If Berkeley cuts its ugrad student population into half...

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
41

<p>
[quote]
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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What do you mean 'I haven't'? I've done it several times now. Go back through the old historical data to examine all the former students who flunked out, run statistical regressions on that data to find strong correlating factors (i.e. factors with high R-squared figures), and then simply admit fewer of those students in the future who have these factors. </p>

<p>For example, maybe it will be found that one particular high school in California tends to produce an unusually high percentage of people who flunk out. So the answer is to admit fewer students from that high school in the future. After all, that high school is probably doing a poor job of preparing its students. Either that, or the students coming from that high school, for whatever reason, are just unmotivated. But regardless of what the reason is, you can see that that high school is a correlating factor. </p>

<p>I could even envision a data-analysis software program that takes every applicant, compares it to historical data, and then computes the odds that this students will actually graduate, and that data will itself be based on the graduation rates of students of the past who had similar characteristics.</p>

<p>This is nothing different from how we do weather forecasting. When the weather reports indicate that there is a 10% chance of rain tomorrow, what it really means is that, when analyzing those days in the past that had the exact same weather conditions as today (temp, pressure, day of the year, wind patterns, humidity, etc.), 10% of the time, it rained the following day. We can do that for weather, and weather is a horrendously complicated system. So why can't we do that for graduation rates? </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, no, every UC adcom has tremendous discretion to admit students that are on the borderline. What I am asking for is that that discretion be used more carefully to admit or deny students based on whether the data indicates that they will graduate. </p>

<p>
[quote]
but by support programs in college. Let them create these programs (not hard to create at all) and graduation rates will increase.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Support programs would be great, if they could be implemented. But I think coming up with a piece of 'graduation-rate software' would be even easier.</p>

<p>After all, the main problem of 'support' at Berkeley is that a lot of profs and departments just don't want to support students. Certain profs in particular seem to go out of their way to flunk students out. The prime example, again, would be Professor Hung-Hsi Wu in the math department, who seems to delight in flunking as many students as possible. The entire EECS department is no picnic either in terms of caring about their students, especially in the first 2 years. Neither is chemical engineering. The truth is, you're just not going to change the attitudes of these profs/departments very quickly, if ever. But what you can do quickly is admit a class of students who has a higher chance of graduating. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is no different from a guy I know who smoked several packs a day and still lived to be over 90. And he didn't die because of smoking-related diseases, he died because he got hit by a bus. His example doesn't invalidate the fact that smoking is dangerous. Even he recommended to not smoke, even though he smoked himself. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Berkeley has 22,000 undergrads. </p>

<p>But, more to the point, how is it 'ridiculous'? Berkeley is ALREADY doing this. After all, Berkeley rejects 75% of its applicants. I am quite sure that some of those rejectees could have done very well at Berkeley. But Berkeley made a decision not to admit them. What you are saying is tantamount to just letting Berkeley run open admissions. </p>

<p>The point is, Berkeley is ALREADY making decisions in its admit process regarding who is 'worthy' enough to come to Berkeley. This is ALREADY happening, and it is already an arbitrary process. Hence, if we have such a process already, all I am asking for is that it be tweaked in favor of graduation rates. </p>

<p>And besides, even if it is 'ridiculous' for me to suggest that Berkeley should be able to do such a thing (and I don't think it's ridiculous in the least) because of Berkeley's size, that only points to another possible (albeit long-term) policy - to drain the size of Berkeley undergrad by shunting some of them to other schools, notably UCMerced which currently has almost no undergrads (because it is ramping up). After all, there is no well-defined reason for why Berkeley 'needs' to have 22,000 undergrads. Certain other UC's, such as UCSC, have far fewer undergrads. Whatever 'requirement' for Berkeley to have that many students that exists is strictly a arbitrary political requirement that Berkeley was a party in crafting. But certainly, Berkeley doesn't deserve a free pass in this respect. You don't get to hide behind a problem that is of your own making. </p>

<p>But the point is this. I am quite convinced that the students who flunk out of Berkeley would have been much better off if they had gone to another school where they would have graduated. Heck, I would extend that to even those students who barely graduate. For example, anybody who graduates from Berkeley with less than a 2.5 GPA would almost certainly have had a more pleasant experience if he had just gone elsewhere where he could have done well. It must not have been a very pleasant experience to always be barely passing your classes. But anyway, my first priority is those students who flunk out. </p>

<p>The reasons why I am skeptical of the 'support' initiative is that, like I said above, lots of profs don't want to support their students. And frankly, a lot of students just don't want to be supported. For example, the truth is, a lot of those flunkies are just extremely lazy students who spend all day long partying, drinking, smoking pot, going out on dates, and basically doing nothing at all. I've seen it numerous times. Go to frathouse row and you will see guys who haven't been to class in weeks, and have been doing nothing but partying. You can offer all the support you want, and these students are just not going to use it. They just don't care. So I think the most efficient thing to do is to preempt the problem by simply not admitting these guys.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course, nobody can DEFINITELY determine who will flunk out. But so what? Life is about odds. </p>

<p>Let me ask you this. Why does Berkeley even run admissions at all? 75% of people who apply to Berkeley get rejected. But hey, in that 75%, I am quite sure that there are some people who would have successfully graduated from Berkeley if they had gotten in, right? So are you saying that Berkeley should just run open admissions? After all, the admissions process is imperfect in that it rejects some people who would have made it - so is the answer to scrap admissions completely?</p>

<p>Let me put it to you another way. I know a guy who lived to be 91 years old, even though he smoked several packs a day. So does that 'prove' that smoking is not dangerous? I don't think so. Even HE advised kids not to smoke, because even he knew it was dangerous. It was just that he was addicted and so he couldn't stop. But he wanted to. </p>

<p>Look, like it or not, life is about statistical outcomes. Putting on my seatbet doesn't guarantee that I will survive a car accident. But it improves the odds. I might work out every day, eat healthily, never drink, never smoke, take vitamins, and take care of myself in every possible way... and still die of a heart attack tomorrow. But doing all those things IMPROVES MY ODDS that I will be healthy. </p>

<p>So unless you want to launch a vitriolic attack on the current admissions system because it too is an imperfect system that rejects people that could have made it, we have to live with statistical imprecision. And if we have to live with statistical imprecision, then I see no issue with tweaking the system further to improve the odds of graduation.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
This is nothing different from how we do weather forecasting. When the weather reports indicate that there is a 10% chance of rain tomorrow, what it really means is that, when analyzing those days in the past that had the exact same weather conditions as today (temp, pressure, day of the year, wind patterns, humidity, etc.), 10% of the time, it rained the following day. We can do that for weather, and weather is a horrendously complicated system. So why can't we do that for graduation rates?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because people are a lot more complicated. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Uh, no, every UC adcom has tremendous discretion to admit students that are on the borderline.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I meant is that Berkeley has to answer to California state education laws/policies and the politics that it gets from parents and the general public. </p>

<p>
[quote]
What I am asking for is that that discretion be used more carefully to admit or deny students based on whether the data indicates that they will graduate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is where you are confusing me. Are you suggesting that Berkeley really is not that hard to get into? I mean, as you said, they reject 75% of their applicants. What more do you want? You could tweak it with your statistical ideas, but I don't think it will dramatically help graduation rates to the point that it is at the level of the Ivies. </p>

<p>
[quote]
After all, the main problem of 'support' at Berkeley is that a lot of profs and departments just don't want to support students. Certain profs in particular seem to go out of their way to flunk students out. The prime example, again, would be Professor Hung-Hsi Wu in the math department, who seems to delight in flunking as many students as possible. The entire EECS department is no picnic either in terms of caring about their students, especially in the first 2 years. Neither is chemical engineering. The truth is, you're just not going to change the attitudes of these profs/departments very quickly, if ever. But what you can do quickly is admit a class of students who has a higher chance of graduating.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who is saying anything about changing a professor's mindset? I am talking about having greater tutoring services for students so that they have a fighting chance against a guy like Professor Wu. It doesn't have to come from the departments, but from (and should) come from student affairs of the general university. Maybe the departments don't care about their students, but at least the support can be there. I mean it's better than how it is now, right? </p>

<p>
[quote]
After all, there is no well-defined reason for why Berkeley 'needs' to have 22,000 undergrads. Certain other UC's, such as UCSC, have far fewer undergrads. Whatever 'requirement' for Berkeley to have that many students that exists is strictly a arbitrary political requirement that Berkeley was a party in crafting. But certainly, Berkeley doesn't deserve a free pass in this respect. You don't get to hide behind a problem that is of your own making.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>22,000 really isn't that many students. Look at Texas, Florida; schools with a lot more than that amount and yet they are able to have pretty decent support programs despite their size. If these huge public schools can do it, then so can Berkeley. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But the point is this. I am quite convinced that the students who flunk out of Berkeley would have been much better off if they had gone to another school where they would have graduated. Heck, I would extend that to even those students who barely graduate. For example, anybody who graduates from Berkeley with less than a 2.5 GPA would almost certainly have had a more pleasant experience if he had just gone elsewhere where he could have done well. It must not have been a very pleasant experience to always be barely passing your classes. But anyway, my first priority is those students who flunk out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The reasons why I am skeptical of the 'support' initiative is that, like I said above, lots of profs don't want to support their students. And frankly, a lot of students just don't want to be supported. For example, the truth is, a lot of those flunkies are just extremely lazy students who spend all day long partying, drinking, smoking pot, going out on dates, and basically doing nothing at all. I've seen it numerous times. Go to frathouse row and you will see guys who haven't been to class in weeks, and have been doing nothing but partying. You can offer all the support you want, and these students are just not going to use it. They just don't care. So I think the most efficient thing to do is to preempt the problem by simply not admitting these guys.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So let's see, you are skeptical of support programs because some lazy frat guys are not going to use, but in the first quote you talk about how miserable 2.5 Berkeley students are and how they would be a lot happier somewhere else. Is it possible that the reason the 2.5 students are unhappy because they see that there is no one there to support them in their studies? I was not suggesting that every student use these programs. If frat guys want to drink all day, fine, let them. But let struggling students like you described above have the option. I highly doubt that they would reject such support. I mean, why would they? Aren't they unhappy with their academic situation?</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
Who is saying anything about changing a professor's mindset? I am talking about having greater tutoring services for students so that they have a fighting chance against a guy like Professor Wu. It doesn't have to come from the departments, but from (and should) come from student affairs of the general university. Maybe the departments don't care about their students, but at least the support can be there. I mean it's better than how it is now, right?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But that just presupposes that only the underperfoming students need/should get help. I say all students at all levels need and should get help. Just because student A pays 23k a year to be at Berkeley and is failing doesn't mean that the campus should spend less/nothing on considerably better student B in order to help A.</p>

<p>Higher-end students typically don't need help from the university at large, they need it from the departments so that they can advance their academic/professional carreers. Yet, it sounds like you don't really care about those students and the anti-student departments they often find themselves in. You just care about the students who are doing pretty badly. Why don't you care equally about all students?</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
But that just presupposes that only the underperfoming students need/should get help. I say all students at all levels need and should get help. Just because student A pays 23k a year to be at Berkeley and is failing doesn't mean that the campus should spend less/nothing on considerably better student B in order to help A.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not at all. This will be there for all students, not only the poorer ones. It's just that these students need it more and why it should be created in the first place. But once it is implemented, then yea, it will apply to all that want it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Higher-end students typically don't need help from the university at large, they need it from the departments so that they can advance their academic/professional carreers. Yet, it sounds like you don't really care about those students and the anti-student departments they often find themselves in. You just care about the ones who are doing pretty badly. Why don't you care equally about all students?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I guess I wasn't clear. What I mean by university help at large is that the university hires tutors from say EECS, ChemE, etc. departments and places them in some building for all to come to (say at the student union or wherever). If the department does not want to help, forget them, make Berkeley hire their top students as tutors. This isn't unrealistic, Florida has such a program in addition to departmental tutors. If EECS does not want to supply support for their students, then the university should by hiring competent tutors. </p>

<p>And as I said top, I care for all students. The program will be available to all students if they want it. Now not all them will use such services, but at least have students have the option. What do you have to lose?</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
Because people are a lot more complicated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know about that. Weather is pretty darn complicated - so much so that chaos theory was spawned largely to explain weather. </p>

<p>
[quote]
What I meant is that Berkeley has to answer to California state education laws/policies and the politics that it gets from parents and the general public.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, as general parameters. But, again, all UC's have significant discretion to admit people who fall into a grey area. And they should use that discretion wisely. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This is where you are confusing me. Are you suggesting that Berkeley really is not that hard to get into? I mean, as you said, they reject 75% of their applicants. What more do you want? You could tweak it with your statistical ideas, but I don't think it will dramatically help graduation rates to the point that it is at the level of the Ivies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, I never said that Berkeley wasn't hard to get into. What I am saying is that Berkeley is not as hard as it needs to be to get into * relative to how difficult the Berkeley curriculum is *. Since I don't advocate Berkeley making its curriculum easier (and I don't think you do either), the way to deal with that is to make more careful admissions decisions. </p>

<p>Nor am I advocating that Berkeley will ever have a graduation rate equivalent to the Ivies, at least, not anytime soon. But Berkeley could still do BETTER than it does now. In particular, I don't see any good reason for Berkeley to have a rate that is lower than Virginia's. Berkeley is SUPPOSED to be the best public school in the country. Well, if that's what Berkeley says it is, then I don't see what's so unreasonable about having high expectations for Berkeley. </p>

<p>Note, I'm not comparing Berkeley to, say, UCDavis. UCDavis is worse. But at least UCDavis doesn't go around trying to claim that it's the best public school. Hence, I don't have high expectations for Davis. But if you claim to be the best, then it is only natural that you should fulfill high expectations. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Who is saying anything about changing a professor's mindset? I am talking about having greater tutoring services for students so that they have a fighting chance against a guy like Professor Wu. It doesn't have to come from the departments, but from (and should) come from student affairs of the general university. Maybe the departments don't care about their students, but at least the support can be there. I mean it's better than how it is now, right?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, I never opposed the notion of better support. However, I don't see what you have against also tightening up admissions requirements. Why not do both? </p>

<p>I am simply saying that there are problems that cannot be solved solely through better support. Sometimes the best thing to do is to simply not admit somebody, frankly, for their own good, so that they don't hurt themselves. </p>

<p>
[quote]
22,000 really isn't that many students. Look at Texas, Florida; schools with a lot more than that amount and yet they are able to have pretty decent support programs despite their size. If these huge public schools can do it, then so can Berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I wouldn't use Texas or Florida as models. Texas has a 75% 6-year graduation rate. Florida has a 79% rate. Both are therefore significantly lower than Berkeley. So if anything, I would argue that the situation is worse at Texas or Florida.</p>

<p>The model I would use, again, is Virginia, with a 93% rate. Why can't Berkeley do that? Yes, Virginia is smaller. But come on, not by that much. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So let's see, you are skeptical of support programs because some lazy frat guys are not going to use, but in the first quote you talk about how miserable 2.5 Berkeley students are and how they would be a lot happier somewhere else. Is it possible that the reason the 2.5 students are unhappy because they see that there is no one there to support them in their studies? I was not suggesting that every student use these programs. If frat guys want to drink all day, fine, let them. But let struggling students like you described above have the option. I highly doubt that they would reject such support. I mean, why would they? Aren't they unhappy with their academic situation?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, like I said, I have never opposed the notion of support. I just think it will only take you so far, and it has to be supplemented by a tighter admissions screen. Like I said, some students just will not take any support that you give them, and hence will flunk out. So why admit them?</p>

47

<p>
[quote]
And as I said top, I care for all students. The program will be available to all students if they want it. Now not all them will use such services, but at least have students have the option. What do you have to lose?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, GatorEng, the original purpose of this thread was to ascertain what the impact would be of reducing the undergrad population by half. Now, I don't necessarily support reducing it by half, but I would say that reducing the population by some amount might be helpful, particularly if you are eliminating those students who are going to flunk out anyway. </p>

<p>What you are raising is a different point, which is the notion of providing more support services, which, again, is something that I have never opposed. My point is that the impact of such services is necessarily limited to only those students who will actually use them. Many never will. And a good chunk of them will flunk out. Hence, the only way to deal with that problem is to not admit them in the first place. It may seem harsh, but it is the only way to handle those people. It's certainly a lot better than just allowing them to come in, and then flunking them out.</p>

48

<p>"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>"then the best thing to do is to simply not admit those students who aren't going to make it."</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>^^^
Did you not state what's above? Some of the words you used are: "should have known", "not admit students who AREN'T GOING TO MAKE IT", "should not be admitting students that IS GOING TO FLUNK OUT later". These words suggest certainty in my eyes. </p>

<p>and later you claimed:</p>

<p>"Of course, nobody can DEFINITELY determine who will flunk out. But so what? Life is about odds."</p>

<p>So what is it, definitive or not? You seem to be at odds with even yourself.
And if you can't definitively determine who will flunk out, the only way you would know if any "tweaking" worked is if the graduation rate did indeed increase consistently AFTER THE FACT. There's no way you would know beforehand simply because a new tweaking of the system to weed out "unqualified students" is flawed by definition, right? It's not definitive...as you later admitted. </p>

<p>Maybe you can suggest your "tweaking" ideas to the admissions dept. and maybe they'll implement it. Maybe it will result in a decrease in the dropout rate, who knows?!? But until then, stop wasting all this board space on something you just can't substantiate.</p>

49

<p>Sakky, points taken.</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, I don't see what you have against also tightening up admissions requirements. Why not do both?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not opposed to tightening up admissions requirements, I just doubt that it will magically solve the problem. It will help, but there are some majors like EECS where it won't matter. Some people are just going to do poorly due to the curvers. But as long as they graduate, right? </p>

<p>
[quote]
What you are raising is a different point, which is the notion of providing more support services, which, again, is something that I have never opposed. My point is that the impact of such services is necessarily limited to only those students who will actually use them. Many never will. And a good chunk of them will flunk out. Hence, the only way to deal with that problem is to not admit them in the first place. It may seem harsh, but it is the only way to handle those people. It's certainly a lot better than just allowing them to come in, and then flunking them out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right, people will always fail, that's something you can't avoid even with tougher admissions requirements. Some people are just going to treat college as a vacation, I see at all the time, as you can imagine, with all that goes on at Florida. But Berkeley making the step forward and providing academic services is the way go to having a more happy student body. I just don't see why Berkeley would not want such a thing.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
So what is it, definitive or not? You seem to be at odds with even yourself.
And if you can't definitively determine who will flunk out, the only way you would know if any "tweaking" worked is if the graduation rate did indeed increase consistently AFTER THE FACT. There's no way you would know beforehand simply because a new tweaking of the system to weed out "unqualified students" is flawed by definition, right? It's not definitive...as you later admitted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think anyone on this thread said that anyone can know 100% who will flunk out and who will not. But the point is that we look at the probabilities and try to predict who is likely to flunk out and who is not, and admit the second group over the first. That's perfectly reasonable, and Berkeley's already doing it. Ever hear of the debate over whether GPA or SATs or APs are best indicators of a student's success in college? To adcoms, that's exactly what they are. The adcoms look at your GPA and SAT scores and other criteria and then try to predict how likely it is that you will successfully complete the undergraduate program and graduate. That's why Berkeley rejects 75%, because Berkeley thinks that the 25% (for the most part) are more likely to graduate than the 75%. So I see nothing inherently wrong with this.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I am not opposed to tightening up admissions requirements, I just doubt that it will magically solve the problem. It will help, but there are some majors like EECS where it won't matter. Some people are just going to do poorly due to the curvers. But as long as they graduate, right?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody said it's a magic solution that will solve all of Berkeley's problems. But it might help the situation. That's what some of us are saying.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Right, people will always fail, that's something you can't avoid even with tougher admissions requirements. Some people are just going to treat college as a vacation, I see at all the time, as you can imagine, with all that goes on at Florida. But Berkeley making the step forward and providing academic services is the way go to having a more happy student body. I just don't see why Berkeley would not want such a thing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's very difficult to maintain such a large student population and have 100% graduation rate, true. But just because it's probably not possible to ever reach that goal doesn't mean we shouldn't try, or that having a higher graduation rate is not a good thing. We shouldn't just say "oh well there will always be people who flunk out" and then ignore the problem.</p>

<p>On the topic of having more support, I'm not sure what that would do. There's already the Student Learning Center and Peer advising. There are office hours for professors and office hours for TAs. There are friends who are upperclassmen you could go to for help and fellow classmates you could go to for collaborating on homework. If you really want support there's a lot of it out there. The thing is, almost nobody uses all of this support, and many students don't use any. Now we might say that this is a problem, or that this is the students' fault. Well, even if a student takes advantage of these things, I don't know how much it will help. First of all, there are some students who are simply...a little slow. I admit these are not that common but still honestly they probably should have attended another college. Second of all, some exams tend to not just be "hard," but "stupid hard." For example, one of the midterms for Chemistry 1A had questions on there about material that wasn't covered in lecture/lab, or about material that was covered the following week. Even if you study your butt off it's likely that you're not going to get those problems (not surprisingly the average score was around 61%). Another example: the physics 7A midterm for one of the sections was originally 2 hours but was extended to FOUR hours long because the questions were so lengthy (one full page of text/diagrams for one question) and took so long just to comprehend. Some people still didn't finish, after four hours. That's longer than a final. I see this as just a stupidly hard test. This is just classic Berkeley weeder at work. Would having more support, or even tightening admission standards help much? For classes like physics 7A, probably not. So it's really a complicated problem with multiple possible solutions.</p>

<p>Anyway, back to graduation rate. I'm more concerned about the 58% 4-year graduation rate than the 87% 6-year graduation rate. But seeing as how the major cap was introduced in 2004 we should theoritically see an increase around the 2005 cohort which would come out in 2011 I'm assuming. Until I see that and it's still low I won't be complaining too much about the current graduation rate (which if you think about it, is for the class of '99).</p>

51

<p>"I don't think anyone on this thread said that anyone can know 100% who will flunk out and who will not."</p>

<p>Oh you don't think so? Well then you need to re-read this excruciatingly long thread, if you have the time. </p>

<p>"But the point is that we look at the probabilities and try to predict who is likely to flunk out and who is not, and admit the second group over the first. That's perfectly reasonable, and Berkeley's already doing it."</p>

<p>Tell us something we don't know already. Of course Berkeley's doing this, most major universities are. They're all concerned about their USNWR ranking. </p>

<p>"Ever hear of the debate over whether GPA or SATs or APs are best indicators of a student's success in college? To adcoms, that's exactly what they are. The adcoms look at your GPA and SAT scores and other criteria and then try to predict how likely it is that you will successfully complete the undergraduate program and graduate. That's why Berkeley rejects 75%, because Berkeley thinks that the 25% (for the most part) are more likely to graduate than the 75%. So I see nothing inherently wrong with this."</p>

<p>Again, tell us something we don't already. The problem I have with all this, and you'd know if you read what I've emphasized more carefully, is that we can't play scientist here and speculate what may work or may not. We don't even come close to having the knowledge, the background or the credentials to make the claims that have been made on this thread. We really don't know enough. So let's not waste all this board space commenting as if we do. </p>

<p>As I've already emphasized, doing something may improve the graduation rate or it may not. Who knows?? But there are so many other external variables to consider such as socioeconomics, family dynamics, culture, family pressures etc., that would be impossible to account for. What should we do then, admit less of those that fall under a certain racial or socioeconomic background? I don't think that would be in the realm of thinking of a public university, particularly one in California, where the idea is to be as inclusive as possible. And what would it be for? To go up a few notches in the USNWR rankings? I don't think that'll happen. </p>

<p>So what are we left with? Let's leave this to the experts shall we.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
Oh you don't think so? Well then you need to re-read this excruciatingly long thread, if you have the time.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually I did read this thread and posted on page 1, page 2, and page 4. This thread is nothing compared to some threads we have in this forum.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, tell us something we don't already. The problem I have with all this, and you'd know if you read what I've emphasized more carefully, is that we can't play scientist here and speculate what may work or may not. We don't even come close to having the knowledge, the background or the credentials to make the claims that have been made on this thread. We really don't know enough. So let's not waste all this board space commenting as if we do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why not? My point was that Berkeley admissions also speculate. And looking at the graduation rate and the people who flunk/drop out, they could be doing a better job of speculating. But besides that, what's wrong with my speculating? I'm not deciding who gets in or not. I'm simply (along with others) exploring potential ideas for improving our speculations, maybe even areas the Berkeley admissions haven't thought of (they're not omniscient). That's how change is created. First, ideas are brainstormed. The good ones are debated and gain support and eventually leads to changes in policy. Of course, most of what's talked about on this forum will probably remain just that. Talk. But even so, at least it's something I find interesting to consider.</p>

53

<p>The problem is that some of the speculating that's occured has been based on flawed reasoning. I've already pointed out some of the poor examples presented and the inherent limitations involved. And yes Berkeley admissions also speculate, but that's their job, which by the way they obtained due to their background, experience and credentials. So when you try to do what you THINK they do, you're just being ignorant. If you want to continue to come off as ignorant and waste board space, fine. There's no law against that. </p>

<p>I do want to emphasize, however, that most here appear to be rational, reasonable people. They're smart enough to know that sometimes, "to not know, is to know and to know, is to not know" (an eastern philosophical principle).</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
So what is it, definitive or not? You seem to be at odds with even yourself.
And if you can't definitively determine who will flunk out, the only way you would know if any "tweaking" worked is if the graduation rate did indeed increase consistently AFTER THE FACT. There's no way you would know beforehand simply because a new tweaking of the system to weed out "unqualified students" is flawed by definition, right? It's not definitive...as you later admitted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The problem is that some of the speculating that's occured has been based on flawed reasoning. I've already pointed out some of the poor examples presented and the inherent limitations involved. And yes Berkeley admissions also speculate, but that's their job, which by the way they obtained due to their background, experience and credentials. So when you try to do what you THINK they do, you're just being ignorant. If you want to continue to come off as ignorant and waste board space, fine. There's no law against that. </p>

<p>I do want to emphasize, however, that most here appear to be rational, reasonable people. They're smart enough to know that sometimes, "to not know, is to know and to know, is to not know" (an eastern philosophical principle).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Once again, we live in a world of statistical uncertainty. Of course nobody KNOWS FOR CERTAIN who is going to do poorly, just like I don't even know for certain if I'm still going to be alive 5 minutes into the future. </p>

<p>But we are able to come up with strong statistical predictive models nonetheless. Ask yourself - how was smoking proved to be dangerous? To this day, nobody has ACTUALLY demonstrated the chemical causal linkage between smoking and bad health. But we all accept that smoking is dangerous because the statistical correlations emphatically tell us so - that taking controlled populations of smokers and non-smokers, factoring out various confounding data (i.e. demographics, gender, etc.) , we are left with the conclusion that smokers tend to die younger and suffer far higher rates of certain diseases. That's how we know. We still don't know precisely, from a mechanistic standpoint, what nicotine does to the body from a biochemical standpoint. But we don't need to know that to make the conclusion that smoking is dangerous. </p>

<p>The same could be said for numerous other things that we simply accept as facts of life. Seatbelts and airbags have been statistically shown to improve one's chances of surviving a car accident. Now, of course, that's not true of EVERY single person who gets in an accident, and in rare cases (notably young children in the front seat), an air bag might actually increase fatality rates. However, IN GENERAL, airbags and seatbelts have been statistically shown to increase safety. </p>

<p>Think of it this way. Why doesn't everybody just gamble their life savings in Vegas? After all, you MIGHT win. You MIGHT make money. But the odds are, you will not. And people know that. That's why people who go to Vegas might put money down for fun, but generally, most people realize that they are probably going to lose it. </p>

<p>Nor am I saying that I know more than the adcoms do. I never said that I did. That's why I advocated that we LOOK AT THE DATA. Specifically, lets' perform a statistical mining experiment on all past students who flunked out and see if we can come up with correlating factors. It wouldn't be that hard to do (i.e. you could use existing statistical software packages like Stata or SAS), and Berkeley already has the data, because Berkeley is mandated to preserve all former student academic records (after all, if you're 90 years old, but you graduated from Cal, you can still order your old transcripts, so that means that they still have the data in their vaults). So why not do this? What's the harm? It would simply be another tool that the adcom would have in its arsenal to determine who they should admit or reject. </p>

<p>One might say that you run the risk of rejecting somebody who would have otherwise graduated. ** But you're already running that risk anyway! **. Right now, in the 75% of applicants who get rejected, surely there are some people who could have made it if they had gotten admitted. But Berkeley rejects them anyway. So if you're going to be running this risk anyway, you might as well use a tool that allows you to manage that risk more carefully.</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
I am not opposed to tightening up admissions requirements, I just doubt that it will magically solve the problem. It will help, but there are some majors like EECS where it won't matter. Some people are just going to do poorly due to the curvers. But as long as they graduate, right?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, doing poorly is still a lot better than flunking out complete. At least you would have a degree, even if your grades are mediocre. If you flunk out, you (obviously) don't even get a degree. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Right, people will always fail, that's something you can't avoid even with tougher admissions requirements. Some people are just going to treat college as a vacation, I see at all the time, as you can imagine, with all that goes on at Florida. But Berkeley making the step forward and providing academic services is the way go to having a more happy student body. I just don't see why Berkeley would not want such a thing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While I agree that you can never shoot for an absolutely 0% flunkout rate, you can certainly try to optimize. Surely you would agree that you shouldn't just throw up your hands and not even try. And I would maintain that the best thing to do is to simply tighten up admissions policies so you aren't admitting people who aren't going to make it anyway (or, translated into statistical parlance, have a greater than X% of flunking out, where X might be perhaps 90% or 95%). </p>

<p>It would be no different from prohibiting your kids from smoking even though you can never be 100% sure whether smoking is going to hurt your kids. For example, your kids might belong to that small percentage of people who can smoke their whole life and still live to be over 90, and with no health problems. But do you, as a parent, want to take that chance? I don't know any responsible parent who would take those odds.</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
It's very difficult to maintain such a large student population and have 100% graduation rate, true. But just because it's probably not possible to ever reach that goal doesn't mean we shouldn't try, or that having a higher graduation rate is not a good thing. We shouldn't just say "oh well there will always be people who flunk out" and then ignore the problem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the one constant in this thread is that we want to see Berkeley improve in the graduation rate. How am I ignoring the problem? I was not using the "people will always fail" argument to avoid not trying to raise graduation rates, that would be childish. But what I mean is that there are so many aspects to this problem that have nothing to do with the quality of students coming in. That is, it can not be predicted by using statistical analysis. One of those factors is the fact that people will always fail (I know it is a somewhat silly example, but I do not know that much about Berkeley to state more example that will not fall under the radar statistical analysis). </p>

<p>I agree with you guys that it will help in preventing people who just can't handle Berkeley and I think that's all sakky is really aiming for. But realize that there are just some instances where this screening processwill have no effect. (EECS, the physics/chemistry courses that you describe below). That all I'm saying. </p>

<p>
[quote]

On the topic of having more support, I'm not sure what that would do. There's already the Student Learning Center and Peer advising. There are office hours for professors and office hours for TAs. There are friends who are upperclassmen you could go to for help and fellow classmates you could go to for collaborating on homework. If you really want support there's a lot of it out there. The thing is, almost nobody uses all of this support, and many students don't use any. Now we might say that this is a problem, or that this is the students' fault. Well, even if a student takes advantage of these things, I don't know how much it will help. First of all, there are some students who are simply...a little slow. I admit these are not that common but still honestly they probably should have attended another college. Second of all, some exams tend to not just be "hard," but "stupid hard." For example, one of the midterms for Chemistry 1A had questions on there about material that wasn't covered in lecture/lab, or about material that was covered the following week. Even if you study your butt off it's likely that you're not going to get those problems (not surprisingly the average score was around 61%). Another example: the physics 7A midterm for one of the sections was originally 2 hours but was extended to FOUR hours long because the questions were so lengthy (one full page of text/diagrams for one question) and took so long just to comprehend. Some people still didn't finish, after four hours. That's longer than a final. I see this as just a stupidly hard test. This is just classic Berkeley weeder at work. Would having more support, or even tightening admission standards help much? For classes like physics 7A, probably not. So it's really a complicated problem with multiple possible solutions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That sounds like a very rough, unfair situation. But that supports the notion that the screening process will do nothing to prevent the situation above from happening. Weeders will be weeders. Now it is unfair to me to expect that admission screening should know to admit students that can handle these courses and I don't expect that. There of course will always be uncertainty in any analysis, but what it does show is that there must also be an active focus on students when they get into college, not only when they are applying. Thus, as stated by sakky and others, both better support programs and tightened admissions would be the best approach.</p>

<p>Now to your question, "what more can be done?"
I understand that Berkeley already has support programs and there are TA/professor office hours available, but I ask how effective are they really? Maybe it can be redesigned with the particular focus on how those weeder exams are thrown at you. I'm guessing here, but it is probably that students get medium-difficulty problems for their problem sets and class examples but then get thrown exponentially harder problems on the exams. Why doesn't Berkeley prepare them better for these type of questions? This probably stems from departmental arrogance in not wanting to help, but if they don't want to help, well then Berkeley's Learning Center can. Yes you are still going to have the problem of people not wanting the help, but at least it can still be there and with proper encouragement from student clubs/TA's/faculty-maybe some will start going.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
Well, doing poorly is still a lot better than flunking out complete. At least you would have a degree, even if your grades are mediocre. If you flunk out, you (obviously) don't even get a degree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My question "But at least they graduate, right?" was not trying to be sarcastic. I agree completely, at least they'll have a degree. </p>

<p>
[quote]
While I agree that you can never shoot for an absolutely 0% flunkout rate, you can certainly try to optimize. Surely you would agree that you shouldn't just throw up your hands and not even try. And I would maintain that the best thing to do is to simply tighten up admissions policies so you aren't admitting people who aren't going to make it anyway (or, translated into statistical parlance, have a greater than X% of flunking out, where X might be perhaps 90% or 95%).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You know sakky, I really do agree with you on a lot of things! But again, a dual approach will be much more effective because it will address student difficulties while they are attending college, which in turn produce more graduates.</p>

58

<p>"Once again, we live in a world of statistical uncertainty. Of course nobody KNOWS FOR CERTAIN who is going to do poorly, just like I don't even know for certain if I'm still going to be alive 5 minutes into the future." </p>

<p>"That's how we know. We still don't know precisely, from a mechanistic standpoint, what nicotine does to the body from a biochemical standpoint. But we don't need to know that to make the conclusion that smoking is dangerous."</p>

<p>^^^^
For crying out loud.......let this die already will you. You still have nothing...of course nobody knows for certain what's going to happen. And of course scientists come to the conclusion that smoking can cause lung cancer without discovering a direct relationship. That's because they can come to a conclusion using empirical evidence. BUT WHAT DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH BEING TOTALLY IGNORANT ? </p>

<p>Adcoms have the EXPERTISE to make assumptions and come up with potential solutions. YOU DON'T, not even close. None of us do. They're in a position to discover if the methodologies they propose end up working or not. </p>

<p>As a result, they can propose various methods based on the effectiveness of past methods and try to predict the potential success of future methods simply because they can determine a causal RELATIONSHIP between their methods and the RESULTS, something educated people normally do. You can't do that because you can't possibly determine a relationship between your ideas and any result. So when you continue to ramble on like this with your ideas, you're just being foolish. Go ahead, continue to ramble on senselessly. The sensible, reasonable people here know better than to take you seriously. Or maybe you can finally wise up and just let this die already.</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
crying out loud.......let this die already will you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you want to let it die, then why do you keep responding?<br>

[quote]
For crying out loud.......let this die already will you. You still have nothing...of course nobody knows for certain what's going to happen. And of course scientists come to the conclusion that smoking can cause lung cancer without discovering a direct relationship. That's because they can come to a conclusion using empirical evidence. BUT WHAT DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH BEING TOTALLY IGNORANT

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you referring to yourself? Because I would say that if you want to dismiss the utility of statistical validity, then I would ask, who's the ignorant one here? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Adcoms have the EXPERTISE to make assumptions and come up with potential solutions. YOU DON'T, not even close. None of us do. They're in a position to discover if the methodologies they propose end up working or not. </p>

<p>As a result, they can propose various methods based on the effectiveness of past methods and try to predict the potential success of future methods simply because they can determine a causal RELATIONSHIP between their methods and the RESULTS, something educated people normally do. You can't do that because you can't possibly determine a relationship between your ideas and any result. So when you continue to ramble on like this with your ideas, you're just being foolish. Go ahead, continue to ramble on senselessly. The sensible, reasonable people here know better than to take you seriously. Or maybe you can finally wise up and just let this die already.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, if you really wanted to let the issue die, then why do you keep responding? </p>

<p>And furthermore, like I said, your supposedly "educated" adcoms are subject to a wide variety of political pressures. That is why they admit people (i.e. athletes) who they know full well don't have a high chance of graduating. Hey, if that is the political calculation that they make, then so be it. But at least they should be EXPLICIT about what they are doing, and specifically, they should say that they are rejecting people who have a high chance of graduating because they'd rather admit less academically capable people for political reasons. At least that would be HONEST.</p>

<p>But if you don't like what I post, too bad. I have the right to free speech, and I have the right to say whatever I want. But if you have a personal problem with me, why don't we take this offline, and we will deal with this privately, man to man.</p>

60

<p>I think this debate has run its course.</p>