Berkely alum wins Nobel Prize

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
101

<p>
[quote]
There is a difference between a class that is 'hard' and a class that fails people. I can tell you that MIT graduate-level engineering classes are extremely hard, in fact, almost ridiculously so. But that doesn't mean that a lot of people fail. In fact, usually nobody fails. It's extremely difficult to get an A, but practically nobody actually FAILS the classes. </p>

<p>Even the Berkeley upper division CS classes rarely actually FAIL anybody. Again, it's very difficult to get an A. But as long as you do the work, you're going to get a passing grade, even if it's a low passing grade like a C-. </p>

<p>To give you another example, medical school is extremely hard. I think there is nobody out there that will attempt to argue that med-school is easy. But at the same time, practically nobody actually flunks out of med-school. </p>

<p>Hence, I am fairly confident that you can make it such that the failure rate of CS lower division classes can go down to zero.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alrigiht, I thought you meant the grading in upper-division CS is only a little easier than lower-division, since it doesn't really make sense to say that the material is easier. But still, even if you CAN make the failure rate zero, doesn't mean that it will happen. In fact, I don't even think it's a good idea. What's the point of having a A-B-C-D-F grading system if you are only going to hand out the first three?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Seems to me that that is exactly what HYPS has done, and nobody seems to have a problem with it. Hardly anybody ever flunks out of those schools, yet those schools are widely acknowledged to be elite schools. I have always stated that Berkeley should be more like HYPS in terms of the undergraduate program.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody has a problem with this? I'm sure you are well-aware of the plethora of criticisms of grade inflation to take that statement seriously:</p>

<p><a href="http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i30/30b02401.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i30/30b02401.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeat_lessons20011205%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeat_lessons20011205&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002/02/08/edtwof2.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002/02/08/edtwof2.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In fact, Princeton recently passed a policy to combat grade inflation by limiting the number of As to 35% per class (which is still pretty darn high). As a result in its first year the number of As were cut by 5.1%.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S12/71/58E12/index.xml?section=newsreleases%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S12/71/58E12/index.xml?section=newsreleases&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Not to mention the many undergrads at Berkeley who have to put up with the relatively deflated grades. I bet they have a problem with the grade inflation going on at HYPS.</p>

<p>The point is, I don't think grade inflation is what we should be aiming for. Now I'm going to take a stab at what you are going to say, which is that in a system where the grade-inflated schools are sending the most students to top professional schools, Berkeley would only help its students by inflating grades, but I think the MIT model of having deflated grades yet still sending students to top grad programs is a better, albeit not perfect, model to follow.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You are confusing your analogies here, in a number of ways. First off, an entrance exam is simply an exam that would allow you to get into a particular major, or in your analogy, to get into med-school. It doesn't mean that you will actually get placed as a doctor in the hospital you want, or in the specialty you want. It is like the USMLE exam. You can go through 4 years of med-school, then fail the USMLE and thus not get your license to practice medicine. But simply passing the USMLE doesn't mean that you now get to work in the hospital you want, in the residency that you want. You still have to compete with others to get the best residencies. Passing the USMLE is a necessary but not sufficient condition. </p>

<p>Similarly, passing an entrance exam into the major simply means that you now get to enter the major. It doesn't mean that you will get the job you want when you graduate. All it means is that you are allowed into the major, nothing more, nothing less. Plenty of students from any school, even Harvard, finish their degree yet don't get the job that they really want. Or don't get into the graduate school that they really want. Heck, even completing your PhD dissertation and thus getting your PhD doesn't mean that you will get the academic placement that you want. I 've read about plenty of PhD's who wanted an academic position yet couldn't get placed anywhere and thus were forced to enter industry, which they didn't really want.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think I'm confusing my analogies here. In the analogy of medical school, yes just because you get in doesn't mean you will become a doctor, but if you don't get in you sure as heck won't become a doctor (ignoring the rare aberrations in this example). So, the question is, do you want students who studied hard for four years and know four years of material well as candidates, or a bunch of students who can take one test with limited material well, as candidates? The former group is probably better prepared for med school, and thus probably perform better, and those who do become doctors will probably become better doctors.</p>

<p>Similarly, if you are better prepared for the major (by actually working hard in all your classes) then you will probably perform better in your major (should you get in) and thus better at your job (should you get it) and be a greater benefit to society as a whole. But you still haven't answered my question, which is how seriously do you think students will take their classes if entering their major depended on one exam? For those who aren't planning to go to graduate school, I bet a lot of them might just barely do enough to avoid academic probation, and study hard only for the major entrance exam (in order to scrape by with a diploma, probably). I don't think that's what we really want.</p>

102

<p>
[quote]
They are. In fact, that actually points to another weakness in Calkidd's argument. He seems to think that MIT grad classes are less based on projects/hw. Well, I don't know what classes he's taken, but that's not certainly my experience or the experience of anybody that I know.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, maybe you, Calkidd, and I have had different experiences. But this is a minor point in any case.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So let's bring this back to what we are talking about here. I am talking about using an entrance exam for impacted/weeded majors. Nobody "needs" to enter an impacted/weeded major at Berkeley. You can major in something unimpacted/unweeded. You can simply choose to go to a completely different school. You don't 'need' to enter Berkeley's impacted/weeded major. But if impaction/weeding has to be utilized, then it has to be utilized fairly. We shouldn't have special treatment for certain people. </p>

<p>As it stands now, transfer students are getting special treatment because they get to skip over some or all weeders. That's not fair. Granted, the transfer students didn't ask for special treatment. But they are getting it anyway. It is that unfairness that I want to stop. If you want to use impaction, if you want to use weeding for a certain major, then it has to be applied fairly to all people in that major.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And here's what I am talking about: I don't think it's fair to the students to have whether they can major in what they want to major be based on one test. It's bad enough that they have to apply, but I think one entrance exam is too arbitrary. I would prefer a system that is based on more (i.e. grades). Your objection to this is that the grades given in different classes is too uneven, and I agree to that objection, which is why I think we should aim to simply make the grades more even, meaning ease up on the weeders and make the "fluff" majors/course tougher. That, in my opinion, is a better way than an entrance exam.</p>

<p>In terms of transfers, I would say to just raise the standards for admission. What I care about is the quality of the transfers: are they as well-prepared as freshman admits? Are the transfer students as strong as the freshman admits? If they are, then that's fine with me. I don't care whether they've "gone through the weeding process" or not. You know the old saying, "there's more than one way to skin a cat," and a transfer can be just as good without having to go through weeders. So the question is: are transfer as good? I think the general feeling among many (you and I) is, not quite. So, let's just raise the standards of admission. I don't like the inherent idea of weeding as part of the admissions process.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Uh, no, the real root of the problem is that there is a long tail end of bad students. Getting rid of them would REALLY be getting rid of the root of the problem. MIT, for example, doesn't have any impacted majors, and doesn't even do weeding to the level that Berkeley does. Why? Because the students are good. You don't have a conspicuous tail end of bad students at MIT the way you do at Berkeley. If MIT did, then MIT would probably implement impaction and Berkeley-style weeding. </p>

<p>But like I said, sadly, I don't see any feasible way to get rid of the bad students. Hence, we will most likely have to live with impaction and weeding. The question then is how to manage it fairly.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right, and I think we agree on everything except how to manage it fairly. Thus, this debate seems, at least to me, to be quickly degenerating into the pointless over a difference of opinions. But no debate is even needed if we could simply get rid of impaction, which I thought is what you have been trying to do for a while now? I hope you haven't given up on getting rid of impaction.</p>

103

<p>I </3 vicissitudes and sakky.</p>

<p>You two throw down like titans. It's great reading.</p>

104

<p>
[quote]
Alrigiht, I thought you meant the grading in upper-division CS is only a little easier than lower-division, since it doesn't really make sense to say that the material is easier. But still, even if you CAN make the failure rate zero, doesn't mean that it will happen. In fact, I don't even think it's a good idea. What's the point of having a A-B-C-D-F grading system if you are only going to hand out the first three?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We live in a competitive world, and where your competitors refuse to deflate your grades, you would be a fool to deflate yours. That is, unless you could develop a reputation for rigor in the lines of MIT. Somehow I doubt that is going to happen with Berkeley anytime soon. Not until you get rid of all of the fluff majors. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. </p>

<p>Personally, I think what should happen at is that Berkeley should use the former Stanford policy of not even giving out F grades, but instead, giving out no grade at all, and acting as if the class had never been taken. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Nobody has a problem with this? I'm sure you are well-aware of the plethora of criticisms of grade inflation to take that statement seriously:

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That was obviously a rhetorical flourish. I obviously didn't literally mean that literally nobody in the entire world had a problem with it. I obviously meant that few people who MATTER really care, and specifically, employers and grad schools don't seem to care. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, Princeton recently passed a policy to combat grade inflation by limiting the number of As to 35% per class (which is still pretty darn high). As a result in its first year the number of As were cut by 5.1%.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a...n=newsreleases%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a...n=newsreleases&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, a policy of giving out 35% A's would cause raptures of joy and riotous celebration among many students at Berkeley, particularly the engineering students. Princeton's new policy is STILL inflated, albeit less than before.</p>

<p>But secondly, and more importantly, I think Princeton is being dumb. They are going to be hurting their students in competition for grad school and jobs, relative to grads from HYS. Sad but true. </p>

<p>What should happen is a NATIONWIDE EFFORT to combat grade deflation. Once you coordinate everybody to all take the first step together, then grade inflation could be solved. But as of right now, everybody is in a prisoner's dilemma, and Princeton is being foolish to take the first step when its competitor schools are not. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The point is, I don't think grade inflation is what we should be aiming for. Now I'm going to take a stab at what you are going to say, which is that in a system where the grade-inflated schools are sending the most students to top professional schools, Berkeley would only help its students by inflating grades, but I think the MIT model of having deflated grades yet still sending students to top grad programs is a better, albeit not perfect, model to follow

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, and how does MIT get away with it? The strategy is twofold. First, it has cultivated a well-earned reputation for having extremely stellar students who can compete against anybody. Secondly, MIT is also highly open in allowing its own undergrads into its grad school. I would say that MIT has one of the highest 'home-field advantages' in terms of grad school for its undergrads - a significant plurality of MIT grad students are former undergrads. I would say that only Harvard rivals MIT in terms of this homefield advantage.</p>

<p>For Berkeley to do the same, Berkeley would have to implement both policies. I don't see this happening easily, especially the first part. Berkeley would have to become a far far more selective school, and that's not in the cards. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think I'm confusing my analogies here. In the analogy of medical school, yes just because you get in doesn't mean you will become a doctor, but if you don't get in you sure as heck won't become a doctor (ignoring the rare aberrations in this example). So, the question is, do you want students who studied hard for four years and know four years of material well as candidates, or a bunch of students who can take one test with limited material well, as candidates? The former group is probably better prepared for med school, and thus probably perform better, and those who do become doctors will probably become better doctors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, your analogy is still confused. Keep in mind what we are really talking about here. You keep talking about 'candidates' with regards to my idea of an entrance exam as if the notion of the term candidate is somehow a precious commodity that needs to be preserved, ignoring the fact that many majors at Berkeley currently have NO impaction, and would therefore have no entrance exam. My entire idea of the entrance exam is predicated on finding a fair way to allot spaces in impacted majors, which means that non-impacted majors would not have entrance exams because there would be no need to allot spaces.</p>

<p>So think about what that means. You talk about students who have taken only 1 test to be 'candidates', as if that is such a flawed idea. Yet currently, there are majors where there is no impaction and thus no need to even take an entrance exam. Any Berkeley student can just decide one fine day to be an American Studies "candidate". What about that? </p>

<p>So if anything, what you should be advocating are entrance exams for ALL majors, so that ALL majors could rid themselves of unworthy candidates. See below.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But you still haven't answered my question, which is how seriously do you think students will take their classes if entering their major depended on one exam? For those who aren't planning to go to graduate school, I bet a lot of them might just barely do enough to avoid academic probation, and study hard only for the major entrance exam (in order to scrape by with a diploma, probably). I don't think that's what we really want.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Conversely, let me ask you a question. How seriously do you think current Berkeley students in many of those cheesepuff nonimpacted majors are taking their classes right now? Like I said, any Berkeley student can just decide to major in American Studies. </p>

<p>I'll give you another example. Take the students in the College of Engineering, especially those in junior/senior year Once you've hit the last 2 years of engineering, it is widely understood that you will graduate. With rare exceptions, they're not trying to weed you out anymore. Frankly, most students are unlikely to get a grade below a C-. But does that mean that lots of these guys are lolly-gagging around? I think we can both agree that a lazy junior/senior engineering student is a pretty rare sight. These guys have already gotten their 'entrance' into the major by virtue of having been admitted to the College of Engineering and having passed the lower division weeders. So are they just slacking off, doing nothing? I certainly wouldn't characterize them as such. I certainly wouldn't say that they are lazier than many of the students in the creampuff majors.</p>

<p>And that's my main objection to this new digression you've taken. You say that my ideas would foster laziness. My objection to that is simple - MANY BERKELEY STUDENTS RIGHT NOW UNDER THE CURRENT SCHEME ARE LAZY. Again, take a look at what happens right now in the 'Studies' majors. I hardly see how my ideas would increase the laziness. So I don't know why you are formulating an objection based on something that would exist whether my idea is implemented or not.</p>

105

<p>
[quote]
And here's what I am talking about: I don't think it's fair to the students to have whether they can major in what they want to major be based on one test. It's bad enough that they have to apply, but I think one entrance exam is too arbitrary. I would prefer a system that is based on more (i.e. grades). Your objection to this is that the grades given in different classes is too uneven, and I agree to that objection, which is why I think we should aim to simply make the grades more even, meaning ease up on the weeders and make the "fluff" majors/course tougher. That, in my opinion, is a better way than an entrance exam.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, because your proposal STILL doesn't get to the heart of why I proposed my idea in the first place. You say that we should just ease up on weeder grading. How does that solve the problem of transfers being able to skip weeders in the first place? What the heck do they care if the grading in those weeders is eased if they never have to take those weeders anyway? Conversely, when it comes time to deciding who gets admitted to a major, and you have to compare a freshman-admit who took all the weeders, and a transfer student who got to skip some of them, how are you going to be able to fairly weigh who is more worthy of entering the major? It could be unfair to either party. For example, the freshman-admit might have gotten a bad grade in a weeder, so you might say that that guy shouldn't be allowed into the major because of that bad grade, and so we should admit the transfer student. However, that transfer student might have also gotten a bad grade if he had taken the weeder. But he got to skip that weeder, so we'll never know what grade he would have gotten had he been forced to take it. Maybe he would have gotten an A. Maybe he would have gotten an F. Who knows? But that's the point - you're now alloting scarce spots in the major based on data that is not entirely comparable. </p>

<p>A test is comparable and fair. You can see that somebody scored higher than somebody else. That is more fair than a situation of trying to assess whether somebody would have gotten a certain grade in a course he never took. </p>

<p>You keep harping on the supposed unfairness of using a test, and I ask you - what about the unfairness of the current situation? </p>

<p>
[quote]
In terms of transfers, I would say to just raise the standards for admission. What I care about is the quality of the transfers: are they as well-prepared as freshman admits? Are the transfer students as strong as the freshman admits? If they are, then that's fine with me. I don't care whether they've "gone through the weeding process" or not. You know the old saying, "there's more than one way to skin a cat," and a transfer can be just as good without having to go through weeders. So the question is: are transfer as good? I think the general feeling among many (you and I) is, not quite. So, let's just raise the standards of admission. I don't like the inherent idea of weeding as part of the admissions process.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't want to be the one to have to point this out, but this doesn't entirely reconcile with things you said before. You complained before how some people who couldn't traverse a hurdle would like the hurdle to not exist. For example, you mentioned your math teacher who couldn't finish his PhD thesis not liking the fact that a thesis is required to get a PhD. Yet here you are saying that you should just raise the admissions standards for transfer students. Uh, wouldn't that mean that those transfer students who now get rejected won't like it?</p>

<p>I think that means that you're now coming around to my view, which is that this is not about doing things that everybody is going to like, but rather about doing what's fair. Having people write a thesis to get a PhD is obviously not going to be popular with people who are unable to write the thesis. But that's not the point. The point is not to please everybody, but to set a clear and fair standard about what is required in order to get something. Just like in sports, the rules are fair and clear. Obviously the losers of any sports contest doesn't like it. Heck, every sports team would love to change the rules such that it wins all the time. But the issue is not whether the rules are popular with everybody (as obviously the rules aren't going to be popular with all the teams who lose), but rather about setting fair standards. </p>

<p>But anyway, back to the point. I would ask you - in theory, why would you stop with just raising the admissions standards for transfer students. You said it yourself, and I agree, weeding is not cool. So why not raise the admissions standards for ALL the undergrads, followed by getting rid of all the weeding. In fact, that is precisely the Stanford model. </p>

<p>We both know the reasons why not. See below. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Right, and I think we agree on everything except how to manage it fairly. Thus, this debate seems, at least to me, to be quickly degenerating into the pointless over a difference of opinions. But no debate is even needed if we could simply get rid of impaction, which I thought is what you have been trying to do for a while now? I hope you haven't given up on getting rid of impaction.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In theory I like the idea of getting rid of impaction completely. But I would also like to get rid of weeding entirely, as impaction and weeding are two sides of the same coin. How's that, you might ask? Because plenty of students who are technically 'admitted' to certain majors are still often times weeded out. For example, you can get admitted as a freshman-admit into EECS within the College of Engineering, but then still get weeded out by the EECS weeders and thus have to find something else to major in. So the fact that you were 'technically' admitted into the major means little, because at the end of the day, you still ended up having to major in something else. </p>

<p>Hence, what I would really like to do is get rid of weeding+impaction. But unless we want Berkeley's reputation to decline, that would ultimately mean raising admissions standards. Otherwise, Berkeley really would start granting EECS degrees upon highly mediocre people, and that would inevitably damage the reputation of the school when these people go out there and embarrass the school. </p>

<p>Yet the truth is, raising admissions standards is tilting at windmills. I would love to do it, and in fact, I have proposed it numerous times. But I know that it's probably impossible for political reasons. I know what would happen if it was seriously proposed. We would have numerous protests in front of Sproul decrying the 'reduced opportunity' or 'reduced access', or that sort of thing. We would have some hysterically crying students on TV berating Berkeley for being mean-spirited. Basically, the whole thing would be derailed by a circus of populist demagoguery. </p>

<p>But hey, if you can propose a politically feasible manner with which to raise admissions standards that won't cause a firestorm of protest, then more power to you. I am not optimistic on winning this battle, however.</p>

106

<p>
[quote]
We live in a competitive world, and where your competitors refuse to deflate your grades, you would be a fool to deflate yours. That is, unless you could develop a reputation for rigor in the lines of MIT. Somehow I doubt that is going to happen with Berkeley anytime soon. Not until you get rid of all of the fluff majors. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's what I thought you would say, and was actually mentioned in one of the articles I posted, which deals with the issue of "grade compression." I think nationwide, colleges should steer away from grade inflation, because look, if everyone is getting As, how the heck do you differentiate the good students from the bad? How do employers differentiate the good students from the bad? DRab protested earlier in this thread that we should theoretically be able to give every single student an A if they all perform well, but of course that doesn't happen in reality; you're bound to have some students perform better than others, especially when we are talking about Berkeley, where the huge undergrad population creates uneven student quality. So, I think two possibilities are feasible here, which I think you implied in your post but didn't explicitly state (I could be wrong): either Berkeley becomes a lot more selective and thus grade inflation can be allowed, or Berkeley continues to accept many mediocre students and then weed them through grade deflation. Since the first doesn't seem realistic, I don't see grade inflation at Berkeley as realistic either.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But secondly, and more importantly, I think Princeton is being dumb. They are going to be hurting their students in competition for grad school and jobs, relative to grads from HYS. Sad but true. </p>

<p>What should happen is a NATIONWIDE EFFORT to combat grade deflation. Once you coordinate everybody to all take the first step together, then grade inflation could be solved. But as of right now, everybody is in a prisoner's dilemma, and Princeton is being foolish to take the first step when its competitor schools are not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, at least Princeton is doing something! The other schools haven't followed...yet. But if no school decides to do anything, then certainly nothing will be done. At least this is a step in the right direction, in my opinion, and could put pressure on the other top schools to move towards controlling the grade inflation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So think about what that means. You talk about students who have taken only 1 test to be 'candidates', as if that is such a flawed idea. Yet currently, there are majors where there is no impaction and thus no need to even take an entrance exam. Any Berkeley student can just decide one fine day to be an American Studies "candidate". What about that? </p>

<p>So if anything, what you should be advocating are entrance exams for ALL majors, so that ALL majors could rid themselves of unworthy candidates. See below.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, what I really advocate is NO entrance exams for ANY majors, because I think students should have the freedom to choose majors. But I see your point in that...some students at Berkeley probably aren't entirely qualified to major in certain areas, and must be weeded out. So, some of the mediocre students who currently can major in "American Studies" should really have a process of applying and possibly getting rejected, instead of the freedom to major in it like they do now. However, I still think that this process should be based on GPA and not one entrance test. I've thought a while about this and came up with an elaboration to what I kept saying before about how Berkeley needs to leverage the classes out:</p>

<p>Berkeley is weeding out the wrong students. That's really what I have been trying to say. What's really unfair about the weeding process isn't that students are being weeded out (it's probably necessary due to the current situation), but that the students who are weeded out shouldn't be weeded out, while the students who really deserve to be weeded out aren't. I mean, there are plenty of engineers who study their butt off and still have low GPAs, while there are other students majoring in certain other subjects, not doing much work, and still getting by. THOSE are the students who should really be weeded out! Like you have said before, they are really just wasting Berkeley's resources. So, when I said we should ease up on weeders, what I really meant was ease up on weeders in mostly tech departments in which students are studying hard and still failing, while we toughen up on the "fluff" majors. Then one of two things will happen: either those students will straighten up and work, or they will be weeded out.</p>

<p>Let's see if this idea can be tied together with some of the other topics:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yeah, and how does MIT get away with it? The strategy is twofold. First, it has cultivated a well-earned reputation for having extremely stellar students who can compete against anybody. Secondly, MIT is also highly open in allowing its own undergrads into its grad school. I would say that MIT has one of the highest 'home-field advantages' in terms of grad school for its undergrads - a significant plurality of MIT grad students are former undergrads. I would say that only Harvard rivals MIT in terms of this homefield advantage.</p>

<p>For Berkeley to do the same, Berkeley would have to implement both policies. I don't see this happening easily, especially the first part. Berkeley would have to become a far far more selective school, and that's not in the cards.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So, for the first step, if we weed out those lazy students who take "fluff" majors, then we will be much closer to having extremely stellar students on campus. Probably not to the level of MIT, but probably a lot better than what we have now. The second step, which I meant to write about in my previous post but left out, is to have Berkeley set up some undergrad-graduate programs (I think you proposed this before too), which might also help in attracting better students to Berkeley.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But does that mean that lots of these guys are lolly-gagging around? I think we can both agree that a lazy junior/senior engineering student is a pretty rare sight. These guys have already gotten their 'entrance' into the major by virtue of having been admitted to the College of Engineering and having passed the lower division weeders. So are they just slacking off, doing nothing? I certainly wouldn't characterize them as such. I certainly wouldn't say that they are lazier than many of the students in the creampuff majors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And so we must delve into the question of: why are they working so hard if they really don't have to? One reason for this may be because they are used to it. They are used to working really hard in lower division weeders and so a culture of diligence was fostered. I think we can also say fairly reasonably that American Studies majors, in upper-div, probably don't work as hard as upper div engineering students. Why is that? Maybe it's because they are used to that. So this ties back to the idea of tightening up on easy majors: if we can foster a culture of diligence in all the majors at Berkeley, while we weed out those students who are just lazy and don't do much work, maybe we wouldn't need entrance exams.</p>

107

<p>
[quote]
No, because your proposal STILL doesn't get to the heart of why I proposed my idea in the first place. You say that we should just ease up on weeder grading. How does that solve the problem of transfers being able to skip weeders in the first place?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This again ties into the idea that Berkeley is weeding out the wrong people. There are hard-working students, engineers or whatnot, who are nevertheless weeded out. We should ease up on weeding for those people, while admitting less transfers, the bottom of whom are probably more "mediocre." This is done by raising transfer admissions standards.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't want to be the one to have to point this out, but this doesn't entirely reconcile with things you said before. You complained before how some people who couldn't traverse a hurdle would like the hurdle to not exist. For example, you mentioned your math teacher who couldn't finish his PhD thesis not liking the fact that a thesis is required to get a PhD. Yet here you are saying that you should just raise the admissions standards for transfer students. Uh, wouldn't that mean that those transfer students who now get rejected won't like it?</p>

<p>I think that means that you're now coming around to my view, which is that this is not about doing things that everybody is going to like, but rather about doing what's fair.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think I've always held that view, which is that under the current situation, some people probably need to be weeded out. We just disagree on the fair way to "weed" them out.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hence, what I would really like to do is get rid of weeding+impaction. But unless we want Berkeley's reputation to decline, that would ultimately mean raising admissions standards. Otherwise, Berkeley really would start granting EECS degrees upon highly mediocre people, and that would inevitably damage the reputation of the school when these people go out there and embarrass the school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which again goes back to the idea that Berkeley needs to leverage the difficulty of different majors, because I think what is embarrasing Berkeley even more than its below-average engineers with sub-par GPAs are some certain lazy students who major in certain subjects. So by weeding THOSE people out, Berkeley's reputation would remain pretty strong, even without raising selectivity (at least I think it's a better situation than the current one). So, this seems to me like a feasible alternative to raising selectivity.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yet the truth is, raising admissions standards is tilting at windmills. I would love to do it, and in fact, I have proposed it numerous times. But I know that it's probably impossible for political reasons. I know what would happen if it was seriously proposed. We would have numerous protests in front of Sproul decrying the 'reduced opportunity' or 'reduced access', or that sort of thing. We would have some hysterically crying students on TV berating Berkeley for being mean-spirited. Basically, the whole thing would be derailed by a circus of populist demagoguery. </p>

<p>But hey, if you can propose a politically feasible manner with which to raise admissions standards that won't cause a firestorm of protest, then more power to you. I am not optimistic on winning this battle, however.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I could see that happening, which is part of the reason why I do not like to get involved in politics (but that's for another thread). What I have been advocating for a long time is simply for Berkeley to get rid of its low-end of students (maybe 10% or so), the majority of whom will probably attend a lower UC like UCSD. Then, UCSD rejects its bottom 10% who will probably attend a lower UC like...UCR. The great thing about this idea is that the lower UCs, like UCR and UCM, are currently under-admitting. The system seems flawed when some schools seem to be over their carry capacities while others are under-admitting. Under this proposal, Berkeley's undergrad population will decrease a bit, and quality of students will rise. UCSD's quality of students will also rise, having received some students who would have otherwise went for Berkeley, and getting rid of its bottom 10%. UCR and UCM will also benefit, having received some strong students who would have otherwise attended a better UC, plus they won't be under-admitting. So all the UCs win. On top of that, many of those who are now at UCSD probably would have flunked out of Berkeley anyway, so attending a lower UC is actually good for them. Hopefully this will also cause the graduation rate at the UCs to rise. So, in theory at least, this seems like a very good idea to me.</p>

<p>Of course, this has certain political implications like you have mentioned. But hey, getting rid of affimative action was unpopular but it still went through, so I'm not saying that this is impossible.</p>

108

<p>
[quote]
Yeah, I could see that happening, which is part of the reason why I do not like to get involved in politics (but that's for another thread). What I have been advocating for a long time is simply for Berkeley to get rid of its low-end of students (maybe 10% or so), the majority of whom will probably attend a lower UC like UCSD.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is too elitist a solution. </p>

<p>Instead, Berkeley should accept EVERYONE that applies. But it should change somethings first - it should catch up to the third millenium and order it's world class tech departments to install webcasting devices in every single classroom. That way, someone like me who hates NorCal, can just stay in SoCal and still get educated faster (through digital archives) by some of the best professors in the world. For students who want to ask questions in "lecture" or take seminars, we could have UC provided webcams. For labs, Berkeley could set up some deal with UCLA and other universities throughout the state. This solution would free up a lot classroom space which could be turned into lab space to be used by undergrads who want research experience and aren't getting it under the current system. This would turn Berkeley into a degree factory and I support that. Angelides all the way!</p>

109

<p>Well, then everyone and his dog can get a degree at Berkeley, which would pretty much kill Berkeley's reputation (what's the point of having a degree if it's so easy to obtain?), and liken a Berkeley degree to...maybe a Cal State bachelor's degree. The point of having a selective admissions process means that in employers' eyes, Berkeley students are probably better than say...Cal State LA students in that they survived the tough admissions process, so they will probably make better employees. With an open admissions process Berkeley will essentially turn into a 4-year CC that hands out bachlor's degrees (unless you suggest weeding which I don't think you are suggesting). Well, that doesn't help differentiate Berkeley students from CC students so a Berkeley degree is worth much less, and students who actually want their degrees to be worth something will just attend UCLA (unless you do the same to UCLA, in which case they will go to UCSD or a private, and so on). So, it's a fine proposal if you want to turn Berkeley into a huge CC-like degree-pumping factory, but you might as well just expand a current Cal State into a huge degree-pumping factory.</p>

110

<p>I think all universities in the country should have their resources stripped by the federal government and be amalgamated into a new UUSA (University of the United States of America.) Every US citizen should be admitted to UUSA. That way, they will all have equal educational opportunities as far as college is concerned. Only intellectual performance in college course work would matter in such a system.</p>

111

<p>Okay. That's certainly interesting. Actually, that sounds dangerously socialistic but I'll go along. So where would you propose that we build this UUSA?</p>

112

<p>Wow...so instead of having differentiation between universties, we'll just have ONE crappy university. Win-win.</p>

113

<p>Hahahaha. Well that's one way to put it. :)</p>

114

<p>
[quote]
that sounds dangerously socialistic

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It approaches socialism but doesn't quite make it. I'm not in favor of equality of results. That would just be stupid. If you do more work or if your work is more beneficial to society you should get more resources than people who do less work or whose work isn't as beneficial. What I want is equality of opportunity, by which I mean state funded education for every 3-23 year old citizen.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So where would you propose that we build this UUSA?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not really promoting a central location. I simply want all U.S. universities to be renamed and merged into a broader administrative apparatus. Renaming based on location or founding date would also be great. UUSA-Berkeley, 1868. UUSA-Cambridge, 1636.</p>

115

<p>That's a great idea.</p>

116

<p>
[quote]
I think nationwide, colleges should steer away from grade inflation, because look, if everyone is getting As, how the heck do you differentiate the good students from the bad?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is a great ideal, but as a practical matter, it won't happen because of coordination issues. The first to move to deflate grades will most likely lose out, as I believe Princeton will. Hence, this is prisoner's dilemma. Nobody wants to be the one to make a move for fear that others won't make a parallel move. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Hey, at least Princeton is doing something! The other schools haven't followed...yet. But if no school decides to do anything, then certainly nothing will be done. At least this is a step in the right direction, in my opinion, and could put pressure on the other top schools to move towards controlling the grade inflation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think what is more likely is that Princeton will realize that it made a mistake and will return back to the old system. Sad but true. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley is weeding out the wrong students. That's really what I have been trying to say. What's really unfair about the weeding process isn't that students are being weeded out (it's probably necessary due to the current situation), but that the students who are weeded out shouldn't be weeded out, while the students who really deserve to be weeded out aren't. I mean, there are plenty of engineers who study their butt off and still have low GPAs, while there are other students majoring in certain other subjects, not doing much work, and still getting by. THOSE are the students who should really be weeded out! Like you have said before, they are really just wasting Berkeley's resources. So, when I said we should ease up on weeders, what I really meant was ease up on weeders in mostly tech departments in which students are studying hard and still failing, while we toughen up on the "fluff" majors. Then one of two things will happen: either those students will straighten up and work, or they will be weeded out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Very good. I agree with all of this. </p>

<p>But then take the next logical step. You talk about using GPA as the criteria for entrance into an impacted major. But the fact is, as you have seen, different classes are graded differently. So you would still end up with the 'wrong' people getting weeded out. Specifically, those students who were unlucky enough to have taken the difficult version of a particular class (i.e. Math 1B with Wu) will get weeded out even though they deserve to be in, and those who just happened to have taken the easy version will not have been weeded out even though they deserved to be weeded out. You then also have students playing the game of cherry-picking the easy classes just so they will avoid getting weeded out. </p>

<p>Which is, again, why I prefer using an entrance exam. By doing this, it won't matter if you took the easy or the hard version of Math 1B, or CS61B or whatever. All that will matter is whether you can pass the entrance exam, simple as that. </p>

<p>Now, of course, you will probably respond that the answer is to then simply standardize all versions of a particular class. But again, what's easier to standardize - a bunch of different profs all with different agendas and motivations, or just 1 test. Having to standardize the behaviors of a bunch of different profs simply means dealing with a lot more degrees of freedom than standardizing just 1 test.</p>

117

<p>
[quote]
This is done by raising transfer admissions standards.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would like to raise ALL admissions standards. But given the politics of Berkeley, like I said, I am not holding my breath. Everytime I have proposed raising transfer admissions standards, a firestorm of protest has been elicited.</p>

118

<p>What would be the format of the entrance test you are proposing?</p>

119

<p>It would be like the Ph.D. qualification exams (except obviously a lot easier). It would be an overview of all of the things you are supposed to know from the current weeder classes. </p>

<p>For example, let's take chemical engineering. The entrance exam would cover general chemistry, organic chemistry, general physics, and general chemical engineering techniques (and implicitly, multivariable calculus and linear algebra). In essence, it would cover the material covered in the Physics 7, Math 1, Chem 1/112 series, and ChemE140, and (perhaps) ChemE 141/150A (although maybe not). That comprises the entire suite of chemical engineering weeders. Once you get past 141/150A, you're basically past the weeders and you know that you're going to graduate with the ChemE degree. Maybe not with high grades (as the subsequent classes are still tough), but you're going to graduate. Before that point, you don't have that assurance because you are still hacking your way through the weeders.</p>

<p>The analogy would be the way that all PhD programs are run now. If you don't pass your PhD quals, you are kicked out of the program (although you can usually still get a consolation master's). Hence, every Berkeley PhD program uses what is in effect an 'entrance exam' that determines whether you are able to become a true doctoral candidate. Before your quals, you aren't a candidate, you're just a doctoral 'student'. However, while doctoral students have to take doctoral courses, they aren't weeders. Practically nobody ever gets weeded out by doctoral courses. The weedout occurs at the quals. </p>

<p>I think the use of doctoral qual exams is a fair way to determine who is allowed to advance to candidacy and who isn't. So if the PhD programs can use such a system, I don't see why the undergrad program can't do the same. I still see an exam as holding an advantage over using grades to determine advancement simply because with an exam, you have fewer degrees of freedom that can skew your results. You don't have to worry that some profs are simply easier graders than others, you don't have to worry about having transfer students trying to skip over some weeders, you don't have to worry about any of that stuff. The situation is fair - everybody takes the same test, and those who pass are in, and the rest are out.</p>

120

<p>
[quote]
This is a great ideal, but as a practical matter, it won't happen because of coordination issues. The first to move to deflate grades will most likely lose out, as I believe Princeton will. Hence, this is prisoner's dilemma. Nobody wants to be the one to make a move for fear that others won't make a parallel move.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, Princeton made a move.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think what is more likely is that Princeton will realize that it made a mistake and will return back to the old system. Sad but true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have to disagree. You are basing this because you think Princeton students will be hurt by the grade deflation? Well Princeton students who receive 3.5s and 3.6s nevertheless get into professional schools, added to the fact that the number of As given out only dropped by 5.1% after the policy, leds me to think that this won't hurt Princeton students very much.</p>

<p>On a similar note, what are your thoughts on Harvard's ending early action? Princeton followed, and later UVa. I think Cornell's graduate department is also trying to pressure Cornell into dropping its ED program. Do you think others will follow (so far it seems like few are following) or do you think this is the same as grade deflation?</p>

<p>
[quote]
But then take the next logical step. You talk about using GPA as the criteria for entrance into an impacted major. But the fact is, as you have seen, different classes are graded differently.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So, why can't we just try to make the different classes grade more similarly in difficulty? Unless I'm missing something, you haven't pointed out what's wrong with this idea. For example, we can do what Princeton did and limit the number of As, and also Ds and Fs, and have that be a campus-wide policy.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I would like to raise ALL admissions standards. But given the politics of Berkeley, like I said, I am not holding my breath. Everytime I have proposed raising transfer admissions standards, a firestorm of protest has been elicited.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Me neither, but hey, getting rid of affimative action has elicited firestorms of protest before...so I'm not saying it's hopeless.</p>