Aren't these stats just depressing?

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

<p>
[quote]
personally think that this should be normalized, such that Berkeley makes those cheesepuff classes harder, but also makes those ridiculously hard classes easier. You shouldn't have such a wide disparity in grading standards.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What you don't seem to understand is that those "cheesepuff" classes/majors (I wish you would name them) are INHERENTLY "easier" than "hard" classes/majors. </p>

<p>I know you think most of humanties is "cheesepuff" and I do too, kind of. But how else can it be? Humanities grades are based on essay grades. Few students at Berkeley's humanities departments are bad writers. They read the material, they argue their viewpoint, and they present it in a coherent manner. Are you proposing that they not As? Why? An A denotes a perfect performance and many many MANY humanities students write perfect papers.
If you're going to dispute that fact, let me just say that I have taught numerous de-cals and have gotten to grade actual undergraduate papers. They were all perfect. In the Berkeley sciences it's much different, since grades are on a curve. But you can't do the same with humanities. It's structurally impossible. Can you come up with a way to do it?</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
What you don't seem to understand is that those "cheesepuff" classes/majors (I wish you would name them) are INHERENTLY "easier" than "hard" classes/majors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nope, I don't buy it. No class is inherently "easier" than another class. After all, you can just simply assign more and more readings and more papers </p>

<p>For example, instead of just assigning 2 or 3 books to read, assign 20 or 30 books to read. And instead of assigning 2 or 3 papers to write, assign 15 or 20. Why not? If the engineering students are made to work like dogs, then the humanities students can work like dogs too. </p>

<p>If you think I'm way off here, then you should consider the workloads of the doctoral classes in the humanities. Those classes require massive amounts of reading and writing. If those doctoral classes can require a lot of work out of their students, then why can't the undergrad classes. As a case in point, the doctoral engineering classes don't seem to require that much more in terms of workload from their students than the undergrad engineering classes do. Both doctoral and undergrad engineering classes are extremely time consuming. So the doctoral and undergrad humanities classes can also be made to be equally time consuming.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know you think most of humanties is "cheesepuff" and I do too, kind of. But how else can it be? Humanities grades are based on essay grades. Few students at Berkeley's humanities departments are bad writers. They read the material, they argue their viewpoint, and they present it in a coherent manner. Are you proposing that they not As? Why? An A denotes a perfect performance and many many MANY humanities students write perfect papers.
If you're going to dispute that fact, let me just say that I have taught numerous de-cals and have gotten to grade actual undergraduate papers. They were all perfect. In the Berkeley sciences it's much different, since grades are on a curve. But you can't do the same with humanities. It's structurally impossible. Can you come up with a way to do it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nope, absolutely false. And I'll give you the perfect analogy.</p>

<p>Consider what the Berkeley doctoral students in the humanities have to go through, particularly in terms of writing their dissertation. I think we can all agree that the Berkeley humanities doctoral students are all extremely good writers. Surely they all argue their viewpoints with eloquence. Yet the fact is, writing an acceptable humanities doctoral dissertation takes most of them years, and in some cases, over a decade. As a doctoral student, you get your coursework done in the first 2 years. Then you spend the rest of your time writing that dissertation. I believe that the normative time to get an English PhD at Berkeley (and most other schools) is around 7 years, which basically means that you spent 5 years writing that dissertation. Some people spend 10 years or more. Heck, quite a few people never manage to complete it at all.</p>

<p>Think about what that means. You know these guys are writing "perfect" papers. Yet these "perfect" papers aren't being accepted by their committee, at least, not at first shot. Almost none of these students successfully receive their doctorate upon initial submission of their dissertation. Almost always, they have to go through an extensive period of writes and rewrites, edits and re-edits, followed by a oral defense of the paper, and then often times several revisions after that to expunge weaknesses discovered in the oral defense. This process takes years before the committee will finally accept the dissertation as truly complete. </p>

<p>The point is, Berkeley has humanities doctoral committees that demand unbelievably exacting standards in the kinds of papers that they will "pass". Writing a first-shot "perfect" paper is not even close to being enough for them. They hardly ever say "Oh, I see that your first submission was good enough, so now you are a PhD". In effect, every time they kick back your paper for revisions, that is effectively a "failed paper". Considering how many years you need to complete that PhD, that's a lot of "failed papers". </p>

<p>Hence, if Berkeley can demand such exacting standards from its humanities doctoral students, then why can't Berkeley also demand high standards from its humanities undergrad students? I'm not saying that it should be as tough to get an undergrad degree as it is to get a PhD, but the point is, you can have a lot of room to increase your standards. Just because humanities are inherently subjective doesn't mean that they can't have high standards. Otherwise, you really would see lots of humanities PhD's graduating in only 2-3 years.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
Nope, I don't buy it. No class is inherently "easier" than another class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nope, I don't buy it. Humanities classes are easier because they are taught in a language which students have been digesting in for their entire lives. It is inherently easier to learn from the professor that Martin Luther posted a piece of paper on a wall which lead to the breakup of Roman Catholicism than it is to learn the logic of Maxwell's equations---which require much more prerequisite "understanding" than hearing about Martin Luther does. (All you need to understand the significance of Luther is to be able to understand and digest the English language. Most students in the humanities know the English language. It is therefore easier for them to understand the subject matter, assuming it is taught in English.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
After all, you can just simply assign more and more readings and more papers

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not true. More readings? Do you have any idea how expensive readings are? The typical Cal humanities textbook costs AT LEAST 30 dollars. So you're saying that humanities classes should assign, lets say 25 books. In other words, you want humanities students to have to pay $750 for each of their humanities classes. If they took 4 such classes, they would be spending $3000 a semester on books. Yet, science/engineering students, under your system, would be privileged and not have to pay a relatively equal amount. There are many many MANY science/engineering classes which only have one or two textbooks. In general, these cost about $200 per class, much MUCH less than humanities in your fantasy system. </p>

<p>Can you say unfair? </p>

<p>I mean, how are humanities students to pay for such a system? If you want more humanities textbooks to be assigned in order to make the humanities compare in difficulty to sciences/engineering, then you must also support either the raising of many science/engineering textbooks to at least $700 or the raising of general fees in order to "buy out" the extra textbooks in order that humanities students arent economically discriminated against. And yes I know it's unfair that humanities students get person attention at the expense of science/engineering students. But giving more work to humanities students is clearly not the way to equalize. Come up with another way. </p>

<p>Moreover, there simply aren't enough textbooks to fulfill your fantasy. Publishers are simply not ready to print 100 books for each humanities student each semester. Nor are Ned's/ASUC book store physically able to house such material without the admissions office driving down the admit rate. </p>

<p>
[quote]

Hence, if Berkeley can demand such exacting standards from its humanities doctoral students, then why can't Berkeley also demand high standards from its humanities undergrad students? I'm not saying that it should be as tough to get an undergrad degree as it is to get a PhD, but the point is, you can have a lot of room to increase your standards. Just because humanities are inherently subjective doesn't mean that they can't have high standards. Otherwise, you really would see lots of humanities PhD's graduating in only 2-3 years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What you fail to take into account here is that I explicitly said humanities undergrads "read the material" - meaning the ASSIGNED material. In their essays, they tend to provide a coherent, convicing, and outstanding argument centered on the assigned readings. That is different from humanities PhD. </p>

<p>The tough process you describe for writing and getting a humanities dissertation approved arise out of the fact that those dissertations involve original research and a through reading of pretty much everything that has ever been written on the subject. (Reading which is not available en masse, as I have already pointed out.) </p>

<p>Regular undergrad humanities classes CANNOT involve original research because original research in the humanities involves TRAVEL. IF humanities departments were to include travel as part of their requirements for regular (non-thesis) undergrad classes, they would need MONEY-money which is just not NOT there because humanities is, in general, almost totally UNPROFITABLE. If you want humanities undergrads to have it just as hard as humanities grads, then Berkeley must take on the cost of travel for its thousands of humanities students.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
Not true. More readings? Do you have any idea how expensive readings are? The typical Cal humanities textbook costs AT LEAST 30 dollars. So you're saying that humanities classes should assign, lets say 25 books. In other words, you want humanities students to have to pay $750 for each of their humanities classes. If they took 4 such classes, they would be spending $3000 a semester on books. Yet, science/engineering students, under your system, would be privileged and not have to pay a relatively equal amount. There are many many MANY science/engineering classes which only have one or two textbooks. In general, these cost about $200 per class, much MUCH less than humanities in your fantasy system. </p>

<p>Can you say unfair? </p>

<p>I mean, how are humanities students to pay for such a system? If you want more humanities textbooks to be assigned in order to make the humanities compare in difficulty to sciences/engineering, then you must also support either the raising of many science/engineering textbooks to at least $700 or the raising of general fees in order to "buy out" the extra textbooks in order that humanities students arent economically discriminated against. And yes I know it's unfair that humanities students get person attention at the expense of science/engineering students. But giving more work to humanities students is clearly not the way to equalize. Come up with another way. </p>

<p>Moreover, there simply aren't enough textbooks to fulfill your fantasy. Publishers are simply not ready to print 100 books for each humanities student each semester. Nor are Ned's/ASUC book store physically able to house such material without the admissions office driving down the admit rate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So don't have it be textbooks. I never said it had to be textbooks. Package the readings in a (very thick) course reader.</p>

<p>Furthermore, if we're talking about the humanities, we're usually not talking about textbooks at all. Usually, we are talking about well known and well-understood plays, novels, and so forth, almost all of them (especially if they were written many years ago) are now in the public domain. Public domain works can be found for very cheap because there is no copyright holder you have to pay. </p>

<p>For example, I see that on Amazon, you can buy a Complete Shakespeare for $20. That's every single work that Shakespeare every wrote. So if you're taking a class on Shakespeare, why should the class be on just a few of his plays? Why can't the class be about ALL of his works? Surely, money is not a problem. That $20 for ALL of his plays is actually about 1/3 of the cost of a single engineering textbook.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517053616/sr=8-1/qid=1145656823/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2608583-9486536?%5Fencoding=UTF8%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517053616/sr=8-1/qid=1145656823/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2608583-9486536?%5Fencoding=UTF8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Or let's talk about the Classics. I see that the Complete set of the plays of Sophocles is available new from Amazon for $6, and available used for just $1. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451527844/qid=1145657027/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2608583-9486536?s=books&v=glance&n=283155%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451527844/qid=1145657027/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2608583-9486536?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>That tells me that you humanities students can afford to buy PLENTY of works of these old writers. Hence, money is certainly no problem at all.</p>

<p>Finally, again, look at it from the doctoral standpoint. Doctoral students have to read massive amounts of stuff. I don't see them complaining about it. So why can't the undergrads? </p>

<p>Heck, if anything, I would say that the cost is actually UNFAIR TO THE ENGINEERS. After all, the engineering students generally have to buy 1 or 2 textbooks a class, at a cost of maybe $50 each. That's because engineering textbooks are almost always copyrighted. However, most humanities stuff is in the public domain. Any publisher has the right to print out copies of Shakespeare. Any publisher has the rights to publish Chaucer. They don't have to pay for any copyright license to do so. Hence, there is tremendous COMPETITION within the publishing space to create these works. That's why you can find publishers who will sell you the complete works of any of these authors for not much money. </p>

<p>Heck, if you're supercheap, you don't even need to buy the books at all. For example, I can read ALL of Shakespeare's works for free online at the Gutenberg Project. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to read stuff on a screen, but the point is, if you really really don't want to pay, you don't have to. Can an engineering student choose to read an engineering textbook online without ever paying anybody?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/s#a65%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/s#a65&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So if anything, the notion of paying for readings doesn't actually weaken my argument, if anything it actually STRENGTHENS it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
What you fail to take into account here is that I explicitly said humanities undergrads "read the material" - meaning the ASSIGNED material. In their essays, they tend to provide a coherent, convicing, and outstanding argument centered on the assigned readings. That is different from humanities PhD. </p>

<p>The tough process you describe for writing and getting a humanities dissertation approved arise out of the fact that those dissertations involve original research and a through reading of pretty much everything that has ever been written on the subject. (Reading which is not available en masse, as I have already pointed out.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And again, why exactly isn't it available en masse? Like I said, you can buy Shakespeare from any bookstore, as well as read his works online. Same with Chaucer, same with Milton, same with Miller, same with Twain, same with Longfellow, same with Wordsworth, same with Poe, same with practically every author except those in the last 100 years. The key is that you don't need to get a specific book. King Lear is going to be the same no matter where you got it from - whether as an individual published play, or in a complete bound set, or online at the Gutenberg Project. However, each individual engineering textbook is idiosyncratic, and hence there is no competition. If an engineering prof says that you have to buy "Advanced Quantum Engineering, 69th Edition" by Jon Stewart, then you have to buy that book, because you don't want to risk having the version that doesn't include the one problem that the prof assigns as homework. </p>

<p>I think what you mean to say that is that there are some textbooks out there that are specific to literary analysis. However, I would say that far more of the humanities "textbooks" are nothing of the sort, but are public-domain works that can be obtained in a variety of places, and very cheaply. For example, if I troll around Amazon, I am quite certain that I will be able to compile complete sets of works of many of the major authors in English Literature for less cost than it would cost for me to buy engineering textbooks for just one engineering class. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Regular undergrad humanities classes CANNOT involve original research because original research in the humanities involves TRAVEL.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? It involves travel? How's that? Why does it involve always involve travel? I know plenty of humanities doctoral students at Berkeley, Harvard, and elsewhere who have never travelled, nor do they ever intend to. The only "travel" they ever do is to their campus library. For example, I was just talking to one Harvard English doctoral student who is analyzing American poetry. She's been doing this for 4 years now, and has never found a need to travel, ever. All of her research is done at the various Harvard libraries, as well as online. I've also talked to plenty of MIT philosophy PhD students who have never felt the need to travel. </p>

<p>After all, what exactly would you be travelling to? And why? This isn't archaeology. Take Shakespeare. I'm not talking about you trying to dig up some long lost Shakespearean play. All of Shakespeares known works are available online. So are the works of his contemporaries. Why exactly do you have to travel, and what would you be doing? </p>

<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I can see perhaps that SOME doctoral humanities students might be helped by travel. But this is by no means a REQUIRED thing for all of them. Plenty of people get their humanities doctorates without ever travelling. </p>

<p>However, all of that is neither here nor there. The point is, it becomes a matter of raising your standards. You say that lots of people are able to cogently express an opinion. But that doesn't mean that lots of people should get A's. For example, lots of people who get weeded out of Berkeley engineering could probably be decent engineers, in the sense that if they had gone to some other lesser school, they would have graduated with engineering degrees. But they aren't good enough to be BERKELEY engineers. Simply having basic engineering skills isn't good enough to get you a Berkeley engineering degree. You have to demonstrate exceptional skills in order to get that degree. Hence, the Berkeley humanities departments ought to do the same. If you say that every Berkeley humanities student is good enough to write a good paper, then that should no longer be good enough to allow you to graduate. Instead, perhaps you have to show that you have to write a paper that is both good AND highly original. If you cannot, then you fail. In other words, not everybody can get a degree, by design. Some people must fail out. </p>

<p>Lest you think that's unfair, well, that's exactly what happens to the science + engineering students, and nobody wants to do anything for them. What's fair is fair. If the science and engineering students have to get weeded, then so should the humanities students. Otherwise, Berkeley should not be weeding the science and engineering students.</p>

65

<p>Sakky, one thing I've noticed in your arguments is that you assume humanities is easier than science/engineering for everyone. This is not true. Many engineers choose to be engineers because they have difficulty writing coherent papers. For one, if I were to take the English 45 series right now, I probably wouldn't do very well in it, as I hate reading classics and formulating arguments for them. The kind of thinking required in those classes is a whole different kind from that needed in sci/eng.</p>

66

<p>I never assumed that humanities is easier for EVERYONE. I make my statements based on aggregates. For example, just because one guy might smoke 3 packs a day and still live to be 100 doesn't mean that smoking isn't dangerous. </p>

<p>The major difference between engineering and humanities in terms of the grading is on the low end. For example, you say that you might not do very well in engineering because you hate reading classics and formulating arguments. But the key right there is the right 'not do very well'. What does that mean? Let's face it. In almost all humanities classes, as long as you show up and produce halfway-comprehensible papers, you know you're going to pass the class. Maybe you'll only pass with a C. But that's still passing.</p>

<p>However, engineering is a totally different story. Many engineering classes, particularly the weeders, will absolutely not hesitate for one second to give you a failing grade. In other words, you can do all of the work and put in a bonafide effort... and still flunk out. </p>

<p>The point is that, on the aggregate levels, there is a big difference in the minimum level of work required just to pass the classes. The truth is, you can put in very little effort whatsoever in most humanities courses, and still pass. Maybe you won't get an A, maybe not even a B, but you'll still pass. But that's not true in engineering where failing grades are a perennial danger. </p>

<p>I'll tell you another story. I know a guy in EECS (not the guy I discussed before) who didn't dare attend any job interviews in his senior year. Why? Because he wasn't even sure if he was going to graduate or not. Basically, his overall engineering GPA was barely passing (it was around a 2.0), and you need at least a 2.0 in upper-division technical classes in order to graduate in EECS. Not just a 2.0 overall, but also a 2.0 in your upper-division technical classes. He knew that he was right on the border, such that it was quite possible that he would not actually graduate. For example, getting a bunch of C-'s (or worse) in his senior year engineering classes would have been enough to push him under, because a C- is worth 1.7 of GPA. What if he interviewed for a job, got an offer, and then find out later that he didn't get good enough engineering grades in his final year to graduate? So basically he had to spend his entire senior year focusing on his grades to ensure that he actually graduated. Only after he actually graduated could he then reasonably focus on finding a job. </p>

<p>You don't have that problem in the humanities. Like I said, you know full well that as long as you do the work, you're going to pass your classes and you're going to graduate.</p>

67

<p>Doing all the reading and writing somewhat decent papers is more than "very little work effort," but perhaps it can be, for some classes (but I don't see why it would be so for the aggregate). Humanities and social science students have little ability to change anything regarding grading philosophies in engineering. You don't need to attack them because of the way engineering grading works.</p>

<p>And do you think every humanities student should have the expectations of a graduate student in the field? These people have experience and previous training in the field. They have much broader ranges of knowledge. They have much more ability because of these things, and because of the selection for these positions, particularly the best programs (such as Berkeley's). </p>

<p>And you bring in the job market. What about GPA and how it relates to jobs? What about the jobs humanities students and social science students are able to get versus those that engineering students and sometimes scuence students are able to get? What about compensation?</p>

<p>
[quote]
That tells me that you humanities students can afford to buy PLENTY of works of these old writers. Hence, money is certainly no problem at all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And if the course demands you buy a particular copy or addition of something, or it isn't in the public domain (as some books often are not)? It's the same situation in reverse. </p>

<p>Why should the humanities be cruel to make things "fair?" Because the engineers are cruel? is that your argument? Engineering is psychotic, therefore other fields should be to even things out? No, sakky, I'm sorry, engineering should change. Certainly some fields should change their standards to be more difficult. I wouldn't mind some higher standards within humanities. But the main problem here is engineering, and little else.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
Doing all the reading and writing somewhat decent papers is more than "very little work effort," but perhaps it can be, for some classes (but I don't see why it would be so for the aggregate). Humanities and social science students have little ability to change anything regarding grading philosophies in engineering. You don't need to attack them because of the way engineering grading works.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then one way we can solve the problem is, on the transcript, right next to the grade you receive in that class, also print the median grade of that class. So if you get a B in a class where the median grade of the class is an A, then the fact that you actually did worse than average should be clearly presented.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I think that the thresholds for both distinction and for flunking our should be recomputed on a dynamic level to compensate for the difficulty or ease of the classes that you have taken. For example, right now, graduation with distinction is calculated via having the top x% of GPA - according to your COLLEGE. This is wrong - you should have distinction determined by having the top x% GPA within your PARTICULAR MAJOR, or even better, for the particular classes that you took. Similarly, those students who get the bottom x% of GPA of a particular major or a particular set of classes should be put on probation and put on the road to flunking out. In other words, there would be no incentive to simply cherry-pick a bunch of easy classes. There would be no advantage to picking out easy classes or easy classes, because the thresholds would dynamically adjust to reflect the difficulty or lack thereof of your classes. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And do you think every humanities student should have the expectations of a graduate student in the field? These people have experience and previous training in the field. They have much broader ranges of knowledge. They have much more ability because of these things, and because of the selection for these positions, particularly the best programs (such as Berkeley's).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody is saying that undergrads should have the same responsibilities as grad students. What the grad students experience demonstrate is that, simply put, the humanities majors can maintain very high and tough standards. If the grad humanities students have to submit themselves to tough standards, then that proves that things can be made tougher for the undergrad humanities students. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And you bring in the job market. What about GPA and how it relates to jobs? What about the jobs humanities students and social science students are able to get versus those that engineering students and sometimes scuence students are able to get? What about compensation?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What about it? Don't you see the competition is intimately related with compensation? For example, has it occurred to you that one big reason for WHY the humanities students don't earn high average compensations is BECAUSE companies know that people can just skate through the humanities? Hence, if the humanities get tougher, that would serve to eliminate the lazy students, therefore raising average starting salaries. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Why should the humanities be cruel to make things "fair?" Because the engineers are cruel? is that your argument? Engineering is psychotic, therefore other fields should be to even things out? No, sakky, I'm sorry, engineering should change. Certainly some fields should change their standards to be more difficult. I wouldn't mind some higher standards within humanities. But the main problem here is engineering, and little else.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fine, then you should support my alternative, which is that engineering ought to stop weeding out it students the way it does. If it is fair for humanities students to not get weeded, then engineering students should also not be weeded. Either way, there is a problem .</p>

69

<p>Too much arguing, are all berkeley students like this? :eek:</p>

70

<p>No, most do not care and most are not engaged. Those that are are pretty liberal and many (I would say most) are completely interested only in themselves and couldn't care less about improving the general situation at the school.</p>

71

<p>Personally, I think that, if anything, the studious and responsible humanities students at Cal (and elsewhere) should WANT their majors to get far tougher with their grading standards. That's because, whether you like it or not, the humanities suffer from the stigma of being easy and hence have the reputation of being having lots of students that simply don't want to work hard and are therefore just trying to get an easy degree. {Note, not ALL or even more humanities students are lazy, but the fact is, there is a conspicuous subgroup of lazy students in the humanities}. Come on, all, you know it's true. Even if you dispute whether the characterization is fair, you have to concede that the humanities have that reputation of being easy.</p>

<p>Hence, if the humanities want to change that reputation, then they have to make a strong stand. It is that subgroup of lazy students in the humanities who, unfortunately, make ALL humanities students look bad. It's guilt by association. For example, if I am constantly seen in public cavorting with known criminals, then people are going to inevitably suspect that I'm a criminal myself. It may not be fair, but that's reality. Hence, the responsible and studious humanities students should want to do something about those lazy students, if, for no other reason, than to stop them from making everybody else in the major look bad. The best thing to do is obviously to spur these students to actually work hard. But if that is not forthcoming, then the 2nd best thing to do is to simply toss them out of the major. As I've said before, while it may take a lot of hard work to get top grades in the humanities, it doesn't take very much work at all just to pass. And that's why you have these students in the humanities who do next-to-nothing and still graduate, therefore tarnishing the reputation of that major. Employers may hire a guy who majored in X only to find out that he's just extremely lazy, and then be understandably reluctant to hire anybody else from that major. </p>

<p>I had once proposed these suggestions before, only to run into vehement resistance, and I don't understand why. Seriously, why would anybody defend laziness? Yet it seems to me that a lot of people just aren't interested in trying to make the humanities better.</p>

72

<p>These issues are important. That’s why people should take them seriously. But no, not all Berkeley students are like this.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Personally, I think that, if anything, the studious and responsible humanities students at Cal (and elsewhere) should WANT their majors to get far tougher with their grading standards.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What about those that are already tough enough? From what I know, I don’t think English or philosophy at Berkeley need to get any tougher- I think, generally, they’re fine how they are. And guess what- even if Berkeley English is so intense that it scares away my good friend who was a main editor of my high school newspaper, daughter of two Berkeley PhDs, reads a lot for fun on her own, and aced anything writing related (800 SAT II writing, 5 AP English Lit, As in all high school English classes) from taking a minor after taking 45c, people think it’s easy. You are probably familiar with the arguments. The stigma is probably not going to go anywhere, just like many people are going to think philosophy is useless (even though it most certainly isn’t) and that history is a joke (even though the required reading is ridiculous and you have to write a thesis to graduate). Do these things stem from association to your easy majors? Maybe, but they’ve existed for a long time at schools without easy majors, so I think of them as fairly embedded. Certainly the humanities have a reputation of being easy. Get those that are not tough enough to change, although you have to figure out how tough enough is tough enough. And good luck getting these changes done as students, with some resistance from those who feel they work enough, whether or not they actually feel challenged. You know that there are many political factors which will mean getting things changed will be difficult. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Then one way we can solve the problem is, on the transcript, right next to the grade you receive in that class, also print the median grade of that class. So if you get a B in a class where the median grade of the class is an A, then the fact that you actually did worse than average should be clearly presented.

[/quote]

This doesn’t sound that bad, but what would the advantages be, and do you really think 1) it will happen and 2) it will affect much?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, I think that the thresholds for both distinction and for flunking out should be recomputed on a dynamic level to compensate for the difficulty or ease of the classes that you have taken. For example, right now, graduation with distinction is calculated via having the top x% of GPA - according to your COLLEGE. This is wrong - you should have distinction determined by having the top x% GPA within your PARTICULAR MAJOR, or even better, for the particular classes that you took.

[/quote]

I think that something should be changed, something along the lines of major, but with more of an emphasis on overall GPA (maybe a quota system whereby the top x people in a major are represented as long as their GPAs fall above a 3.5 or 3.6 or something), yet the recalculation based on classes seems like too much.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Similarly, those students who get the bottom x% of GPA of a particular major or a particular set of classes should be put on probation and put on the road to flunking out. In other words, there would be no incentive to simply cherry-pick a bunch of easy classes. There would be no advantage to picking out easy classes or easy classes, because the thresholds would dynamically adjust to reflect the difficulty or lack thereof of your classes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Good luck getting this to happen. I also don’t think it’s particularly fair- why? Say everyone gets B’s and A’s in the classes you’re in, and you’re the one getting all of the lowest B’s. Yet you’re put on academic probation. You’re the one who’s blamed for how the grading works, and that you didn’t jump high enough relative to your peers. Is that fair in the humanities? As fair as it is in engineering. Well, why make the humanities students suffer? Fix engineering! This is taking the logic of engineering grading and completely bringing it into the humanities. Difficulty of grading doesn’t necessarily mean difficulty of classes, it means difficult of how the classes were graded. There’s a big difference and you don’t reflect that in your post. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Fine, then you should support my alternative, which is that engineering ought to stop weeding out it students the way it does. If it is fair for humanities students to not get weeded, then engineering students should also not be weeded. Either way, there is a problem.

[/quote]

I agree with you that engineering shouldn’t weed the way I imagine it does (I’ve never experienced it), and I agree on another point you have, that all engineers should really be undeclared (unless they really don’t want to or something). But again, you make the comparison between the humanities and engineering, and fairness. I’m not sure how strong a connection there is, or, more importantly, how strong a connection the politically powerful engineering figures feel it matters.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hence, if the humanities want to change that reputation, then they have to make a strong stand. [The best thing to do would be to spur them to work hard] . . . But if that is not forthcoming, then the 2nd best thing to do is to simply toss them out of the major.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>At what level would kicking them out violate your views of what Berkeley should do for its students? Only when the humanities got to the level of about where engineering is in your view? And guess what, what about the sports players and other groups who depend on easier classes and majors. This will politically conflict with your plan (as will the lowest % getting academic probation). It’s not going to change that much. You aren’t going to see Berkeley turn into Stanford or an Ivy league school with regards to sports and the average academics of their athletes- while some athletes here are strong, some amazingly so, I’m talking about the percentage is not that impressive, whatever that is. </p>

<p>I am often irritated by your general “call to action” of sorts, your “if you don’t want to make things better, just say so.” Just because someone doesn’t want to change things in the particular way you want to does not mean that they don’t want to make things better. However, you often conclude this.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
Certainly the humanities have a reputation of being easy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but how did it get to be that way? This didn't just happen randomly you know. The humanities got a reputation of being easy because the humanities are in fact easy, relative to the technical majors.</p>

<p>By that, I certainly don't mean that ALL of the humanities are easy. But you and I both know that there are some flamboyantly easy humanities majors out there. And like I said, they make ALL of the humanities look bad. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Get those that are not tough enough to change, although you have to figure out how tough enough is tough enough. And good luck getting these changes done as students, with some resistance from those who feel they work enough, whether or not they actually feel challenged. You know that there are many political factors which will mean getting things changed will be difficult

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ha! I actually think this would be one of the easier political battles to win. After all, those who oppose it would, in effect, be defending laziness and lax grading. I don't too many people who would want to defend that. </p>

<p>In fact, I think you could actually recruit the people of California on our side. You can basically posit it as a tax revolt. For example, here are all these California taxpayers who have to pay taxes to Berkeley, and some of that money gets diverted to easy majors. In other words, the taxpayers are effectively subsidizing laziness. Then you could have interviews with some of the drunken frat boys who will talk about how their classes are jokes and how they haven't showed up to class in weeks and they still get high grades, and then you can just simply ask whether the people of California should be sending their tax dollars to support that. I think this is a very easy battle to win. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think that something should be changed, something along the lines of major, but with more of an emphasis on overall GPA (maybe a quota system whereby the top x people in a major are represented as long as their GPAs fall above a 3.5 or 3.6 or something), yet the recalculation based on classes seems like too much.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Statistically and computationally speaking, it's quite easy to do. A relatively simple computer algorithm would be able to accomplish this easily. After all, the registrar gets all of the grading information for every class. So it would not be very computationally expensive at all to figure out where you stand in every class. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Difficulty of grading doesn’t necessarily mean difficulty of classes, it means difficult of how the classes were graded. There’s a big difference and you don’t reflect that in your post.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I disagree. Difficulty of grading is inherently wrapped into difficulty of the class. After all, think of it this way. Any class can assign all manners of readings and assignments and all of that other stuff, and basically want you to study for hours on end. But the real question is, what if you don't do it? If you don't do all of that stuff and you get a high grade anyway, then really, the class isn't difficult at all. Sure, maybe the assignments and readings would have been difficult if you had chosen to do them, but if students know that you don't really have to do that work and can still get a good grade anyway, then the class is easy. </p>

<p>
[quote]
At what level would kicking them out violate your views of what Berkeley should do for its students? Only when the humanities got to the level of about where engineering is in your view?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't claim to know where the optimal point is. That is an empirical question. What I do know, and I think you would agree, is that we are clearly not at the optimal point right now. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And guess what, what about the sports players and other groups who depend on easier classes and majors. This will politically conflict with your plan (as will the lowest % getting academic probation). It’s not going to change that much. You aren’t going to see Berkeley turn into Stanford or an Ivy league school with regards to sports and the average academics of their athletes- while some athletes here are strong, some amazingly so, I’m talking about the percentage is not that impressive, whatever that is.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then that means that Berkeley sports will simply have to do a better job of recruiting the better athletes. Look, it is simply embarrassing that a school of such a high caliber of academics could have had major scandals in both football and basketball in the last decade, both of which resulted in serious sanctions and penalties. How many other universities have had both their football and basketball programs put on probation in the last decade? I might expect that from one of those other schools that are far better known for sports than for academics. But come on, this is Berkeley. Berkeley is supposed to be an academics-first school. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I am often irritated by your general “call to action” of sorts, your “if you don’t want to make things better, just say so.” Just because someone doesn’t want to change things in the particular way you want to does not mean that they don’t want to make things better. However, you often conclude this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wait a minute, now. I never said that I had all of the answers or that every one of my proposals is right. I have always agreed that my proposals are just that - proposals - and need to be properly vetted for costs and benefits. I freely concede that other people may have proposals that are better than mine. </p>

<p>But at least I am offering proposals. Plenty of other people don't even do that. But that's not what concerns me. Not everybody has to spend their time coming up with proposals. What does concern me is those people who don't WANT there to be any proposals. Basically, I am convinced that these people just don't want Berkeley to get better. In other words, they are trying to actively block reforms. That's a problem.</p>

74

<p>Good idea with the median grade attached, Im taking a chemistry course at a community college, and it is flippin hard. Last semester, one student had an A, 2 Bs, and like 2 Ds, the rest failed (and are retaking it in my class this semester), he is a very good teacher, has a good educational philosophy, but Ill be lucky to get a B or a C, nobody is going to know how much I put into this class at a community college. but me. I think the median grade idea would clarify this, and give admissions a better way of calculating the students potential.</p>

75

<p>What...The...Effff....</p>

76

<p>A couple of random comments:
-I've flunked one class at Cal, and that class was English 1A (NP). Back in college, a 5-page paper on literature was a truly monumental task for me. I've had a fairly easy time with the engineering prereqs, by and large. It's false to assume that humanities are less challenging, they might be if you start with a pretty skilled student. English 1A is not necessarily easier than Math 1A or Physics 7A. For me, it actually was much, much harder.</p>

<p>-Grade inflation at Cal exists in the sciences too. When you talk about students not being able to make a 2.0 cutoff in engineering, you are only talking about something like 5% of the CoE... It is not unreasonable to flunk out the bottom 20th of a class. It keeps half of the students honest and provides extra motivaton. Ideally though, I would like to see that % a little smaller, like maybe 2-3%.</p>

<p>-Cal Athletics have been remarkably solid in terms of academic achievements. Football for instance is second to none there, all the players are either graduating or going to the NFL for the last two years. Stanford admits better student-athletes out of HS, but once those players are in college, they loaf (~95% of their student body has GPAs over 3.0) Our players have to work their butts off in order to survive. As well, we're far more ambitious as far as football is concerned, Tedford is building a national championship-caliber program and his might be the only program with true academic aspirations.</p>

77

<p>Take a look at these Stanford grades for a Diff Eqs class:
<a href="http://math.stanford.edu/%7Evakil/034/grades.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/034/grades.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>7 A+'s out of 24 students. Lowest grade a C+. No wonder Stanford students get the competitive edge in grad school admissions.</p>

78

<p>"Only" 14 As out of 24? this must be one of the tougher curves at the farm...</p>

79

<p>From what I've heard it's quite typical.</p>

<p>Too bad grad schools don't know how to tell, or just don't care about the difference.</p>