up for with clubs and organizations alone. A lot of times even the clubs you join hinge on the fact that your dorm buddies get you to go or you ask them to go. I think a lot of dorm people take for granted the subtle benefit they're getting. The only reason that I was able to do it is because I have a girlfriend to serve as my roommate and do-everything-with buddy, otherwise I probably would be very miserable (Although I personally saw this in foresight and probably would've been in the dorms w/o my gf).</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
well put sakky

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I understand that you agree with sakky, s/he makes sense. In my opinion there is no need for cheerleaders.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I mean, simply the fact that there is so much debate about the overall quality of undergraduate education should be a redflag.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No one is denying the fact that there are things that berkeley could work on, nothing is perfect. What is this redflag that you speak of?</p>

<p>You have already mentioned that you will be graduating in only 2.5 years maybe 4 or 5 seperate times since the start of this thread. I am glad for you, however I can't help but think what would happen if I were to graduate next winter (Middle of junior year for me). Maybe you are pressuring yourself to finish too much too fast.</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
It's not exactly a good thing. Let's face it, when you get a job after you graduate, do you think there will be people who help you every step of the way? No, college should teach you to become more independent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure. You get on-the-job training. Good jobs provide you with a lot of perks and benefits, company car, vacation, bonuses, not dissimilar to the "hand-holding" that we speak of, and guess what? The elite private universities are better at getting their students these jobs, or at the least, getting their students some kind of jobs instead of flunking them out. Why go down the unnecessarily hard path when you don't have to?</p>

<p>Take Stanford engineering, for example. They don't weed out their students. It's much easier to get good grades there and yet the Stanford graduate still get good jobs coming out of undergrad, and still get into top grad programs, and the Stanford degree is still well-respected. You don't have to weed out your students to make your school look impressive. Think about it another way: does having grade deflation really help students get better jobs? Do graduates really get better jobs with a lower GPA?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think everyone agrees that a 24 hour library would be a nice perk, but it's more fantasy than anything else. Hate to sound like a broken record, but it's a public school. It's simple cost-benefit analysis: benefitting a handful of night owls is not worth opening a library around the clock. It's not only a matter of hiring a handful of extra staffers to check ID and make sure you don't snack amongst the shelves, because of the university's responsibility to student safety, it's also necessitating expanded police services at night (especially with additional students floating in and around campus) and likely requiring expanded night shuttle services. It'd be difficult to rationalize hundreds of dollars in operating costs per night to facilitate the studying desires (not necessarily needs) of an overwhelming minority of students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah the main problem is cost, and I think the cost actually goes well beyond hundreds of dollars per night, although I'm not sure where the money goes. I don't think it's a fantasy, since many other top schools have them, such as Harvard and Columbia. Heck, Cornell has a library that keeps a study area open 24-hours; we could at least have that much. Like ttiang said though, I'm not sure if it's worth it since most students don't study past 2 a.m. anyway, and I realize the weekend hours suck, but how many students study on a Friday night?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Very few other boards that I have seen, at least, on CC have nearly this level of debate over quality. You can attribute this to many things, one that it is a big school so many people on CC go to berkeley, and many plan on going. You can attribute it to CC being hugely California residents, but still, there are other schools that fit that bill.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think part of it is just the nature of the beast. For example, Berkeley already has 2-year guaranteed housing and I still hear people complaining that it's not 4-year. Cornell only has 2-year guaranteed housing and I didn't hear about this until recently from a friend who goes there because no one on the Cornell forums ever mentions it. Or another example: whatever problems Berkeley has, it almost certainly exists to a similar degree at UCLA, yet I don't see the UCLA forums with nearly as much criticism. Perhaps it is due to higher expectations from the supposed #1 public university in the nation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have explained this numerous times on other threads. It's not that hard. You perform a statistical data mining experiment. You go back through all of the old student records, and regress the variables that correspond strongly with a high chance of flunking out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think that'd be a good start, but that alone won't cut it. The thing is right now many classes in the sciences are specifically curved to give a certain percentage of students failing grades. So, there is a need to not only increase the student body quality, but also ease up on the weeding, or else we'd still have the same number of students flunking out.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you're a new student and you don't live in the dorms, it makes almost every social event that much more difficult/daunting.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know how true that is. Usually at clubs, you meet new people and generally do not see people from your building. You only know so many people from your building and it's unlikely that you'll bump into them too much at other events. Maybe for social events you decide to go with dorm friends, but I think clubs are different.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I understand that you agree with sakky, s/he makes sense. In my opinion there is no need for cheerleaders.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well put Ducky Dodger. ;)</p>

70

<p>what i mean by redflag is simply that berkeley needs significant improvement. as, i guess, all schools do. i mean, whats a school if its not constantly improving itself. </p>

<p>as far as what clubs i am part of, i am part of People's test prep service, which helps kids in oakland (specially, i go to otech) prepare for the SAT. i also do research. this is all i really have time for</p>

<p>ucbhi, i would agree with most of that. but i understand that that is probably just a function of me not living in the dorms, not out of choice, i didn't get housing. there is a little caveat to the guaranteed housing, that is not the case for extension students. it would be nice if berkeley could at least provide housing to all freshman, extension included. </p>

<p>and yes, there are higher expecations, i would agree with that. but why not, in almost every letter that i ever recieve from berkeley admin they are constantly saying things like "our competitors at MIT, Stanford, and Harvard blah blah" well, if you believe these schools to be in your league, then make it so</p>

<p>if you are simply comparing berkeley to to other publics, perhaps it is the best still. but, most people seem to compare it to the ivies, and why shouldn't they, it is the number one public. </p>

<p>sorry for the well put comment, geez, don't have to create a multiple reply hate strike against a single comment...whatever</p>

<p>I don't think i am pressuring myself too much. The workload is not undoable (is that a word?) and it saves me a lot of money. perhaps, i will stay longer if i really feel the need, but currently i have no problems in finishing in that period. i don't mean to state it more than necessary, it is only to explain to people why it does not make sense for me to transfer (which i was really thinking about last semester)</p>

71

<p>Pulkit, aren't there any organizations you can join for the pure purpose of having fun? If you can afford it, maybe you should take a little longer in school and make more time for fun. </p>

<p>Everyone is different, but it looks to me that you are in a rush and you are in a bit of a grind.</p>

<p>You're not going to be 20 forever. Part of being 20 is doing silly things and fun things and just letting go.</p>

<p>Do something in your spare time like sports or art or music. Go kayaking or backpacking or whatever floats your boat. Meet members of the opposite sex. </p>

<p>You'll have more fun and the academics will still be there.</p>

72

<p>I appreciate your having my interests at heart dstark, and I intend to do those things. I mean I visit my gf several times a year, I hang out with other people. I have gone backpacking this semester to Yosemite, I eat out a lot. I mean I may not have a lot of friends, but yeah, I do have a couple who I've gotten pretty close to. Basically, I'm just trying to say that I am not a hermit who never has fun. part of the reason why i dont have as much as i used to is because i had so much before. in tams, I had only fun, I hung out everyday, I went to class like once a week, it was a blast, but of course it hurt me academically. Balancing fun and work is definitely an art, and like many I'm not perfect at it. But yeah, I do have a fair share of fun. But even with the fun I still think there are things that could be better about berkeley</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
well put sakky

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[Quote]
I understand that you agree with sakky, s/he makes sense. In my opinion there is no need for cheerleaders.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well put Ducky Dodger.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Haha. Funny. Pulkit wasn't even cheerleading.</p>

74

<p>There are things that can be better about every school. No school is close to perfect. No person is perfect. You can spend your life focusing on the negatives or making up straw man arguments or judging institutions on their worst qualities, or you can spend your life enjoying the positives and trying to make the world better by being a good person. </p>

<p>You are going to school at one of the best institutions in the world in one of the best areas of the world. So many people would love to change places with you. Just take a look at SF Bay. Look at the Golden Gate Bridge. People come from all over the world just to see for a few moments what you can see every day. What is right in your face. </p>

<p>So, it's your choice how you want to view the school....how you want to view the world.</p>

<p>Have fun.</p>

75

<p>startraksfinest: I meant cheerleading in the sense that you don't need to post everytime you agree with someone, especially if you don't add anything to the conversation.</p>

<p>Pulkit has made many good points, that post wasn't one of them.</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
What I find interesting is that you seem to be a very vocal person, yet I know very little about you academic/professional relationship with berkeley? Do you mind telling us what you relationship to berkeley is? Graduation year/major...anything? I'm sure that it wouldn't kill you, so you can provide some context in regards to your opinions/experiences.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sorry, I don't publish my biography publicly. If you want to know, PM and email are open. Some people here know who I am. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This is an interesting proposition, however do you not believe that in certain instances a student rises up beyond their surroundings and what is expected of them. It may not happen often, but I assure you that it happens.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course that happens. And that's where the data mining project would help most of all - because it would help to identify those particular people who are likely to rise beyond their surroundings. </p>

<p>But clearly the current system has its problems. After all, right now, there are people who get admitted who the school "thinks" is going to rise beyond their circumstances (but without any statistical evidence to back this up), and then they come to Berkeley and flunk out anyway. Who does that help? You're not helping anybody. If anything, you're actually HURTING that person. That person would have been better off by going to an easier school where he could have succeeded. This is not a game here. You're playing with people's lives, because flunking a student out is an absolutely terrible thing to do to somebody's career (because few decent schools want to admit a transfer student who flunked out of his previous school). That person would have been better off if he had never gone to the school at all (because then at least there is no record of hiim having flunking out anywhere). So I think it's entirely reasonable for admissions officers to have some sort of statistical evidence that somebody who doesn't look like a strong candidate at first glance really can rise of their circumstances before they admit that student. It can't just be based on a whim.</p>

<p>On a related note, perhaps another reform is that admissions officers have to attach their own job performance to the performance of the students who they champion. For example, if one particular admissions officer is constantly backing students who disproportionately flunk out later, then that adcom officer should be fired. Again, like I said, this is not a game here. Adcom officers should be made to take responsibility for the choices they make. If some of them continue to insist on bringing in students who don't have what it takes and end up out, then those officers themselves should be out. </p>

<p>Keep in mind - nobody "needs" to go to Berkeley. There are plenty of other schools out there. Somebody who goes to, say, a lesser UC or a CalState and does well there will have a perfectly fine and solid career. Graduating from one of those schools is clearly better than flunking out of Berkeley.</p>

77

<p>
[quote]
But clearly the current system has its problems. After all, right now, there are people who get admitted who the school "thinks" is going to rise beyond their circumstances (but without any statistical evidence to back this up), and then they come to Berkeley and flunk out anyway. Who does that help? You're not helping anybody. If anything, you're actually HURTING that person. That person would have been better off by going to an easier school where he could have succeeded.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think I'll go one step further and say that the school is actually admitting students that it knows will flunk out. I think the attitude among some admission officers/administrators is "we'll admit a large pool of students who have the potential to perform well, and weed out those who don't actually perform well." The university has a "sink-or-swim" mindset where a certain number of students will sink. For example, many large intro science classes purposefully curve the class to a B-/C+ median. One professor said that he asked the department if it's okay to grade his class to a B median, and the department said if he does it once in a while it's okay, but if he does it consistently he could get into trouble. That's why I said I don't think it's enough to admit a stronger student body. For example, I think the engineers are stronger as a whole than the L&S students, yet they get weeded harder. Yes it's important to admit competent students, but the weeding mindset also has to change, or else even if you admit the strongest student body, some students will still flunk out.</p>

78

<p>Maybe the OP can make some friends by starting a group who will petition the administration to offer a 24-hour study location. There have to be others who are interested in that option and he may find some like-minded individuals. Also, taking the inititaive to change the school for the better will undoubtably be a good thing for med school admissions, especially if he is successful. Anyways, good luck. My child attends Cal. He started making friends at the accepted students reception in our area (they stayed in touch online until they arrived at Cal) and finds the school to be very social. I have yet to walk across campus with him wthout seeing people he knows.</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
The university has a "sink-or-swim" mindset where a certain number of students will sink. For example, many large intro science classes purposefully curve the class to a B-/C+ median.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But of course the simplest response to that is for students to not major in the technical subjects. Certainly we can all agree that there are plenty of creampuff majors at Berkeley that don't weed people out at all. Think of it this way - how the heck do you think all the Cal football and basketball players remained academically eligible to play? Jason Kidd, Lamond Murray, Marshawn Lynch, Aaron Rodgers, Kyle Boller, JJ Arrington, Ed Gray, Leon Powe - none of these guys was exactly blowing anybody away in the classroom. How did they stay eligible? Easy - they all took classes that were relatively easy to pass. None of them was majoring in, say, EECS or chemical engineering. Certainly, none of them flunked out. </p>

<p>The point is that there seems to definitely be a set of courses at Berkeley that isn't that hard to pass. Even the athletes apparently manage to avoid flunking out. * Yet other Berkeley students flunk out *. Come on, what's up with that? Maybe we should counsel those students to take the same courses that those athletes take, so at least they won't flunk out. Or maybe they're even less motivated academically than even the athletes are. For example, nobody expected much academically out of Jason Kidd, as everybody knew that he didn't care about academics and the he was going to jump to the NBA early, but at least he did decently enough to avoid flunking out in the 2 years he was at Cal - yet there are other students who weren't athletes who DID flunk out in 2 years or less. If even Kidd could avoid flunking out, you would expect others to be able to also, unless of course you are admitting people who clearly don't have what it takes to graduate at all. And that's precisely what I suspect is happening, and those adcoms who persist in doing that ought to lose their jobs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
For example, many large intro science classes purposefully curve the class to a B-/C+ median. One professor said that he asked the department if it's okay to grade his class to a B median, and the department said if he does it once in a while it's okay, but if he does it consistently he could get into trouble. That's why I said I don't think it's enough to admit a stronger student body. For example, I think the engineers are stronger as a whole than the L&S students, yet they get weeded harder. Yes it's important to admit competent students, but the weeding mindset also has to change, or else even if you admit the strongest student body, some students will still flunk out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One step at a time, my friend. As Confucius said, the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. First, let's fix the admissions problem. Like I said, there seem to be plenty of creampuff majors in which at least the athletes can camp out in and remain academically eligible. If Berkeley can't or won't admit students who are decent enough to avoid flunking out of even these creampuff majors (or who don't have the good sense to retreat to one of them), then that speaks to a problem in admissions.</p>

<p>Now, speaking to your point regarding weeding, I have written volumes regarding how to fix that problem. I think the most basic solution is to let people drop weeder classes retroactively if they decide not to enter the major. For example, if you aren't going to major in chemical engineering anyway, who cares what your grade in ChemE140 is? Let them drop it from their transcripts. This would be somewhat similar to the MIT first-year "no grade recorded" transcript policy. </p>

<p>But anyway, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Of course it would be good to solve the weeding problem in conjunction with the admissions problem. But I think these problems are somewhat separable, such that, at the very least, you can stop admitting those students * who can't even pass the creampuff majors * that the athletes tend to camp out in.</p>

80

<p>
[quote]
But of course the simplest response to that is for students to not major in the technical subjects.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay, I was really referring to students in technical subjects. I agree with what you say but I wasn't really talking about it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But anyway, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Of course it would be good to solve the weeding problem in conjunction with the admissions problem. But I think these problems are somewhat separable, such that, at the very least, you can stop admitting those students who can't even pass the creampuff majors that the athletes tend to camp out in.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do these people even exist in large numbers? From what I understand many classes in these "creampuff majors" are set up so that it's virtually impossible to get a bad grade. The way I see it these two problems need to be solved simultaneously, or else you'll end up with either better students who still get weeded out, or a lot of lackluster graduates.</p>