<p>"I actually think it was from a student tour guide."</p>
<p>If that is "true," then that would explain why you were so vague and avoided my question.</p>
<p>The important thing is to get into the major you want! If you want EECS or CS and aren't accepted into that major at Berkeley, LEAVE!!!! Your undergraduate major will affect the rest of your life. Your choices for graduate education will be LIMITED by your undergraduate major. I have seen MANY MANY people unable to get into EECS/CS at Berkeley, and thus unable to pursue graduate education or job competition into where they want to be. It's better to go to a "lesser" school in a major you want than taking Berkeley's name-brand (which isn't that great, believe me) in a major you don't really want. Don't let Berkeley's counselors dupe you into saying an Engineering degree from them is priceless, because majors other than EECS there (like Engineering Physics) are pretty much worthless.</p>
<p>Hm... <em>in general</em> what you major in for undergrad doesn't dictate what you will do for the rest of your life.</p>
<p>Career Fairs and the companies sponsored at Berkeley block majors from applying if you are not a certain major that fits their criteria--already the discrimination is there. You couldn't even apply to PG&E through the Career Center if you weren't EECS--the Career Fair accounts screen you by your major profile. Remember, once you are in that major you don't really want, you will be expected to do research in that major! And that research will be irrelevant to what you want to do... It will be almost impossible to do EECS research when you are not that major.</p>
<p>The best option for prospective Engineering students at Berkeley is to put Engineering Undeclared, allowing an easy access to EE or CS. If that is what you really want, don't let them put you somewhere else! Just don't go to Berkeley and go to a school that can let you study what you want. Take it from someone who has been to Berkeley and is aware of the atmosphere there. Even a professor from UC Merced whom I have discussed with states "They don't care about education over there (Berkeley)." Maybe grad education, but definitely not undergrad. UCB has a "if you aren't in the major you want, too bad" mentality that is unproductive for students.</p>
<p>Master Katarn, I agree with some of what you say, but I just don't think one is as limited as you are making it out to be by not being in a certain major. Sure, there are some limitations by not being in certain majors, and obviously companies looking only for techies will generally avoid say humanities majors, but I think that many companies will look for math majors, eecs majors, or CS majors to fill the same job, for instance. When I looked through the Berkeley career fair stuff, I noticed few that listed only EECS, but many that lsited many science majors, for instance, or all the engineering majors. One huge caveat is "where they want to be." Unless this is defined, it's hard to answer you. </p>
<p>Engineering physics worthless? More or less so than general physics? So I guess that by the time we drop to the sad level of the social sciences or some of the less awe inspiring sciences, students ought to just give up on life?</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I would rather you not "roll your eyes." It's very rude.</p>
<p>Anyways, perhaps I was a bit too harsh. Obviously Engineering Physics is ok if you want to be a physicist. However, if you find yourself in that major and your goal is to work for, say, Apple or Microsoft, those recruiters won't even look at you. It is worthless, from a "certain point of view." My main point was that when you are stuck in a major, you only get experience within that major and it is VERY hard to get experience that your goals require. You can end up doing astrophysics research just to put something on your resume when what you really want is C++, Java programming experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You know the answer to that. I'll only tell you because you asked: because we have more faculty in some areas than others. Some fields get more money. Why does Haas get a really nice building while Cory is held together with duct tape? Haas gets extra money. You take one side of the equation without balancing the other. I mean, I could naively say that every major at Berkeley must be impacted because we have 22,000 students, while every major at MIT must not be because they have 6,000 students. What about the number of faculty and the resources of each school (or department)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some (like greatesteyn) would argue that money is not the problem - that the real problem is that certain departments simply don't WANT to teach that many undergrads. They could, but they won't. </p>
<p>But even if it really is a matter of money, then that simply begs the question of why can't money be redirected to those departments that are bursting at the seams? If students want to major in X, they should be allowed to study major in X. </p>
<p>
[quote]
For a good student, Berkeley is a roughly equal choice. I won't say strictly better or worse, because like I always say I don't deal in those terms. I will say that Berkeley won't be a significantly better or worse choice than a private school in terms of the quality of education received.</p>
<p>For a bad student, a private school may be a better choice because they cannot qualify for their desired major at Berkeley. That's not to say they'll get a better education necessarily (or that it will matter, because they're not good students to begin with), but that they may prefer a private school (and again, this preference would not have a correlation to quality of eduation).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that boils down to a problem of information - nobody really knows whether they really are going to be a "good" or "bad" student. After all, I doubt that many students come to Berkeley already knowing they are going to be "bad". Yet, the fact of the matter is, many students come to Berkeley and do badly and may find that they can't get the major they want (or in some cases, not even graduate at all). These students, would be better off at a top private school if they could have gotten in. Since you never know whether you will end up being one of the good or bad students at Berkeley until you get there, and by that time, it's too late, then clearly the risk averse choice is to go to one of those private schools. If you get admitted to Berkeley and Stanford, you can't just "try out Berkeley", and if you do poorly, then just transfer over to Stanford. If you do poorly at Berkeley, Stanford will not admit you as a transfer. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Completely irrelevant. Why even mention this? You asked whether people seriously preferred impacted majors, and I said yes (and so did greatestyen). Your question may have been rhetorical, but its answer may still surprise you. Go ask some students. One of my roommates and his project partner (for a summer CS course) both said they preferred impacted majors when I asked them today. No coercion, just a straight "Do you prefer having impacted majors or not?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't doubt that some people who get the major they want like impacted majors. Just like some people who are rich like the fact that others are poor so that they can feel superior around them. Some people who are beautiful like the fact that other people are ugly because it makes them look even more beautiful by comparison. But that doesn't mean that this is a good socially optimal phenomenom. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, because we all know that MCB professors and Poli-Sci professors can teach EECS courses. First of all, resources ARE optimized. They're the two largest majors on campus, therefore they need the resources. If we were to transfer those resources to EECS, that wouldn't suddenly make Poli-Sci and MCB the not largest majors on campus. That would make them the largest majors on campus with fewer resources. Which would be bad. It would be great if we had a net increase in resources overall, but seeing as how money doesn't grow on trees, we have a pretty good balance of resources. There isn't a huge contingency of people that can't get what they want. Most people are happy with things the way they are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, with the straw man? Come on Eudean, you know what I'm talking about, you just don't WANT to see it. You know full well that some majors can be optimized.</p>
<p>I'll throw one out right now. I don't think I am the first person to observe that the Math department has an unusually large number of profs, relative to the number of students they have. Physics too. And the truth is, a lot of math and Physics profs could be teaching related subjects. For example, a lot of the math profs could be teaching CS, because CS and math share many similarities. A lot of physics profs could be teaching EE or ME classes. Obviously they aren't going to be teaching advanced grad-level courses. But that's not what I'm asking for. I'm merely saying that undergrad CS, and undergrad EE/ME really aren't that complicated and specialized. Why is CS impacted when the math department seems to be chock full of unused resources? </p>
<p>The same could be said for Econ. The fact is, a lot of Poli-Sci profs could be teaching certain Econ classes, as Econ and Poli-Sci have many ties. In fact, many of the top Economists in the world are in certain ways actually political scientists. Nobel Prize winner George Stigler, for example, was basically a political scientist, because his work had to do with the economics of government regulation A lot of math and statistics profs could be teaching econ, especially the quantitative econometrics classes. In fact, last years co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, Robert Aumann, is not even an economist by training. He's a mathematician, and he won the Econ Nobel for his work on game theory, which is a deeply mathematical subject. John Nash, of Beautiful Mind fame, also was a mathematician, not an economist. </p>
<p>The point is, there does indeed seem to be quite a bit of slack capacity at Berkeley. I would like to redirect that capacity. That's what operations management and operations research is all about. Heck, CalX was a former IEOR grad, so he should know exactly what I'm talking about. Why shouldn't Cal use some of the principles that it is teaching students? Are you saying that it's OK to teach students optimization techniques, but not to use them yourself? </p>
<p>
[quote]
You've answered your own question. Which would be a smarter solution: overestimate the resources needed for MCB, so 580 students could get what they need in that major? Or underestimate those needs and shift them over to Mass Comm, where 140 people could make use of them? Yes, we theoretically could strike the ideal balance, but being realistic, I'd much rather the budget people overestimate resources for MCB, which more people want to major in, than overestimate for Mass Comm, which they aren't expecting many to major in in the first place. It's the only thing that makes sense from a business perspective.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously you budget capacity high and low according to anticipated demand. But then, optimization techniques would then have you fine-tune your capacity to match ACTUAL demand. Operations managers have been doing this for decades. Berkeley can't? </p>
<p>For example, in year 1, you probably budget capacity for 600 students in MCB and 100 for Mass Comm. But then when you consistently get 550 students in MCB and 150 for Mass Comm, then optimization would dictate that you shift capacity around so that you can give all 700 the major that they want. </p>
<p>Look at the history. Demand doesn't fluctuate THAT much. MCB numbers are fairly consistent. It's not like you get 100 MCB students one year, and a thousand the next year. The numbers are consistent. Hence, you have a good idea of what it is going to be in the following year. When you see the sun come up every day, you can probably bet that it will come up tomorrow. Hence, when you have a history of past demand, you can then make predictions of what future demand will be, and then adjust your capacities accordingly. If I am selling bananas in the farmer's market, and I am consistently getting sold out by noon every day for a whole month, then the smart thing for me to do is to bring more bananas next time. I have to be willfully blind not to see that I am not meeting my demand and I should adjust my capacity. </p>
<p>But that is, of course, presuming that you WANT to adjust your capacities to meet demand. Which doesn't seem to be the case. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, you imply that it is somehow easy to hire quality professors. While I can't speak on the quality of professors in MCB and/or Mass Comm, I presume Cal follows standard practices of getting high quality professors. It's not exactly an easy thing to say, fire two MCB professors and hire two Mass Comm ones to fix a disparity. That's just now how the system works (otherwise no one would become a professor, since there would be no job security).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why do you necessarily need profs? You can hire and fire untenured lecturers. All schools do this, including Berkeley. The MCB department right now is using untenured lecturers. So is the EECS department. So is the ChemE department. So are most departments. For example, most departments at Cal have post-doctoral fellows who would probably jump at the chance to become a lecturer. In fact, many post-doctoral fellows at Cal are, right now, serving as lecturers. So why can't you use more of them?</p>
<p>Is there something bad about using untenured lecturers? Some of the best classes I ever had were taught by untenured lecturers, and some of the worst classes I ever had were taught by full profs.</p>
<p>I've already written two posts which the system deleted. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>sakky, many departments have functions other than graduating students. For instance, consider the language courses. They teach students languages for various reasons and disciplines, and oftent times students will not major or even minor in a language they take four classes in. Using only number or profs and graduating students does not take this into account at all. It only takes a very limited amount of departmental demand into account. For instance, how many of the engineering students heavily use the math department? Physics? Certainly the math departments do. Anyway, obviously requirements influence demand, profs and number of degrees granted is very limited and not too useful.</p></li>
<li><p>Is one of the goals of maximalization levelling out student to faculty ratio amongst departments, or perhaps the number of students using classes in a deparment and the number of profs in that deparment?</p></li>
<li><p>Master Katarn, sorry to seem rude. I was just mocking how extreme your position was. I also challenge your notion that one can only get experience in one's major. While this may essentially be true in engineering, I would say in many ways it is not. 1) you are required to take 6 social science/humanities courses, obviously outside your major and 2) the essentially "common core" of the basic physics, math, chem, bio. Now, I could be wrong (as engineering is one of the largest things on campus about which I know the least), but I would say that you can get some experience outside of your specific subject because of these two things. I would guess that you wouldn't be allowed into very many (if any) classes in engineering fields outside of your major, so if that is what you mean, then alright, but I would say if you are talking about engineering only, you should make that explicit, and that for many (if not all) students, getting experience outside of their fields in other fields is easy- in fact, required.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Yes, pretty much all of what I have been saying does refer to engineering (that's all I know about). Another point that may not have been clear is that engineering graduate schools can be strict about your undergraduate major (it's hard even for people in the major to get into a good grad school sometimes) that your undergrad major can make it really difficult to get where you want to be. I doubt this may be applicable to humanities, however.</p>
<p><a href="it's%20hard%20even%20for%20people%20in%20the%20major%20to%20get%20into%20a%20good%20grad%20school%20sometimes">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can believe it- the competition for the best graduate and professional schools is ridiculously fierce.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I doubt this may be applicable to humanities, however.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As far as I know, I think there is more room to maneuver, but it's not wide open. Like in engineering, getting into the top graduate programs in the humanities (and social sciences) is really tough. Many programs in the social sciences expect some quantitative proficiency, so they may require some abilities or experience there. The humanities and social sciences often require at the very least some experience in course-work in the field or a related field, but I think that is not always the case (I could be wrong). It's most likely to be so in the better programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And that boils down to a problem of information - nobody really knows whether they really are going to be a "good" or "bad" student. After all, I doubt that many students come to Berkeley already knowing they are going to be "bad". Yet, the fact of the matter is, many students come to Berkeley and do badly and may find that they can't get the major they want (or in some cases, not even graduate at all). These students, would be better off at a top private school if they could have gotten in. Since you never know whether you will end up being one of the good or bad students at Berkeley until you get there, and by that time, it's too late, then clearly the risk averse choice is to go to one of those private schools. If you get admitted to Berkeley and Stanford, you can't just "try out Berkeley", and if you do poorly, then just transfer over to Stanford. If you do poorly at Berkeley, Stanford will not admit you as a transfer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's fine. The point I was making was it doesn't matter whether you're a good or bad student. You can learn just as much at Berkeley as anywhere else. If you are a bad student, it may be more painful. Doesn't mean you won't still get a good education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But even if it really is a matter of money, then that simply begs the question of why can't money be redirected to those departments that are bursting at the seams? If students want to major in X, they should be allowed to study major in X.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If there are sufficient resources, I completely agree. However, you must consider that redirecting money isn't so simple. If Mr. Levis (he came from Haas, right?) donates 10 million to Haas, it isn't going to go to patching up Cory. They'll find a way to make Haas better. That's what the money is marked for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll throw one out right now. I don't think I am the first person to observe that the Math department has an unusually large number of profs, relative to the number of students they have. Physics too. And the truth is, a lot of math and Physics profs could be teaching related subjects. For example, a lot of the math profs could be teaching CS, because CS and math share many similarities. A lot of physics profs could be teaching EE or ME classes. Obviously they aren't going to be teaching advanced grad-level courses. But that's not what I'm asking for. I'm merely saying that undergrad CS, and undergrad EE/ME really aren't that complicated and specialized. Why is CS impacted when the math department seems to be chock full of unused resources?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, say we use Physics professors to help teach the lower division EE courses and the Math professors to help teach the lower division CS courses. That seems about right. Say we can stuff another 50 kids (or X kids) into each of CS61A, B, and C, and EE20 and 40 by doing so. We have an additional 50 * 5 = 250 (or 5X) students in the EECS department now. Now those kids are juniors and they've finished their lower div requirements. They want to take EE105 and EE120 (and comparable CS courses) now. But we don't have those extra professors from Math and Physics to supplement now. So we've over-crowded our upper division courses and degraded the quality of education in the EECS department.</p>
<p>Consider also that when we hire faculty, we sometimes hire them as teaching and sometimes as research. Those research faculty signed up in part because they could spend most of their time researching. Forcing them to teach would cause two problems: 1) they may move to another institution which allows them more research time, and 2) our graduate education and quality of research may suffer. Hiring more teaching and less research faculty may be a reasonable answer, but again you're compromising research one way or another, so it isn't a free way to improve education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The point is, there does indeed seem to be quite a bit of slack capacity at Berkeley. I would like to redirect that capacity. That's what operations management and operations research is all about. Heck, CalX was a former IEOR grad, so he should know exactly what I'm talking about. Why shouldn't Cal use some of the principles that it is teaching students? Are you saying that it's OK to teach students optimization techniques, but not to use them yourself?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This went a bit OT. If we have the money to hire more lecturers (I'll use this instead of professors) for a certain department that is impacted and we have expendable excess in another department (as in, removing money or faculty wouldn't significantly hinder research or teaching capabilities), then I'd say go for it. I've got nothing against optimizing where possible.</p>
<p>I just don't see it as a big issue. I don't see gross inequities or massive quantities of students left out of their desired majors. The balance I've seen is relatively good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look at the history. Demand doesn't fluctuate THAT much. MCB numbers are fairly consistent. It's not like you get 100 MCB students one year, and a thousand the next year. The numbers are consistent. Hence, you have a good idea of what it is going to be in the following year. When you see the sun come up every day, you can probably bet that it will come up tomorrow. Hence, when you have a history of past demand, you can then make predictions of what future demand will be, and then adjust your capacities accordingly. If I am selling bananas in the farmer's market, and I am consistently getting sold out by noon every day for a whole month, then the smart thing for me to do is to bring more bananas next time. I have to be willfully blind not to see that I am not meeting my demand and I should adjust my capacity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know what the variances are, personally. I would imagine 10% would be within range. For a major with 500 people, that gives you a total spread of 100 students. Do you budget for 500 or 550? Would you rather have extra or not enough? It's a fair question, certainly, and someone has to decide. In a purely pragmatic sense, 500 should be the choice, but then you've got a potentially impacted major. You've optimized and you've still got impacted majors. What now? If you were selling bananas, you're either going to have to take some home to let them rot each day, or you're going to have to say sorry to some of your customers (okay, in this case you could just eat the bananas yourself). Depending on the cost of producing and selling a banana, one situation may be more profitable than another.</p>
<p>Further, historically, majors can and do fluctuate a lot. Take a look at EECS over the past decade. The dotcom bubble affected EECS enrollment hugely. As an example, CS61A was up to 400+ students at the peak, and nowadays is around 100. While actual EECS major numbers didn't vary by 400%, you can imagine that it was at least significant enough that if changes weren't made, accomodating that many students would be impossible. That means either hiring more faculty to teach these courses, or kick some students out of the major.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But that is, of course, presuming that you WANT to adjust your capacities to meet demand. Which doesn't seem to be the case.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You should always want to. You only should if you can do so without disrupting other departments. If you have a "free" way (as in, doesn't require significantly harming another department) to adjust capacities, that's great. Otherwise, it would be iffy to take from Math to give to EECS if Math needed what it had. If you're taking from Math research funding to pay for lackeys to teach lower level EECS, you're basically taking from the top minds so that the students who were deemed unqualified for EECS can now take courses in EECS, which doesn't seem optimal at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is there something bad about using untenured lecturers? Some of the best classes I ever had were taught by untenured lecturers, and some of the worst classes I ever had were taught by full profs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. There is something bad about using unexperienced lecturers, and most untenured lecturers aren't as experienced as tenured lecturers. That's not to say there aren't many bad tenured lecturers and many good untenured lecturers, but if you're going to pick between someone with 2 years of teaching experience and someone with 10 years (without any more information), I think you'd probably pick the 10-year veteran.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's fine. The point I was making was it doesn't matter whether you're a good or bad student. You can learn just as much at Berkeley as anywhere else. If you are a bad student, it may be more painful. Doesn't mean you won't still get a good education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Isn't that a self-contradiction. First you said that it doesn't matter whether you're a good or bad student. Then you say that if you are a bad student, it may be more painful. So then it DOES matter whether you're a good or bad student, right? </p>
<p>
[quote]
If there are sufficient resources, I completely agree. However, you must consider that redirecting money isn't so simple. If Mr. Levis (he came from Haas, right?) donates 10 million to Haas, it isn't going to go to patching up Cory. They'll find a way to make Haas better. That's what the money is marked for.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In this simple case you proposed, yes. Nobody said that redirecting money was simply elementary. However, it is not as difficult as you are implying. A lot of the money is fungible. You CAN shift a lot of it around to meet demand, if you want. The real question is, do you want to? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay, say we use Physics professors to help teach the lower division EE courses and the Math professors to help teach the lower division CS courses. That seems about right. Say we can stuff another 50 kids (or X kids) into each of CS61A, B, and C, and EE20 and 40 by doing so. We have an additional 50 * 5 = 250 (or 5X) students in the EECS department now. Now those kids are juniors and they've finished their lower div requirements. They want to take EE105 and EE120 (and comparable CS courses) now. But we don't have those extra professors from Math and Physics to supplement now. So we've over-crowded our upper division courses and degraded the quality of education in the EECS department.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And why are you assuming that these math/physics profs can only teach lower division courses?</p>
<p>Let me give you an example from MIT. I think you even admitted before that you would have gone to MIT if you had gotten in and if the costs were comparable (i.e. if Berkeley had given you a scholarship). For example, consider just a few of the following MIT CS courses:</p>
<p>6.042J - Mathematics for Computer Science - crosslisted with 18.062J
6.045J - Automata, Computability, and Complexity - crosslisted with 18.400J
6.046J - Introduction to Algorithms - crosslisted with 18.410J
6.337J - Introduction to Numerical Methods - crosslisted with 18.335J
6.338J - Parallel Computing - crosslisted with 18.337J
6.840J - Theory of Computation - crosslisted with 18.404J
6.841J - Advanced Complexity Theory - crosslisted with 18.405J
6.852J - Distributed Algorithms - crosslisted with 18.437J
6.854J - Advanced Algorithms - crosslisted with 18.415J
6.856J - Randomized Algorithms - crosslisted with 18.416J
6.875J - Cryptography and Cryptanalysis - crosslisted with 18.425J
6.876J - Advanced Topics in Cryptography - crosslisted with 18.426J</p>
<p>What the 'cross-listing' means is that this class has TWO separate designations with 2 different departments, but they are the same class. In the case of these classes, they are cross-listed with 18.xxx classes, and department 18 is the Math department at MIT. What that basically means is that it IS considered both a math and a CS class. The class "belongs" to both departments, and hence can be taught by profs from either department, and will include students from both departments.</p>
<p>Now there is no perfect mapping between Berkeley and MIT courses, but i think the following courses are quite comparable </p>
<p>Berkeley CS 70 - Discrete Mathematics = MIT 6.042J
Berkeley CS 170 - Efficient Algorithms = MIT 6.046J
Berkeley CS 172 - Computability and Complexity = MIT 6.405J </p>
<p>And then there are other Berkeley classes that are arguably math courses. These would include:</p>
<p>Berkeley CS 174 - Combinatorics and Discrete Probability
EE 126 - Probability and Random Processes
EE 120 - Signals and Systems</p>
<p>I would also say that Berkeley EE 117 (Electromagnetic Fields and Waves) is really a physics class. </p>
<p>So the point is, there are PLENTY of EECS classes at Berkeley that can be taught by profs from other departments. I only listed above all of the MIT EECS classes that are crosslisted with Math (and hence are basically math classes). Many other MIT EECS classes are crosslisted with other departments, such as the Sloan School (a lot of the optimization and numerical analysis courses), BioEngineering/Bio (all that Bioelectrical stuff), and so forth.</p>
<p>What that means is that "true" EECS profs would be freed up from teaching classes that arguably could be taught by profs from other departments, which would mean that they could teach more of the classes that truly are highly EECS-specific. Honestly, you don't need to devote EECS resources to teach a course on Complexity Theory or on Algorithms, as these are math concepts. This is especially true of algorithms. Mathematicians were studying algorithms literally for thousands of years before computers even existed. Even today, many of the best algorithm researchers are basically mathematicians. </p>
<p>To give you an example. I see that in the fall, CS 70 will be taught by Papadimitrou. But does he really have to do it? He's a database guy, so shouldn't he be teaching a database class? Why can't somebody from the math department teach CS70 to free Papadimitrou up? </p>
<p>Furthermore, just because a EECS class doesn't exist at Berkeley now doesn't mean that it couldn't. For example, Berkeley could offer an undergrad elective CS class on Numerical Methods, just like MIT does. And that CS class could be taught by a Math prof, just like what happens at MIT. The same thing is true for a wide range of CS algorithm classes - Berkeley could offer them to undergrads (not just grad students), and have them taught by Math profs. That would draw alleviate even more of the pressure that you are alluding to - those certain EECS students who really might overload certain courses that can only be taught by EECS profs could now have the choice of taking something that they not only find more interesting, but also not require more EECS-specific resources. In other words, you'd be drawing students away from the pressure points. It's like how banks use ATM's to serve people with simple transactions, therefore effectively eliminating them from the teller lines, so that the only people who have to wait for a teller are those with complex transactions. In that way, you don't have to stand in line waiting behind a guy who just wants to withdraw 20 bucks. </p>
<p>Finally, why can't you then backfill whatever demand you still have left with a bunch of adjunct lecturers and/or visiting profs? Other departments do this all the time. In fact, the EECS department right now has plenty of these lecturers. Mike Clancy, Dan Garcia, and Brian Harvey, the profs for many of the lower division CS courses, lecturers. The guy who teaches EE20, Ayazifer, is also a lecturer. The department also has a whole bunch of adjunct profs who aren't "real" profs. So if the department is already doing this anyway, why not bring in some more to backfill the demand? </p>
<p>For example, I see in the fall, 61A will be taught by Harvey and CS61C will be taught by Garcia. So you're already having plenty of EECS students being taught by lecturers. If this is not a problem currently, then why is it a problem if we bring in more of these lecturers or adjuncts?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just don't see it as a big issue. I don't see gross inequities or massive quantities of students left out of their desired majors. The balance I've seen is relatively good.
[/quote]
The stats for those people who tried to get into the L&S CS program are published. You will see that a rather significant percentage of people who tried to get into CS were denied, including some people who had technical and overall GPA's of up to 3.5, were denied from the major.<br>
<a href="http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Peer/lowerdivision/admissionsstatistics_data.html#sp02_tech%5B/url%5D">http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Peer/lowerdivision/admissionsstatistics_data.html#sp02_tech</a>
Seriously, how would you feel if you got both a technical and overall 3.5 GPA, and still couldn't get into the major you want? What's up with that? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know what the variances are, personally. I would imagine 10% would be within range. For a major with 500 people, that gives you a total spread of 100 students. Do you budget for 500 or 550? Would you rather have extra or not enough? It's a fair question, certainly, and someone has to decide. In a purely pragmatic sense, 500 should be the choice, but then you've got a potentially impacted major. You've optimized and you've still got impacted majors. What now? If you were selling bananas, you're either going to have to take some home to let them rot each day, or you're going to have to say sorry to some of your customers (okay, in this case you could just eat the bananas yourself). Depending on the cost of producing and selling a banana, one situation may be more profitable than another.</p>
<p>Further, historically, majors can and do fluctuate a lot. Take a look at EECS over the past decade. The dotcom bubble affected EECS enrollment hugely. As an example, CS61A was up to 400+ students at the peak, and nowadays is around 100. While actual EECS major numbers didn't vary by 400%, you can imagine that it was at least significant enough that if changes weren't made, accomodating that many students would be impossible. That means either hiring more faculty to teach these courses, or kick some students out of the major
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously there is some buffer zone. Nobody knows EXACTLY what the demand is going to be. That is why you have to build in some slack capacity. </p>
<p>The question is, how much, and this, again, gets back to a well-understood topic of operations management. Depending on the service levels you want, you budget a certain buffer for each queue. But that doesn't mean that you just create huge buffers willy-nilly in one station while other stations are starved. Good operations management means properly apportioning capcaity buffers.<br>
That's what those lecturers are for. If you suddenly get a huge influx of demand, you hire a bunch of lecturers. EECS (just like any department) has plenty of post-docs, some of whom wouldn't mind working as a lecturer for a few semesters to make extra cash and build a teaching record. If demand disappears, you just don't offer any lecturer contracts that semester, and those postdocs can just go back to being regular postdocs. Or, again, if CS demand ramps up, you get some of the Math and Physics profs to teach some of your classes. If demand dies down, then you can just have your regularly scheduled EECS profs teaching those classes again. The point is, there are ways for you to dynamically ramp capacity up and down.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Otherwise, it would be iffy to take from Math to give to EECS if Math needed what it had. If you're taking from Math research funding to pay for lackeys to teach lower level EECS, you're basically taking from the top minds so that the students who were deemed unqualified for EECS can now take courses in EECS, which doesn't seem optimal at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with "research". I don't know why people keep bringing up research. I am not talking about research. I am simply talking about having the teaching capacity necessary to handle the interested students. I never said anything about taking any research money from one department to another. Teaching more students doesn't require an expenditure of research money. Those math profs who would be teaching CS classes are still free to do all the math research they want.<br>
Besides, how much money do you really need to do math research? Let's face it. Most math research consists of proofs, and while proofs are obviously very difficult, they don't require a lot of money to do. Some math journals, a whole bunch of paper and pencils, and a whole bunch of coffee, and that's all you really have to pay for. Paul Erdos once remarked that a mathematician is a machine that converts coffee into theorems. The only thing I can really see is if a math prof is doing computational/algorithmic proofs that require large supercomputers. But then, if that's what you're doing, that basically makes you, in effect, a CS prof, which means you have even less excuse not to be teaching CS classes. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Not necessarily. There is something bad about using unexperienced lecturers, and most untenured lecturers aren't as experienced as tenured lecturers. That's not to say there aren't many bad tenured lecturers and many good untenured lecturers, but if you're going to pick between someone with 2 years of teaching experience and someone with 10 years (without any more information), I think you'd probably pick the 10-year veteran
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but the 10-year veteran in what? Keep in mind that plenty of profs don't exactly have a lot of teaching experience either. Who is going to be a better teacher - a newly hired EECS assistant prof, or Mike Clancy, a lecturer who has been teaching for at least 20 years? </p>
<p>Let's face it. Right now, Berkeley has plenty of courses taught by inexperienced assistant profs, and taught poorly. So if that is happening already, is it really any worse to use inexperienced lecturers (i.e. those postdocs who get called up when demand increases unexpectedly)?</p>
<p>I'm applying to UCB engineering, and worried about my stats. What were your GPA, SAT's, etc. Thanks</p>
<p>Well, if you are applying to UCB engineering, apply for Engineering Undeclared! You may end up spending four years of your life in a major you hate if you don't. Trust me on this one, I know.</p>
<p>Honestly, I have never met anyone that is a UCB alumni that I consider "smart" or is attending a top 3 program that considered Berkeley a good school (and I know a lot from High School and from trying to contact recent alums). The only jaws I drop with the Berkeley name are those that know it only in passing due to its graduate program or attended podunk schools where any USNews Top 25 school would impress them.</p>
<p>Just avoid Berkeley and you will save yourself a ton of headaches.</p>