<p>People learn by doing. Smaller class sizes = better interaction, less anti-social behavior (beacuse not everyone is annonymous to each other), and better testing (since there are only 1 or 2 gsi's usually, the more students, the less they are able to grade).</p>
<p>Learn to properly express your damn opinions. </p>
<p>The kind of learning you just described-"by doing," comes in small discussions/labs. Not in huge lectures. It is therefore irrelevant to complaing of the huge "classes" (which MUST be lectures, since only lectures are huge.)</p>
<p>On personal attentiong in discussion/labs: </p>
<p>Most discussions (the vast majority) of discussions/labs at Berkeley are led by GSIs---brilliant professors-in-training who are usually very good at clarifying concepts. If you don't feel that you're getting your money's worth out of your GSIs, it's your fault. Those people are paid thousands of dollars a semester to be your personal tutor. If they refuse to help you (give you "personal attention,") you could potentially get them "fired." (Has happened before.) Don't let GSIs steal your money.</p>
<p>Discussions/labs NOT led by GSIs: </p>
<p>These are most common in upper-div humanities. In these, you can't complain of not getting personal attention since most students do not talk in discussion and if you do, you get plenty of attention and the professor will most certainly (usually) remember your name. </p>
<p>Bottom line: </p>
<p>It is a myth that most students do not get enough personal attention at Berkeley. See these link::</p>
<p>"84.3 percent of Cal students in a massive annual survey declared themselves "somewhat" to "very" satisfied with their overall academic experience at Berkeley."</p>
<p>"82.6 percent were equally happy about their cultural and life experience, and 86.4 percent were satisfied or very satisfied with their overall UC experience."</p>
<p>Generic polls don't reveal anything, and they certainly don't offer support for your points.</p>
<p>And if you learned how to read it wouldn't be a problem.</p>
<p>And lectures do matter, if the class is large professors usually have fewer assignments and ways to practice. I don't what you're talking about lab and discussion, my points all remain intact whether you have discussion or not. </p>
<p>As I said student interaction matters, and you don't get that at Berkeley. Now if you're in the average of berkeley you won't notice because everyone is about equally dumb as you, especially if you're all a product of the california school system. So whatever, I'm sure most californians won't notice because their lost in their own little world, so greatestyen is right there.</p>
<p>And you can bite me you fobby idiot.</p>
<p>Polite Antagonis: I went to Haas for my MBA, I was undeclared as undergrad and engineer afterwards. Ironically, the MBA experience at Cal is very intimate, much more so than at say Harvard or Penn. </p>
<p>None of my friends at Cal had the same complaints as yours, and that was from a very wide range of majors (history, english, econ, geography, architecture, psych, chem,...) There are two cutthroat majors on campus though, EECS and premed, but that's more because of the mindset and culture of the students within those majors than the school itself.</p>
<p>The size downside is managable. the upside is great. If you end up at a small private regional school like Emory, you will be in a much narrower setting and never have the kind of stimulating environment (at all levels) that you would find at Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Generic polls don't reveal anything, and they certainly don't offer support for your points.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. </p>
<p>In summary: </p>
<p>You: Don't go to Cal, you'll hate it. </p>
<p>Me: Wait a second, most students don't hate Cal-so I should let the OP know that statistically speaking, most students are quite happy at Cal and in no way hate it as PA does (for I think s/he overgeneralizes s/her bad experience with Cal.) </p>
<p>Granted, many many many students did not take the survey, but socially speaking, few humans would turn down the opportunity to bash something they hate. And we all get emails asking us to fill out the survey.</p>
<p>Once again, I already pointed out when you actually showed the comprehensive poll, there were actually many students dissatisfied with CAl which ranged from 15-40% on various things.</p>
<p>Obviously if you post an article that is on the berkeley website it will be very pro-cal and be biased.</p>
<p>I'm just telling people here to keep in mind that there is another side to Cal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Once again, I already pointed out when you actually showed the comprehensive poll, there were actually many students dissatisfied with CAl which ranged from 15-40% on various things.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, first of all, the quotes I used explicitly acknowledged the existance of a range of satisfaction with Cal. So here's what I have to say to that: </p>
<p>
[quote]
if you learned how to read it wouldn't be a problem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm just telling people here to keep in mind that there is another side to Cal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said there wasn't a negative aspect to the Cal experience. What I said was that you blow it out of proportion. The problems are definetly there, but the vast majority of students do not think of them as problems and are apparently willing to live with them and be happy as they do it. </p>
<p>(Thanks for deleting the "Think whatever you want you tool" comment, by the way. Almost like it never happened ;) )</p>
<p>
[quote]
The kind of learning you just described-"by doing," comes in small discussions/labs. Not in huge lectures. It is therefore irrelevant to complaing of the huge "classes" (which MUST be lectures, since only lectures are huge.)</p>
<p>On personal attentiong in discussion/labs: </p>
<p>Most discussions (the vast majority) of discussions/labs at Berkeley are led by GSIs---brilliant professors-in-training who are usually very good at clarifying concepts. If you don't feel that you're getting your money's worth out of your GSIs, it's your fault. Those people are paid thousands of dollars a semester to be your personal tutor. If they refuse to help you (give you "personal attention,") you could potentially get them "fired." (Has happened before.) Don't let GSIs steal your money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, no, this sort of reasoning I don't buy. </p>
<p>You said it yourself - learning by doing is best done in smaller settings. Yet the fact is, most such small discussion sections are led, as you pointed out, by GSI's. While GSI's are clearly sharp, they aren't professors. Let's face it. You came to Berkeley to interact with professors, not GSI's. </p>
<p>Think of it this way. Particularly in the sciences and engineering, you stand the chance of getting a GSI who is a foreign national and so whose English skills are quite poor. It is certainly extremely frustrating to get a GSI who you simply can't understand. I've had that experience, and it's a painful one. </p>
<p>Nor is it akways a simple matter of getting GSI's "fired". Yes, you can give a bad GSI low teaching ratings. Yet the fact is, many departments at Berkeley require that their graduate students teach as a condition of their graduation. Many of them don't really want to teach, but have to do it in order to fulfill their program requirements. If you happen to get a bad GSI who has never taught before, he has no track record of bad teaching. Even giving him bad ratings still means that you as an undergrad had to suffer from bad teaching during that semester. Furthermore, if he is required to teach 2 semesters (quite common in many departments), then the depatment is going to give hiim a 2nd assignment to teach no matter how bad his teaching ratings were during his 1st assignment. That's just the nature of the game. After all, how many graduate students will be barred from completing their program just for bad teaching ratings? I would say that it's probably close to zero. </p>
<p>
[quote]
These are most common in upper-div humanities. In these, you can't complain of not getting personal attention since most students do not talk in discussion and if you do, you get plenty of attention and the professor will most certainly (usually) remember your name.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I take you on your word that what you are saying is true in the upper-div humanities. But even if it is, that means that many of the science and engineering students are not getting personal attention. And as we all know, a significant fraction of the Berkeley population consists of science and engineering students. </p>
<p>Which leads to an interesting question - why should the humanities students be given a personal education, but not the science/engineering students? After all, you're both paying the same tuition, and humanities and science students both got admitted in the same admissions process (and engineering students actually got admitted in a tougher process). So why should the humanities students get a more personal education than the science/engineering students? What makes the humanities students so special? It seems to me that what Berkeley should do is take away resources from the humanities departments in order to devote more resources to the science/engineering departments.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with your additional comments on GSIs. Foreign nationals are a definete problem for the undergrads in science fields. No clue how to fix it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
why should the humanities students be given a personal education, but not the science/engineering students?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hm, I'm not sure about the "should" part of the question, but I can definetely explain why it happens. It's because the upper-div humanities subject matter is so extensive and impossible to cram into a single class or textbook. You yourself have said that physics is the same whether at Berkeley or at no-name-school. The same is just not true of upper-div humanities because those classes are usually not offered at no-name school. For example, very few schools offer courses in...I don't know, cuneiform. Berkeley does. But hardly any student is interested in learning it, even at Berkeley. So what you get is one faculty member teaching a couple of student for hours on end. Yeah it may be unfair when you're talking tuition issues. But how else would you do it? Few people want to learn cuneiform but, at least in my book, it's important that somebody does.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems to me that what Berkeley should do is take away resources from the humanities departments in order to devote more resources to the science/engineering departments.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"lol"? </p>
<p>Are you insane? Then Berkeley would cease to be a uni-versity. (United Truth, I think.) It's not like theres many "resources" to take away from the humanites, either...and such a proposal would never make it through any legislative body....since most of those people are humanites graduates....</p>
<p>And yes, what I said about upper-div discussion sections in the humanities is perfectly true. I'm in 4 classes that have it in three different departments.</p>
<p>p.s. there are simply too many humanities departments for there NOT to be personal attention given to the undergrads in them. In my opinion, these departments have the right to exist, since each deals with a specialized section (or specialized "way") or studying "the humanities" and thus contribute to knowledge.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"lol"? </p>
<p>Are you insane? Then Berkeley would cease to be a uni-versity. (United Truth, I think.) It's not like theres many "resources" to take away from the humanites, either...and such a proposal would never make it through any legislative body....since most of those people are humanites graduates....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha! I don't think that it is insane. Again, it comes down to equitable fairness. You say that Berkeley should offer classes on cuneiform because somebody wants to study it. But don't you see what the implication of that is? Setting up a class for one person, or even a handful of people, takes up academic resources, of which there are only a finite amount at any school. So why should state resources and tuition money be used to prop up a class that only a few people are interested in, when perfectly worthy people are clamoring to switch majors into, say, the EECS program, but are not being allowed to get in? It seems to me that it would be a more optimal use of resources to shut down that small cuneiform class and use those resources to create more seats in EECS. </p>
<p>
[quote]
p.s. there are simply too many humanities departments for there NOT to be personal attention given to the undergrads in them. In my opinion, these departments have the right to exist, since each deals with a specialized section (or specialized "way") or studying "the humanities" and thus contribute to knowledge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's where the fundamental disagreement lies. Now it comes down to a use of state taxpayer money as well as student tuition dollars. Why should taxpayer and tuition money be used to support a bunch of small humanities departments with small classes when the engineering school and the Haas School have far more demand than they can handle? It seems to me that Berkeley should reallocate resources in the face of student demand. Programs should not be offered based on "rights to exist", they should be offered or not offered based on whether enough demand exists for them to justify their costs. </p>
<p>Let me turn the situation around. Right now, plenty of Berkeley students want to study in the Haas School, and can't get in. Plenty of Berkeley students try to transfer into engineering, and are denied. Plenty of Berkeley students try to get into an impacted major such as computer science or economics, and are denied. Why? It seems to me that while many of these vaunted humanities departments of which you speak have a lot of excess capacity, a lot of other Berkeley are being turned away from the majors that they really want. How do you justify that? </p>
<p>The point is, Berkeley as a institution ought to optimize the allocation of resources to maximize the total experience for all of its students. It's sad enough to see somebody who is in L&S and got, say, a 3.3 GPA in prereq Mechanical Engineering classes that he is not going to be allowed to switch into ME because there just aren't enough spaces for him and so he will have to major in something else, as happened to a guy I know. His grades indicate that he is good enough to do the work for the major (you only need a 3.5 to graduate with distinction from the College of Engineering, and he had a 3.3 in the lower division). But he's not being allowed in because there isn't enough space for everyone, and the department decided to admit people who did better than he did. At the same time, many humanities departments have plenty of excess capacity. Wouldn't that indicate that the humanities departments should reduce their capacity so that the engineering department should add capacity? That's basic operations management. In other words, Berkeley should devote less financial resources to the humanities departments and more to the engineering departments. The humanities departments should hire less professors so that the engineering departments can hire more. The humanities departments should give up some classrooms and perhaps some buildings to the engineering departments. </p>
<p>It's really about optimizing yourself to accomodate what the students want. If Apple discovers that lots of customers really want Ipod Nano but not the Ipod Shuffle, then Apple should produce more Nano's and less Shuffle's, meaning that Apple should shut down some of the production lines that are manufacturing Shuffles and retool them to produce Nano's. Again, that's basic operations management. You have to produce what the customers want or you will not be a successful business. The same is true of education services - if a lot of students want to study engineering and less want to study cuneiform, then the answer is to put more resources into engineering and less into cuneiform.</p>
<p>Very unlikely? Perhaps, for political reasons. But then, that just becomes another example of Berkeley's problems. </p>
<p>But very radical? Uh, this is just basic operations management 101. Any factory manager, production manager, or warehouse manager - heck, any business manager at all - would understand what I am saying in an instant. Every organization has a finite set of resources, and your job is to optimize the use of those resources to serve your customers/users as much as you can. You don't just leave large quantities of available capacity unused in one area, while being overbooked in another area. For example, if you're an airline with 2 airplanes, you don't fly one airplane only half-full while having the other airplane overbooked. </p>
<p>The key problem is this. You say that if I shut down the cuneiform classes, I would be hurting those students that want to study cuneiform. True. But the present setup also hurts plenty of students, in particular, those students who want to get into an impacted major and are denied. The optimal configuration would be one that hurts the least students. I think it is clear that we are far from the optimal configuration.</p>
<p>Upon first reading your post, I found myself convinced. </p>
<p>But on second though: huh? </p>
<p>You're engineering-centeredness is sickening. Not only is there more demand for humanities, as you yourself said, that justifies more personal attention in humanities, but there is far more demand for life sciences than there is for transfer into engineering. If anything, engineering should give up some of its resources and give them to the life sciences, which overall, are the academically worst category at Berkeley.</p>
<p>You also claimed that humanities departments should give up building space for engineering. Why? What space? Dwinelle and Wheeler? (Two buildings which could never house labs.) Engineering has an entire corner of the campus and separate buildings for its sub-departments. You want to talk fair? Then make a building for each humanities department.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Any factory manager, production manager, or warehouse manager - heck, any business manager at all - would understand what I am saying in an instant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't say I didn't understand it. I did say it was sane (logical.) But I was having a stupid moment at the time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're engineering-centeredness is sickening. Not only is there more demand for humanities, as you yourself said, that justifies more personal attention in humanities, but there is far more demand for life sciences than there is for transfer into engineering. If anything, engineering should give up some of its resources and give them to the life sciences, which overall, are the academically worst category at Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I was just using engineering as an EXAMPLE. Engineering just happens to consist of a bunch of majors that have been CONSISTENTLY impacted for at least a decade, and probably for several decades. </p>
<p>However, the real point is that Berkeley should be constantly optimizing its resources to service the demand of its users, just like any other well-functioning business does. This is true not only of engineering, but of all of the impacted majors - business administration, economics, computer science, psychology, etc. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Not only is there more demand for humanities,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, right there that's irrelevant. The issue is not about the absolute level of demand, but rather about how much demand there is for a major, compared to the capacity within that major. In other words, the levels of oversubscription. Why is it fair that humanities has enough resources to handle its demand, but the economics department apparently does not? That Haas apparently does not? Why? </p>
<p>
[quote]
You also claimed that humanities departments should give up building space for engineering. Why? What space? Dwinelle and Wheeler? (Two buildings which could never house labs.) Engineering has an entire corner of the campus and separate buildings for its sub-departments. You want to talk fair? Then make a building for each humanities department
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And how is THAT fair? We're not really talking about mediating between different departments. We're really talking about mediating for STUDENT DEMAND. If lots of students want to study engineering, then more resources should be poured into engineering. If lots of students want to study economics, then more resources should be poured into the economics department. At the same time, those departments that have excess capacity (as in too few students) should be forced to give up resources. You can't just hog excess capacity that you're not using. For example, if you as a Cuneiform department have capacity for 100 students, but you are only serving 50, and the Economics department has capacity for 200 students, but 250 students want to major in economics, then the fair thing to happen is for the Cuneiform department to hand over its excess capacity to the Economics department. It is clearly suboptimal for the Cuneiform department to keep its extra capacity while forcing the Economics department to turn away 50 students.</p>
<p>The point is, academic resources have to be shifted to whatever the student demand says it should be shifted to. Just like Apple's production capacity shifts to whatever the customers want. If customers want lots of Nanos but fewer Shuffles, then Apple should respond by shutting down production lines for Shuffles and converting them to produce Nanos. </p>
<p>If it turns out that humanities departments become impacted and the engineering school has extra capacity, then the engineering school should be forced to turn over its excess capacity to the humanities department. This idea has nothing to do with "engineering-centeredness". It has to do with "impacted-centeredness". Problems of impaction should be fixed, wherever they are.</p>
<p>As a case in point, no university is static. All universities expand and contract capacity in their programs all the time. For example, 40 years ago, Berkeley didn't even have a Computer Science department. No school did. Berkeley and many other schools created CS departments in response to student demand. Students wanted to study CS, so the schools responded. At the same time, Berkeley also used to have undergraduate programs in Earth Resources Engineering, Petroleum Engineering, and Mining Engineering. In fact, that's why that turnaround near the engineering school is called the "Hearst Mining Circle". Berkeley used to have highly prominent mining-related undergraduate programs. Not anymore. Why? Again, student demand. Fewer Berkeley undergrads wanted to study mining, so Berkeley shut these programs down to reallocate the resources to things that students did want to study (like CS). That's the way it should be - you reduce capacity (and eventually shut down) programs that are losing popularity in order to devote more resources to expand capacity in those programs that are gaining in popularity. How can you justify Berkeley continuing to devote resources to Mining Engineering when students don't want to study it, when at the same time, students are clamoring to get into some other major and are being denied?</p>
<p>The point is, it's not that I am the one who is saying that resources should be allocated away from certain majors. It's the STUDENTS who are saying it, through where they choose to enroll. In effect, everytime a student majors, or tries to major in something, that's a vote for that major. The more 'votes' you get, the more resources you should get. That's how Berkeley can dynamically adjust itself to meet shifts in student demand. If all of a sudden, Film Studies becomes the next hot new trend and it becomes oversubscribed, then Berkeley should devote more resources to Film Studies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, the real point is that Berkeley should be constantly optimizing its resources to service the demand of its users, just like any other well-functioning business does. This is true not only of engineering, but of all of the impacted majors - business administration, economics, computer science, psychology, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You basically want to turn Cal into a high-end vocational school. Horrible idea.</p>
<p>Perhaps the best approach here is to admit fewer prospective EEs, premeds, undergrad Bus Ads, and more well-rounded students who will be into cuneiform. Just take the best couple hundred EEs, EEs, premeds, undergrad and Bus Ads and send the rest to other UCs.</p>
<p>UCLA only has 30 students in its film program, it could take 1,000.</p>
<p>One of the biggest problems at Cal (if not the biggest) is the shortsighted approach to college that about half of the student body has coming in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You basically want to turn Cal into a high-end vocational school. Horrible idea.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who said that? I want to turn Cal into a school where students are allowed to major in whatever they want to major in. The idea of impacted majors is simply abhorrent. Students shouldn't have to take a bunch of prereq courses in their first few semesters so that they MIGHT get into a major they want, but with the chance that they won't and end up having to major in something they don't really want to major in. It would be far more efficient if Berkeley optimized the use of its resources so that everybody who wanted to study a major could do so. Why should some majors have extra capacity when other majors are turning students away? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Just take the best couple hundred EEs, EEs, premeds, undergrad and Bus Ads and send the rest to other UCs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This would not solve the problem in the least, for most of the same majors are impacted at all of the UC's. For example, you say that you only accept a couple hundred EE's to Berkeley. Ok, so where do the rest go? As far as I know, EE at every other UC is impacted. What about bus-ad? Berkeley is the only UC that has an undergrad business major.</p>
<p>So your implementation of the plan is to basically prevent people from studying these majors at all. Yet that is precisely what is happening now. You cut out all these Berkeley busad students by telling them to go to some other UC to study busad, but the problem is, there is no other UC at which you can study busad. In other words, they don't get to study it at a UC at all. How is that any different from what happens now? </p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLA only has 30 students in its film program, it could take 1,000.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yep, and that's EXACTLY the problem. Engineering at UCLA is impacted too. So is business economics. So why doesn't the film program give up resources for 900 seats so that engineering and bus-econ can create more seats? Why should the film program be allowed to hog resources it isn't using? That's just simply mean-spirited. You're not using the resources, but you don't want anybody else to use it either. Hence, you'd rather see it getting wasted rather than used by somebody else.</p>
<p>Sakky, UCR has an undergraduate business programs, and a few other UCs have business-like emphases in economics or other fields. </p>
<p>What if the school's program wants to remain exlucsive? What if they know that by allowing fewer people to do business, or engineering, the degree is more meaningful, and they can better educate those in the program?</p>
<p>Do you really think that the sciences and engineering are underfunded compared to the humanities? Is part of the reason that certain programs are dropped not also because of what the school or various deparments or colleges decide? If the CoE wanted these specialty mining engineering fields to stay, they would, even with just a few students. How should money be allocated, on a student to student basis by department? And who said that the film program isn't using the resources?</p>
<p>The bus ad and engineering depts at Cal already are huge. And frankly, an undergraduate Bus Ad major is IMHO a terrible waste of a college career and a high-end vocational school education. Cal should compete with liberal art college to draw more students who are interested in acquiring a real college education. Only a certain amount of students intending to major in the above should be admitted. The rest should go elsewhere.</p>
<p>A lot of the humanities dept at Cal are already short-funded aas it is.</p>