Improving undergraduate education at large public schools

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>Every time I log onto the CC berkeley page, I get overwhelmed by really long threads containing some useful tidbits of information on how the undergraduate experience at Cal might be improved interspersed with personal attacks and insults, most of which relate the a) the ability of the average Holden Caulfield to survive an impersonal university and b) prestige. Sakky is a longterm poster who genuinely thinks that there are things alumni can do about the Cal undergraduate experience; despite any disagreements I have with his strategies for improving the university (most glaringly, the notion that you the undergraduate experience at Cal would be improved by admitting fewer junior transfers), I agree that if you want to suggest an academic model, Harvard, MIT and the LACs fulfill that role pretty well. </p>

<p>In talking about improving Cal, however, it's important to attack problems that are unique to Cal (or at least unique to big schools) and not systematic problems facing American education. One complaint posters have about large universities is that they are filled with people who care little about education and seem to view college as more of a "life experience." This seems to be a reflection of the fact that we live in a society that values degrees somewhat but values actual knowledge very little. Just as, to some, the Harvards and Princetons are still finishing schools for the rich, the public universities could be viewed, for some students, as finishing schools for the middle class. Further, you have a significant proportion of students at public schools who, being middle or lower class, will naturally tend toward economically rewarding jobs like medicine and business; to many (certainly not all) of these people, their classes and professors represent little more than an obstacle in the way of a lucrative and prestigious career. </p>

<p>Colleges are faced first with separating the students in college for the life experience from the others. This is relatively easy to do and is accomplished with weeder courses. The problem with those classes is that the students in college so that they can pursue medicine/business/law are often motivated to work much harder to do well on tests than students who are interested in genuinely learning. So my # 1 problem with assuming you can solve things by admitting fewer people is that you will still have to deal with the group of students that tends to do well academically but who, collectively, don't add much to the undergraduate experience - and this is a much harder problem (it's very easy to write arbitrary tests that boil down to hours of memorization; it's much harder to design coursework that forces people to learn concepts).</p>

<p>Part of the reason why professors like teaching and working with graduate students is that, beyond being allowed to talk about issues closer to their research, the professors are working with students who want to do their job or at least something similar to their job. Most people (at least most sane people) in PhD programs belong there in an intellectuel sense (i.e. they are there to learn, not to get As). This has to be more pleasant than teaching a room full of people who care little about what you say and a lot about how they will score in your class and/or some standardized test. So it's natural that professors would be hesistant to teach undergrads (and btw, as Sakky attests, at the Harvards and MITs, there are plenty of horrible teachers who dislike teaching undergraduates; only by sacrificing the "wow" that follows the name of your college do you really get a high chance of having mostly excellent professors).</p>

<p>What I propose (admittedly some is a variation on what has been said before on the Berkeley page), assuming you can't change the fact that people will still come to college "for the experience" or because you need a college degree to go to med/law/business school is for big schools to do two things: first, every single major needs an honors track, requiring different classes than the regular track and also requiring a thesis. Require harder courses for the honors track (i.e. physics 7a or at least some step up from 8a for honors biology) and staff the non-honors track courses with mostly lecturers. Second, reintroduce the named "pre" majors. This, for example, would let the people who are diehard premeds (who may be more interested in getting into med school than in molecular biology) have an option that is rigorous enough to prepare them for medical school and more geared to what they need to learn for the MCAT (i.e. physiology rather than molecular neurobiology) - thus, in the long run this would actually be a better option for some students. These courses could also be mostly staffed by lecturers as well. </p>

<p>This would leave a group of students who ought to be more interested in the subjects they're learning in class, improving faculty-student interaction and the experience for those students. Of course you will still be left with the premeds who decide they want to study chemistry or engineering; the difference is that hopefully you have deliberately selected for students who are interested engineering AND premed. Since these classes would likely be a bit smaller than a "normal" class (i.e. they'd be closer to the size of a typical engineering class, that is to say, less than 100 students), you could use grading that more accurately reflects work - rather than arbitrary exams, you could do what seems to be typical or schools like MIT (or many Berkeley engineering departments), that is to say assign a lot of very difficult work that is useful from the point of view of understanding concepts or solving problems (i.e. mechanical engineering design projects) but that the average student may not be able to finish completely over the time course provided for the assignement.</p>

<p>This would be a good start.</p>

2

<p>What did you study while you were here?</p>

3

<p>I studied Bioengineering, so got to see a pretty good spectrum of the university (different departments, etc.)</p>

4

<p>I didn't bother to read your post because I have ADD but these are my first few suggestions.</p>

<p>1) Have more vocationa/technical schools.</p>

<p>2) Have more phased tests.</p>

<p>That is instead of having an MCAT, have a series of tests for each year of college and then a final one.</p>

<p>I believe it will be a better filter to test people who are both smart and motivated, rather than just know how to cram for one test and milk a good gpa.</p>

<p>Same with law school, GRE whatever.</p>

<p>3) IMPROVE SECONDARY EDUCATION.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter how good universities become if every high school student is retarded. My generation just does not read and very few people if ever read anything outside of whats necessary. There is a larger and larger bimodal distribution of intelligence in the US and that comes from dynamic effects from self-investment. Those who start early to get ahead easily surpass those that waste their early years, and many people no longer feel the need to catch up due to liberal mass media. </p>

<p>This also means getting rid of affirmative action, which creates a culture of victimization and lowers standards.</p>

<p>4) This is a hard one, but also create an Economic stability board similar to the group of business advisors who advised FDR in WWII. For their to be true education without people worrying too much about the cut-throat job market, there needs to be economic stability. The US is way too free trade compared to all its protectionist trading partners which are eager to sell to US markets but restrict their own to US goods. This has got to go, it leaves the American worker vulnerable to the macinations of other countries manipulating their currency and the market. The US was able to get away with it before but with the global market becoming too large for the US to absorb all excess goods and maintain its hegemonic power, economic fluctuations are more dangerous than ever. If you don't have a stable economy, you can't get rid of the cut-throat environment which permeates most schools (all except the top ivies where you're pretty much set for life).</p>

<p>Anyways, thats my long rant, most of it is pertinent.</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
Sakky is a longterm poster who genuinely thinks that there are things alumni can do about the Cal undergraduate experience; despite any disagreements I have with his strategies for improving the university (most glaringly, the notion that you the undergraduate experience at Cal would be improved by admitting fewer junior transfers),

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. It's not the NUMBER of transfer admits that I have issues with. It's the QUALITY of them, as well as the perceived fairness of the entire transfer process, particularly the notion that transfer students get to skip over some or all of the infamous Berkeley weeder courses that the freshman admits must take. </p>

<p>Case in point. As regards to the numbers of transfer students, I actually wouldn't mind if ALL Berkeley undergrads were actually transfer students, as long as the quality of the students admitted this way could be assured to be no worse than the quality of the current freshman admits. </p>

<p>As far as the fairness issue goes, it boils down to the simple fact that freshman admits worked hard in high school to get admitted as freshman, and so it is simply unfair to ask them to have to survive the weeder gauntlet when the transfer students do not by virtue of having taken those classes at CC's. Either ALL Berkeley students should be forced to endure the weeders, or none of them should. What's fair is fair. As I've said many times, if the transfer students are really as good as people say they are, then they should have no problem in taking the final exams of all the weeder classes that they are skipping, graded on a P/NP basis. If they're really that good, then they will be able to pass those exams with no trouble. But if they're not that good, then that only means that Berkeley is admitting transfer students who shouldn't be admitted.</p>

<p>So to summarize, I have no problem with the idea of transfer admissions. My beef is with the specific way that Berkeley implements the transfer process.</p>

6

<p>Calkidd, could every department or major spend the resources on the additional honors track? I think the hardest part would be paying for the additional lecturers required, or perhaps this wouldn't be necessary if the number of classes each teacher taught was increased, although certain possibilities might limit course selection somewhat. And would there be enough space on campus for this? it sound like a reasonable idea. Could it be implemented? I think, in addition to this perhaps, some sort of honors college (across majors) would benefit the campus. People seem so divided by major or general area (Humanities, social sciences, sciences, the rest). I think one huge step that would improve the education would be to create a more cohesive community, but that seems difficult, and the extent to which cohesiveness can be created seems limited. </p>

<p>Liberal, I don't think people want to go to technical/vocational schools. Even if they were created, would they be attended? Maybe if they were portrayed as some attractive alternative to a college or university, but under current conditions, I don't think that it is.</p>

<p>I find your phased test idea interesting. However, what would you propose to accomodate for students who say, decide that they want to go to medical school, law school, or graduate school very late in their education, or after they receive their BA/BS/ect degree?</p>

<p>How do you propose secondary education be improved? You said those who start early do much better. Do you propose mandatory kindergarten or something? That might help many kids start earlier than they otherwise would, but a negative aspect of it might be costing the state a lot. I think the underlying problem is that our society does not really value education that much as a whole. I wish I knew some way to change society, to make it value education or something. Anyway, anyone know how to improve secondary education, or, better yet, society and what it values?</p>

<p>Sakky, many of these tests are on curves, are they not? Would you just match them up to whatever curve the test they are given? What if they fail? Do they essentially have to keep retaking the test until they pass it so that they can graduate, or would you have them kick out if they couldn't pass it twice (or something).</p>

7

<p>Sakky is right, transfer students do undermine things, but other things do as well.</p>

<p>1) Berkeley admissions is more index-based than most top schools (GPA (or class ranking) + SAT into a raw number). If you're below the cut-off you're out. Its pretty simple. As such half the score means nothing, because GPA means squat in California, where people can get 4.0's but somehow not pass the high school exam or whatever the hell they have here. SAT's mean very little too because you can retake them and combine them in all sorts of crazy ways to get the highest score. So the weeding process is already messed up as it is without transfer students coming in and mucking things up even more.</p>

<p>I know as an out of state student, my numbers were good enough for top regional colleges and good enough for the light ivies, and I have to say, compared to the standards expected of me upon entrance, these people seriously dilute the value of a berkeley diploma. I see tons of Berkeley people every day in all my classes that will get the diploma but don't have an ounce of talent or intelligence to them. This is especially true of asian students who tend to have scores significantly higher than their native intelligence. You can call me racist or whatever, but as an asian person myself, I have firsthand knowledge of what the culture is really like. Not all asian people are that way but again, its definitely a facet of Berkeley. There are tons of asian people here that can't even speak english properly and have no manners. Sure there are smart people at Berkeley too, but in general having the diploma alone is not an indication of even a minimum level of capability; a fact that is wholly a consequence of California's poor weeding process.</p>

<p>2) The cut-throat competiton you see, particularly among pre-meds because of the gpa competition, as well as the cut-throat competition you see in some other classes and majors means people are more willing to cheat and cut corners to make the grade. I don't know about other schools, but the environment combined with the already lax moral nature of californians have created a generally despicable moral environment.</p>

<p>3) I went to a high school school with over 50 national merits and I thought I knew what gpa-hogging was but berkeley takes it to a whole new level. At least before the difference between a person who took a fake workload versus a real one was only 6 classes instead of 7 or 8. Now its 12 units (+ decal) versus 16-20 units (with more than just one math or science class buttressed by 2 other real classes). I've never seen so many stupid people with good gpas before. Its a little wonder the career center posts stats for grad school and people at Berkeley need super duper gpa's to get into the top grad schools. They probably played the game but could only score like 90th or 80th percentile on their standardized tests despite preparing day and night and paying up the nose for it. Lots of gpa-hogging, but very little talent exists at the undergraduate level in Berkeley.</p>

<p>4) Every stupid person you put in a class has a degrading effect on the quality of the classes. From the stupid girl in discussion section that asks simple black and white questions concerning grey matters of supreme court jurisprudence over and over ... to the mass of mediocre pre-meds striving so desperately to make the grade and go to medical school like daddy wants them to that they surrender their moral integrity and their personality.</p>

<p>This may not be representative of a majority of berkeley students, but it is representative enough to have a discernibly negative effect on the entire social environment at Berkeley. Its merely what happens when you set high (sometimes arbritary) standards for a group of students who just don't have the natural talent to achieve it. All I know is, the general undergraduate atmosphere at Berkeley can only be called a milieu of mediocrity.</p>

8

<p>Liberal, that's not how Berkeley admissions works. That simple establishes a cut off, but that's not how people are admitted. And as to SATs, doesn't Cal only take your best single sitting?</p>

<p>I just can't go with your number 2. Lax, despicable moral environment? I've yet to see someone cheat, but yes, people do fiercely strive for every point on a test. </p>

<p>3- there's plenty of talent. There just is, liberal. I'd point to engineering and business for the most immediate concrete examples. Perhaps the talent and intelligence comprises a smaller percentage of the student population than some other schools, but there is plenty of talent. </p>

<p>Even if I don't agree with your assesment, you do have a catchy phrase. It's hard to argue with a catchy phrase. Liberal, you're so much better for the world when you're creatively coming up with improvements and not merely or primarily criticizing and insulting.</p>

9

<p>And as to SATs, doesn't Cal only take your best single sitting?

[quote]
If a student takes the ACT or SAT more than once, will the University use the highest score?
Yes. The University uses the highest scores from a single testing administration.

[/quote]
<a href="http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/bearfactsspring05.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/bearfactsspring05.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

10

<p>Liberal, other than generally making us inferior Californians more "morally upright" (btw, "moral character" used to be one the murky criteria that the Ivies used to keep out Jewish students) and changing the general structure of education in California, I don't see how you plan to change things at Berkeley. </p>

<p>I do agree that a GPA means very little in California (or Nationally for that matter, where most students are somehow "above average"). Sakky, this is why I don't really agree that all A students "worked hard" in high school.</p>

<p>I do understand the concern about weeder courses - you did mention once before that you though ChemE did a pretty good job of "initiating" transfer students. Some variant of what you've said on this before, namely to make most every major do this (or under proposed plan, to at least make every "honors" major do this), would be useful for the college. </p>

<p>DRab - yes, I think it could be implemented, primarily because I think faculty would support it. Chem3b, for example, is already (or at least when I was a student) taught exclusively by a lecturer, Steven Pederson. I'm not so sure about having honors colleges, simply because it would be hard to choose where to put people/majors - particularly since there is so much emphasis right now on multidisciplinary work. I think it would be useful specifically, though, to have an honors major for people who take the interdisciplinary studies track seriously and do serious field research (rather than just slapping together a bunch of easy classes and calling that a major).</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, this is why I don't really agree that all A students "worked hard" in high school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said that all A students worked hard in high school. Some obviously didn't. Nevertheless, I still stand by my proposal that either EVERY student ought to be weeded out, or none of them should be weeded out. We should not have different rules for different students - where the transfers are allowed to skip over weeders. What's fair is fair. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, many of these tests are on curves, are they not? Would you just match them up to whatever curve the test they are given? What if they fail? Do they essentially have to keep retaking the test until they pass it so that they can graduate, or would you have them kick out if they couldn't pass it twice (or something).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would subject them to the exact same rules that the freshman-admits have to put up with. If the freshman-admits get expelled because they can't pass the weeders, then the transfers should also get expelled because they can't pass the weeders. Again, what's fair is fair. Either you weed out all the students, without regard for how they got admitted, or you weed out none of them. The worst choice, which is what Berkeley has chosen, is to only weed out certain students, but not others.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
I'm not so sure about having honors colleges, simply because it would be hard to choose where to put people/majors - particularly since there is so much emphasis right now on multidisciplinary work. I think it would be useful specifically, though, to have an honors major for people who take the interdisciplinary studies track seriously and do serious field research (rather than just slapping together a bunch of easy classes and calling that a major).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Could you clarify what you mean (I'm not sure I understand)? When you talk about interdisciplinary studies, are you talking about the official major, or interdisciplinary studie more generally?</p>

13

<p>My main point is that by ignoring the weeding process and letting in too many peopel at the bottom it dilutes the value of the berkeley diploma for everyone. About everything else, I admit I am uber-biased due to my personal experiences which of course are just high anecdoctal and suffer from selection bias, but they still happened and berkeley and thus have some pedagogical value.</p>

<p>The point is that yes there is a lot of talent, which you could exploit by halving the number of students at Berkeley. Do we really need the bottom half of Berkeley students? Not really, they degrade things for everyone in a lot of ways. I don't understand hwo half the people here get into berkeley, they don't even know anything generally.</p>

<p>2) GPA doesn't mean a lot of things a lot of places, but there is evidence that it means less in California; it does have the 49th ranked school system in the US (which itself isn't an entirely objective criteria but its reflective of the quality in general). Liberal programs usually mean spending tons of money to speed up the slowest students rather than giving an even experience and helping the smart students do well too. </p>

<p>3) It is pretty to get a great gpa if you're playing the game. 1 hard class + 2 easy classes + a decal a semester. Instant 3.7-4.0. </p>

<p>4) You can make the phased test a universal end of school year general test. Kind of like the exams they have in Germany and Japan to see whether you're appropriate for technical schools or university. It can be a general test just to measure you're level of ability. Of course, people are going to be angry and argue that this and that didn't do well because they had a bad background, but having people find jobs that are more appropriate to your level of talent that is more important in my opinion. The weeding out process in America is seriously flawed and its screwing up our system. Most malpractice suits are concentrated among the same doctors, and the number is increasing. </p>

<p>It would be a good way to weed out people. I'm all for more standardized testing, and there seems to be significant movement towards this right now in order to create real standards and equalize the differences between schools. Of course lots of people complain about how these tests make teacher cheat in order to take the test. Of course some people will cheat when you create higher standards, but that doesn't mean the standards aren't worht striving for. </p>

<p>5) I strongly stand by my stance on technical on vocational 2-year schools. Not everybody needs a college degree. Just get a 2 year degree and then get a job. It would also help those who are laid off to quickly retrain. I don't even know why people care about a college degree anymore, before it use to be a ticket showing you are a middle class </p>

<p>6) Californians may not cheat more than other parts of the nation (the percentages usually end up being the same), but they sure do seem to tolerate it more, or do dumb things to try to avoid it. I for one would like take home tests or having midterms outside of normal class (so you can have a real midterm last a little longer or a lot longer than a normal class for the teacher to be thorough). My econometrics class was suppose to have all normal scientific calculators. I saw at least 10-20% of the people with graphoing calculators and I'd bet good money around half at least had the formulas plugged into their calculators. That stuff happens all the time depending on the professor and the class. Its happened more in upper division classes because lots of different professors teach the same class and those classes are only offered once a year sometimes so tehre's less time to create a cheating-proof curriculum. </p>

<p>This is merely a consequence of too many people. Even a slgih decrease of 25% in the number of students would make things a lot more mangaebla. </p>

<p>7) Having a moral system in place can be exclusionary yes, but at the same time, it is necessary in order to make sure you're not only creating compotent workers but good citizens. Yes, the ivies were exclusionary, but at the same time they did focus a lot on the protestant ethic of service and charity. Universal tolerance has its own failings as well when is that it creates selfish, moraless people. </p>

<p>8) I and almost all the rest of America agree, Californians are freaks of nature living in their own little lala land. Homer once visisted New York in a Simpsons episode where New Yorkers were caricatured as being obnoxious, inner city scum. California is that magnified on a grand scale to the whole state. Yeah, its not everyone. It may not even be 10%, but even a few percent is enough to insult you or steal from your or screw with your head. I can't wait until I can leave this place, the malgovernance, the faux cultural tolerance, and the general malaise of mediocrity where everyone is a victim is insulting to the senses.</p>

14

<p>Liberal, maybe GPA doesn’t mean something in a lot of schools or places, but stop discounting the work that I did, and many other people did, in high school. I don’t care if the state as a whole supposedly has the second worst secondary education system (what’s that source, anyway), some of the public schools are really good, and I went to a pretty good one. I don’t think that I’m the only one here when I say I worked pretty hard in high school, so stop discounting what I did. You need to differentiate between on average, the kids that are here (guess what, many are the above average students and many come from the above average schools), and other things. I’ve read on two threads that only 7-9% of CA high school students (I think public only) come to UC schools. For instance, a friend of mine was the valedictorian of her high school class, and IB school, and she got her IB diploma. She must have slacked off like none other, right? And again, what about the kids from private schools here? You seem to respect private schools more than public schools, and many kids from private schools come here, too, such as my friend who was almost valedictorian in his high school class. Another person who had their GPA given to them with no work, right?</p>

<p>It’s amazing how so many Berkeley students are too stupid or maybe would rather not play the 3.7-4.0 numbers game. <a href="http://gradeinflation.com/berkeley.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://gradeinflation.com/berkeley.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I don’t understand how your college exit test would benefit graduate school committees more than GRE subject tests, or law schools more than the LSAT, or med schools more than the MCAT. </p>

<p>I agree with you, some people at college would be better suited elsewhere. However, this doesn’t change that society places much more value in a university or college degree over a technical or vocational school degree. It seems many desirable jobs require the BA or BS as a requirement. How would you change the attitude?</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is merely a consequence of too many people. Even a slgih decrease of 25% in the number of students would make things a lot more mangaebla.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alright, an actual suggestion. But what would the consequences of that be? I’m not sure what this refers to, as in, a quarter of overall students in the school, or in that particular class. If you’re referring to the schools as a whole, how would reducing the number of kids admitted effect it? Well, it seems that undergraduates are, as they are in almost all schools, a source of income for the school. Reducing the number of students would reduce the money going into the school. Also, would this affect the amount of state funding given to the school? Would this have consequences such as reducing the range of courses offered or necessary faculty reductions because of an inability to finance classes, pay, or research?</p>

<p>What moral system are you talking about, Liberal? The exclusionary system implemented by some (maybe all?) members of the Ivy league and some other schools was pure discrimination! Quotas for Jews, Blacks, and Asians? That has nothing to do with morals! That’s called racism. The alternatives are not universal tolerance or quota-prejudice. </p>

<p>What do you mean by moral? Are you enacting the modern Republican move to call that which is not in line with Christian values as immoral? There are other moral systems than Christianity; so, generally, I’m not a fan of this move. While I might agree with many things within Christian doctrine, that which doesn’t fall in line with it is not necessarily immoral.</p>

<p>What do you mean, Californians are freaks of nature? My roommate from Delaware and my cousin from Maryland who both go here fit right in with us freakish Californians. Also, have you been to southern California, that part which contains the majority of the population of the state?</p>

15

<p>The last part was pretty obviously biased so I'll ignore it.</p>

<p>The other things are true, California has a serious infrastructure problem with getting skilled people up. There are 8 UC's for the entire state of 30 million + people. Texas as a comparison also has about the same nubmer of universities for half the people.</p>

<p>They are only 4 pharmacy schools (or a very low number for the population, I can't recall what my intended pharmacy school told me), and not enough medical schools as well (my career counselor kept telling me to apply outside of California for any grad school because Californai has a poor number of schools per capita). </p>

<p>This same problem exists at the UC level. The state population has doubled but the number of UC's has remained largely the same in the last generation (+1 like last year or something). </p>

<p>Once again, too many people eroding the experience. You might not notice it, but a lot of people have, and it affects the ability of Berkeley to manage in a lot of ways. A Berkeley degree means a lot less if several thousand people get it, a significant portion which are transfer students which are underqualified.</p>

<p>For GPA inflation, you have to keep in mind that the size of the school has increased substantially, so that there are a lot of people dragging down the bottom as well as the top. The overall number may not have changed much but its not a stretch to say that most Berkeley students will cheat when they can, as well as at other schools, and that there is a lot of people at the top that have little or no skill. </p>

<p>By moral I mean things that don't end up in prisoner's dillemna, and just being very simply nice to each other. I've seen enough backstabbing at this school and the tolerance of it to want to throw up. People in California and Berkeley are just flat out not nice to each other and generally do the most selfish thing. Generally these are small things like people you got to know in class but then you see them next semester walking around and they don't even say hi to you. Or when you're working in a group and someone weasels out of work. These are things that are the result of a culture that only strives to do what is not legally wrong, than tries to do what should be right. And even though your friends may not notice it, a lot of people I've talked to have; there's just a lack of human compassion here that shows how bleak relationships really are in the evidently "modern" "progressive" states.</p>

<p>When you have such an environment, things become more cut-throat because you know that other people are capable of anything. </p>

<p>Gradeinflation still happened at berkeley during that time, and thats also with the downward pressure on grade inflation caused by increase student population.</p>

<p>Berkely charges a below-market price for in-state students. Tuition is funded by the tax payer either way. Opening more vocational and technical schools is a more efficient use of tax payer money when someone gets useful skills instead of a poli sci degree witha 3.0 gpa. </p>

<p>Morals are hardly racist. Successful people tend to subscribe to the same morals, not merely "not-cheating" as is the standard here, but also striving to be charitable, compassionate, and interested in the welfare of their fellow man--any man or woman, not just someone who happens to be part of your clique or union or class. There's nothing racist about that. Indeed its minority groups who are most racist in general, and tend to be most cliquish and exclusionary. You increase the "diversity" of any campus and you just create more exclusionary groups, not create a more more enriching experience.</p>

<p>There was a story in the LA Times about how suddenly Californians were being nice to each other on the road, as if being nice would allow them not to be targeted by one of the random highway shooters that had been on the news. As if allowing others to pass in front of you if they needed it or yielding were something of merit. These things can be taken more for granted in other states. From what I've seen of Californians, they tend to be the most selfish-groupthinking people I've ever seen, and its reflected in their poor governance and poor management of their education system.</p>

<p>Phased tests would more accurately refelct your ability because it wouldn't allow you time to cram and artifically raise your score since they will be many of them and you have normal school commitments too (which should be made more stringent, absolutely 4 classes per semester, with requirements on the content to be taken, which you could do if you had fewer people).</p>

<p>Vocational schools work in Japan and Germany. Indeed, plumbers get as much respect as any other vocation and also make a lot. Yes, some jobs require college degrees, big whopdie do. SOme jobs require vocational skills too. By making the requirements stricter and offering more options, you will hav epeople naturally falling into their natural abilities without any changes in their income (plumber and other jobs can make a lot of money).</p>

16

<p>Liberal, do you know what bias means? Don't you know that humans are incapable of impartial judgment? At the very least, how are any of my biases less influential than yours? Should I just ignore all of your "obviously biased" ridiculous generalizations about Californians? I'll try to cut back on them because I would prefer this thread be about improving and not about insulting, but sometimes I'm going to say something about your often wrong assessments of Californians.</p>

<p>I think what's more important than the the population size vs the number of schools or available spots in the school is the number of people who will probably use the schools compared to the number of spots available in the schools. What about those statistics, liberal? It doesn't really matter if California's population had a huge increase in people, say, over the age of 50, and general increases elsewhere. For instance, Texas has UT Austin, which hosts 60,000 students. How many of them are undergrads? Does the number of students attending Texas as undergrads per capita equal that of the California for the UC? You said in a previous post that you imagine liberal education as helping the slower students catch up and not helping the better students excel more. Building more campuses would probably benefit the average students, at least for many years. Unless many students here were redirected to the other schools, then Berkeley wouldn't really be affected. And I doubt opening many new campuses would effect Berkeley’s student population and its quality much, but it would probably take away money from the UC office that would go to Berkeley and give it to the new campus. Maybe I just don't know enough about the UC budgeting system.</p>

<p>Liberal, in your first couple paragraphs, you say that there are not enough particular programs in specialized areas, and then you go on to say too many people eroding the experience and that there should be more open, yet you go on right after to talk about the cheapening of the degree. Those programs are probably limited for a few reasons, and keeping the degree somewhat rare is one of them. Which do you value more? </p>

<p>As to your “backstabbing,” I’ve noticed it, too, but it’s really not as rampant as you make it sound, or as extreme. It’s merely rude, but it’s also fairly rare. A lot of your criticisms reflect something here, but most of them are over exaggerated to a point of hyperbole. And anyway, why don’t you deal with this in a different way? It’s pretty ridiculous to expand the various relationships you see in college in Northern California for four years to relationships with all states that people would consider progressive, such as the ones in the Northeast. Again, I ask, have you been to Southern California? Obviously there’s rudeness and “backstabbing” at Berkeley. Why don’t, instead of talking about how bad and terrible Californians are, make a more cohesive, caring student body? Why don’t we do that? </p>

<p>Morals are not racist, and I never claimed that they were. What is racist (and immoral) is when the Ivy League admits Jews, Blacks, and Asians on a quota system (once they started accepting them). It isn’t really pertinent here, but it was brought up. I think people from every race or class tend to gravitate, on average, towards people of their race or social class. Why doesn’t the school try to create a more cohesive student body? Why don’t we have more ice breaker events, or something? Why don’t you try to suggest ways to change the attitude instead of merely reporting it? </p>

<p>So your phased tests, wouldn’t that just require more cramming intermittently rather than one giant cramming time? If you can perform on the test, does it matter if you have a photographic memory, studied really hard, took 22 units a semester for a few years? And again, how do you deal with those that decide to do something like law school, med school, or grad school late? Do you exclude them entirely? If the phase time is more than a year, it would really inconvenience those that decide late. Your required schedule idea seems good, but what about those who decide late? Perhaps you want our culture to more mimic those European ones in which people know what they’re doing right of high school, in which a high school degree is much more difficult to get? i'm fine with vocational schools, I just don't think that creating more would cause more peopel to go to them unless they're aware of some econmoic incentive or society respects the positions a bit more.</p>

17

<p>1) My assessment about Californians are in general true for a significant minority. They are obnoxious and selfish. My first day here I was given the finger 3 times because I was driving at the speed limit. You can expect to be regularly cursed at or ignored if you ask for simple things like directions. And I've spent more than a week in Sacramento, LA, and San Diego and in general people were rude. Maybe less so in San diego because its a smaller town. My roommate first year who was really obnoxious was a typical socal teenybopper and completely disrespectful of other people's feelings and personal space (elaborating woudl take too much space). There seems to be no common thread of decency among Californians because they are caught in a post-modern idea that morals are somehow out of fashion. Sure you have some good californians, but there is a lot of chaff to the wheat. A little over half may still be decent people, but as far as I can tell from my travels through 7 states (living in 6 for more than 6 months), Californians are the most obnoxious. </p>

<p>2) UT Austin is a much bigger campus than berkeley and its bureacracy is much more streamlined. You can read teacher's evaluations. You can generally get the classes you sign up for. Things are not nearly as impacted as Berkeley is because they accept the number of students they can handle.</p>

<p>3) Californians get a very low return on their taxes compared to other states because of all the excess regulation and interest group politics. Local governments spend millions alone lobbying the state government in a ridiculous display of governmental excess and waste. The UC system has no money because California is badly run. If government were doing its job instead of pursuing weird socialist goals ala France or Germany, we'd have more UC's easily to meet the needs of the growing state.</p>

<p>4) Not sure about your next argument. I said it cheapens the degree when too many people get it and when the bureacracy is obviously degrading its value by letting too many transfer students in and using an uneven grading process for students. More smaller, vocational schools release pressures from the UC system and increase the flexibility of the California worker. Of course this doesn't happen because California is in the hands of Democratic special interests and held hostage by idiotic, spur-of-the-moment propositions. People would rather defend their sectarian welfare-state priveleges (teacher's and nurse's unions for example) in California rather than work for the good of the state.</p>

<p>6) I've been to the northeast. CAlifornia is the only "progressive state" as in liberal fiscally and culturally. Northeast states are liberal culturally and fiscally conservative as they are the Rockefeller Republicans of yore. As such, their governance is still in a decent state of affairs unlike California whose governance is a joke. I already offered a suggestion, we can make the UCs and berkely a more cohesive university by limitng the number of students so that you are able to offer things like 4 year dorm housing (God knows, they make a big profit off the dorms anyways with the exorbitant rent they charge) and there's less money being spent on rent (due to excess demand) and more on extra services. If you had half the students in Berkeley, the local rent in the area would probably go down a bit, and if you had proper tax reform, it would probably go down a lot. </p>

<p>Backstabbing has happened in 5 out of the 6 activites I've been in. I'm willing to acknowledge that my experience is anecdoctal, since I am but one person but a lot of people I've talked to have also noted the obnoxious nature of many UC students and californians.</p>

<p>Lets face it, people form most of their lifelong habits during childhood and adolescence. People in college are pretty set in their ways, especially if socialization is kept to a minimum or they only hang out with people exactly like them. I've done icebreakers in the decal I thought and in some of the clubs I've been in. Usually half th epeople end up leaving, and the ice-breakers really accomplish nothing. Its just the acceptable norm when you're an annonymouse face to be anti-social and obnoxious. </p>

<p>Dorms are probably the best way to sustain an amicable social environment, but dorms at berkely are ridiculously expensive and do not guarantee a good expereience. I had a bad floor my first year at Berkeley and would've liekd to try again the next year, but its just too expensive and the chance of having another bad floor is just too likely with lots of people.</p>

<p>Yes, you exclude people who do badly on the tests. America often ignores sticks and only offers carrots. I know more than a few people who tried desperately to be doctors and barely squeaked by. I've even been treated by them, and its a small wonder malpractice suits aren't even more. People often say they want their sons and daughters to be doctors and lawyers but the sad fact is most people aren't cut out for it. Just look at California's bar exam, half of all people who take it fail it. If you weed them out earlier they can go and pick the next best thiing which would suit them more and save the state valuable resources (they don't do something they're not good at).</p>

<p>Thats a problem with societey that they don't respect people with college degrees or that we have some kind of knee-jerk reaction that you need one. Its especially harder with minority groups crying foul that equal results do not happen even with equal opportunity. Its just the sad truth that immigration from certain countries tends to be more low-skilled and low-class than others; its not necessarily racism. However, it is possible, and would definitely be easier if California governance wasn't so bad. I went to Sacramento to talk with legislators and they were mostly freshman that had totally impractical ideas of how to deal with problems. They talked about how students shoudl be tested in their native language and all this crap. As an immigrant to this country, I know all their bs programs don't work. No government or teacher can replace a parent that tells their kids to do homework and forces them to read and learn english. </p>

<p>When our founding fathers dealt with the problem of mass german immigration, they found solutions that today would be called racist by the media, which was trying to disperse minority groups into majority communities where they could learn English and absorb the culture. Today we have idiotic, politically-correct policies that don't work and are based on false ideas such as that all cultures are created equal and its the system's fault.</p>

<p>Some common sense instead of smoke and mirrors would go along way to at least partially remedying California's problems.</p>

18

<p>Making up statistics about the number of Californians that might be good people doesn’t help anybody, and your numbers range so broadly (from maybe 50% in this last post to maybe 90% earlier). And I ask again, have you been to Southern California? It amazes me how many different issues you can bring into the picture.</p>

<p>You say there are not enough graduate schools and professional schools in California, and that there should be more, but you say that Berkeley has too many students, and that cheapens the degree. How can you criticize there not being enough graduate or professional schools in California on the one hand and say that the value of the Berkeley degree and college degrees in general should be increased by reducing the number of students their? How do these situations differ?</p>

<p>Again, say you open up more vocational schools. How would that release pressure on the UC system? The same sorts of people would attend the UC system. How is California in the hands of Democratic special interest groups when our friend Arnold is the governor? Also, propositions are hard to get on the ballot.</p>

<p>Okay, offer four years of housing. I agree, this is a good idea. I think UCLA is now able to do that, for this next year. It would build a more cohesive community and bring in more income for the school. Before you criticize the cost of Berkeley housing one more time, would you bring up statistics about how much other college’s housing costs? C’mon, do it. Prove me wrong and see how outrageous Berkeley’s housing costs compared to other schools. If you’re right, I’ll grant you that they charge outrageous prices. Dorms at any school do not guarantee a good experience, and I do think things should be changed at Berkeley to make the experience better within the dorms because that would improve the campus.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Backstabbing has happened in 5 out of the 6 activites I've been in. I'm willing to acknowledge that my experience is anecdoctal, since I am but one person but a lot of people I've talked to have also noted the obnoxious nature of many UC students and californians.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you see how you expand what you’ve witnessed here to what you claim happens in about 7 other schools and then within a whole state of millions of people? Do you think that’s logically valid?</p>

<p>I agree somewhat with your assessment of how people develop habits. However, something can be changed at any point in life. At the very least, it can be influenced. So at the college level, at this school, how can the students be influenced for the better?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know more than a few people who tried desperately to be doctors and barely squeaked by. I've even been treated by them, and its a small wonder malpractice suits aren't even more.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, it’s amazing how you expand your being treated by a few doctors who were poor to the entire profession. And do you know how many malpractice suits exist? I agree with you that many people aren’t cut out for high stress, high demanding jobs, or the schools required to train them. California’s bar exam is hard, harder than any other state, and you can’t practice as a lawyer until you pass it. People are excluded if they don’t pass it. The same is true for med school and law school. If you do very poorly on the required tests, you aren’t going to get in. Are you suggesting people be forced to do jobs they’re not interested in, even if it’s something that they’re good at?</p>

<p>California legislators were freshman? What do you mean by that? I agree with you that people in America should learn English. What if one of their “bs programs” was designed to teach immigrants English? How about teaching parents how to help their kids succeed in the US? Are all programs forever doomed to fail in your opinion?</p>

19

<p>Anyone else care to join in on the subjects that actually deal with improving Cal?</p>

20

<p>I didn't have time to get the statistics until Wednesday but will continue the issue in more depth with more substantiated claims at that time.</p>

<p>I would suggest reading Thomas Sowell's book on America's education system. It basically goes over the things I've said but also with more details. I can't recall the name at the moment.</p>