<p>Yes, obviously. I wouldn’t claim something so ridiculous. I wish I could, but I think it isn’t humanly possible. What blueducky implied that I claimed, which was correct, was that I think there are plenty of students who are just mediocre-poor students who come to UCB because it’s the best name school they got into. And I think cutting out a lot of the fat at Berkeley isn’t a bad idea. Now, I don’t hate human beings or something, I just prioritize conditions inside the school over this idea of educating the masses. I am seeing a problem inside the school, and it’s large enough that I don’t think going under this “educate the masses” camp acknowledges there’s a problem. I’m not saying to admit only Caltech-caliber students to UCB, after all. I’m just saying there are definitive problems with the school which seem to be related to overcrowding, and it doesn’t seem like a little cleaning would be out of order.</p>
I partially understand where you are coming from. Your undertitle says you are from San Diego, and San Diego is famous for the biotech companies that employ many organic principles. I could imagine growing up in an environment that promotes organic chemistry (Scripps Research Institute + UCSD + biotech). I didn’t mean to say I don’t enjoy organic chemistry – I just enjoy the other sub disciplines more because they are more complex, in my opinion.
Precisely. I believe many of these schools have financial structures that heavily depend on their business school, law school, sports programs, medical school, and other professional programs. These are the “money making” programs because they make money off the tuition/sports and their alumni tend to give back the most money since these alumni make the most money with their professional degrees.</p>
<p>However, private schools don’t have the money from the state. I don’t know how much the state money compares to the private funding, but I do know that the state money is more diluted at UC’s because there are simply so many undergraduates.</p>
<p>Mathboy – Actually, I don’t really have much of an opinion on what the UC system should do. I am just interested in understanding the philosophy behind the UC educational system; I don’t necessarily agree with it. You are correct in my overall point about “education to the masses”.</p>
<p>I don’t believe it’s what UCB necessarily wants. I think there are pressures from the state to keep it the way it is. Large donors at private schools get to have some say on how the school should run. I imagine a similar thing occurs with the UC’s and the state of California, but the state has much more power. I don’t think the state can force this kind of thing on the graduate level, though.
What I posted earlier is what I think the UC’s intention is. This year in particular – I think there was a conscious decision in increasing/maintaining the rate of admission despite the economic woes. There’s something to be said for that, and I believe it has something to do with their overall philosophy. </p>
<p>I also believe there’s a problem with overcrowding. My reasoning for not liking overcrowding is different than your reasoning, though.</p>
<p>My educational philosophy is actually very different than what I post here. I avoid posting my own philosophy because it’s an extremely inefficient route and I would never want anyone to follow it.</p>
<p>SDTB: Yes, I won’t deny that SD and my dad heavily influenced me. A lot of the internship I did (at UCSD and other biotech companies) really spurred my interest in that area. I suppose that interest shifts at Berkeley, esp since its located near the Silicon Valley. but overall, its just a personal preferance. They both have many great and useful applications. </p>
<p>“However, private schools don’t have the money from the state. I don’t know how much the state money compares to the private funding, but I do know that the state money is more diluted at UC’s because there are simply so many undergraduates.”</p>
<p>Yeah, totally true. Don’t forget that UCs also have to keep the tuition at ~$8,000 for all state students, regardless of need, whereas private universities have no such obligation. The problem at UCs really came from lack of funding. I don’t know if this is true but I do feel that there is little to no presence of benevolent alumni donations at Berkeley, and that could fundamentally hurt the fundings and quality of undergrad programs emensely, especially given that UCB’s undergrad class is very large. I really think Berkeley should target students who show potential of becoming CEOs and world leaders and such. It could potentially strengthen the alumni association and bring in more funding. With more funding, maybe the school could hire more professors who would be “good teachers” so that the not so stellar students would have more chances of passing? That should improve the conditions within school and possibly achieve this goal of “educating the masses” without having to flunk many out. But maybe I’m being too idealistic and was oversimplifying things…:)</p>
<p>I was at a meeting with the Dean of Student Affairs a couple months ago where we were discussing the effect of budget cuts on students services. One issue we brought up was how can we increase outside funding, including alumni funding. The dean told us that because Berkeley’s alumni association was a such a powerful, independent association it is hard to get money from them and the money the often pledge generally has a specific puropose such as scholarships for certain groups of students. Furthermore, because Berkeley is such a large school, a lot of alumni feel a certain sense of detachment that after they graduate they do not donate. In fact, he told us that most donors were part of the greek system during their time here and somehow being part of the greek system made these alumni feel more tied to the school. In light of this, I don’t think it is about targeting certain students who have special potential but rather foraging a bond between all students on campus (besides drunken parties and such). As for strengthening ties with the alumni association, that’s easier said then done because the alumni association is so fiercely proud of its independence from the university.</p>
<p>Berkeley is first and foremost a research university. Educating undergraduates is more of a second priority. Hiring people who are “good teachers” could hurt Berkeley’s research potential somewhat since to hire the “good teacher” you may not be able to hire the “good researcher” and that research capability is what brings in money for the university from the government and private companies. I’ll give you a good example I had a professor last semester that I absolutely hated because she taught us material that my upper classman friends told me they were just learning in their classes while I was still a freshman while telling us the questions we asked in class were trivial. She was a terrible teacher, but at the same time she found a way for make the cells in an old mouse become young again and I can’t help but admire her for that. Sure she’s a terrible teacher, but she has a patent for an amazing technology that can turn old cells back into young cells. I can’t imagine what a loss it would have been for the university to have passed her up to hire a “good teacher” professor, especially since a “good teacher” professor may not be a good researcher. A school like Berkeley cares more about professors who are innovative and can do research, and sometimes these people can’t teach or don’t care to teach well, but I don’t think there will be a day that the university will put being a “good teacher” above being a “good researcher.”</p>
<p>Dill, that is rather unfortunate I’m gonna try to change that one day :)! Although it would be no easy feat mobilizing that large, powerful and independent association. I just think that they are practicing this idea of elitism, only targeting students they deem special as if spending on the money on not so great student is a waste of money, but in the end, it hurts those privileged students as well. Of course, it’s their money; they are free to do whatever they want with it, but I can’t help but have wishful thoughts. </p>
<p>Hmmm, I’m aware of that the focus is on graduate school. But couldn’t Berkeley hire both? What I mean is if they get adequate funding to by both so those research profs won’t have to teach much at all? Or will extra funding (if we do get them) be always allotted to the graduate programs? So were the less qualified students basically doomed from the day they pressed the button to accept Berkeley’s offer? Could taking initiatives still save them? That would depend on how good and accessible the GSIs and the tutoring program in general. Can you tell me?</p>
<p>I’m definitely going to try to change things. At this point, I think the best bet is the alumni; increase funds, get more Profs who would teach majority of the lower division classes to set up a solid foundation for upper division classes. I’ll really try to think of something…and with some help, I really hope we can change the status quo…</p>
<p>Seriously, let’s get to ducky’s question. I think we’ve all reached a consensus on the problems of a Berkeley education. There’s no point arguing over the problem if we don’t get to the solution.</p>
<p>Well, a nice solution to the teaching issue would be to entirely eliminate the ridiculous trend of the most brilliant professors teaching lower division classes. Sure, sometimes you get good professors who care about their students, but more often than not, these professors just want to research. Having postdocs, or even grad students, teach courses like Math 1AB probably would make things better. Those who really want to have the best math professors (for instance) probably should major in math and take higher level classes, where I propose the most talented professors should teach, so that students expecting to go forth in their math (insert any other field) careers can more easily meet them. </p>
<p>The reason famous professors teach intro classes, I believe, is that the largest population of undergrads takes them, and perhaps Berkeley is trying to market the fact that “Oh look! Richard Borcherds is teaching your student! He’s a Fields Medalist, and one of the biggest math geniuses in the planet!” I don’t know how good Borcherds is as a teacher, but the problem would certainly be solved if we could pick professors to teach intro classes based on teaching ability, and pick professors to teach higher level classes based on organization and brilliance as minds of the given field.</p>
<p>And my only solution to overcrowding is, quite frankly, to admit fewer students. I think we admit a ridiculously high number of students as is, and it definitely isn’t out of order to admit fewer, even if we still admit many students after the cleaning!!</p>
<p>I would argue that that’s a deliberately cold way of delivering an education: to intentionally admit more people than you know are going to make it. </p>
<p>Look, this wouldn’t be a problem if those who didn’t make it weren’t hurt by the experience. If I move to Hollywood to try to make it as an actor and fail miserably in all my auditions, oh well, who cares? I just move on to some other career. Nobody is going to hold those auditions against me. But that is not true in academia. If your go to a college and flunk out, your academic transcript is marred. Forever. No decent school is going to want to admit a transfer student who flunked out of his previous school. Every grad program is going to demand to know every school you attended, including the ones you flunked out of, and they can and will hold that fact against you. </p>
<p>One possibly remedy which I have advocated on other threads is that Berkeley should simply seal all the grades of those students who flunked out. After all, if the guy isn’t going to graduate from Berkeley anyway, who cares what his Berkeley grades were? Just pretend as if he was never a registered student at all, and let him move on with his life with a clean slate. However, I’m rather pessimistic as to whether that would actually work, particularly with grad school admissions, as many grad schools will demand that you submit full information on your entire academic career, including information that is supposedly sealed. {For example, Johns Hopkins Medical School demands that MIT premeds reveal their freshmen letter grades despite the fact that MIT school-wide policy supposedly conceals them via a P/NR system.} Hence, the fact that the system will hold academic failure against you implies that schools should not admit students who they can reasonably predict are going to fail. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that we would not be denying any of these students admission to college. They would still go to college…just not at Berkeley. Instead, they would be attending a college at which they are more likely to succeed. Graduating from UCRiverside is far better than flunking out of Berkeley. Furthermore, those students would still have a shot at going to Berkeley via the transfer system. If you go to UCR and do very well, then I have no problem with having that student apply to transfer to Berkeley. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reason why Berkeley is competitive is because it admits many relatively subpar students. In fact, that is the ‘hidden agenda’ that many Berkeley profs implement: they argue that they can’t raise grading standards because many of the students simply aren’t that good. By removing those students, you would be taking that argument from the profs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No school will have a 100% retention rate, nor should it try. I have no problem with those who drop out of college voluntarily and in good academic standing because they found something more important to do, such as Bill Gates. </p>
<p>The problem is with those students who are dismissed involuntarily, which practically never happens at Stanford. Heck, it wasn’t that long ago when official Stanford policy actually prohibited the F grade, and even now, the F grade is practically never given. Practically nobody at Stanford is actually involuntarily dismissed for poor academic performance. The same cannot be said for Berkeley. </p>
<p>Secondly, I don’t see why it is so outrageous for a “public” school to run supremely tight admissions. Again, that is precisely what Berkeley does right now in its graduate programs, particularly its PhD programs. Those programs certainly don’t follow the philosophy of providing as many places as they can. They admit only the very best applicants in the world. Yet those PhD programs are all “public” in the sense that they take taxpayer funding. </p>
<p>Secondly, while one might argue that it may be the job of the UC system to provide as many places as possible, that isn’t the same thing as saying that it is the job of Berkeley to do so. After all, Berkeley is the top campus in the UC system. Nobody has a right to go to Berkeley. Those who are UC-eligible are perfectly free to go to UCMerced or UCRiverside. But it’s not the job of Berkeley to pick up the slack. In fact, the whole point of having a multi-campus UC system is to have a spectrum of different schools with different admissions criteria, and those who aren’t good enough to go to Berkeley still have the choice of a lower UC. Those students who flunked out of Berkeley would have been better off if they had gone to an easier school.</p>
<p>Yeah, this is exactly my view. I think what we’re arriving at is that Berkeley runs its academics at a very high level, and there are simply too many students admitted who aren’t that great. I also, frankly, think there are some huge flaws in that some very good students get rejected from Berkeley, when much poorer ones make it in. Sure, all schools have some of this going on, but that doesn’t stop my being adamant that it shouldn’t be happening. I see the difference painfully when I sit in some random breadth class, as opposed to when I hang out with math students. Why do these people have to go to Berkeley??? They could do the same things they’re doing elsewhere. Of course, I feel this about some of the math department too.</p>
<p>Another major flaw with Berkeley admissions (on a different note, I guess) seems to be that students from a very competitive, good school seem to be at a disadvantage. Only the best students from these schools end up getting into Berkeley, and a lot of the worst applicants from those schools are actually pretty good.</p>
<p>And they would still get to go to good colleges. All of the UC schools are good schools. Even the worst UC (probably UCMerced) is still one of the best public schools in the country. Heck, even the worst CalState is still probably within the top half of all of the 2700 colleges in the country. </p>
<p>Furthermore, like I said, those students would still have a shot at Berkeley. If you go to Merced or a CalState and do very well, you can apply to transfer to Berkeley. You can also apply to Berkeley for graduate school. Your chances of Berkeley are not sundered forever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody is proposing that you will remain at the top of your class. After all, even at Harvard, somebody will have to be in last place.</p>
<p>What we are talking about is whether you will actually be able to graduate, or otherwise remain in good academic standing. Even the students in last place at Harvard will still graduate. Granted, he won’t have great grades, but he will still graduate. But the worst performing students at Berkeley will indeed flunk out. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is hardly humane, if anything it is the exact opposite. Again, you have to ask what happens to those 1/3 of students who don’t make it? Now their academic transcripts are ruined. They can’t transfer to anyplace decent. They will probably never be able to go to grad school, because grad school adcoms will demand to view their entire academic records. They will have difficulty getting future jobs, as many companies will ask in their job application forms whether you had ever been involuntarily dismissed from college. </p>
<p>Let me give you an example. I know one guy who went to Berkeley and flunked out. Now it’s years alter and he wants to go back to college at UCDavis (as he lives in that area now). But he can’t, because Davis won’t admit him because of his poor record at Berkeley. The most ironic and sad part of his story is that if he had never even gone to college at all - i.e. if he had just gone straight to the workforce right after high school - he could have almost certainly gone to UCDavis purely on the strength of his high school record. {Heck, he had already been admitted to Davis out of high school, but chose Berkeley.} But the fact that he went to Berkeley and flunked out has vitiated his strong performance in high school. In other words, he would have been better off not even going to Berkeley at all, for in the world of academia, it’s better to not go at all than to go and flunk out. Sad but true.</p>
<p>That’s the crux of the problem: that academia doesn’t let people try people out, penalty-free. I know some former Cal athletes who tried to make it in the pros yet failed to make any of the teams. No big deal - they just move on to other careers. Nobody says “I see that since you performed poorly in your NFL tryouts, we’re going to punish you by denying you opportunities in other careers.” But that is what happens in academia. For example, just because that guy above performed poorly at Berkeley, now he can’t even go to Davis.</p>
<p>That sounds similar to something that I proposed in another thread.</p>
<p>Guys, as mathboy98 said, you don’t need top research profs to teach all of your lower-division courses. You can get post-docs and grad students who are good at teaching (as evidenced by strong TA ratings). Post-docs are cheap. Grad students are even cheaper. Many of them would surely jump at the chance to be able to run (not just TA, but actually run) a course at Berkeley in order to improve their CV’s, especially for those who are targeting academic job placement at LAC’s. By doing that, you would free up time for research profs to work on what they do best and enjoy - which is research. </p>
<p>To be sure, profs could still teach lower-division courses if they wanted. However, they wouldn’t be forced to do it, especially if we could find a grad student or post-doc with strong teaching ability to do it instead.</p>
<p>You think a sad story like that does not occur at other places? Come on, one example, and you’re blaming the entire UC system for all this. Years of tradition have kept it this way, your friend made a choice (in hindsight, an unwise one at that) and he suffered the consequences. Berkeley’s got its retention/graduation rate posted, maybe he should’ve been more aware? It’s not like him flunking out was due to one class either – he undoubtedly had many opportunities, and quite frankly, he just wasn’t good enough. He should’ve transfered to UCD or wherever BEFORE he accumulated a horrible record.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry UCB can’t afford to be as generous as Harvard with its hand-holding services. UCB simply does not have the resources, due to reasons common to us all. It is a public school, you’re just asking too much of the system, criticizing without proposing any practical solutions. UCB needs to admit a lot of people because it needs the money to keep the school running. More people obviously brings more resources into the school. </p>
<p>Imagine Berkeley reduced to the size of Stanford by upping solely its academic standards, still charging its students a significantly reduced amount of tuition. it would be EVEN WORSE. It all comes down to resources, and Berkeley, unfortunately, falls short there.</p>
<p>The only solution I would see is that UCB admit more out-of-staters, who already are subject to higher academic standards AND have to pay more. But this runs contrary to the UC purpose of serving California residents. Seeing how that is out of the question, our current situation, though not ideal, sure, it is the best we’ve got under the circumstances.</p>
<p>It’s a shame we couldn’t get into a school like Stanford. Best move on and stop complaining about how the system puts us in a “bad” situation. You’re still getting an education, all you have to do is just not flunk out. Just deal as best as you can with the cards you’re dealt. Nothing is really “all bad” or “all good”. Studying in harder will allow you to become a more knowledgeable, persevering person. What’s wrong with that?</p>
<p>I don’t think making UCB as elitist as other institutions is the way to go. By making UCB so big, it creates a lot more opportunity than elite private institutions do. The goal is not to make sure that the good students get even better opportunities, but to level the playing field for all. I am a Regents Scholar here and if what they say is true, I do have a better chance at doing well at Berkeley. However much your proposals may end up helping people like me, I still do not think it fits in with the bigger goal of higher education. Sure, it may help Berkeley’s rankings, make me more proud than I am, etc, but understand that elitist institutions by definition shuts people out. You saying those people should just go to lesser schools is just… ridiculous. Then why doesn’t UC Merced up its standards and so forth? It just creates a useless cycle that keeps people out, creating unnecessary competition for all.</p>
<p>I used to think this too, but Berkeley’s situation in the majority of its overcrowded classes does not make you study harder. It stresses you out. People don’t get the classes they want, etc. The form of challenge offered is just not productive – i.e., making things intrinsically challenging by grading courses that aren’t already at a high level on a difficult scale. I take some very challenging classes too, but mine are challenging because of the level they’re run at, not because the professor has to deflate grades. </p>
<p>I frankly do not believe there is no middle ground between what Harvard does and what Berkeley does.</p>
<p>Are you again referring to your upper level math classes? lol ugh this ****es me off because our school did not offer as much of those so i will have to sit through huge lectures.</p>
<p>The UC’s have plenty of funding, but only for the graduate programs. Their BP grant ($500 mil) was a monumental achievement for Steven Chu + LBNL considering the fierce competition. It is arguable that it was this achievement that primarily helped Steven Chu get his current job as Secretary of Energy. It’s clear that UCB knows how to get money – so what went wrong with the undergraduate system?</p>
<p>Wikipedia claims the UCB’s endowment is ~3 billion and UofMich’s endowment is $7.57 billion, which begs the question: Why? I am willing to bet that the answer has to do with what happens to the donated money. If I were a donator, I would like to have some input as to where my money would be spent. As far as I know, donators do not get this kind of input at a UC. Also, the alumni association is not as closely-knit as other schools, which could be a remnant of the competitive atmosphere at Berkeley - competition generally doesn’t breed long-lasting friendships.</p>
<p>Teaching is a part of the tenure process, and it is considered in the review, ** but I think there’s a huge disconnect between world-renown researchers and 18 year old kids**. To its credit, UC Berkeley does hire lecturers, which are faculty hired to just teach. Graduate students and post-docs are cheap, but they are hired to do research.</p>
<p>Simply hiring good teachers doesn’t imply that a student will have a better chance at passing. Some of my favorite teachers only gave out A’s to 2% of the class. Like others have mentioned earlier, increasing the “pass rate” is simply an administration thing. If the administration enforces a system that encourages students to pass a class (ie. 100% A!), there’s nothing a teacher can do about that and more “not so stellar students” will have more chances at passing.</p>
Why is Berkeley first and foremost a research university? Why is educating undergraduates a second priority? There are far more undergraduates in the world than PhD students. Why focus on such a small percentage of the world?</p>
<p>This is pure conjecture - I believe the answer is fairly complicated, but consider the fact that each department in Berkeley has nearly complete control over PhD admissions. I think the undergraduate admissions office has limited control over the undergraduate admission given that the state of California probably has a lot of say as to what happens with taxpayer money.</p>
<p>Im pretty sure Berkeley would rather focus on something is has more control over than what it has less control over.
This is a very good question. I doubt much change can happen by just talking about it on a silly college internet forum. The best way to make a change is to make it from the inside. Im willing to bet that it all comes down to what the policy makers in California want.</p>
<p>Statistically, isnt it great to report that ~160,000 people are being UC educated due to the states effort in education? Look how great California is! They must put a lot of emphasis on education! Taxpayer money well spent!</p>
<p>The truth of the matter is that California probably is putting a strain on the facilities in order to push that number up in order to look good (again pure conjecture). This is a theme that extends well beyond education. People that have agendas will find any way to push the statistics in their favor. They will do anything to play with that number to make it sound “Disney friendly”. The truth is: numbers dont lie, but the people that present them do.</p>
<p>So how do we make a change? Id argue that it starts with economics and politics. California is in a huge deficit right now, so theres not much that can be done. Decreasing the amount of education during an economic downturn has its cons. It could be the policy makers that are responsible to putting a burden on the UCs to admit so many kids that are at the heart of the problem. The problem is: are you a person that is willing to enforce a decrease in the number of kids being educated at UC Berkeley? You are going to have a lot of explaining to do if you are a policy maker that advocates a decrease in admissions. The people in policy that fight for this kind of change will be putting their careers on the line. In the publics eye, wouldnt they be evil for decreasing education in America? You can’t just shift them over to the other UC’s. Those UCs are also under a lot of population stress. The opening of UC Merced 4 years ago may be a response to the accommodating more people</p>
<p>Making change is going to take a lot of ■■■■■■■.
As I implied earlier in my post, much easier said than done.</p>
I’m gonna try to change that one day :)! Although it would be no easy feat mobilizing that large, powerful and independent association. I just think that they are practicing this idea of elitism, only targeting students they deem special as if spending on the money on not so great student is a waste of money, but in the end, it hurts those privileged students as well. Of course, it’s their money; they are free to do whatever they want with it, but I can’t help but have wishful thoughts. </p>