<p>I'm going to read the above post as sarcasm, although the poster should keep in mind that sarcasm doesn't work as well when written.</p>
<p>And it obviously doesn't work at all if the poster meant every bit of what s/he typed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"He's never said that it's bad (and there you go putting words in mouths again.) He says that it can be better."</p>
<p>He says it's not good, so where does that leave it? To me, if you say Cal is not good, you are saying it's bad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, this is what he always says about Berkeley undergrad:</p>
<p>
For the record, I think that Berkeley undergrad is arguably one of the best public programs in the country, and perhaps the best. I also suspect that Berkeley undergrad is probably better than some of the rival private schools such as Cornell. Berkeley is also a quite good school for the stronger and aggressive students who have the personality to access Berkeley's resources. So if the competition consists of, say, the other UC's, then I have no problem endorsing Berkeley. </p>
<p>The problem comes when Berkeley undergrad is matched up against the top private schools or against elite public foreign schools like Oxbridge. Berkeley grad can match up against anyone. But Berkeley undergrad has matchup problems against this level of competition.
</p>
<p>I don't think he says it's "not good."</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is a very fascist proposal. </p>
<p>No university should have the right to force its professors to like teaching students. Likewise, no university should have the right to force its students to like learning from professors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see how teachers wanting to teach = serving the state a la Hitler.</p>
<p>I don't think he is proposing that we force teachers to want to teach. Rather, hire teachers who want to teach. "Making sure teachers want to teach" could mean hiring those who want to teach and firing those who don't, so you've made sure that the teachers you have all want to teach.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think he is proposing that we force teachers to want to teach. Rather, hire teachers who want to teach.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well that would make a lot of sense and I support that ideology. But other factors should be acknowledged. </p>
<p>For one, good scholars/researches are not always good teachers-this problem is biggest in the sciences and engineering. So, if Berkeley were to hire good teachers, the quality of its research would most likely go down. That would mean decreased private funding. Since state funding has already been decreased, I'm let to wonder where Berkeley's budget will come from. If the situation worsened enough, the university could potentially collapse. This factor alone makes me think that perhaps its better NOT to stress teaching quality too much when hiring faculty.</p>
<p>Vicissitudes, I'll let sakky say if he said Cal was not "good" in UG. Your quote means nothing. As we all know, Sakky says alot, so just posting something were he DIDN'T say Cal was not good doesn't mean he didn't say it somewhere else. Whew! On to greatestyen. I'm still going to assume that you were being sarcastic, otherwise I'd lose all respect for you, because its hard not to laugh at anyone who would compare me to a facist because I want my teachers to enjoy their job. You are a silly, silly person.</p>
<p>"I don't think he is proposing that we force teachers to want to teach."</p>
<p>You are correct. I assume (and maybe I shouldn't) that my audience isn't retarded and that they realize that I don't wan't to force teachers to enjoy their job. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is impossible anyway, even if that is what I meant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On to greatestyen. I'm still going to assume that you were being sarcastic, otherwise I'd lose all respect for you, because its hard not to laugh at anyone who would compare me to a facist because I want my teachers to enjoy their job. You are a silly, silly person.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't use sarcasm. I meant every bit of what I said. Besides, it appears that you are now changing your argument. You originally said that if you had the ability to do so, you would "make sure" that Berkeley professors "actually want to teach." As I understand that wording, you think Berkeley should force it's professors to be "more into" teaching undergraduates. When a regime (Berkeley administrators) force part of the population (the profs) to do something they do not necessarily want to do-it's called fascism. If you prefer "totalitarianism," so be it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are correct. I assume (and maybe I shouldn't) that my audience isn't retarded and that they realize that I don't wan't to force teachers to enjoy their job. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is impossible anyway, even if that is what I meant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'ts not impossible at all. In fact, it's already been done. In the 1950s, Berkeley forced its professors to enjoy their job as preachers of capitalism.</p>
<p>"When a regime (Berkeley administrators) force part of the population (the profs) to do something they do not necessarily want to do-it's called fascism"</p>
<p>Um...or "make sure" could mean that they only employ teachers who enjoy their jobs. Or, better yet, they could fire people who are bad teachers! Is that fascist? Or is it too totalitarian to fire people who are bad at their job (teaching) and hire people who are good at it?</p>
<p>"I'ts not impossible at all. In fact, it's already been done. In the 1950s, Berkeley forced its professors to enjoy their job as preachers of capitalism."</p>
<p>Wow.</p>
<p>Wow what. </p>
<p>That fact in undeniable. Berkeley was once a conservative stronghold and it's important for younger generations to understand that there's light at the end of the tunnel.</p>
<p>"That fact in undeniable. Berkeley was once a conservative stronghold and it's important for younger generations to understand that there's light at the end of the tunnel."</p>
<p>Do you hear voices in your head? Is there a spaceship that is calling you? You realize you sound crazy, right? Please explain how "Berkeley forced its professors to enjoy their job as preachers of capitalism." Did they brainwash them? Use mind control? Otherwise, I wasn't aware that you could force anyone to feel any emotion. You can threaten to fire them if they don't sign a loyalty oath, but that's hardly forcing them to enjoy their job.</p>
<p>Actually, there is a little known fact about Berkeley's Red Scare. </p>
<p>Berkeley professors were often bribed into presenting "evidence" that their colleagues did not fully agree with the University's declared goal of portraying capitalism as good and communism as evil. This "evidence" could range from recorded private conversations to student eyewitness accounts on lecture material. In effect, if it was determined that certain professors did not personally agree with their ultraconservative colleagues (as the loyalty oath made it SEEM,) the professor could be dismissed-either enjoy your job or get screwed.</p>
<p>Indeed, as recent exposed KGB reports have shown, many professors were among the many communists sympathizers that were in positions of power in America. Despite the way McCarthyism has been villified in the news, it did catch a lot of communists even if it did wrongfully accuse and harass many people. Berkeley was the same.</p>
<p>SnuggleMonster,</p>
<p>The UCs used to make professors sign "loyalty" oaths.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are many things that I would improve. I would streamline some of the bureaucracy by adding more possitions and making it easier to communicate with each other.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It seems that "additing more possitions" would be the opposite of "streamlining bueaucracy." Could you clarify, snugglemonster?</p>
<p>
[quote]
it did catch a lot of communists even if it did wrongfully accuse and harass many people.
[/quote]
Ha, that completely misses the point. We have something called free speech; it was wrong to villify people for being communist--that's their right.</p>
<p>UCLAri, yes, I know they had to sign loyalty oaths and I mentioned that in my above post, but that is not nearly the same as what greatestyn was trying to prove, which is that there was some kind of mind control involved. He said professors were "forced" to enjoy teaching, which did not and does not happen. Just because a teacher signs an oath doesn't mean they believe what they're signing. This doesn't seem complicated to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because a teacher signs an oath doesn't mean they believe what they're signing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes that is true, but YOU miss the point that many professors were dismissed after their colleagues backstabbed them. This happened by telling the administration that whereas professors were supposed to personally enjoy portraying capitalism as good and communism as evil, some professors did not actually feel like that and told their friends and collegues (whom they thought they could trust. But that was not the case.)</p>