<p>and cal adcom doesn't have to read recs..</p>
<p>They don't have to do so, true, but they could make it so that they do. I don't see it happening, but who cares if they don't have to now? What matters is that it is possible that they could require, recommend, or accept them, and then read them.</p>
<p>Look, the admissions office already has a system which allows for some students to supply recommendations. Students who get an email regarding "augmented review" have the option of having the teacher write a letter.</p>
<p>page 52: </p>
<p>"AR also offers applicants the opportunity to submit seventh-semester grades and letters of recommendations from high school teachers or outreach program counselors familiar with the applicants"</p>
<p>Maybe they don't have enough resources to read recs for every applicant, but if that's the case, give them more resources!</p>
<p>"Regarding the disadvantaged students, Berkeley has been stressing that and do admit these students, but they often underperform and are weeded out. I think it's better to not admit them at all than to admit them, then flunk them out."</p>
<p>You kidding me? Disadvantaged students are exceptions, and thus inherently rare. So what if disadvantaged students underperform? There numbers are few, so don't worry about them harming those precious GPA avg.'s. Many of them are students with extremely difficult life circumstances, students with pregnancies, who's managed to attain a decent GPA while having cancer, etc. A press release by UCOP in 2003 reveals that most students do NOT flunk out academically. They drop out due to personal reasons, death of family member, illness, etc. The majority of them come back too.</p>
<p>"Eh. I'm tired of hearing stories of Bay Area Hispanics with 3.5 GPAs getting into this school on academic scholarships, and then needing tutoring for College Writing 1A. Bull****. Isn't the Summer Bridge Program to blame?"</p>
<p>No. I can't say much for this individual specifically, but for many individuals who have similar characteristics, you can blame poverty, gangs, drugs, and irresponsible parents for creating such a difficult environment for Berkeley bound students. This then inrceases the value of a 3.5 GPA. </p>
<p>I've seen it with my own eyes. From growing up in Los Angeles, and travelling around California, i've come to realize that many social groups in impoverished schools don't aim high. I've seen so many groups where they just don't know the college system. They don't understand it, and they've never aimed for it cause they couldn't pay for it. The black sheep in the crowd are students who aim for Ivy's and Berkeley. I don't want to sound scathing but wow, I don't think your statement can get any more ignorant. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You kidding me? Disadvantaged students are exceptions, and thus inherently rare. So what if disadvantaged students underperform? There numbers are few, so don't worry about them harming those precious GPA avg.'s. Many of them are students with extremely difficult life circumstances, students with pregnancies, who's managed to attain a decent GPA while having cancer, etc. A press release by UCOP in 2003 reveals that most students do NOT flunk out academically. They drop out due to personal reasons, death of family member, illness, etc. The majority of them come back too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that just begs the question of why Berkeley has these problems but other schools don't. After all, shouldn't Harvard students also suffer from personal reasons such as deaths of family members, illnesses, or whatnot? I would think so. So then why is it that Harvard can boast of a 98% 6-year graduation rate? </p>
<p>But regardless, even if you are right that the majority of Berkeley students who drop out do so for personal reasons, that's no reason not to deal with the minority of students who academically flunk out. You have to ask - why should Berkeley admit these students in the first place. Who does that benefit? You ask who cares if a student underperforms. Simple - the school should be ensuring that student's don't hurt themselves. </p>
<p>I'll give you an anology. I know a guy who works at a motorcycle-riding training school. Every single class he runs, he always has some students who clearly have no business being there as they don't have even the minimum level of skill necessary to learn how to ride a motorcycle. For example, some of them will have never even rode a bicycle before. Others clearly have a physical condition that prevents them from riding a motorcycle properly. It's quite clear that these people are just going to hurt themselves in the training course. The company could just say "Well, they signed legal waivers, so we're just going to take their money and if they get hurt, that's their problem". But that's just not ethical. The ethical thing to do is to pull them aside, tell them that it's just not safe for them to take the course, and refund their money. </p>
<p>The general philosophy is that if you can see that somebody is going to hurt himself by doing something, you try to prevent it from happening. You don't just shrug your shoulders and let the damage happen. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No. I can't say much for this individual specifically, but for many individuals who have similar characteristics, you can blame poverty, gangs, drugs, and irresponsible parents for creating such a difficult environment for Berkeley bound students. This then inrceases the value of a 3.5 GPA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, I agree, many students grow up in bad straits. Hence, I don't blame these students for not being properly prepared for Berkeley, and hence flunking out. </p>
<p>But it doesn't matter WHY they aren't properly prepared. At that stage in the game, all that matters is that they are not properly prepared. It's sad and unfair that they didn't get the proper preparation. But what's done is done. You don't compound the situation by bringing these students into Berkeley, knowing that they are just going to flunk out. How does that help those students? Now, those students are * even worse off * because now their academic record is ruined. </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I am certainly not saying that ALL of these students are going to flunk out. What I am saying is that Berkeley needs to do a better job of figuring out just who is going to flunk out, and simply not admit those students in the first place. You do that, and everybody benefits, especially those students themselves. You're not doing anybody any favors by bringing in students into a school, only to later flunk them out. It would be better to have simply not admitted those students in the first place. Otherwise, you are just wasting the time and money of these students, and ruining their academic records.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example. I know a guy who went to Berkeley and flunked out. And frankly, he said that he would have been much better off if he had never been admitted to Berkeley at all. If he had never been admitted to Berkeley, he would not have gone, and he would have instead gone to somewhere like UCDavis, or perhaps San Jose State, and he then probably would have graduated. Instead, he went to a school that was simply too hard for him, and he got badly hurt. </p>
<p>Now, granted, part of the blame clearly lies with him. I am not letting him off the hook. He was unprepared, he was fairly lazy, and so he flunked out. Yes, part of the situation is his fault. He admits this. But part of the fault also lies with Berkeley for admitting him in the first place. They should have known that he wasn't going to do well. Berkeley doesn't get a free pass. Both parties are to blame. At least this guy has taken responsibility for his role in the fiasco. Berkeley should take responsibility for its role.</p>
<p>Tell me, how would Berkeley have known he wasn't going to do well, and how would Berkeley take responsiblity for its role? Just curious.</p>
<p>^^ Exactly. How are you going to expect Berkeley to figure out who is going to make it through their programs? That's quite an unreasonable expectation. The focus shouldn't be on the admission process, but on academic/personal support programs for students. Being unprepared is part of the reason your friend flunked out, but if there were adequate academic support programs for him, he may have made it.</p>
<p>"Principle Seven: Berkeley should accept only those students who have a reasonable chance of persisting to graduation. *While the policies of vigorous diversification and actively seeking out students with special talents (including athletic ones) imply that some applicants with one or more academic deficiencies will be admitted, these students should show evidence of being capable of completing a bachelor's degree. * As part of its policy of admitting such students, it is imperative that the University provide them with adequate support services."</p>
<p><a href="http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/archives/karabel.html%5B/url%5D">http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/archives/karabel.html</a>
(This link is probably better, the other link was for junior transfers)</p>
<p>To summarize, all students are expected to be able to graduate. Those admitted based on unique characteristics combined with one or more academic weaknesses must show they are able to graduate, and will be accomodated for. I'm sure that the adcom's thought that your friend was expected to graduate. </p>
<p>"But it doesn't matter WHY they aren't properly prepared. At that stage in the game, all that matters is that they are not properly prepared. It's sad and unfair that they didn't get the proper preparation. But what's done is done. You don't compound the situation by bringing these students into Berkeley, knowing that they are just going to flunk out. How does that help those students? Now, those students are even worse off because now their academic record is ruined."</p>
<p>That's why these educational services exist. Students coming out of many CA high schools are unprepared due to factors from the student, and factors from the high school itself. For this niche of students we are talking about, i'm sure that Berkeley admits students based on their potential to succeed, even though their high school failed to prepare them. </p>
<p>To respond to your Harvard comparison:
I truly believe that Harvard students are not exposed to the same difficulties that many Berkeley students do. I would be willing to bet that the average family net worths of all Harvard admits are far beyond Berkeley students. As such, they are better placed in society, they have better healthcare, less exposed to urban crime, and so on. Certain socioeconomic environments make it more favorable for students to apply, get accepted, and retain at Harvard. This then translates into a better environment for students to stay in school. Students may be less hindered by the financial burdens of their family or children. Not to mention, the prestige and opportunity at Harvard creates a huge incentive to graduate from there. Altogether, i'm speculating that these reasons can explain some the differences in retention rates at Berkeley vs Harvard.</p>
<p>I think we are jumping to conclusions if we claim that many students coming from "bad straits" are flunking out.</p>
<p>while I do think cutting ugrad population by a certain amount may have positive effects on the general ugrad quality here, i don't think it should if it can help it (although it may very well be necessary at this point because lower div classes are growing increasingly overpopulated.) why? the UCs are public schools-- their primary goal should be to provide the best quality education to the greatest amount of people possible.</p>
<p>if uc berkeley becomes too exclusive, then it will betray the very philosophy of public education and public schools! :(</p>
<p>I'd imagined the point of opening new UCs such as Merced is to absorb the increase in students applying.</p>
<p>Apparently there is a limit imposed by the city of Berkeley to cap the university's student population at 31,200, so the incoming freshmen class size won't get much bigger unless the university wants to enroll less graduate students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Tell me, how would Berkeley have known he wasn't going to do well, and how would Berkeley take responsiblity for its role? Just curious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
^^ Exactly. How are you going to expect Berkeley to figure out who is going to make it through their programs? That's quite an unreasonable expectation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would hardly say that it's that hard to figure out. Like I said, evidently Harvard has managed to figure out how to get a 98% 6-year graduation rate, with virtually nobody flunking out (those who do leave tend to be people like Bill Gates or Matt Damon who leave for other opportunities, not because they were actually forced out). Or if you want to talk about public schools, Virginia has a 93% 6-year graduation rate. William & Mary has a 91% rate. Come on, guys. If Virginia and W&M can figure out a way to do that, why can't Berkeley? </p>
<p>
[quote]
focus shouldn't be on the admission process, but on academic/personal support programs for students. Being unprepared is part of the reason your friend flunked out, but if there were adequate academic support programs for him, he may have made it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe so. But the point is, if Berkeley is not going to offer the proper support, then the best thing to do is to simply not admit those students who aren't going to make it. I think we can all agree that the worst thing to do to somebody is bring them in, only to flunk them out later. You've just wasted that student's time and money by doing that. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I truly believe that Harvard students are not exposed to the same difficulties that many Berkeley students do. I would be willing to bet that the average family net worths of all Harvard admits are far beyond Berkeley students. As such, they are better placed in society, they have better healthcare, less exposed to urban crime, and so on. Certain socioeconomic environments make it more favorable for students to apply, get accepted, and retain at Harvard. This then translates into a better environment for students to stay in school. Students may be less hindered by the financial burdens of their family or children. Not to mention, the prestige and opportunity at Harvard creates a huge incentive to graduate from there. Altogether, i'm speculating that these reasons can explain some the differences in retention rates at Berkeley vs Harvard.</p>
<p>I think we are jumping to conclusions if we claim that many students coming from "bad straits" are flunking out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with all of that. But that doesn't change the final analysis, which is that Berkeley should not be admitting students that it is going to flunk out later. A more careful analysis of who gets admitted is called for. </p>
<p>But let me now speak directly to your point. I would surmise that a poor student who is admitted to both Berkeley and Harvard would almost certainly be better off at Harvard. Why? First off, Harvard tends to provide significantly better financial aid to poor students than Berkeley does. Harvard guarantees, as a matter of published school policy, that every admitted student whose family makes less than 60k will have zero expected contribution to the child's tuition. Berkeley has no such policy. That's why Harvard is often times * cheaper * than Berkeley for poor students. For example, I know 2 guys who are California residents who were admitted to both Berkeley and Harvard, and found that Harvard would actually * cost less * once financial aid was factored in. I will always remember one of them acidly saying that he had always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so now he has 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. </p>
<p>So the financial support for the poor at Harvard is clearly superior. But it's not just that. The academic support is also superior. There are simply far more advising and counseling services available to Harvard students than to Berkeley students. Every Harvard House has house-masters and resident tutors. It's a plethora of resources and safety nets designed to catch you and save you if you are at Harvard. </p>
<p>And of course there is the biggest safety net of all - grade inflation, which makes it almost impossible to actually flunk out. Contrast that with the teaching culture at Berkeley where many profs will not hesitate one moment to flunk people - heck some profs seem to deliberately go out of their way in order to flunk people (i.e. Professor Wu in the math department). But that all doesn't change the basic equation, which is that if you are poor and hence went to a crappy high school that didn't prepare you properly, but you still (somehow) got admitted to both Harvard and Berkeley anyway, frankly, you should probably choose Harvard. After all, keep in mind, the goal of going to college is graduating. You run the serious risk of flunking out if you choose Berkeley. </p>
<p>
[quote]
To summarize, all students are expected to be able to graduate. Those admitted based on unique characteristics combined with one or more academic weaknesses must show they are able to graduate, and will be accomodated for. I'm sure that the adcom's thought that your friend was expected to graduate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh I don't know about that. Adcoms admit students for a wide range of reasons, many of them political. </p>
<p>Let me give you a historical example. When Cal admitted Jason Kidd in 1992, everybody basically knew that he was admitted for one thing and one thing only - to play basketball. He was the national high school player of the year and had won 2 California high school state championships. And everybody suspected that he was going to leave Cal early for the NBA. In fact, you'd have to be a fool to not suspect that this was going to happen. And sure enough, he declared for the NBA after his sophomore year.</p>
<p>Let's face it. Jason Kidd was not exactly the greatest student in the world. Academically speaking, he was far worse than a lot of other people who applied to Cal that year and got rejected. But the adcom let him in. They certainly had the power to reject him. But they did not. Why? Simple - there was great political pressure from the athletic department to admit him. Kidd was going to be instrumental in turning Cal basketball into a top-ranked team, and so the athletic department basically used its pull on the admissions committee to let him in, even though the adcom knew full well that academically speaking, he probably shouldn't get in. Did the adcom expect Jason Kidd to graduate? Come on. You'd have to be a fool not to know that Kidd had no real intention of graduating at all, but was just using Cal as a springboard for his NBA career. </p>
<p>The point is, adcoms serve numerous political masters. Anybody who has ever worked in large organizations knows full well that just because a group of people are ostensibly tasked to do something doesn't mean that they will actually do it. There is always discretion. For example, if you are caught driving 66 mph in a 65 zone, you are technically breaking the law and a cop could decide to pull you over and ticket you. If you are crossing the street against the light, even if there are no cars around, you are technically breaking the law, and a cop could ticket you for that. But come on, most cops aren't going to bother. Cops always use their discretion. So do adcoms. The problem is when they use their discretion to ultimately deleterious effect - for example, a cop who ignores violent crimes committed by his friend just because it's his friend, or an adcom officer who admits people who he strongly suspects will not graduate. </p>
<p>For example, back in the days before Prop 209, one Hispanic guy that I know got into Mechanical Engineering basically because his sister was very good friends with the woman who was the head of the minority engineering program and who had great pull in terms of getting minorities admitted into engineering. This guy was a 'special admit' because his academic record was so poor that, under the index formula used at the time. he wasn't even UC-eligible. Forget about being competitive for Berkeley - this guy was not even supposed to be eligible for * any * of the UC's. However, this woman was also going to be leaving Berkeley to take another job at another school anyway, so she didn't really care if she admitted a bunch of unworthy people, as it wasn't going to be her problem after she left. So she might as well do what her friend asked her to do in order to maintain the friendship. So that guy was admitted, and then unsurprisingly promptly flunked out in a year's time. But that's not her problem. Think about the person who got rejected from Berkeley because the MEP office decided to push Berkeley to admit that guy instead. </p>
<p>
[quote]
why? the UCs are public schools-- their primary goal should be to provide the best quality education to the greatest amount of people possible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know that being a public school necessarily means bringing in lots of students, only to flunk lots of them right back out. How exactly does that help the public interest? I would argue that, if anything, that HURTS the public interest, as you tag lots of people with sundered academic records. </p>
<p>You also you don't see the Berkeley graduate programs admitting large numbers of students, and then flunking a significant number of them out. Why not? The Berkeley graduate programs are public too.</p>
<p>sakky, are you serious?? You're using Jason Kidd, an athlete, as an example?? You've gotta be sxxting us!! The example you've cited is evident in nearly every major college sports program, which the ivy league schools are obviously not a part of. Every major college program will exercise this sort of preferential treatment to some extent to be able to compete.</p>
<p>Besides, Cal will never be successful consistently in basketball and football, the two major collegiate sports, largely because they ARE more selective than most major college programs. They can't get the best players largely because of their higher academic standards. Tell me the last time they've been close to winning championships in either sport. </p>
<p>Your example about the engineering student is also lame. Just explain how many people are going to have "sisters who are good friends with the woman who was head of the minority engineering program, who was going to be leaving Berkeley to take another job at another school anyway". Give me a break!</p>
<p>You need to provide examples that aren't so ridiculous, examples that actually apply to the common student. But maybe you have no choice but to provide such lame examples because your argument is so weak. There is really no rational way you can make a statement that Berkeley should have known so and so student was going to fail because that is nearly impossible to determine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, are you serious?? You're using Jason Kidd, an athlete, as an example?? You've gotta be sxxting us!! The example you've cited is evident in nearly every major college sports program, which the ivy league schools are obviously not a part of. Every major college program will exercise this sort of preferential treatment to some extent to be able to compete.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have to use a case that is famous and indisputable. I could just have easily used people that I know personally. But nobody knows about them, so I'd have to spend an inordinate amount of time just explaining the example. So I have to use an example that everybody knows.</p>
<p>I agree that all other schools do this. But that's irrelevant to the central point - which is that adcoms are subject to a wide range of political pressures that have little to do with graduation. Whether it's putting together a competitive sports team, or admitting lots of poor students so that the school can then claim to be helping the poor (even if they know that many of them flunk out), the point is, all school admissions decisions are subject to politics. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides, Cal will never be successful consistently in basketball and football, the two major collegiate sports, because they ARE more selective than most major college programs. They can't get the best players largely because of their higher academic standards. Tell me the last time they've been close to winning championships in either sport.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't necessarily ask them to win championships, but they can play better (and consistently so). For example, Stanford went to the Rose Bowl in 2000. Cal hasn't been to the Rose Bowl since 1959. For much of the 2003-2004 basketball season, Stanford was ranked #1, almost went undefeated in the entire regular season (going 29-1), won both the Pac-10 regular season and tournament title, and was a #1 seed in the NCAA championship tournament. Granted, they didn't win the national championship, but hey, they still had a great season. I would be very very happy if Cal basketball were to be ranked #1 and gotten themselves a #1 seed for March Madness, which are things that Cal has never had. If anything, Stanford has * even stricter * academic standards than Cal has. </p>
<p>Besides, Duke has won a string of national championships in basketball despite having high admissions standards. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Your example about the engineering student is also lame. Just explain how many people are going to have "sisters who are good friends with the woman who was head of the minority engineering program, who was going to be leaving Berkeley to take another job at another school anyway". Give me a break!</p>
<p>You need to provide examples that aren't so ridiculous, examples that actually apply to the common student. But maybe you have no choice but to provide such lame examples because your argument is so weak.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I am deliberately providing corner cases to illustrate a rather egregious example of the political pressures that fall upon adcoms. </p>
<p>But that aside, you say that my argument is 'weak'? And what exactly is your argument? Oh, that's right, you haven't presented one, have you? So who's really being 'weak' here? Whatever you might think about my argument, at least I have one. You have nothing at all. </p>
<p>If you would like me to present more cases, am I happy to do so. I know a LOT of poorly performing Berkeley students. Shall I talk about them also? </p>
<p>But I don't even think I should have to. All I have to do is point to the Berkeley graduation rate and wonder why is that? Are you seriously attempting to defend that graduation rate?</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is really no rational way you can make a statement that Berkeley should have known so and so student was going to fail because that is nearly impossible to determine.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet the other schools seem to be able to do it. Again, why is it that schools like Harvard or Virginia are able to have higher graduation rates than Berkeley has? What do they know that Berkeley doesn't know?</p>
<p>Think of it this way. Auto insurance companies charge higher premiums if you're young, especially if you're under 18. Why? Simple - because it has been statistically proven that young drivers tend to get into more accidents. Now, in some sense, that's not "fair" to the young drivers who are also safe drivers. But hey, life is not fair. By the same token, life insurance is more expensive for smokers, which is not 'fair' to smokers who nevertheless live a long life. However, statistically, we all understand that smokers tend to die young. </p>
<p>So a very simple thing that Berkeley can do is simply go through the admissions records of all former students who flunk out to find a statistically correlating regression factor, and then simply admit fewer future students who have that factor. For example, if it is shown that one particular high school tends to produce an unusually high percentage of students who flunk out, then the answer is to stop admitting so many students from that high school. It's not that hard to do.</p>
<p>"If anything, Stanford has * even stricter * academic standards than Cal has. Besides, Duke has won a string of national championships in basketball despite having high admissions standards."</p>
<p>Stanford had a strong recruiting pull for years because of their coach Mike Montgomery, who had established a tradition of some sort and was a first rate recruiter. Montgomery left, and now Stanford is back to mediocrity. The same goes for Duke with Coach K but with a much more rich tradition than Stanford and that's partly why they've been successful for so long. Consequently, they both are/were able to compensate for their tougher acadamic standards. Cal doesn't have such a tradition so they're unable to make up for their tougher admissions standards. </p>
<p>"But that aside, you say that my argument is 'weak'? And what exactly is your argument? Oh, that's right, you haven't presented one, have you? So who's really being 'weak' here? Whatever you might think about my argument, at least I have one. You have nothing at all."</p>
<p>That IS my argument, that your claim is lame and ridiculous. What other argument would I have? I'm not foolish enough to claim to have a definitive answer about something that I can't possibly provide a definitive answer for. And yes, at least you have an argument...AN INCREDIBLY WEAK ONE.</p>
<p>It's not so much that Harvard/UVa "know" more than Berkeley does as that they have fewer students. You'll notice a negative correlation between graduation rate and # of students. Berkeley's 87% six-year graduation rate is damn good, I'd say.</p>
<p>Plus, you have to consider the schools themselves: one might feel more pressure to graduate at a school like Yale than one would at a school like UCLA. There are many factors that you can't measure that would contribute to graduation rate.</p>
<p>There is no way one can compare the rigors of Berkeley with Harvard. I have heard many MIT pre-meds take organic chemistry at Harvard. Figure out why - easy grades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford had a strong recruiting pull for years because of their coach Mike Montgomery, who had established a tradition of some sort and was a first rate recruiter. Montgomery left, and now Stanford is back to mediocrity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stanford basketball is still better than Cal basketball, at least right now. </p>
<p>
[quote]
That IS my argument, that your claim is lame and ridiculous. What other argument would I have? I'm not foolish enough to claim to have a definitive answer about something that I can't possibly provide a definitive answer for. And yes, at least you have an argument...AN INCREDIBLY WEAK ONE.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whatever you want to say about my argument, at least it is MUCH STRONGER THAN YOURS. After all, even if it is, as you claim, weak, it is still INFINITELY STRONGER than zero, which is the value of your (non) argument. </p>
<p>But anyway, I'll put the ball in your court, pal. Why exactly should Berkeley admit people who it knows, or at least can reasonably strongly suspect, are never going to graduate?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not so much that Harvard/UVa "know" more than Berkeley does as that they have fewer students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I'm not sure what the connection is to size. After all, Berkeley is much larger than, say, UCSC, but Berkeley's graduation rate is significanty higher. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Plus, you have to consider the schools themselves: one might feel more pressure to graduate at a school like Yale than one would at a school like UCLA. There are many factors that you can't measure that would contribute to graduation rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, then that's something worth exploring, if that's true. What is it about Yale that puts more pressure on its students to graduate, and why can't Berkeley (or UCLA) do the same? Or, conversely, why do Yale students feel more self-drive to graduate than to UC students, and why can't you admit fewer of these people who are not self-driven? </p>
<p>Keep in mind, guys, that not everybody gets to go to Berkeley. About 75% of Berkeley's applicants are not admitted. Hence, Berkeley ALREADY is sorting out people who it deems are and are not worthy of coming to Berkeley. I am simply asking for the existing admissions procedure to be tweaked to emphasize higher graduation rates by admitting fewer people who are unlikely to graduate anyway. Like I said, I doubt that it's that hard - just go back through the historical data and find out which students are likely to flunk out, and then admit fewer of those students in the future. </p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no way one can compare the rigors of Berkeley with Harvard. I have heard many MIT pre-meds take organic chemistry at Harvard. Figure out why - easy grades.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That may well be true. But then that only reinforces my point - which, as a matter of public safety, people of questionable skill should not be admitted to Berkeley lest they hurt themselves.</p>
<p>Consider the analogy of Harvard being a Volvo (the safest car in the world), and Berkeley being a motorcycle. Motorcycles are far more dangerous to drive than Volvo's. Hence, from a public safety standpoint, you shouldn't let people drive motorcycles who you can tell are going to hurt themselves. Those guys are free to drive Volvo's (if they can get one), but you don't let them try out something that they are not prepared for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why exactly should Berkeley admit people who it knows, or at least can reasonably strongly suspect, are never going to graduate?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that is the point. How can Berkley know who to admit? You haven't given any methods in which Berkeley could use to determine who is going to make it through their programs. What do you suggest? Having a minimum 1400 SAT requirement? You can't use Stanford and Harvard as an example, these are much smaller schools in comparison to Berkeley. Berkeley can not set its own regulations like SH because it has to answer to the larger UC system. Can Berkeley improve its graduation rate? Of course, but the improvement isn't going to come from the admission process, but by support programs in college. Let them create these programs (not hard to create at all) and graduation rates will increase. </p>
<p>I just don't see how not admitting suspected weaker students is going to help things. After all, how do you really know how a student is going to do in college based on high school GPA and SAT scores? I know people who had 3.1 hs gpa's and end up with 3.8+ in college. Likewise, I know people with high hs gpa/SAT and do poorly in college. And I'm sure you know of similar cases. The best Berkeley can do is accept students the way it does and support them when they get into college. At the end of the day, Berkeley isn't failing anyone, students are failing. It may not be fair based on weeder courses and such, but that is the reality of it. I almost went to Berkeley for college, maybe it was a good decision I didn't go- who knows how I would have fared. But the point is that it's ridiculous for you to suggest that Berkeley should "know" who is going to graduate based on the observation that HYPS can do it when you know that Berkeley has some 27000 students. The focus should be on support programs when they get there, not on the admissions game.</p>
<p>"Whatever you want to say about my argument, at least it is MUCH STRONGER THAN YOURS. After all, even if it is, as you claim, weak, it is still INFINITELY STRONGER than zero, which is the value of your (non) argument." </p>
<p>You go to Berkeley right?? If so, why can't you comprehend the most basic of points. I'm going to tell you one last time...AND THIS IS MY ARGUMENT...nobody can DEFINITIVELY determine who will flunk out beforehand. Neither you nor anyone else can site one scientific study where this can be definitively determined. There are too many extraneous factors, as others here have also pointed out. </p>
<p>Consequently, an argument like yours (along with the lamebrain examples you've cited) have no place in what is supposedly an educated forum, particularly the Berkeley forum!! Your problem is that you don't know when to quit. You don't know when to admit that you really don't know, which someone with some degree of wisdom would do. </p>
<p>"But anyway, I'll put the ball in your court, pal. Why exactly should Berkeley admit people who it knows, or at least can reasonably strongly suspect, are never going to graduate?"</p>
<p>You can't be for real...for Christs's sake you're asking an entirely new question. Way to go off on a tangent. "Why should Berkeley admit whoever" is not a point I ever addressed. And I already addressed what I think about whether or not someone can definitively predict who will flunk out....and by the way, I ain't your pal.</p>