Berkeley's shortcomings

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
141

<p>UCLAri,</p>

<p>well, private schools student body is much smaller than berkeley. it is undeniable that there are lots of students in berkeley that wont be as successful, but what i meant was that the undergrads in berkeley is as well regarded as any other schools or they wouldnt choose berkeley students over, say harvard students. or you can say that top berkeley students are just as competitive as other private school students and their perceived "poorer" education does not drag them back in term of grad school admission. this also shows that it is possible for any berkeley students to succeed if he/she choose to. </p>

<p>as for the second one, i concede that berkeley does not serve struggling u/g students very well. its a place that you either florish or perish. but toughness of berkeley curriculum in well known and every incoming students have rights to know that first year classes will be weeder classes. if they are ready to face the challenge and succeed, their education is just as well as any other schools. </p>

<p>Besides, alumni giving largely depends on sports... happy alum giving derives from successful sports programs.</p>

142

<p>eastcoastbound,</p>

<p>But if all the self-reported data suggests that Berkeley students need HIGHER GPAs and standardized test scores to get into the same programs as those fluffy Ivy grads, what does that say?</p>

143

<p>can you show me the data?</p>

144

<p>Well, let's look at the national</a> acceptance rate vs. Berkeley's. Yes, Berkeley's is higher. But not by a whole lot.</p>

<p>The Ivies all have higher rates.</p>

<p>However, what's depressing is this: [url=<a href="http://www.mcattestscores.com/usmedicalschoolsmcatscoresGPA.html#connecticut%5DCompare%5B/url"&gt;http://www.mcattestscores.com/usmedicalschoolsmcatscoresGPA.html#connecticut]Compare[/url&lt;/a&gt;] this data with Berkeley's average for self-reporting admits. All the Berkeley students have much higher stats.</p>

145

<p>dobby, first, out of respect for the readers of those threads, you might want to synthesize your point into more concise replies as opposed to taking up half a page and posting tit for tat every single point, because we could argue back and forth about every single point you've countered and totally overwhelm this thread and its readability. For instance, both Berkeley and Stanford play an essential role in the bay area's economy. If you've worked in Silicon Valley or SF, you know Berkeley grads are very well-represented (you've heard of Intel, Apple, Gap,...) I can make a list, and you can counter with another list. It would be a bit pointless, but mostly it would divert the thread from the main topic and smother other posters' contributions in a sea of posts and counterparts.</p>

<p>Main point one: kids aren't being led to the slaughter, the graduation rates at Berkeley have been going up, steadily, as have the grades. Don't fall into hyperboles with regards to engineering, grades have been going up there too. There is as well less pressure on the major than before since CS has lost some of its pre-NASDAQ crash luster. Most engineering students b**ch about the work, but most get it done, and they are stronger students and graduates for that. Employers and graduate schools know that. I had a fairly low GPA as a Cal engineering grad, but that didn't stop me from getting into both top MBA programs I applied to (pretty solid ECs helped). Berkeley Engineering is a demanding culture, because the profs usually are among the very best in the world and they expect the best out of their students.</p>

<p>And BTW, the hardest classes I've had at cal weren't engineering classes, I usually struggled with my humanities electives, because my verbal skills were weaker. The material is hard in science/engineering, but the work is more compartementalized into problem sets, homeworks and labs as opposed to open-ended long essays, which were far more daunting for me. So if you're coasting in your humanities classes, good for you.</p>

<p>About office hours, which you complained about, the student survey showed that 78.5% of Berkeley students are satisfied with the availability of their faculty outside of class. We can still do better, but the current situation is not quite that bad. </p>

<p>Isuue two - I think it's commendable that Birgeneau is striving to preserve socio-economic and ethnic diversity at Cal. I don't think it is a Berkeley shortcoming that it has more economically disadvantaged undergraduates than the entire Ivy League, I actually think it is a great positive and am proud of this. I really loved the fact that in my dorm, the crown prince of a European monarchy lived next to the son of Mexican migrant workers. "Excellence and Diversity" is Cal's unofficial motto.</p>

<p>Ari, from the student survey as well, less than half of Berkeley students are committed to going to graduate school before they graduate (or immediately after.) That is probably a lot smaller than at the Ivies and top privates, where I would guess the majority start out knowing they want to go to professional schools and position themselves for acceptance better, in part because they are much more likely to come from professional backgrounds. There is after all a pretty big difference between the student bodies. For instance, less than half of Berkeley students grew up in households where only English was spoken. At a place like Dartmouth it would be at least over 3/4. From what I remember of the admissions data, the standardized test scores were pretty closely correlated with med school admissions rates across the board.</p>

146

<p>CalX,</p>

<p>But that's the problem-- it's standardized scores. Why would Cal need higher MCAT and LSAT scores to get its students into the same schools?</p>

147

<p>UCLAri,</p>

<p>you showed me the career center's data on med school acceptance. ok, so it only cal students acceptance rate is higher than the national average. i dont think you can get anymore information out of that unless you have more data support that.</p>

<p>another link you posted has little or none relevance to what you claimed. it only shows a bunch of med schools and the avg stats. can you please post some other links to justify your claim.</p>

<p>what you claimed is actually contrary to what i heard from several of my friends who applied to med schools last year. im really curious to see these stats.</p>

148

<p>I meant that the standardized scores and acceptance rates did not depend that much on which school applicants came from. There is a larger discrepancy in the GPAs, with cal students needing higher grades for acceptance. </p>

<p>From my experience, there are a lot of Cal students who don't build solid med school resumes and put all their baskets into their GPAs. A friend of mine back then graduated with a 3.9+, but didn't get into UCSF or Harvard (ended up going to Michigan, which is still a great school but he thought he would get into the former as well.) In his case, he didn't have very strong social or leadership skills or outlook. I am sure he had stellar grades at the HS level, as many Cal students do coming out of HS do.</p>

<p>Not all Cal student are of this mold, but definitely more than at the top privates. That might account for the med school acceptance differential in grades IMHO. You would need higher grades in the absence of solid ECs to gain acceptance.</p>

149

<p>
[quote]
In fact, i am pretty sure BP doesnt choose Berkeley based on graduate school ranking. my lab is directly involved in this deal and a few friends of mine are authors of parts of that proposal. i read the rough draft of that particular part of proposal and i talked to one of their representative when they toured our lab last semester. im pretty sure that i know what they were looking for. when you learn about scientific grant proposal process, you will understand what i meant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alright, if it makes you feel better to think that you are right, go for it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
again, i dont believe the university has any responsibility to spoonfeed its students with every information.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alright. So we have different opinions. I can live with that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
in real life, nobody shoves information to your face.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's somewhat true. But you know what? Coming to college for the first time shouldn't be about sinking or swiming, it should be about trying to figure out what you want to do once you enter the real world. All I'm really asking for here is increased help for lower-division students - the ones who probably aren't more than two decades old. </p>

<p>
[quote]
the ability to seek out information you need to succeed is a skill everybody has to learn at some point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. But I fail to see the reason why Berkeley shouldn't make the transition easier for students. Ten months ago, virtually all current Berkeley freshmen probably had reasonably nice personal relationships with their teachers. Now, less than a year later, most of them are probably incredibly lost as far as relationships with profs go. I think that's unacceptable. I think all freshman should have a faculty advisor - not unlike the ones engineering provides. It's not asking for much, really. All I'm asking for right here right now is the recognition that Berkeley freshmen and sophomores need more guidance from faculty. Let's face it, many of the ones who seek it out fail to get it. That is unacceptable. Faculty should not be hired unless they not only publish but TEACH both grads and undergrads.</p>

<p>
[quote]
as for faculty's indifference toward u/g. yes, it exists. berkeley is a researching university. we do research first, education next.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Where is it written that at research universities research should come before education? Yale is a research university and its teaching is pretty damn good. John Hopniks is a research university and its teaching is pretty good. USC is a research university and its teaching is relatively good.</p>

<p>
[quote]
this is the attitude of the university since the day it is conceived.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you sure about that? I'm no expert on the history of UC Berkeley, but from what I understand, teaching was considerably more important than research prior to say 1920.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but does that mean faculty members are not inaccessable? absolutely not. if you can prove urself to be a worthy undergrad, you can earn their respect and even friendship. it is not that hard, you just have to know what you are talking about.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, I'm not saying it's impossible to get to know a professor at a really personal level. I'm saying even if a student knows the subject and shows initiative, the prof might just not care. </p>

<p>
[quote]
the indifference of faculty is not unique to berkeley. if you ask around, you will get similar answers from u/g from all the big researching university. this is the sad truth about academia: publish or perish. and their tenure depends on their research, not teaching ability.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am well aware of the fact that things generally suck for undergrads at top research universities. The problem is that they appear to suck EVEN more for Berkeley undergrads than they do for say HYPSMC undergrads. I think Berkeley could do a lot to help its undergrads but for some reason, almost nothing ever gets done. Once again, for Berkeley's current administration, getting more poor black and brown students is the biggest priority in undergradaute education.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Lastly, i stand by what i said. the problem of our society is people tend to blame somebody else for their own problems.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>UGH. Please try to understand this established sociopsychological concept which I've already described: Although individuals are oftentimes directly responsible for the outcomes of their lives, the situations in which they find themselves in are extremely powerful in shaping those outcomes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
if you think you cant succeed in berkeley, why blame the university or so-called "engineering trap". we are all adults, and we should take responsibility of our own doings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>AHA. But you forget that when many students choose to come here for engineering (and even when they arrive here,) many are not yet adults! Yet, they are treated like adults in the weeders. So in essence, you want to hold minors accountable for failing to understand what engineering is all about. I think that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. I repeat, it is unrealistic to expect freshmen and sophomores to know what they're getting themselves into not only in engineering but college in general. The campus should provide more guidance - ideally all for students, but emphasis on lowerdiv students is desperately needed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
if you are weak, there is nothing to do about it but die.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So essentially you have revealed your true nature. In your opinion, since all humans are pretty weak animals, we all might as well cut off all life support, get rid of meds, and walk into the jungle so that tigets can eat us. </p>

<p>
[quote]
if you are not able to succeed in berkeley, there is nothing anybody can do about it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What does that even mean? Are you saying that we accept whatever "destiny" gives us? If a student throws himself in front of a bus, we should just accept it and move on with our lives? We shouldn't even bother to clean up the mess? Or are you saying that we shouldn't help people who are struggling? If a student gets an F on a paper, nobody should help her improve her writing. That's what you believe. Am I missing anything?</p>

<p>
[quote]
UC Berkeley will always be UC Berkeley. fix it or leave it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not quite sure what you mean by "fix it." If you mean fix the problems that Berkeley has - the answer is that after many years of simply talking and whining about it, some students are standing up and demanding an end to the stupidities the campus often pulls off right in front of our faces. Stay tuned.</p>

150

<p>
[quote]
Main point one: kids aren't being led to the slaughter, the graduation rates at Berkeley have been going up, steadily, as have the grades. Don't fall into hyperboles with regards to engineering, grades have been going up there too. There is as well less pressure on the major than before since CS has lost some of its pre-NASDAQ crash luster. Most engineering students b**ch about the work, but most get it done, and they are stronger students and graduates for that. Employers and graduate schools know that. I had a fairly low GPA as a Cal engineering grad, but that didn't stop me from getting into both top MBA programs I applied to (pretty solid ECs helped). Berkeley Engineering is a demanding culture, because the profs usually are among the very best in the world and they expect the best out of their students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay, the overall GPA at Berkeley has been steadily rising, although I'm not sure if engineering has been following the trend. The pressure has been less since the dot-com bust, I agree with all this. The problem is, while Berkeley is slowly getting better, and while only a minority of students are really hurt by the weeders, the fact remains that a minority of students are really getting hurt by the weeders. That's what causes concern.</p>

<p>
[quote]
UCLAri,</p>

<p>you showed me the career center's data on med school acceptance. ok, so it only cal students acceptance rate is higher than the national average. i dont think you can get anymore information out of that unless you have more data support that.</p>

<p>another link you posted has little or none relevance to what you claimed. it only shows a bunch of med schools and the avg stats. can you please post some other links to justify your claim.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay, here's the deal: Berkeley is well-known for deflated grades. The average GPA at Berkeley is significantly lower than a grade-inflated institution like Harvard or Princeton. Yet when we take a look at medical school admissions data, Berkeley applicants actually need a HIGHER GPA to get into grad school than a Princeton or Harvard applicant.</p>

<p>Here's the data for Berkeley applicants:
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As you can see, applicants from Berkeley need a 3.7 - 4.0 GPA to get into medical schools. For the top medical schools at least a 3.8 is needed.</p>

<p>For Princeton students, they only need a 3.4 - 3.5 to get into med schools, even though it's EASIER to get HIGHER grades at Princeton. I had trouble finding data for this...but I did find a passage on their advising website that strongly suggest the number I cited is pretty accurate...</p>

<p>
[quote]
In general we can tell you that students with a solid B+ average from Princeton are getting into medical school. Our acceptance rate has always been excellent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://web.princeton.edu/sites/hpa/premed.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.princeton.edu/sites/hpa/premed.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

151

<p>
[quote]
There is a larger discrepancy in the GPAs, with cal students needing higher grades for acceptance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, and this is a big problem. This means that Cal students have to work even harder! </p>

<p>
[quote]
another link you posted has little or none relevance to what you claimed. it only shows a bunch of med schools and the avg stats. can you please post some other links to justify your claim.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look more closely at that data. That shows you the average of admitted students. Compare it (comparative analysis is always good) to Cal's averages.</p>

<p>Cal's averages are higher.</p>

<p>Now, this could potentially mean that only the high scoring admits report their data. But I find this somewhat hard to believe across the board in a vertical comparison. Hell, a time (horizontal) comparison yields the same findings.</p>

<p>
[quote]
ok, so it only cal students acceptance rate is higher than the national average. i dont think you can get anymore information out of that unless you have more data support that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What you can get is that it's probably the case, especially since the trend has remained true horizontally and vertically, that Cal students are having a harder time with med school admissions to top med schools than other schools.</p>

152

<p>Dobby,</p>

<p>enlighten me, what is my true nature. you have a lot of assumptions on "all humans are pretty weak animals, we all might as well cut off all life support, get rid of meds, and walk into the jungle so that tigets can eat us." when did i mention all human are pretty weak animals? that logic is based on a groundless logic. but yes, i am a darwinist. i believe in a society only strong can be successful, weak will always be weak no matter where you put them. </p>

<p>Skinner's behaviorism is partially useful in describing people's behavior. im sure you have learned these in your intro psych classes. please note that one's past is very important in directing one's current behavior. This includes everything including upbringing, primary education, parenting etc.. you can potentially find excuses for everything. but that is not very constructive way of approaching problems. when you approach a problem, you immediately switch into the excuse mode, you cant find solution to anything. it is more important to understand the essence of the conflict so that we can see potential solutions. as for berkeley, the most fundamental is
1) Berkeley is a research university where research values more than education
2) Berkeley is plagued by beaucracy
3) Berkeley Professors have little trust of lowerclass undergrads because they screw up too much.</p>

<p>solutions:
1) change berkeley to a teaching university... this is impossible.
2) reduce berkeley beaucracy... possible, but unlikely because thats how the government operates
3) increase student quality. this sounds more reasonable. </p>

<p>so unless berkeley tightens up the admission standard or weed more students, i dont see this being resolved.</p>

153

<p>eastcoastbound,</p>

<p>You say
[quote]
i believe in a society only strong can be successful, weak will always be weak no matter where you put them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But would you say that the students at other top schools are "weak?" I wouldn't. </p>

<p>Why would someone choose Cal over Harvard? The faculty at Harvard really isn't much better in most programs, and the quality of life really isn't a whole lot better.</p>

<p>Yet most students seem to choose Harvard over Cal, based on all the published data and models (however poor the methodology is...) </p>

<p>People are rational (at least if you believe the basic foundation of rational choice theory.) They make decisions to maximize their utility. If another university seems to offer more utility, they choose it-- that's perfectly rational (not weak.)</p>

154

<p>UCLAri,</p>

<p>ok, there are two parts:</p>

<p>first to answer your stats. come on, we both are science/engineering students, you know better than stats manupilation. i cant imagine using any stat test on the data you showed me as two sets describe different thing. one thing you can do is to find a significant subsets of rejected cal applicants to each school and if stats of cal applicants are significantly above the school's avg, then i will yield to your point. let's be a little rigorous in data processing.</p>

<p>i would not say students from other top school "weak". all i was saying is that if you put these people who failed at cal to other schools, they will fail as well. by its own nature, berkeley is big and impersonable. it turns away a lot of top applicants. also, berkeley is very exclusive towards oos, it turns away a group of talents too. but those who choose to come to berkeley and succeed, berkeley is at least on par with other top undergrad programs.</p>

155

<p>
[quote]
i cant imagine using any stat test on the data you showed me as two sets describe different thing

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They do? The one set shows the average of admits from EVERY school, and Berkeley's stats show their average admits to med school. It's kind of like comparing ratios in a current asset sheet to industry standards to see how a particular company adds up. It's not really all that weird, if you ask me.</p>

<p>And really, I'm not saying that this would pass the scrutiny of any sort of p-value or t-value testing. It probably wouldn't. But it does beg a few questions:</p>

<ol>
<li> Why do Berkeley admits have seemingly higher stats both vertically and horizontally?</li>
<li> If it's a problem of poor sampling causing skew, why isn't more representative data being collected? </li>
<li> Why wouldn't students with more "standard" scores report their admission and scores?</li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
all i was saying is that if you put these people who failed at cal to other schools, they will fail as well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is arguable. sakky's demonstrated that other schools have programs that will take failing students and give them opportunities to succeed.</p>

<p>But let's say that it IS the bottom decile or two of students that are flunking out. Why are they being admitted in the first place? Why set them up to flunk out of college? Those students are NOT being served by the university.</p>

156

<p>People are rational, but 17 year olds will not always make informed decisions. A 17-year old using this board to decide between Berkeley and other top schools is more likely to be swayed to go elsewhere, in part because you have megathreads titled "Berkeley's shortcoming" in stark contrast with boards from other schools with less active dissenting insider voices.</p>

157

<p>CalX,</p>

<p>Something tells me that most 17-year-olds aren't choosing Cal based on a few rogue threads on CC.com. </p>

<p>Most American students are probably going to choose big privates based on prestige. Is it "good?" Maybe...maybe not.</p>

158

<p>
[quote]
but yes, i am a darwinist. i believe in a society only strong can be successful, weak will always be weak no matter where you put them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alright. So it all comes down to a battle of ideologies. May the most popular side win. Judging by the current state of young peoples' liberalism, it'll probably be my side.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Skinner's behaviorism is partially useful in describing people's behavior. im sure you have learned these in your intro psych classes. please note that one's past is very important in directing one's current behavior.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Skinner did indeed appear in my intro to psych textbook. But what's the point? He has been largely thrown out the window by modern day psychology, even by many prominent behaviorists. I suppose if you want to hold on to his ideas you can, but know that you are being extremely foolish. It's right down there with believing Bettelheim when he says that autism is caused by bad parenting.</p>

<p>
[quote]
1) Berkeley is a research university where research values more than education

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Half-truth. Berkeley cares quite a lot about the education of grad students.</p>

<p>
[quote]
2) Berkeley is plagued by beaucracy

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's more accurate to say that Berkeley is characterized by beaucracy. If it were "plagued," nothing would ever get done. </p>

<p>
[quote]
3) Berkeley Professors have little trust of lowerclass undergrads because they screw up too much.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"Lowerclass"? You mean lower division? I would argue that many profs have plenty of trust. It's just a matter of letting students know about those professors. The campus is sucking at that right now.</p>

<p>
[quote]
please note that one's past is very important in directing one's current behavior.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But so is the future. People who have done badly in their lives can still be rehabilitated. Sure, they will probably not attain the same level of mastery at various as someone who has been doing relatively good for their entire lives, but some improvement is better than no improvement.</p>

<p>
[quote]
1) change berkeley to a teaching university... this is impossible.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, that's a pretty bad would-be solution. But what about a general move towards more help for undergrads? I don't think it'd be very hard.</p>

<p>
[quote]
so unless berkeley tightens up the admission standard or weed more students, i dont see this being resolved.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That may be a great way to improve undergraduate life, but it would probably be politically disastrous.</p>

159

<p>Ari, prestige has been more and more defined by the USNWR ranking as opposed to academic reputation. Berkeley has seen a drop in prestige as a result of this over the past decades, perhaps you are less aware of this because you went to college more recently. It is important to take the more superficial aspects of prestige out, lest the USNWR ranking might become a self-fulfilling prophecy.</p>

160

<p>UCLAri,</p>

<p>you asked a few good questions. unfortunately that is beyond what the stats reveal. maybe a redo of data collecting?</p>

<p>comparing admits do not tell a whole story because as you mentioned data might be skewed because you cant test whats lowest stat a berkeley student can have and still get admitted. even so, stats correlate with admissions but not perfectly. there are simply too many uncertainty to reach a conclusion. im sorry, but i study science, so i cant accept anything less than a rigorously conducted experiment, no mean to be nitpicking.</p>

<p>and i already concede that berkeley undergrad program may not be best services one can get. im sorry to say but weeding is one way we keep our students competitive in upper classes. i have no idea why they are accepted. if it is up to me, berkeley admission would be much stricter and use a graduate school admission style, which letters of recommendation trump stats. but berkeley is a public school, not my private experiment, so i cant do anything about it.</p>