Berkely alum wins Nobel Prize

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

<p>
[quote]
In any case, I'm not sure if I agree with this method, because I think it's unrealistic unless Berkeley makes a deal with ETS or another company to create a standarized test similar to the ACTs for transfers and use it as an admissions criterion. But I do agree that the standards for transfers should be raised.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never even thought of making a deal with ETS to create a standardized test. I simply thought of the notion of having the waiver exam basically be the actual final exam of the corresponding weeder. You're going to be running that test anyway for all of the students who take the weeder. So it's obviously no big deal to take that final exam and use that as your waiver. If you can pass this final exam, then I am fine with letting you skip the weeder. But if you can't, then you should have to take the weeder.</p>

<p>Some of you might say that it's unfair to have students take a final exam in a class that they never took. But why is it unfair? After all, the weeder courses that the transfers get to skip are usually not the exotic courses. They usually consist of regular baseline level courses, like Math 1B, or Chem 3A, Physics 7B, etc. Calculus is calculus, OChem is OChem, Electromagnetism is electromagnetism. It's not these subjects are 'secret' subjects that you can only learn at Berkeley. If you are well-trained in calculus, then I think you should be able to pass the Math 1B final exam. If you are well-trained in OChem, then you should be able to pass the Chem 3A final. It's not like these classes are teaching you "secret" equations or "secret" chemical reactions. These are well-understood, mainstream topics with no secrets. A good 2nd semester calculus course at ANY college, even a community college, should be roughly equivalent to Math 1B. Hence, you should be ready to pass the 1B final. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I am not asking you to get an A on that final. Just pass it. That's all I ask. I would also freely give you the syllabus for the course, so you can borrow the textbook and review what the class studied at your leisure.</p>

<p>Besides, look at it this way. If you want to skip over Math 1B, but you can't even get a passing score on the 1B final exam, do you really think you should be allowed to skip? Conversely, if these transfer students are really that good, then they will have no problem in passing these waivers.</p>

62

<p>Why must UC Berkeley remain the flagship of the UC system? It seems some of you only want to get rid of the weaker students to maintain Berkeley's prestige and not to actually help their education (which is a pretty sad CCish motivation)</p>

<p>EDIT: Hi sakky. Didn't know you were currently posting... :)</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
Why must UC Berkeley remain the flagship of the UC system? It seems some of you only want to get rid of the weaker students to maintain Berkeley's prestige and not to actually help their education (which is a pretty sad CCish motivation)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You ARE helping your education by getting rid of bad students. Like I've said many times before, education is largely a social process. If the students around you are smart, you tend to learn more. If not, then not. One example was given by vicissitudes - how bad students would just waste valuable class time by asking inane questions. Another example would be when the qualtiy of class discussions go down because students don't have smart things to say, or hin some cases aven't even bothered to do the reading. </p>

<p>Couple that with the fact that much (probably most) of the college education consists of what you learn by just hanging around and living and talking with other students. If those other students are smart, you will tend to learn more because they will tend to have more interesting ideas and the discussions will be more thoughtful. If they aren't so smart, you will tend to learn less.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
You ARE helping your education by getting rid of bad students. Like I've said many times before, education is largely a social process. If the students around you are smart, you tend to learn more. If not, then not. One example was given by vicissitudes - how bad students would just waste valuable class time by asking inane questions. Another example would be when the qualtiy of class discussions go down because students don't have smart things to say, or hin some cases aven't even bothered to do the reading.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not necessarily. Why don't we just give them the resources to succeed here? It really seems like some people just want students who may need a little more help not associated with the Berkeley brand name.</p>

<p>Also, who hasn't asked a stupid question in class? I think thats a terrible measure of intelligence.</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
Also, who hasn't asked a stupid question in class? I think thats a terrible measure of intelligence.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not saying it's a measure of intelligence. But it is a measure of how well time is being spent in the classroom. By asking a stupid question, you ARE in fact wasting everybody's time. </p>

<p>Now, obviously, all of us have asked a stupid question from time to time. But the difference is in degree. We have all done stupid things occassionally in our lives. But we should be trying to minimize them. If I show up to work late once, that might be allright. But if I KEEP showing up to work late over and over again, then that's a problem. Similarly if one person asks a dumb question on occasion, that might be fine. But if he keeps doing it over and over again, that's a problem . </p>

<p>
[quote]
Not necessarily. Why don't we just give them the resources to succeed here? It really seems like some people just want students who may need a little more help not associated with the Berkeley brand name.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you're presuming that Berkeley has these resources that can just be handed out freely. Do you think so? If so, then why not get rid of impaction post-haste? What is impaction, if not basically a lack of resources? Why do some classes have waitlists, if not because of a lack of resources?</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
I'm not saying it's a measure of intelligence. But it is a measure of how well time is being spent in the classroom. By asking a stupid question, you ARE in fact wasting everybody's time.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It seems like in most cases, when one person voices a question, it is usually something the entire class is confused or unsure about. Some may simply refrain from raising their hand simply because of being intimidated by the professor or GSI...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Now, obviously, all of us have asked a stupid question from time to time. But the difference is in degree. We have all done stupid things occassionally in our lives. But we should be trying to minimize them. If I show up to work late once, that might be allright. But if I KEEP showing up to work late over and over again, then that's a problem. Similarly if one person asks a dumb question on occasion, that might be fine. But if he keeps doing it over and over again, that's a problem .

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Agreed. And on a side note, I like some of your analogies. :cool: </p>

<p>
[quote]
And you're presuming that Berkeley has these resources that can just be handed out freely. Do you think so? If so, then why not get rid of impaction post-haste? What is impaction, if not basically a lack of resources? Why do some classes have waitlists, if not because of a lack of resources?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you're presuming other UCs have the resources to transform troubled students here into successful students there?</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
It seems like in most cases, when one person voices a question, it is usually something the entire class is confused or unsure about. Some may simply refrain from raising their hand simply because of being intimidated by the professor or GSI...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, I'm not saying that all questions are bad. In fact, many questions are actually good because you are exactly right - they are regarding issues that that many people are confused about.</p>

<p>But you know what I'm getting at. There really are some people who insist on asking questions on things that frankly they really should know and hence they really are wasting everybody's time in forcing the TA/prof to answer these questions. In the engineering world, we have a term called "RTFM", which stands for "Read the F$%!^$g manual" to denote those particular questions that illustrate that somebody just simply didn't bother to actually read the documentation of whatever tool is in question. Similarly, there are many questions in class that fall into the category of "RTFB" meaning that you clearly just didn't even bother to read the book that was assigned. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And you're presuming other UCs have the resources to transform troubled students here into successful students there?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It becomes a matter of pace. Let's face it. Berkeley is a faster-paced academic environment than, say, UCRiverside. Basic operations management techniques tell you that you have to spend a disproportionate amount of your resources on your stragglers. For example, if one person on the assembly line is working slowly, then the whole assembly line slows down. One could train that person to work faster, but that requires the use of extra precious training resources. It would simply be better if that person were simply assigned to work on a slower assembly line. What's wrong with that? That way, the fast assembly line can continue to operate fast, and that person finds a workplace that fits his workstyle better. </p>

<p>Hence, you don't really need to have more resources. You just have to ALIGN your resources better. I am quite sure that the bad students at Berkeley could be quite good students at a lower UC where the pace is easier. It's a simple matter of optimization and alignment.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
I support that too. But let's deal with one problem at a time.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Can you explain why you do not support giving freshmen admits AP/community college credit?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hence, obviously anybody in Berkeley who wants private housing can get it. The issue is, can you get CLOSEBY housing? In the present situation, probably not. But from a social utility standpoint, the people who should have priority on closeby housing are Berkeley students. Not former students or random dudes who just happen to be living in Berkeley. Seriously, those people can live anywhere. Why should they have to hog some of the spots closest to campus?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So what you essentially want is for UCB to be in control of large sections of the city of Berkeley? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Some of you might say that it's unfair to have students take a final exam in a class that they never took. But why is it unfair? After all, the weeder courses that the transfers get to skip are usually not the exotic courses. They usually consist of regular baseline level courses, like Math 1B, or Chem 3A, Physics 7B, etc. Calculus is calculus, OChem is OChem, Electromagnetism is electromagnetism. It's not these subjects are 'secret' subjects that you can only learn at Berkeley. If you are well-trained in calculus, then I think you should be able to pass the Math 1B final exam.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Given your ealier on post on weeder tests and how they often fail to measure knowledge that matters, I find this observation hard to swallow. First you imply that whether a student passes or fails can oftentimes depend on whether or not s/he knows an "esoteric equation" and then you claim that weeder subjects aren't "secret." Yet, since the textbook arguably doesn't have some of the equations needed on the test, how is a transfer student who is "well-trained in calculus" supposed to figure out the answer to an esoteric question without having attended the class where the "esoteric equation" was presented?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You ARE helping your education by getting rid of bad students. Like I've said many times before, education is largely a social process. If the students around you are smart, you tend to learn more. If not, then not. One example was given by vicissitudes - how bad students would just waste valuable class time by asking inane questions. Another example would be when the qualtiy of class discussions go down because students don't have smart things to say, or hin some cases aven't even bothered to do the reading.</p>

<p>Couple that with the fact that much (probably most) of the college education consists of what you learn by just hanging around and living and talking with other students. If those other students are smart, you will tend to learn more because they will tend to have more interesting ideas and the discussions will be more thoughtful. If they aren't so smart, you will tend to learn less.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You seem to believe that articulate, "informed" conversation with peers plays the largest role in college students' intellectual development. Can you cite any well-established psychosocial studies that confirm such opinions?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Now, obviously, all of us have asked a stupid question from time to time. But the difference is in degree. We have all done stupid things occassionally in our lives. But we should be trying to minimize them. If I show up to work late once, that might be allright. But if I KEEP showing up to work late over and over again, then that's a problem. Similarly if one person asks a dumb question on occasion, that might be fine. But if he keeps doing it over and over again, that's a problem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So would one of your solutions be to "track" the number of "stupid questions" individual students make and then to check those students' backgrounds in regards to their high school's profile, their parent's income level, their GPA/SAT scores, etc? Would you then move to refuse admission for students who are identified as possible askers of "stupid questions"?</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
Can you explain why you do not support giving freshmen admits AP/community college credit?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I support not giving such credit when we are talking about weeder courses. (If the courses are not weeders, then I have no problem in giving it).</p>

<p>The problem is a matter of fairness. The point of the weeders is to ensure that the people who get past the weeders have proven to have attained a certain level of knowledge. </p>

<p>Hence, I would replace this idea of simply granting credit with a system of waiver exams. Note, this is precisely what places like MIT and Caltech do for their core technical requirement classes (all of which could be considered 'weeders'). For example, you can't just skip the infamously difficult required freshman physics at Caltech by taking a class at some community college. If you want to skip that class, then you are going to have to take a special and extremely difficult Caltech waiver.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I don't see why this idea is controversial. If you really do know the material, then you will be able to pass the waiver. If you can't, then why should you be allowed to skip? </p>

<p>
[quote]
So what you essentially want is for UCB to be in control of large sections of the city of Berkeley?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me put it to you this way. Berkeley is a rather decent sized city. Berkeley has a population of about 100k people. Obviously the vast majority of these people are not students (Berkeley has about 30k total students, a strong minority of which will prefer not to live close to campus anyway, just like there are some people at HBS who prefer not to live at HBS). </p>

<p>Secondly, like I said, Berkeley doesn't really need 'control'. Berkeley can simply enter into contractual agreements with a bunch of private developers and landlords for them to give rental preference to Berkeley students. Again, this is no different from the arrangements that many organizations have with landlords to provide corporate housing to some of their employees. Berkeley wouldn't therefore need to 'control' any part of Berkeley, as the private landlords would still be in control. But more students would be able to get closer housing if they wanted it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You seem to believe that articulate, "informed" conversation with peers plays the largest role in college students' intellectual development. Can you cite any well-established psychosocial studies that confirm such opinions?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Where did I say that it played 'the largest' role? I said that it played a role, something that I think most observers would agree is the case. </p>

<p>After all, let me put it to you this way. I'm sure we've all had classes in high school in which most of the talking and discussion was done by students, and the teachers themselves just act as facilitators. I know that most of my social studies/history classes in high school were like that. In fact, Berkeley uses the the concept of discussion sections to attempt to do the same thing. Harvard Business School and many other professional schools extensively use the Socratic method and the Case method, which is basically all free-flowing student discussions. Why do all these organizations choose to do this, if this is not a proper way to learn? Why did all of my high school history teachers try to engage the students in class discussion, if class discussion does not add value? Why didn't they just give lectures instead? Were my teachers being stupid? Is Harvard Business School being stupid in running the case method? Is Harvard Law School being stupid in using the Socratic method? </p>

<p>
[quote]
So would one of your solutions be to "track" the number of "stupid questions" individual students make and then to check those students' backgrounds in regards to their high school's profile, their parent's income level, their GPA/SAT scores, etc? Would you then move to refuse admission for students who are identified as possible askers of "stupid questions"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, because now you are just treating symptoms to a disease. Having students who are not ready for the rigors of Berkeley is the root of the disease, and then having these students ask questions that slow down the rest of the class is merely a symptom. The real treatment is to cure the disease by not having these students at Berkeley, but rather at another school that is more aligned with their abilities.</p>

<p>But on a narrower point, I do support the notion of cutting people off who are asking questions that are clearly not helping the rest of the class. And I saw that happen at Berkeley, and that was a good thing. For example, the TA or Prof can simply tell a student to take his questions offline by asking them in office hours if it is clear that this student is just not prepared and is asking questions that are not beneficial to the rest of the class.</p>

70

<p>
[quote]
I support not giving such credit when we are talking about weeder courses. (If the courses are not weeders, then I have no problem in giving it).

[/quote]

Agreed. Math 1B, CS 61B, anyone? It's not really unexpected that most people who AP'ed out of those classes have higher GPAs.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
I completely disagree with your line of thinking. It's not that people can't find private housing. Of course they can. The issue is that they often times can't find CLOSEBY private housing. I've known plenty of people who have had to live a good 20-30 minutes walk from campus. That's just too darn far. Ideally, you should be living as close to campus as you can.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alright. Most of the people I talked to live in Telegraph Commons or themed housing or other private housing that is closeby (often closer than the dorms). But it's possible that what you say is right in that students have trouble getting housing close-by, and I simply haven't been exposed to those students. So if that's the case, I can understand your logic.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I never even thought of making a deal with ETS to create a standardized test. I simply thought of the notion of having the waiver exam basically be the actual final exam of the corresponding weeder. You're going to be running that test anyway for all of the students who take the weeder. So it's obviously no big deal to take that final exam and use that as your waiver. If you can pass this final exam, then I am fine with letting you skip the weeder. But if you can't, then you should have to take the weeder.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think I'm somewhat with dobby on this one. I don't like your idea of giving the weeder final because different classes teach different things. A math 1B class at Berkeley doesn't necessarily cover the same topics covered in a CC calculus class. So, it's not really fair to the transfer to take a test on a course that taught differently from what his course taught. I thought about a standarized test provided by a testing service because that tends to spawn study guides and at least the students can study for the material. Berkeley can dictate what should be on the test (i.e. what the students should have learned in the weeder), so students who didn't get to cover these subjects in their CC courses can learn it. I think this is much easier than finding out which class the weeder final came from, which textbook it used, which chapters in that textbook were covered, so on and so forth. Of course, this would take more effort than just giving out a weeder final, but still seems feasible to me.</p>

<p>I can see your reasoning behind a weeder final though. When I wanted to take Calculus C at a Community College, without having taken the prerequisites (since I haven't taken classes at a CC before), I had to file a petition and the math department pretty much gave me a test to make sure I knew all the material in Calculus B. So I could see Berkeley doing this. The difference is we're not talking about letting a few people into a class they don't have prereqs for, we're talking about transfer admissions, so perhaps a shift in strategy is required.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But on a narrower point, I do support the notion of cutting people off who are asking questions that are clearly not helping the rest of the class. And I saw that happen at Berkeley, and that was a good thing. For example, the TA or Prof can simply tell a student to take his questions offline by asking them in office hours if it is clear that this student is just not prepared and is asking questions that are not beneficial to the rest of the class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've seen this happen too. Eventually the professor just says to the student who gave out too many inane comments "let's have other people contribute." And that seems fine to me. In fact I wish she had done it earlier.</p>

72

<p>I understand that there is some sort of "weeding" going on for SOME transfer students admitted into impacted majors. Some, but not all, are required to take some course in their major, and have to earn a B+ in the class in order to be officially admitted into the major.</p>

<p>The other day I met a transfer student who was on the verge of crying because she did so poorly on her exam in one of her psychology classes. "I've never failed an exam before!!" I'm quite sure all or most of us haven't in high school.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
Alright. Most of the people I talked to live in Telegraph Commons or themed housing or other private housing that is closeby (often closer than the dorms). But it's possible that what you say is right in that students have trouble getting housing close-by, and I simply haven't been exposed to those students. So if that's the case, I can understand your logic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As a first step, I would contract with all of the housing that is near to Haas and reserve it for the Haas students (both MBA and undergrad). Business school is supposed to be about networking, and networking is greatly fostered by close proximity. It's hard to meet people and establish community when people are scattered all over the place. From this experiment, we can see if it works, and if it does, then I would extend this idea to all schools and all majors </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think I'm somewhat with dobby on this one. I don't like your idea of giving the weeder final because different classes teach different things. A math 1B class at Berkeley doesn't necessarily cover the same topics covered in a CC calculus class. So, it's not really fair to the transfer to take a test on a course that taught differently from what his course taught. I thought about a standarized test provided by a testing service because that tends to spawn study guides and at least the students can study for the material. Berkeley can dictate what should be on the test (i.e. what the students should have learned in the weeder), so students who didn't get to cover these subjects in their CC courses can learn it. I think this is much easier than finding out which class the weeder final came from, which textbook it used, which chapters in that textbook were covered, so on and so forth. Of course, this would take more effort than just giving out a weeder final, but still seems feasible to me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that different classes teach different things. But if anything, I would argue that that is EVEN MORE of a reason to force the transfer students to take a weeder exam that has to do with the weeder course they are skipping. After all, if the freshman-admits are forced to learn various topics within their weeders, then I think it's only fair that the transfer students be forced to demonstrate knowledge of those same topics. Otherwise, they shouldn't be allowed to skip those weeders. Everybody should be on the same playing field. </p>

<p>After all, think of it this way. These community college students are transferring to Berkeley. The Berkeley students are not trying to transfer to the community college. So if these CC students are transferring to Berkeley, then they should have to adhere to Berkeley requirements. Like the saying goes, if in Rome, do as the Romans do. If you want to come to Berkeley, you should have to follow Berkeley rules. So if the Berkeley people within your major have to learn, say, Fourier series, then you should also have to know Fourier series. </p>

<p>Otherwise, don't transfer to Berkeley. Go to one of the other UC's instead. People who aren't willing to abide by the requirements that other people have to abide by shouldn't be allowed to enter. That's like me saying that I want to visit a foreign country, but I don't want to abide by the requirements that the citizens of that country have to follow. What's up with that? If I don't like the requirements of a certain country, I don't have to go there. I think it's entirely fair that if you want to come to Berkeley, you should be willing to abide by the requirements that other students have to abide by.</p>

<p>Now, of course, in the case of Berkeley, the situation is more complicated because the transfer students are in fact following 'the requirements', because the requirements do not require that they demonstrate knowledge of weeder topics. But that's exactly what I am talking about - I question why the requirements are different for different people. That's like saying that immigrants to the US get to be exempt from certain laws that American citizens have to abide by. Why should they be exempt? I think the rules should be fair to everybody. If the Berkeley students have to demonstrate knowledge of certain weeder topics, then transfer students should have to demonstrate that same knowledge, and if they are not willing to do that, then they should not come to Berkeley. Just like people who are not willing to follow American laws should not be allowed to immigrate to the US.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that nobody has the "right" to attend Berkeley. Attending Berkeley is a privilege. In return for that privilege, I think it's fair that you agree to adhere to the same set of requirements that others at Berkeley have to adhere to.</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
As a first step, I would contract with all of the housing that is near to Haas and reserve it for the Haas students (both MBA and undergrad). Business school is supposed to be about networking, and networking is greatly fostered by close proximity. It's hard to meet people and establish community when people are scattered all over the place. From this experiment, we can see if it works, and if it does, then I would extend this idea to all schools and all majors

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As it happens I did talk to someone today who said she has a car to drive to Berkeley because her apartment is 30 minutes away and she couldn't get closer housing. I still think it's a rare case though.</p>

<p>Hmm...housing close to Haas. Perhaps Bowles and/or Stern could be rennovated to accomodate the Haas students. As of right now the two dorms are highly undesirable anyway. Of course for most Haas students (3rd and 4th years) to live on-campus either 1) Berkeley provides 4-year guaranteed housing or 2) Haas provides 4-year housing and Berkeley provides 2. The second option seems to only shift resources more disproportionately towards Haas students, and I don't see the first option happening anytime soon. Not a bad idea though. One more concern I have about this is that with Haas students living together and going to classes together (and if the same applies to other majors), then major cliques might form (no pun intended), in that Haas students may become isolated from the rest of the student population, and so on.</p>

<p>As for other majors, Foothill already acts as a pseudo-engineering dormitory. And I don't think it's necessary to go further than that. It's good to surround yourself with people in your major but it's also good to have diversity in a dorm.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree that different classes teach different things. But if anything, I would argue that that is EVEN MORE of a reason to force the transfer students to take a weeder exam that has to do with the weeder course they are skipping. After all, if the freshman-admits are forced to learn various topics within their weeders, then I think it's only fair that the transfer students be forced to demonstrate knowledge of those same topics. Otherwise, they shouldn't be allowed to skip those weeders. Everybody should be on the same playing field.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes but it makes you question if everything on a weeder final is needed to succeed in the upper-division classes. You yourself used an example of a physics weeder in which an obscure equation is needed to answer a problem. Do you really think not knowing that obscure equation is going to affect your performance in upper-division classes? Probably not. So the real concern should be: do transfers have the knowledge and ability to succeed in upper-division classes, not do transfers have the knowledge and ability to pass a weeder final. The two are not the same. Heck, some things learned in a weeder might never be mentioned again in an upper-division class.</p>

<p>Another problem I see with this: weeders are often weeders because of the curve. The average on an exam could be 30%, or 90%. So if the weeder final is curved around an average of say...30%, a Berkeley student could score a 35% and pass, while a CC taking the same weeder final would fail miserably. How do we account for that, unless we were to set up a curve using all the transfers' scores on these weeder finals? That seems pretty unrealistic.</p>

<p>Anyway, I do agree that there is a noticible amount of transfers on the low end of the student population and something should be done, but a more standarized test seems like a better idea to me. Berkeley uses diagnostic tests to help students determine what courses they test into. Maybe we can use these tests instead.</p>

75

<p>
[quote]
And I don't think it's necessary to go further than that. It's good to surround yourself with people in your major but it's also good to have diversity in a dorm.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, agreed.</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
One more concern I have about this is that with Haas students living together and going to classes together (and if the same applies to other majors), then major cliques might form (no pun intended), in that Haas students may become isolated from the rest of the student population, and so on.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't view that as a serious problem. After all, most of the top business schools are very clannish. Harvard Business School students are certainly quite cut off from the rest of Harvard. MIT Sloan students, especially the MBA students, are quite culturally different from other students at MIT. Wharton students are culturally different from other students at Penn. Stanford MBA's are cliqueish compared to the rest of Stanford. While I haven't checked, I would imagine that the same is true of the Kellogg and Chicago MBA students. So I don't see how cutting off Haas from the rest of Berkeley would be unusual. It would simply be par for the course when you're talking about the top business schools. That's just how they are. </p>

<p>{Now, if you want to argue that all of them are wrong to do this, then that's another topic entirely}. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes but it makes you question if everything on a weeder final is needed to succeed in the upper-division classes. You yourself used an example of a physics weeder in which an obscure equation is needed to answer a problem. Do you really think not knowing that obscure equation is going to affect your performance in upper-division classes? Probably not. So the real concern should be: do transfers have the knowledge and ability to succeed in upper-division classes, not do transfers have the knowledge and ability to pass a weeder final. The two are not the same. Heck, some things learned in a weeder might never be mentioned again in an upper-division class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then that gets to one of my other suggestions that I have stated on other threads, which is that we should get rid of weeders entirely. Or at least greatly reform them. </p>

<p>However, as it stands, it's a simple matter of fairness. If the freshman-admits have to go through some bullshi<em>, then the transfers ought to have to go through the same bullshi</em>. To make different rules for different people inevitably breeds resentment. The freshman-admits are rightfully resentful of the fact that transfers get to have what basically amounts to special treatment. I agree - it does amount to special treatment. </p>

<p>Personally, I think what should happen is that ALL Berkeley students, freshman-admit or transfer, who want a 'weeded major' should have to pass a qualification exam to get into the upper division of that major. But the bottom line is that the process has to be fair. It shouldn't be easier to get into a weeded major as a transfer student than as a freshman-admit. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Another problem I see with this: weeders are often weeders because of the curve. The average on an exam could be 30%, or 90%. So if the weeder final is curved around an average of say...30%, a Berkeley student could score a 35% and pass, while a CC taking the same weeder final would fail miserably. How do we account for that, unless we were to set up a curve using all the transfers' scores on these weeder finals? That seems pretty unrealistic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What's wrong with using the transfers's scores to construct the curve of just that exam? Or creating the curve as normal, and then comparing the transfers' scores within that curve? Again, the point is, if we expect freshman-admits to pass a weeder final (whatever score happens to define 'passing), then we should expect transfers to do the same.</p>

77

<p>
[quote]
And I don't think it's necessary to go further than that. It's good to surround yourself with people in your major but it's also good to have diversity in a dorm. </p>

<p>Yes, agreed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, I am not 'forcing' anybody to do anything they don't want to do. Again, let's use HBS as an example. HBS has a large complex of its own campus housing, and almost everybody who lives there is affiliated with HBS (either a student, a spouse of a student, etc.). But you don't HAVE to live there. You are free to live elsewhere. Some people do that, for precisely the reasons you stated - that they don't always want to be interacting with the HBS community all the time. </p>

<p>I envision it as a simple choice. Some people want to ensconce themselves only with people within their major. Others don't. Hence, I envision a situation where people can choose what they want.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
I don't view that as a serious problem. After all, most of the top business schools are very clannish. Harvard Business School students are certainly quite cut off from the rest of Harvard. MIT Sloan students, especially the MBA students, are quite culturally different from other students at MIT. Wharton students are culturally different from other students at Penn. Stanford MBA's are cliqueish compared to the rest of Stanford.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I was referring mostly to undergrad Haas students. Maybe we were referring to different groups of people. I can understand that mentality for business school students, whose age average around 26 I believe, and don't really need to live with college students. But for 3rd and 4th years at least, I think it's better to not be as cliqueish.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Then that gets to one of my other suggestions that I have stated on other threads, which is that we should get rid of weeders entirely. Or at least greatly reform them. </p>

<p>However, as it stands, it's a simple matter of fairness. If the freshman-admits have to go through some bullshi<em>, then the transfers ought to have to go through the same bullshi</em>. To make different rules for different people inevitably breeds resentment. The freshman-admits are rightfully resentful of the fact that transfers get to have what basically amounts to special treatment. I agree - it does amount to special treatment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you admit weeders are a problem...and you want to expand it towards transfers? That's like saying the city of Berkeley has crime, and it's unfair for the city of Westwood to not have as much crime (since we want to keep crime fair for all UC students), we should aim to have the city of Westwood have higher crime rates. The solution that makes sense to me is to simply get rid of the crime at Berkeley i.e. change/get rid of weeders, instead of imposing them on transfers. But even if weeders are a necessary evil at Berkeley for it to take in so many students and still maintain a quality graduating class, it doesn't mean we should impose weeder finals on transfer students, any more than if crime at Berkeley can't be ameliorated due to lack of police funds, we should "level the playing field" by promoting more crimes in Westwood.</p>

<p>Essentially, I think the concern is the quality of the transfers, not whether every upper-division Berkeley student has survived a weeder or not. If a transfer is just as knowledgeable/intelligent/hard-working as a Berkeley student who has passed weeders, then it shouldn't matter whether the transfer actually took a weeder or not. Now of course the problem is how can we distinguish these transfers from those who are not able. Your solution is to use weeder finals to separate the herd, but I think they can be too arbitrary/flawed, and that a better method should be used instead.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Personally, I think what should happen is that ALL Berkeley students, freshman-admit or transfer, who want a 'weeded major' should have to pass a qualification exam to get into the upper division of that major. But the bottom line is that the process has to be fair. It shouldn't be easier to get into a weeded major as a transfer student than as a freshman-admit.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Doesn't this sound a little too similar to major impaction, only now your chances of getting into that major isn't based on 2 years of college work but one test?</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
Well, I was referring mostly to undergrad Haas students. Maybe we were referring to different groups of people. I can understand that mentality for business school students, whose age average around 26 I believe, and don't really need to live with college students. But for 3rd and 4th years at least, I think it's better to not be as cliqueish.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was referring to undergrads too. Undergrads at Wharton and Sloan are rather clannish. So why is it so bad if Haas students are too? That's just the way that business students are, whether MBA or undergrad. </p>

<p>But like I said, I'm not forcing anybody to live in Haas-specific housing. If you don't want to live there, you don't have to live there. However, I think people should have the option to live only with people of their own kind, or with a diverse set. I don't think we should force people who want to live with their own kind to live in a diverse environment. Some people don't want diversity. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So you admit weeders are a problem...and you want to expand it towards transfers? That's like saying the city of Berkeley has crime, and it's unfair for the city of Westwood to not have as much crime (since we want to keep crime fair for all UC students), we should aim to have the city of Westwood have higher crime rates. The solution that makes sense to me is to simply get rid of the crime at Berkeley i.e. change/get rid of weeders, instead of imposing them on transfers. But even if weeders are a necessary evil at Berkeley for it to take in so many students and still maintain a quality graduating class, it doesn't mean we should impose weeder finals on transfer students, any more than if crime at Berkeley can't be ameliorated due to lack of police funds, we should "level the playing field" by promoting more crimes in Westwood.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because the level of weeding performed in the weeders is not a static figure. It's dynamic - it is indirectly determined by the number of students each of the majors is prepared to take. The fewer students each major is prepared to take, the more weeding occurs in the lower-division. For example, if 500 students want to enter a major that is prepared to handle only 250 of them, then the other 250 will have to be weeded (hence, a 50% weeder ratio). The major problem with the current situation is that the transfers effectively get to backdoor their way into the major by skipping many weeders, and so they actually CONTRIBUTE to the greater weeding that occurs in the weeders. For example, again, if a department decides to take 250 students from a batch of 500 students, but 100 of them are transfer students who get to skip weeders, then that leaves 400 students left who have to be whittled down to the remaining 150 spots. Hence, that actually INCREASES the weeder ratio (now it is 250 students weeded out of the 400, for a 62.5% weeder ratio). </p>

<p>Now, obviously those are just made-up numbers. But the point is clear - that the transfer students actually INCREASE the amount of weeding performed. This is where your crime analogy breaks down. In your analogy, crime would not be static in the 2 towns. It's rather as is the low crime rate in Westwood actually INCREASES the crime in Berkeley, because criminals in Westwood decide to ply their crime in Berkeley. Hence, Berkeley people would actually be victimized by more crime BECAUSE of the low crime rate in Westwood. Taken back to the original example, part of the reason why weeders are so harsh is because the transfers get to skip it. The more people that get to skip the weeders, the harsher the weeders have to be on the remaining students. </p>

<p>Personally, I would love to get rid of weeders. But the sad fact is that weeders exist because, frankly, there are students at Berkeley who are rather mediocre. That is the root of the problem. Sadly, I know of no easy political procedure to solve this problem. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Doesn't this sound a little too similar to major impaction, only now your chances of getting into that major isn't based on 2 years of college work but one test?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, I'd love to get rid of impaction completely. But if I have to live with it, I'd rather have it be done via one test. That, to me, is a fairer way to do imipaction. I have always believed that if you know the stuff, then you know the stuff. Who cares about what grades you got on those classes? If you can prove that you know the stuff, it shouldn't matter what your grades are. Conversely, if you don't know the stuff, then your grades should be irrelevant. </p>

<p>The problem with relying on grades is that grades are subject to grade inflation. Certain classes are easier than others, and you really can get A's in certain classes without knowing much of anything. Conversely, you know a lot, and still get a bad grade. Using a universal test eliminates this problem.</p>

80

<p>
[quote]
For example, if 500 students want to enter a major that is prepared to handle only 250 of them, then the other 250 will have to be weeded (hence, a 50% weeder ratio).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So what major would this be? The largest majors at Berkeley, MCB, Poly Sci, etc. seem to be able to handle all the students who want to enter the major (i.e. no impaction). And I think we hypothesized before that many of the impacted majors could probably be not impacted, and that the majors could probably hold all the students who want to major in that major if some things were done differently, so again it doesn't become a matter of "transfers taking spots from freshmen admits" but that Berkeley chooses to run things so that the majors cannot hold all the transfers and freshman admits and weeding must take place.</p>

<p>But following your logic, if you want to weed out transfers so that not as many freshan admits are weeded, the net weeding will still be around the same. It's just that you weed less freshmen admits and weed more transfers. Which I suppose would seem more fair in that both groups are being weeded.
But a simpler solution seems to simply admit less transfers in the first place? You could simply raise admissions standards and admit less transfers without having to try to weed them, unless I'm missing something here.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hey, I'd love to get rid of impaction completely. But if I have to live with it, I'd rather have it be done via one test. That, to me, is a fairer way to do imipaction. I have always believed that if you know the stuff, then you know the stuff. Who cares about what grades you got on those classes? If you can prove that you know the stuff, it shouldn't matter what your grades are. Conversely, if you don't know the stuff, then your grades should be irrelevant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hmm, I don't know about this. To have what you will study for the next two years be based on one test? A student could be sick, late due to extenuating circumstances, not a good test-taker, nervous, etc. etc. There is a reason why the college admissions process isn't based on one SAT score. In fact most people take it more than once because their scores often varies by a significant amount.</p>

<p>Now I do see the pitfall in relying on GPA. Both methods seem a little shaky to tell you the truth. I thought about maybe using a combination of both until I realized that declaring a major really shouldn't be as painful as gaining admission into the college. Ideally declaring a major should be made as easy as possible. Basing it on one test...that's just too much stress right there (can you imagine the pre-meds fighting for MCB?).</p>