<p>I thought it was a difficult only cuz the prereqs themselves were pretty tough. I didn't feel like it was tough because I was tryin to tackle on more than other people were. I mean, if you think about it.. EECS is tougher cuz you have to do your Math, CS, chem/physics, EE prereqs.. well for CS/Econ you just substitute the chem/physics and EE with Econ prereqs..... Also, you dont have to worry about CS prereqs killin your Econ chances because Econ department looks at how well you do in your Econ prereqs..</p>
<p>That's true, but keep in mind that you will be taking both CS and Econ reqs, probably at the same time, so you won't be able to totally focus on doing well on just one major's prereqs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Becuase im pretty sure about my chances at berkeley and i think i would also really like to dmajor in econ and cs!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I think double-majors are highly overrated. The truth is, sadly, you won't get much of a boost either in the job market or in grad school admissions for completing a double, relative to the amount of extra effort you would spend in doing the double. It's an activity with a pretty low rate of return. If you want to get a job, then you are almost certainly better off spending your time working on internships or co-ops, or just doing general networking. If you want to get into academic grad school (i.e. MS or PhD), then you are probably better off working on research projects. Either that, or use your extra time to get a master's degree (i.e. Berkeley computer science BA/MS program). Any of these options would most likely be more effective uses of your time. </p>
<p>To give you a case in point, I know people who have doubled at MIT, and still got beaten out for the jobs they wanted by people who completed only a single. One of those guys ruefully admitted that if he was to do it all over again, he wouldn't have doubled, but instead would have spent his time working on his interview skills and doing more internship work. </p>
<p>The bottom line is, if you are going to double, you should do it only because you are truly interested in both subjects. Don't do it because you think it will be useful later in your career, because, frankly, it probably won't be. Employers don't really care. Grad schools don't really care. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Well econ is impacted, so there will be competition.
The good news is that 70% of those who apply will get accepted, the bad news is that you may be one of the 30%
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or you could be part of the unknown 'cloaked pool' of people who never even apply because they know that they can't get in. Let's face it. If you do terrible in your Econ prereqs, you probably won't even apply for the major because you know you won't get it.</p>
<p>Right.. of course you should be doing it not cuz you think it would look better. I've always had an interest in computers and programs, so I decided to pursue it in college. Of course, I might consider just doin the minor if the double becomes too much for me..</p>
<p>unlimitedx wrote:
[quote]
Can you guys elaborate these abuses? I'm curious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The most typical and common aspect of programmer abuse is highly unrealistic schedules for software development and releases; resulting in extremely long work hours (80+ hour work-week), cancelled vacations, etc. </p>
<p>I googled 'programmer abuse' and came up with this link (<a href="http://www.developerdotstar.com/community/programmerabuseRIP)%5B/url%5D">http://www.developerdotstar.com/community/programmerabuseRIP)</a>. It has info on the EA Spouse Phenomenon, regarding poor treatment at EA.</p>
<p>sakky,</p>
<p>the reason i want to double major is because i really like both econ and cs and cant decided on which to major in. Im not doing it to enhance my job opportunities, but to have the option out of college of going into something related to econ or cs (that way i could choose out of two careers that i am really interested in).</p>
<p>so overall, its really for my personal interest in both subjects, not so much for the job prospects.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The most typical and common aspect of programmer abuse is highly unrealistic schedules for software development and releases; resulting in extremely long work hours (80+ hour work-week), cancelled vacations, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Frankly, I think much of that 'abuse' is self-generated. After all, developers CAN just choose to work for a regular organization with regular hours, i.e. work for the government or a sleepy industrial organization. You don't HAVE to work for an aggressive Silicon Valley high-tech company like EA. Furthermore, even if you do work for such a company, you can quit at any time. Either that, or work there as an hourly contractor (as opposed to a salaried employee) so that you get paid for every additional hour you work. </p>
<p>Hence, it's, frankly, a bit hard for me to sympathize with those who complain about having to work long hours for a company like EA. EA's employment practices are well known throughout the industry, yet people flock in droves to work there, probably because it's "cool" to say that you've worked on the latest cool game. However, if you don't like it, fine, don't work there. Go work for a sleepy organization in which you'll only work 40 hours a week. Trust me - there are PLENTY of organizations like that. </p>
<p>
[quote]
the reason i want to double major is because i really like both econ and cs and cant decided on which to major in. Im not doing it to enhance my job opportunities, but to have the option out of college of going into something related to econ or cs (that way i could choose out of two careers that i am really interested in).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, even so, I would recommend finding which one you like more and just single-majoring in that. I doubt that you would really have the option of going into 2 fields, at least not more so than somebody who used his extra time to develop work experience or do lots of networking in that 2nd field. The truth is, employers don't really care that much about what you major in. They sometimes use your major as a screening factor, but even so, it's generally a weak screening factor, and usually weaker than the screening factors used to assess prior work experience (as obtained by coops, internships, etc.). </p>
<p>However, even so, I have seen plenty of people get hired into jobs that have nothing to do with what they majored in. In fact, I would say that this is true as a general rule for the simple fact that the vast majority of majors do not lead to a direct career. For example, most history majors do not become historians. Since these people have to get jobs in * something *, that must mean that employers hire plenty of people into jobs that don't correspond to their majors. </p>
<p>What I am saying is that I think you are worried too much about the value of a specific major in terms of geting a job, when the fact is, employers make hiring decisions based on a wide variety of criteria of which your specific major is only one (and frankly, a relatively minor criteria at that). Far more important are criteria like how well do you interview, what your prior experience is, and what networking you've done in the industry. If I was to spend my time optimally in order to get a job, I would spend my time doing those things as opposed to worrying too much about which major to complete.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nevertheless, I think this is a good thing anyway, provided that it is officially confirmed. I don't count an oral commitment as a true confirmation. I have heard many proposals before that never came to be. So let's wait for an official announcement when Berkeley removes CS from the impacted list of majors lest we jump the gun.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just an FYI, I heard from another professor (Garcia) that the faculty had decided to un-impact the major as well. I find it hard to believe professors would tell hundreds of students something that wasn't confirmed true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I think double-majors are highly overrated. The truth is, sadly, you won't get much of a boost either in the job market or in grad school admissions for completing a double, relative to the amount of extra effort you would spend in doing the double. It's an activity with a pretty low rate of return.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I completely agree in terms of career advancement and monetary compensation, it can be worthwhile for a student if s/he simply enjoys both subjects enough. Not everybody takes classes solely with the expectation of getting a job or money in return.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Having been in the industry for almost 30 years, I can attest to longstanding programmer abuse. Note it is not limited to large companies In fact, startups are probably the worse transgressors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Although I can't speak with the same amount of experience as you, I've seen how programmers work in at least one large company (Cisco) and found no such abuse. I have also heard of the horror stories of working at EA (and the subsequent class action lawsuit won by the developers), but I would say that is more the exception than the norm.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I would reiterate - if they can 'unimpact' CS, then why not EECS? After all, Option 3 of EECS, which is the computer science option, is by far the most popular of the EECS options. So it stands to reason that if if CS can be unimpacted, then at least Option 3 of EECS can also become unimpacted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That isn't true. EECS and L&S CS have different requirements. If you un-impact EECS option 3 (if that were even possible), then you'd have extra students enrolling in EE20 and EE40, while L&S CS students only have to take EE42. If you really want to know, ask somebody that might now (e.g. a professor) rather than throw speculation out here. You aren't helping anyone by arguing against a system that you (and everyone else here) are ignorant about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just an FYI, I heard from another professor (Garcia) that the faculty had decided to un-impact the major as well. I find it hard to believe professors would tell hundreds of students something that wasn't confirmed true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Heh heh. You evidently haven't been around long enough. To give you a rather poignant example. I know a guy who was getting a B+ going into the final, and aced that final - geting one of the top 3 scores in the class. Yet he ended up with a B in he class. How the heck can you ace the final and end up with a * lower * grade than when you walked in? </p>
<p>The answer is simple. The guy wasn't really getting a B+ at all. He was just told he was. But in reality, the guy was actually getting more like a C+. What happened is that the prof put up the histogram that showed the grade distribution right after the midterm. But he lied (or misled, your pick) about the grade curve he was using. Those who were told they were getting B's were actually getting C's. Those who were getting C's were actually getting D's or F's. People walked into the final exam having a complete false impression of how they were doing in th class. </p>
<p>This caused problems not just for that particular 'B' student, but more tragically, for the students who were doing worse. Many of them complained that if they knew they were doing so poorly, they would have dropped the class. By misleading people about their grades, the prof simply encouraged people to stick with the class and get slammed with terrible grades. </p>
<p>
[quote]
While I completely agree in terms of career advancement and monetary compensation, it can be worthwhile for a student if s/he simply enjoys both subjects enough. Not everybody takes classes solely with the expectation of getting a job or money in return.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that if you enjoy it, do it. But my point is, you should do it not expecting a reward from the job market because you probably won't get it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
That isn't true. EECS and L&S CS have different requirements. If you un-impact EECS option 3 (if that were even possible), then you'd have extra students enrolling in EE20 and EE40, while L&S CS students only have to take EE42. If you really want to know, ask somebody that might now (e.g. a professor) rather than throw speculation out here. You aren't helping anyone by arguing against a system that you (and everyone else here) are ignorant about.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Come on, Eudean. How many times have we clashed? I think I had proved numerous times that I am far from being ignorant on the subject. In fact, I would argue that it is YOU that is being ignorant, because you are coming up with irrelevant quibbles.</p>
<p>Let's take your objections about EE 20 and 40. In the fall 2006 semester, I see that there are 57 open seats available in EE20. Furthermore, every single EE20 lab and discussion section except 1 lab (lab #16, Wed 12-3) has open seats. That means that EE20, at this time, has the capacity to handle more students. Hence, even with the present setup, EE20 is not a constraining factor. </p>
<p>Let's look at EE40. There are 34 open seats in the lecture. Furthermore, every single EE40 lab and section has at least one open seat. Hence, EE40 is also not a constraining factor at the present setup. </p>
<p>Furthermore, and far more importantly, why do you assume that requirements always have to be fixed? Curricula requirements change all the time. For example, I remember the days when EE20 didn't even exist. It used to be that EE120 was the "only" systems course and not everybody had to do it. They later basically broke systems into 2 courses - EE20 and EE120 and required every EE to do EE20. Hence, the point is, requirements change all the time. </p>
<p>So if curricula requiremens change all the time, then why not, say, consolidate the lectures of EE40 and EE42? Why not? Is that so impossible? Why are there 2 different intro electronics classes anyway, when it's basically the same material. Sure, a few differences here and there, but honestly, nothing very large. For example, at MIT, there is basically only 1 lower division electronics course, the "6.002" class of Circuits and Electronics . At Stanford, same thing. If you go to Stanford and want to major in computer science, you have to take the same E40 class (which is Stanford's intro electronics class) that all of the Stanford EE's and CSE's take. There isn't a "separate" electronics class just for the CS people. So that shows that Berkeley doesn't "need" to run these separate classes. Berkeley could consolidate them just like the other schools do. </p>
<p><a href="http://cs.stanford.edu/degrees/undergrad/Thinking.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://cs.stanford.edu/degrees/undergrad/Thinking.shtml</a>
<a href="http://student.mit.edu/@4739990.8525/catalog/m6a.html%5B/url%5D">http://student.mit.edu/@4739990.8525/catalog/m6a.html</a></p>
<p>Would that require changing some prereqs, changing some of the curricula, or moving some equipment around? I'm sure it would. But so what? Things like this happen all the time. Lots of Berkeley majors are significantly different than how they were in the past. </p>
<p>To give you another example, before the CS61 series existed, there was the CS 60 series (i.e. CS 60ABC). When Berkeley wanted to revamp the lower-division CS sequence, they made so many changes that they decided the safe thing to do was to simply create a whole new course number, and then make the new CS people complete that new sequence (with a grandfather clause for those caught in the transition). So if Berkeley can tinker with the foundation CS 60/61 series of courses to optimize them, is it really so impossible for Berkeley to tinker with the EE40/42 sequence? </p>
<p>The point is this. I believe that if Berkeley wanted to expand capacity in EECS, they could easily do it. Like I said, even right now, with no changes made, there are empty seats in EE20 and EE40. Hence, these 2 courses are not binding constraints. Furthermore, there are very few upper-division EECS courses that don't have empty seats. In fact, I think there are none. </p>
<p>I could perhaps understand if your classes all have long wait-lists, then, OK, that's a little more reasonable as to why you need impaction (although my response to that is that you ought to be changing things by expanding your capacity and optimizing your curricula). But right now, without a single change made, if you have all of these empty seats, then capacity is not the problem. Honestly, if you have empty seats, then why not let more students into your major?</p>
<p>That is, presuming that you WANT to let more students in. I am quite sure that the department does not. But if not, then let's be honest that the reasons have nothing to do with capacity. Lack of seats in EE20 or EE40 has nothing to do with why EECS is impacted. EECS is impacted not really because of capacity constraints but because the department WANTS the major to be impacted. We should be honest about what's really going on here.</p>
<p>I also happen to find it kinda fishy that the CS department just suddenly decided to have it un-impacted. Seems as if they just arbitrarily decided that the number of students enrolled has dropped low enough to uncap the major, which suggests to me that the issue not only deals with space but also with whether or not the department wants to admit more students.</p>
<p>From sakky:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Frankly, I think much of that 'abuse' is self-generated. After all, developers CAN just choose to work for a regular organization with regular hours, i.e. work for the government or a sleepy industrial organization. You don't HAVE to work for an aggressive Silicon Valley high-tech company like EA. Furthermore, even if you do work for such a company, you can quit at any time. Either that, or work there as an hourly contractor (as opposed to a salaried employee) so that you get paid for every additional hour you work.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, there are jobs in the software field that are not pressure cookers. For example, CAL has long had the reputation of providing both good benefits and a low-key work environment. (I'm sure some dba at CAL is cursing me at this moment). There is however definitely a culture in the field of intense time pressure for deadlines and extreme scheduling. I'm sure for every example of an intense work environment, there are counter-examples, but I don't think the industry culture is changing dramatically. The statement regarding 'quit at anytime' is a bit naive. That works only if there are plenty of jobs available (which is not always the case) and one has few, if any, financial responsibilities or location constraints. As for being hourly and getting paid for every hour one works, the recent IBM overtime lawsuit (<a href="http://cbs5.com/technology/local_story_326200627.html%5B/url%5D">http://cbs5.com/technology/local_story_326200627.html</a>) is having some impact in the industry. It remains to be seen if it is a positive one for workers.</p>
<p>Well, whatever the case, it is true that more and more students are turning to bio- and business-related fields these days.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The statement regarding 'quit at anytime' is a bit naive. That works only if there are plenty of jobs available (which is not always the case) and one has few, if any, financial responsibilities or location constraints.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would hardly call it 'naive'. I just think that the issue has to be put in perspective. There are very few jobs out there where you can get paid well without having to work hard. Medicine, law, investment banking, consulting - all of these jobs pay well, and all of them are intense. Why would we expect CS to be any different?</p>
<p>When I say 'quit anytime', I obviously don't mean that you can LITERALLY quit at any time without any regard to the circumstances. It was simply a reference to the fact that CS is a highly portable and marketable degree that allows you to find work in a variety of places. Certainly a lot more so than most liberal arts degrees. Hence, while you obviously don't have perfect job mobility (nobody does), you have a lot more job mobility than most other people do. A guy with an art history degree and ends up in a job where the boss forces him to work ridiculous hours doesn't exactly have a lot of options. </p>
<p>Personally, I would argue that the notion that somebody would go to work for EA or another one of these companies that are infamous for their intense culture and not expect to have to work hard - I would argue that THAT is naive. It just means that you didn't do your homework about the job you were taking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, whatever the case, it is true that more and more students are turning to bio- and business-related fields these days.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can understand the move into business. But why bio? The truth is, bio really doesn't pay all that well. Look at the salaries of the BioE's, MCB's, IB's, MEB's, and you can see that, frankly, these jobs don't pay that well relative to CS or EECS.</p>
<p>Now, I can to some extent understand if you were trying to get into one of the programs for the health-care professions such as becoming a physician or a pharmacist or a PA. These professions pay well. But you don't need to major in Bio or BioE to get into these programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Heh heh. You evidently haven't been around long enough. To give you a rather poignant example. I know a guy who was getting a B+ going into the final, and aced that final - geting one of the top 3 scores in the class. Yet he ended up with a B in he class. How the heck can you ace the final and end up with a lower grade than when you walked in?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your anecdote makes no sense. I concede that perhaps the professor messed up telling the class what his curve was, but to say that if he'd known he was getting a C+ before the final, he would've dropped doesn't make sense because you cannot drop that late into the semester. The best he could've hoped for was to ace the final and that's what he did. He still did poorly in the class because he must've done poorly on everything else, which isn't the professor's fault.</p>
<p>Further, your example is really quite different from this situation. Your example requires interpretation of data. I'm sure the histogram that the professor showed them was accurate. That required no interpretation, it was a simple existence or non-existence of data. Likewise, in this matter, it is simply whether the professor heard a "yes" or "no" regarding CS being impacted--it requires no interpretation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Come on, Eudean. How many times have we clashed? I think I had proved numerous times that I am far from being ignorant on the subject. In fact, I would argue that it is YOU that is being ignorant, because you are coming up with irrelevant quibbles.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Irrelevant quibbles? My ONLY quibble is that you are NOT an EECS faculty member or really at all related to the administration of any department at Berkeley. Do you think that isn't relevant to whether you have knowledge of the policy of the EECS department regarding impacted majors?</p>
<p>All I'm saying is that if people here want the real story, and not some student's (or former student's) uninformed opinion of what's going on, they should go to the source, i.e. ask a professor or the Dean of COE. Doesn't that make sense? I mean, you might think you're right, but even you would concede you probably know less on the issue than most EECS professors and the dean. The problem is you'll never know unless you ask someone there, and neither will these people looking for information. It's all speculation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is, presuming that you WANT to let more students in. I am quite sure that the department does not. But if not, then let's be honest that the reasons have nothing to do with capacity. Lack of seats in EE20 or EE40 has nothing to do with why EECS is impacted. EECS is impacted not really because of capacity constraints but because the department WANTS the major to be impacted. We should be honest about what's really going on here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, honestly I don't know what's going on here, and neither do you. Honestly, EE20N and EE40 have open seats right now (the last day of finals). By this you're trying to conclude, the entire EECS department doesn't have a capacity problem. I'm trying to say that I can't determine this by looking at two data points in one year. You're trying to say (or imply, at least) that the EECS major is impacted because we want less students (which would be a fine reason IMO), not because we have capacity problems. I'm saying I don't know and cannot conclude this without asking someone that has knowledge (i.e. was part of the decision-making process).</p>
<p>
[quote]
So if curricula requiremens change all the time, then why not, say, consolidate the lectures of EE40 and EE42? Why not? Is that so impossible? Why are there 2 different intro electronics classes anyway, when it's basically the same material.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They are different classes. By that logic we should get rid of the Physics 8-series, since it's the same as the 7-series. We should get rid of the math 16-series since it's the same as the 1-series. Yeah it may not matter for me, but I can respect that Bio majors don't want to take harder math classes with concepts they don't need to know for their major. I can also respect that L&S CS majors (and other people) may want to take an easier electronics course with less material since they're going to be coding anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Seems as if they just arbitrarily decided that the number of students enrolled has dropped low enough to uncap the major, which suggests to me that the issue not only deals with space but also with whether or not the department wants to admit more students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Isn't that what all of these decisions are? It's up to a group of faculty members to discuss whether they should admit more students (for whatever reason) then come to a decision. These professors must feel that for some reason, keeping the major impacted until now has improved the education received by L&S CS students, and that by unimpacting it now they can still guarantee the same quality of education despite letting in anyone who wants in. I don't presume to know why they feel this way (although if I cared I could certainly ask, much like anyone here could), and I don't think it's fair to them to speculate and judge them without knowing the details of why.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your anecdote makes no sense. I concede that perhaps the professor messed up telling the class what his curve was, but to say that if he'd known he was getting a C+ before the final, he would've dropped doesn't make sense because you cannot drop that late into the semester.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You didn't read the rest of the story - he knew (or at least, he THOUGHT) he knew what he was getting after the midterm. And at that time, you can still drop. But what if you were told you were getting a better grade than you actually were? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Further, your example is really quite different from this situation. Your example requires interpretation of data. I'm sure the histogram that the professor showed them was accurate. That required no interpretation, it was a simple existence or non-existence of data. Likewise, in this matter, it is simply whether the professor heard a "yes" or "no" regarding CS being impacted--it requires no interpretation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But the theme is the same - that profs do not always tell the truth. Either because they don't know the truth themselves (i.e. the prof in my example may not have actually known what the final grade curve was going to be), or because things change (i.e. I strongly suspect that what happened in my example is that the prof intended to use his grade curve, but the department wouldn't let him do it). </p>
<p>Hence, it is entirely possible that the CS profs INTEND to unimpact CS, but later on, some higher-up in the department won't let it happen. Sadly, the truth is that the profs aren't always in charge of these kinds of decisions. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Irrelevant quibbles? My ONLY quibble is that you are NOT an EECS faculty member or really at all related to the administration of any department at Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And are you? Using your own logic, you have managed to invalidate yourself as an authority also. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you think that isn't relevant to whether you have knowledge of the policy of the EECS department regarding impacted majors?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why is it relevant? What is there to know? I think the ENTIRE premise of impaction is flawed. What more is there to know? </p>
<p>
[quote]
All I'm saying is that if people here want the real story, and not some student's (or former student's) uninformed opinion of what's going on, they should go to the source, i.e. ask a professor or the Dean of COE. Doesn't that make sense? I mean, you might think you're right, but even you would concede you probably know less on the issue than most EECS professors and the dean. The problem is you'll never know unless you ask someone there, and neither will these people looking for information. It's all speculation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that they know more. I have never said that I know more than them. The question is, do you really think they will tell you the truth if you ask them? It's one thing to have more knowledge, it's quite another thing to actually impact that knowledge. They are in official positions such that they have to, by virtue of their jobs, defend policy positions that they may or may not personally agree with. That's part of their job and I know that that's part of their job. It's like if I talk to an executive at Taco Bell, I doubt that I am going to get the REAL story about the E.coli problem. It's their job to tell me the party line and only the party line. And I know that.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that they're bad people who are deliberately trying to deceive us. Heck, if I was them, I'd probably have to do the same exact thing. It's really a characteristic of all people in all organizations - that what they know to be the truth and what they can actually tell outsiders are often times two different things. </p>
<p>The point is, none of us should actually expect a completely honest answer from the Dean or the department head or anybody else in the EECS department. It's not their job to provide you with accurate information. Rather, it's their job to behave as good 'organization men' and tell you what the organization wants others to believe. No organization deliberately airs their dirty laundry in public. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay, honestly I don't know what's going on here, and neither do you. Honestly, EE20N and EE40 have open seats right now (the last day of finals). By this you're trying to conclude, the entire EECS department doesn't have a capacity problem. I'm trying to say that I can't determine this by looking at two data points in one year. You're trying to say (or imply, at least) that the EECS major is impacted because we want less students (which would be a fine reason IMO), not because we have capacity problems. I'm saying I don't know and cannot conclude this without asking someone that has knowledge (i.e. was part of the decision-making process).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am doing nothing of the sort. I am simply saying that your invocations of EE 20 and 40 were irrelevant objections, because both of these classes are under-capacity. Hence, if EECS has a legitimate capacity problem, it's probably not stemming from these 2 classes. </p>
<p>
[quote]
They are different classes. By that logic we should get rid of the Physics 8-series, since it's the same as the 7-series. We should get rid of the math 16-series since it's the same as the 1-series. Yeah it may not matter for me, but I can respect that Bio majors don't want to take harder math classes with concepts they don't need to know for their major. I can also respect that L&S CS majors (and other people) may want to take an easier electronics course with less material since they're going to be coding anyway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have no problem integrating those classes too. After all, MIT doesn't offer different math tracks to different people. Math is math. </p>
<p>But I don't push on this too hard because neither physics nor math are impacted. So if you have the luxury of offering different tracks of math and physics without causing impaction problems, then go for it. But if it's going to cause impaction problems, then why are you doing it? </p>
<p>That, again, presumes that EE40/42 are actually causing the impaction problems. I doubt that that's the cause. But I am engaged in an exercise of taking away excuses. Take away all of the excuses, and the department will have to admit the truth. </p>
<p>But in any case, the point is that EE40/42 are different classes only because Berkeley WANTS them to be different classes. At both Stanford and MIT, there is only 1 intro electronics class. Only 1. So if Stanford and MIT can do that, Berkeley could do that too. It just doesn't WANT to do that. Fine. But at least we should admit that this is a choice that Berkeley made. Berkeley doesn't have to do it this way, it just wants to do it this way. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't that what all of these decisions are? It's up to a group of faculty members to discuss whether they should admit more students (for whatever reason) then come to a decision. These professors must feel that for some reason, keeping the major impacted until now has improved the education received by L&S CS students, and that by unimpacting it now they can still guarantee the same quality of education despite letting in anyone who wants in. I don't presume to know why they feel this way (although if I cared I could certainly ask, much like anyone here could), and I don't think it's fair to them to speculate and judge them without knowing the details of why.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, first off, it's not really all up to the departments to decide. It's up to the Dean to decide, and above him, it's up to the Chancellor and, theoretically, above him, it's up to the politicians in Sacramento (and theoretically, the state voters themselves). After all, the EECS department is not a dictatorship unto itself, answerable to no-one. The EECS department has to obey the orders of the chain in command just like any other department. The EECS department can come up with all kinds of reasons for why it should remain impacted, but if somebody at a higher level of authority says that should not be, then that's the end of it. </p>
<p>Look, what I am saying is this. Impaction is a problem that I would like to solve. Other top schools like HYPSM don't have impacted majors. Why should Berkeley? Hence, I would like to come up with a system that ultimately eliminates impaction. And you said it yourself - if the CS program can somehow figure out a way to eliminate impaction, why can't EECS, at least for Option IV?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And are you? Using your own logic, you have managed to invalidate yourself as an authority also.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The difference is I never, ever claimed to be an authority on why Berkeley has impacted majors. You consistently do so (e.g. "I think I had proved numerous times that I am far from being ignorant on the subject."). If you'll recall, I actually explicity stated "a system that you (and everyone else here) are ignorant about." I'm here, too.</p>
<p>Another thing I want to point out is a direct contradiction from you. I said this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're trying to say (or imply, at least) that the EECS major is impacted because we want less students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's your response:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am doing nothing of the sort. I am simply saying that your invocations of EE 20 and 40 were irrelevant objections, because both of these classes are under-capacity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And this is from your original post that I was responding to:</p>
<p>
[quote]
EECS is impacted not really because of capacity constraints but because the department WANTS the major to be impacted. We should be honest about what's really going on here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, so you've claimed yourself to be an authority and you've claimed to know why EECS is impacted (by the way, this is why it's relevant whether you know EECS policy or not). I've claimed that you are not an authority and that your claims on why EECS is impacted are pure speculation.</p>
<p>If you are now revoking the claim to authority and the claim as to why EECS is impacted being anything besides pure speculation, then I'll take a look at your other claims.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But the theme is the same - that profs do not always tell the truth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, fair enough, I know profs aren't always right. Happens all the time from what I've seen. When my professor tells me that a group of faculty in charge of deciding whether CS should be impacted met and decided that it wouldn't be impacted, then another student independently hears this from yet another professor within the department, I'm inclined to believe what my and the other student's professor say. I guess you're just more skeptical than I am.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The EECS department can come up with all kinds of reasons for why it should remain impacted, but if somebody at a higher level of authority says that should not be, then that's the end of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Although in theory this is true, this simply isn't how it works in reality. How often do you think the Dean makes a serious policy decision without consulting the faculty? How about the Chancellor? I'll admit that the Governor or the President could come down and make some proclamation, and would likely be doing so without having consulted significantly with the professors, but how often does that happen at all?</p>
<p>Besides, when a professor tells me that a group of faculty met and decided on this issue, again, I'm inclined to believe him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, what I am saying is this. Impaction is a problem that I would like to solve. Other top schools like HYPSM don't have impacted majors. Why should Berkeley? Hence, I would like to come up with a system that ultimately eliminates impaction.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's fine. I have no problems with your desire to come up with such a system (and, well, you really shouldn't work too hard since HYPSM have such a system already, and that's being private and small). I just don't want the students here being misled about the "why" of what our departments are doing because of what you say, when really all we know of is the "what".</p>
<p>(I thought I should add that you also should try to verify that your goal really is in the benefit of the student, i.e. maybe look up some evidence that students from campuses without impacted majors regularly outperform comparable students from campuses with impacted majors. If there isn't a strong correlation you may not want to waste your time.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you said it yourself - if the CS program can somehow figure out a way to eliminate impaction, why can't EECS, at least for Option IV?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No I didn't. I really don't care that EECS is impacted, so I don't see why I'd ask that question. I believe you did, and I basically said "L&S CS and EECS Option IV are not the same thing," as they aren't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But in any case, the point is that EE40/42 are different classes only because Berkeley WANTS them to be different classes. At both Stanford and MIT, there is only 1 intro electronics class. Only 1. So if Stanford and MIT can do that, Berkeley could do that too. It just doesn't WANT to do that. Fine. But at least we should admit that this is a choice that Berkeley made. Berkeley doesn't have to do it this way, it just wants to do it this way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see the point of your...point. Berkeley has a different curriculum than MIT and Stanford (and probably every other college in the world). Not a big surprise. Yes it was a choice. You haven't convinced me it was a bad choice in any way, so what does it matter? I mean, MIT and Stanford CHOSE to make only one introductory electronics course. I can make that sound vicious and awful, too. They didn't HAVE to, but they CHOSE to. That's the...point?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay, so you've claimed yourself to be an authority and you've claimed to know why EECS is impacted (by the way, this is why it's relevant whether you know EECS policy or not). I've claimed that you are not an authority and that your claims on why EECS is impacted are pure speculation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that I was an authority. Nobody here on CC is really an authority. What I am saying is, based on the evidence, this is the way I see things. The evidence strongly suggests that capacity is not the issue, otherwise, we really would have classes that were filled to capacity. Hence, the evidence strongly points to the answer being that the department simply wants the major to be impacted, regardless of capacity issues. After all, what other reasonable explanation could there be? </p>
<p>Besides, what is your fixation on 'authority' anyway? For reasons that I stated before, in many cases, it is precisely the people with 'authority' who cannot be trusted, because that 'authority' makes them insiders and insiders often times cannot be trusted to deal honestly with issues at hand because they have a stake in the status quo. For example, in the business world, when a company performs poorly, the current management often times gets sacked in favor of a bunch of outsiders. When IBM nearly went bankrupt in the early 90's, the board picked a new CEO (Lou Gerstner) who had never worked a day in his life in the computer industry. Gerstner's expertise was in financial services (American Express) and consumer packaged goods (RJR Nabisco). In fact, it was * precisely * because Gerstner was not an authority on the computer industry that made him so appealing - because he had no psychological ties to the industry, he was not tied to the status quo. </p>
<p>The truth is, all of the true "authorities" on the Berkeley EECS impaction issue are all tainted because they all have ties to the status quo. They've probably gotten used to the current situation and don't want it to change because human beings are inherently resistant to change. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Although in theory this is true, this simply isn't how it works in reality. How often do you think the Dean makes a serious policy decision without consulting the faculty? How about the Chancellor? I'll admit that the Governor or the President could come down and make some proclamation, and would likely be doing so without having consulted significantly with the professors, but how often does that happen at all?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, I never said it was "likely", I just said that there is a chain of command in force here. Just because the faculty wants to change the curriculum doesn't guarantee that it's going to happen because there are other stakeholders at play here. </p>
<p>
[quote]
esides, when a professor tells me that a group of faculty met and decided on this issue, again, I'm inclined to believe him.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that I wasn't inclined to believe him. I am also inclined. But I am also saying that I would reserve final judgment pending a final announcement. I would consider it a mark of caution, so that people don't right now start planning to go to CS because they may not have to fight for a spot, and only later find out that the department decided to keep the current rules in force. </p>
<p>
[quote]
That's fine. I have no problems with your desire to come up with such a system (and, well, you really shouldn't work too hard since HYPSM have such a system already, and that's being private and small). I just don't want the students here being misled about the "why" of what our departments are doing because of what you say, when really all we know of is the "what".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said - what other reason could there be given the evidence? </p>
<p>But, look at it this way. Obviously I cannot prove with 100% certainty that what I am saying is true. These are all opinions here, just like everything here on CC is a matter of opinion. I believe that the data indicates that the EECS department just wants to create impaction regardless of capacity issues. But you are free to interpret the data in some other manner if you like. If you can come up with a convincing story as to some other reason, I am all ears. </p>
<p><a href="I%20thought%20I%20should%20add%20that%20you%20also%20should%20try%20to%20verify%20that%20your%20goal%20really%20is%20in%20the%20benefit%20of%20the%20student,%20i.e.%20maybe%20look%20up%20some%20evidence%20that%20students%20from%20campuses%20without%20impacted%20majors%20regularly%20outperform%20comparable%20students%20from%20campuses%20with%20impacted%20majors.%20If%20there%20isn't%20a%20strong%20correlation%20you%20may%20not%20want%20to%20waste%20your%20time.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why do I need to find outperformance? I think just from a principle of general freedom, I think people should be allowed to major in whatever they like, as long as they pass their classes. Does anybody seriously object to that notion of freedom? We shouldn't have a situation where somebody actually does fairly decently in EECS classes (i.e. gets a 3.0), but still can't get into the major. Frankly, there are guys whe are in EECS who are getting less than a 2.5. So this guy with a 3.0 is actually doing better than those guys. So if those guys with lower than the 2.5 are being allowed to stay in EECS, then why are we not allowing the guy with the 3.0 to get in? </p>
<p>
[quote]
No I didn't. I really don't care that EECS is impacted, so I don't see why I'd ask that question. I believe you did, and I basically said "L&S CS and EECS Option IV are not the same thing," as they aren't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You said that the CS program has somehow managed to figure out how to eliminate impaction. So if that's the case, then why can't EECS do the same? </p>
<p>I forgot to add an extra dash-mark in my previous sentence to clearly delineate what you said and then what I said. But anyway, I think we are clear now. CS can unimpact itself, but EECS can't? What's up with that? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't see the point of your...point. Berkeley has a different curriculum than MIT and Stanford (and probably every other college in the world). Not a big surprise. Yes it was a choice. You haven't convinced me it was a bad choice in any way, so what does it matter? I mean, MIT and Stanford CHOSE to make only one introductory electronics course. I can make that sound vicious and awful, too. They didn't HAVE to, but they CHOSE to. That's the...point?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am saying that this is ALL matters of choice. Berkeley doesn't HAVE to have 2 lower-division electronics classes. They chose to, and that fact is made quite clear by the fact that other elite EECS programs only have 1 electronics course. At the same time, MIT and Stanford EE/CS are not impacted. Berkeley is.</p>
<p>So what I am saying is that if the issue is capacity contraints in lower-division electronics (which I doubt that it is, but let's presume that it is for now), then Berkeley can consider obtaining more capacity by combining these 2 classes and then rationalizing them. After all, it takes fewer resources to just run 1 version of a class (even if you have 2 separate lectures) than to run 2 versions. It's like how companies can save money by just running 1 kind of PC system for their employees, not 2. That way, you don't have to train your IT staff to fix 2 kinds of computers, you only have to stock spare parts for 1 kind of computer, etc. </p>
<p>Look, the fact that a university runs 1 or 2 or a million introductory electronics classes is not the issue, and is certainly not "mean" or "vicious". What is "mean" or "vicious" is that Berkeley EECS is impacted, whereas other EECS programs are not. If the impaction is caused by the fact that Berkeley runs multiple introductory electronics classes, then we have to question why Berkeley needs to do that. I would happily trade multiple electronics classes for no impaction because I consider that to be a useful optimization. Berkeley students should be free to major in whatever they want, as long as they can pass the classes. We shouldn't have a segregated system where some Berkeley students get to major in what they want, and others don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do I need to find outperformance? I think just from a principle of general freedom, I think people should be allowed to major in whatever they like, as long as they pass their classes. Does anybody seriously object to that notion of freedom?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm, yes, I object. The only way I'd want that degree of freedom would be if it did not negatively impact academic performance with the current state of Berkeley (i.e. size, funding, faculty, etc.). A comparable argument would be to allow students to choose to attend whatever college they want--Harvard, Julliard, Berkeley, Oxford--any college! They should have that freedom, shouldn't they? Why should these colleges be small and restrict enrollment (which, frankly, is exactly what impacting a major does)?</p>
<p>Well, they want to guarantee a certain quality of education. They find that the way to do that is limiting who comes to their school. If you want to propose allowing everyone into EECS that wants to be in EECS, you'd better have some type of evidence to show that this would not negatively impact quality of education in EECS. Otherwise, nobody will listen to you, because conventional wisdom says packing more students into a program will negatively impact the quality of that program unless other aspects are adjusted to accommodate that increase (then you'd have to justify and finance those changes as well).</p>
<p>
[quote]
The truth is, all of the true "authorities" on the Berkeley EECS impaction issue are all tainted because they all have ties to the status quo. They've probably gotten used to the current situation and don't want it to change because human beings are inherently resistant to change.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Man are you biased. You're just as tainted as any pro-impaction person I could talk to, just in the opposite direction. You judge these people without any merit ("they'd probably tell me blah blah blah and would be biased", and yet you never ask their opinion in the first place to even test your theory).</p>
<p>Look, you want to know why EECS is impacted. I'm telling you some group of professors and administrators in the EECS department decided to make it impacted. I'm telling you that you can never know why unless they decide to tell you, truthfully, why. You're telling me they can never tell you this truthfully. So, you can never know. However, I believe your assumption is false--that you could ask get get a straight answer from a professor or administrator. I believe my assumption is true--that you cannot look at the open slots in a couple EECS courses and deduce the exact reason why EECS is impacted.</p>
<p>Your assertion of their bias is pretty unfounded, too, considering L&S CS was just unimpacted (meaning they do not just stick with the status quo for no reason).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hey, I never said it was "likely", I just said that there is a chain of command in force here. Just because the faculty wants to change the curriculum doesn't guarantee that it's going to happen because there are other stakeholders at play here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, I think the likelihood >> unlikelihood, so I'll bet on L&S CS being unimpacted. I think the evidence for it is overwhelming, you don't, so whatever, this doesn't matter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
After all, it takes fewer resources to just run 1 version of a class (even if you have 2 separate lectures) than to run 2 versions. It's like how companies can save money by just running 1 kind of PC system for their employees, not 2. That way, you don't have to train your IT staff to fix 2 kinds of computers, you only have to stock spare parts for 1 kind of computer, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would strongly disagree with this generalization. First of all, if a wider group of individuals have knowledge of one course (e.g. 100 people know about computer A) and a smaller subset of those people know about the second course (e.g. 50 of those 100 know A and B), then pushing for all of the more difficult course (with less individuals with knowledge of it, e.g. we stock up entirely on computer B), then those individuals that know only of A and not B cannot aid in teaching / servicing both.</p>
<p>Of course, standardizing can help, but not always. In your computer analogy, you're talking of, say, IBM or HP. If we had an even split in a company, we'd have to get two separate quotes and customization options, we'd have to be in contact with two sets of individuals for tech support, etc.</p>
<p>These courses are inherently different, though, since one is a superset of another. EE40 resources are a superset of EE42 resources, and to convert EE42 into another EE40 section would require an increase in resources (e.g. we need TAs that have taken EE40, we need to use the EE40 lab, we need a professor that has taught EE40, etc.).</p>
<p>Also consider that we already have the resources necessary. Perhaps you could argue against the creation of EE42, but now that it exists and has a solid group of people that know it and teach it, you cannot possibly argue it would require significantly more overhead to keep it than to remove it in favor of EE40.</p>
<p>Further, you'd likely reduce interest in students wanting to take an introductory electronics course--you're reducing freedoms here, despite wanting to give absolute freedom in choosing a major. I think having multiple levels of courses is good if there is a strong interest in different levels of the same topic, and with EE40/42 I do believe there is a strong interest in taking one or the other.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Umm, yes, I object. The only way I'd want that degree of freedom would be if it did not negatively impact academic performance with the current state of Berkeley (i.e. size, funding, faculty, etc.). A comparable argument would be to allow students to choose to attend whatever college they want--Harvard, Julliard, Berkeley, Oxford--any college! They should have that freedom, shouldn't they? Why should these colleges be small and restrict enrollment (which, frankly, is exactly what impacting a major does)?</p>
<p>Well, they want to guarantee a certain quality of education. They find that the way to do that is limiting who comes to their school. If you want to propose allowing everyone into EECS that wants to be in EECS, you'd better have some type of evidence to show that this would not negatively impact quality of education in EECS. Otherwise, nobody will listen to you, because conventional wisdom says packing more students into a program will negatively impact the quality of that program unless other aspects are adjusted to accommodate that increase (then you'd have to justify and finance those changes as well).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you're just not being creative. I am quite certain we could come up with reform that are actually revenue-neutral.</p>
<p>To give you one very simple example - one that I have been pushing for awhile. Why not let the guys in EECS who are doing poorly and who want to leave be allowed to do so? These guys are all caught in the "engineering major trap", and they want out. In return, for each one that wants to leave, we can then admit one more person who is doing decently to come in.</p>
<p>Let's make the situation more concrete, based on a real-life scenario. I know a guy with less than a 2.0 in EECS (probably like a 1.8). He wanted out. But he couldn't get out because no other college at Berkeley wanted to take him because of his bad grades. At the same time, I knew another guy in L&S who did fairly well in the engineering prereqs - but he couldn't switch in because his grades weren't "good enough". </p>
<p>So basically, the guy who was doing poorly in engineering and who wanted to get out couldn't get out, and the guy who was doing well in engineering couldn't get in. What's up with that? Why not just let these 2 guys trade places? EECS would still have the same number of students, so there would be no "extra" costs. And each student would get what they wanted. That's a win-win situation. In contrast, Berkeley decided to opt for the 'lose-lose' situation, where each student does not get what he wants. What's up with that? </p>
<p>Nor is this example that rare. Let's face it. There are a lot of students in EECS who aren't doing that well. Plenty of them want out. So why not let them leave? And replace them with people who want in? Granted, that guy with a 1.8 probably wouldn't even graduate, but what about those EECS people who graduate with a 2.0-2.5? These guys obviously weren't a very good match for the program. I'm sure a lot of them would have liked to leave, but couldn't leave because the other colleges at Berkeley wouldn't take them. So they were forced to stay in EECS, where they continued to consume EECS resources. Is this really a desirable situation? Why not let these guys leave, and replace them with guys who will do better and, more importantly, who actually want to be there? </p>
<p>In short, how exactly does forcing students who are doing poorly and don't want to be there to still be there while barring studetns who are doing well and do want to be there - how does that really ensure the quality of education? </p>
<p>But there is another issue at play here - which is that it's not always up to the departments to decide who they should admit. The department works for the university, who in turn works for the state government (and in turn, for the voters). The department can decide anything it wants, but it can be overruled by the university administration at large, or if necessary, the state government. So if the university administration decides that EECS is to admit more students, then the EECS department can whine all it wants, and it wouldn't matter. The decision would have been made. I'm not saying that this is a method that I would suggest, I am just making a simple observation about the chain of command at work here. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Man are you biased. You're just as tainted as any pro-impaction person I could talk to, just in the opposite direction. You judge these people without any merit ("they'd probably tell me blah blah blah and would be biased", and yet you never ask their opinion in the first place to even test your theory).</p>
<p>Look, you want to know why EECS is impacted. I'm telling you some group of professors and administrators in the EECS department decided to make it impacted. I'm telling you that you can never know why unless they decide to tell you, truthfully, why. You're telling me they can never tell you this truthfully. So, you can never know. However, I believe your assumption is false--that you could ask get get a straight answer from a professor or administrator. I believe my assumption is true--that you cannot look at the open slots in a couple EECS courses and deduce the exact reason why EECS is impacted.</p>
<p>Your assertion of their bias is pretty unfounded, too, considering L&S CS was just unimpacted (meaning they do not just stick with the status quo for no reason).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even if we could get a straight answer from them, how would we KNOW that it is a straight answer? In short, the problem here is that all players with authority have a credibility problem. This is not just specific to EECS, this is a problem with all institutions of any kind. </p>
<p>But you have also confused 2 different issues. I am saying that the bias is in the disclosing. The bias is not necessarily in the making of the decisions, it is simply in disclosing to us what the reasoning for those decisions are. </p>
<p>But the point is, this is neither here nor there anyway. I don't know why you are so concerned what those people have to say anyway. Like I said, this is a decision that is not really up to them (or shouldn't be), because they don't have ultimate power over who gets into what major. The university at large has that power. The department can kick and scream all it wants, but if the university decides that the department should teach more students, then the department will teach more students. </p>
<p>Besides, think about what you're saying. You're talking about the department deciding to use impaction as a matter of enforcing quality. So what does that imply? Does that mean that other non-impacted departments don't care about quality? MCB is the largest major on campus, and one of the highest quality ones, yet they somehow manage to do it without impaction. If they can do it, why can't EECS? After all, MCB has plenty of expensive labs and equipment too. Not only that, but biology equipment, unlike computer equipment, doesn't go down in price, and there's no such thing as 'biology freeware' or the "Free Biology Foundation". Don't you find it interesting that biology can figure out how to runs its programs without impaction, but engineering can't figure out how to do this? Heck - again, you said it yourself - CS has not apparently figured out how to get rid of impaction. So, again I ask - why can't EECS option IV do that? Honestly, what is the difference between CS and EECS option IV? Just a few classes, none of which are at capacity. </p>
<p>
[quote]
These courses are inherently different, though, since one is a superset of another. EE40 resources are a superset of EE42 resources, and to convert EE42 into another EE40 section would require an increase in resources (e.g. we need TAs that have taken EE40, we need to use the EE40 lab, we need a professor that has taught EE40, etc.).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, not really, and I think just a bit of common sense would have told you so. </p>
<p>Think of it this way. When I took EE 40 (yeah, I took it), not a single TA of that class had ever taken EE40 - for the simple reason that all of them were grad students who had done their undergrad elsewhere. So none of them obviously would have ever had the opportunity to take EE40, because they didn't even go to Berkeley. They took whatever happened to be the electronics course at whatever undergrad they went to. Heck, some of them weren't even EE grad students. For example, one of them was a physics grad student who had never taken a formal EE course in his life. But he had taken a physics version of electronics, and as it turned out, he was probably the most knowledgeable TA of that entire class. I distinctly remember there was another TA who was an applied math grad student. </p>
<p>But as a general rule, you don't have to have taken the class to be a TA in that class. Look, electronics is electronics. Yes, some electronics classes teach you slightly different things than others do, but the point is, if you are a competent TA, you are going to be able to quickly pick up whatever it is that your previous class didn't teach you. Not single one of those grad students in that one EE40 class had been a Berkeley undergrad, so they had all learned slightly different versions of EE40 at whatever undergrad they went to, yet they all seemed to manage. I'm quite sure that plenty of them had taken electronics classes that were easier than Berkeley EE40, especially those grad students who had done their undergrad at lower-ranked schools. Yet they all seemed to manage their TA responsibilities just fine. </p>
<p>The same is true of the prof. It is clearly false that you need a prof wjp taught EE40 before, simply because, at least in the old days, EE40 was generally a 'gateway' course that many newly hired Berkeley assistant profs were stuck teaching. I don't know how it is today, but I can tell you that in the old days, that course was something foisted upon to the new assistant profs. These profs had never taught EE40 before, simply because these profs hadn't taught ANYTHING before, because they were completely new to the job. Think about it. When you're a brand-new assistant prof, you are probably not going to be asked to teach a completely new advanced-level course. You're usually going to be allowed to get your feet wet by teaching something fairly basic, and a course that is fairly standardized - and for an EE prof, what could be more standardized and lower-level than EE40 (except for perhaps EE20 - but EE20 didn't exist until a few years ago)? Every prof out there started off as an inexperienced assistant prof. </p>
<p>The only thing I can agree with is that you may need more resources. But again, I doubt that it's a serious problem. Much of the EE42 stuff can be repurposed, and additional savings are to be had from standardization of gear and getting rid of the associated administrative costs of keeping track of 2 sets of gear. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Further, you'd likely reduce interest in students wanting to take an introductory electronics course--you're reducing freedoms here, despite wanting to give absolute freedom in choosing a major. I think having multiple levels of courses is good if there is a strong interest in different levels of the same topic, and with EE40/42 I do believe there is a strong interest in taking one or the other.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, in that sense, I am reducing freedom - but in return for more freedom in choosing major. I think overall, you get an increase in freedom. I think that barring people from choosing the major they want is a rather large restriction of freedom - certainly larger than forcing people to take a harder version of an electronics course. {And personally, I would even question why do CS people even need to take an electronics course at all. If they want to, they can, but why force them? But anyway, that's a whole 'nother issue.}</p>
<p>But like I said, this is probably all an irrelevant gambit because, like I said, I doubt that the real issue is capacity in EE40/42. What I am simply doing is taking away a possible excuse.</p>