Improving undergraduate education at large public schools

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

<p>Why do you not think they're so dramtically different? And also, MIT is one school, and in many cases, some sort of exception from rules. And even at MIT, I've heard the profs know the humanities classes are breaks from "real" studies for most students. And average GPAs are available from some sources. Check gradeinflation.com for some information.</p>

<p>How do you come up with the number 35? And with that number, you're referring to how many smart people you think go to Berkeley, or what?</p>

42

<p>The number 35 is from stanford's prelaw site. My browser screwed up so I don't have the exact link. The latest info was for the 2003-2004 admissions cycle.</p>

<p>35 total students matriculated, 60+ students were accepted. Berkeley's number for this year was: 12 accepted (1 urm) and 10 matriculated.</p>

<p>THe stanford numbers show an aggregate number including non-seniors so we can't know for sure how many people that were graduating seniors made it in from Stanford (which is the sample we should be considering since the career center offers only Berkeley numbers). </p>

<p>Harvard and Yale have even more acceptances relative to harvard law school, often in excess of 100. Part of this may be self-selection; smarter people end up at Harvard and Yale and their academic index will be adjusted higher (the LSAT score and GPA's are adjusted accordingly to the average gpa/lsat at their school).</p>

<p>As such, Berkeley students don't seem to be at a disadvantage in a straight up numbers game, since the numbers are being adjusted for, but in relative terms, the student body is much smarter at the ivies than at Berkeley. Lets be generous and say Berkeley has the same absolute number of smart people. These people are still dispersed across all 8000 students. The site you posted shows obvious inflation at Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford. Now considering the demographics of the student population remains the same, its safe to assume that part of the inflation is also applicable to the sciences.</p>

<p>Depending on the spread between the humanities and sciences and the relative size of each population, dramatically different grading systems between the two may hurt or benefit certain students more.</p>

<p>You may be right about MIT, i've heard through hearsay that MIT applicants don't do nearly as well in law school applications as they should compared to the ivies anyways. </p>

<p>My point is that the student population as a whole is pretty weak IMO. Since california public education is uneven, a lot of people that really don't belong here get in. I'd say there's probably about a few hundred people that are Ivy quality, with the rest being about above average high school students making up a lot of the population.</p>

<p>I find it annoying that a lot of these average people have delusions of grandeur and thus backstab, and act obonxious in clubs and activities. "Will this club get me a job?" is a common thing I've heard in a few of the clubs I've been in. Its annoying and these peopel tend to not contribute to activities.</p>

<p>If the student body was prepared for the academic situation at Berkeley a lot of the backstabbing and stupidity wouldn't happen. You can do this through a lot of ways, improving the quality of admits, increase the support system. There are cheap ways to do this; the administration just doesn't care. 30 people on average get into HLS from UCLA, UCB each year. If Berkeley devoted as many resources as Stanford or Princeton does (having someone assigned to proofread your essays, personal meetings with the Dean to get counseling what law schools are looking for), I bet that number could probably increase a lot. </p>

<p>Berkeley's impersonal nature is a pain in the butt.</p>

43

<p>1) Maybe a third of all high school students drop out of high school in the state of CA. Perhaps it is a third of public high school students. I think sakky’s anecdotes relate a lot to immaturity of being without parents and extremely difficult material added on in significant loads to that. When you say Californians, who exactly are you referring to? The population of the whole state? Those who were educated there? I think you’ve encountered almost predominantly kids between the ages of 18 and 22, and almost entirely in the Bay Area, and mostly those who go to Berkeley. Without going to Southern California, and talking to older Californians, it seems unfair to judge the entire state, if that’s who you’re judging. </p>

<p>2) I don’t know if Arnold’s ballot initiatives were a good idea. In politics I’m often ambivalent, and I often feel like I’m never informed well enough. But does the UC system relate to the general population, or is it more of a “special interest.” I’ve always found that term kind of bizarre. Really, almost any group is a special interest group. But that’s not an important discussion point right now.</p>

<p>How much what you cite is the result of 1/3 of CA students, or public school students, or some sort of CA student, dropping out of high school, I don’t know. </p>

<p>4) I don’t know about the backstabbing idea. Maybe it just has to do with culture. Really, the south is known for being polite, right? If that’s instilled in everybody, then perhaps coming from that to a very different atmosphere, one which doesn’t stress politeness as much makes most people seem rude. I wouldn’t mind people being less rude, not that I encounter rudeness that often, but this just might be a cultural difference.</p>

<p>I think there should be housing for four years. There is currently a two year guarantee. That’s a good start, no? I think more dorms should be built and more housing guaranteed. </p>

<p>What do you mean by campus events free on certain days? There are many free things for students. All of the museums are free to students; there are noontime concerts every Wednesday, and more. What do you have in mind?</p>

<p>I think the mentor system would be a good idea. I don’t know how much the administration takes the undergraduates for granted. I don’t think all professors are busy and prolific, though many are. I’ve found much professor availability, personally. I talk to many after class and sometimes in office hours. I think some of the problems are on the shoulder of the students. Granted, the administration could do more, but it’s not exclusively their fault.</p>

<p>Apathy. . . I think different people are interested in different things. What better things could you create without much money or time? I think most major improvements would have to be a result of a lot of money or a lot of time.</p>

<p>I think there are good reasons to instate an honors system. Do you think that it hasn’t been brought up before in many an academic committee? I’ve spoke with the Dean of L and S, and he said that the committee did not want to create two classes of undergraduates. He knows Berkeley loses students to Harvard, Stanford, maybe even UCLA because of Berkeley’s lack of an honors program, but he said that the reason it was rejected in committee was because of that. There are probably other reasons, but this is what he mentioned.</p>

<p>PA, so you really think that a normal distribution is the best system? Do you really think that the honors kids wouldn’t be very concerned about grades? </p>

<p>What extent of the campus would you allow to be a part of the honors college? How would you organize it, exactly? And really, if some honors college were created, it would just take the current curriculum and make it more difficult- there wouldn’t be any “dumbing down.”</p>

<p>How do you imagine that an honors system wouldn’t cost much? I also wonder about another factor, who can access the system? How exclusive would you be?</p>

44

<p>"When you say Californians, who exactly are you referring to? The population of the whole state? Those who were educated there? I think you’ve encountered almost predominantly kids between the ages of 18 and 22, and almost entirely in the Bay Area, and mostly those who go to Berkeley. Without going to Southern California, and talking to older Californians, it seems unfair to judge the entire state, if that’s who you’re judging."</p>

<p>I mean the student population of Berkeley which is made up largely of public high school graduates. I'm just guessing that the uneveness of California's public education system explains a lot of the not-so-smart people I've met that were evidently in the top 1% of their class but were singularly unprepared for college work. I will admit I may just have had bad experiences and that there are indeed many smart berkeley people, but I think its safe to say that California's uneven public, secondary education creates a lot of unprepared students who have the stats to get into Berkeley.</p>

<p>I like to quote this statistic because it shows how bad the education system is, more so than the 43rd ranked school system number. There are also article in the The Atlantic about a mother who was so desperate to send her child to a good school in California she pretended to be a Luthern or something of the like. I've also read articles in the Economist outlining problems with firing teachers and accountability. I've brought out a lot more data than just the 1/3rd number but since it takes a lot of time to look up these things, I don't regularly reference them, since I believe them to be fairly common knowledge.</p>

<p>3) I don’t know about the backstabbing idea. Maybe it just has to do with culture. Really, the south is known for being polite, right? If that’s instilled in everybody, then perhaps coming from that to a very different atmosphere, one which doesn’t stress politeness as much makes most people seem rude. I wouldn’t mind people being less rude, not that I encounter rudeness that often, but this just might be a cultural difference.</p>

<p>I feel people are more cut-throat because there is no recipicrocity and maintained relationships. Berkeley's large impersonal nature lets you get away with looking out constantly for number 1. I've met a lot nice people of course, but it seems that once you work with someone, this will tend to bring out the worst (i.e. lazy and incompotent side of them). This has been true for a lot of the clubs and activities I've done. I think this can be improved with more oversight by a faculty member or a system where students see each other on a more often basis so that such activities don't go unpunished socially.</p>

<p>"What do you mean by campus events free on certain days? There are many free things for students. All of the museums are free to students; there are noontime concerts every Wednesday, and more. What do you have in mind?"</p>

<p>Those were just ideas. The free concert thing is somethign I attended and did. Activities like that should be more commonly known and widespread. If they are periodically free they will attract more people than normal. If they are specialized activities, than they attract a certain demographic that will befriend each other. I don't think its that hard to do, but advertising on Berkeley's campus is hard without the dorms.</p>

<p>"I talk to many after class and sometimes in office hours. I think some of the problems are on the shoulder of the students. Granted, the administration could do more, but it’s not exclusively their fault."</p>

<p>I agree, that's why I deride unmotivated students so much. But as I've pointed out in the other thread, even if they are the same number of smart, motivated people as they are at Harvard and whatnot (which I think is generous since I think over half the campus is pretty unmotivated and/or set in only one or two activities and/or cliques.) they are very dispersed and it is often hard to get them together, since the campus is so big. Cross-campus interaction may be a stretch but somethign similar to the interaction of 4-year dorms you stay in for your entire stay at Berkeley would be nice (and similar to what private schools offer in terms of social experience). It woudl definitely provide a way to have more lasting and meaningful relationships. </p>

<p>I disagree with statments that say its good that Berkeley "teaches" you to stand on your own. Some things are better if the university "holds" your hand, like offer a better social environment. Forcing people to pay so much money for an "authentic" real-world experience is beyond me.</p>

<p>"Apathy. . . I think different people are interested in different things. What better things could you create without much money or time? I think most major improvements would have to be a result of a lot of money or a lot of time."</p>

<p>Well the things I listed above I don't think would cost much. Having the university offer housing instead of private sources is merely a reallocation of housing income from private residents to the university. </p>

<p>Using regulations that have low administrative costs would be good. Like if you are housed in the dorms you must agree to mentor an incoming freshman which will be alotted through an online lottery. I think a lot of Berkeley's problems are due to a coordination failure which can be fixed with more information being available to the students. </p>

<p>I think forcing students to do certain things to be more sociable would be good. For example, I know some of the religious private housing requires you to volunteer a certain number of hours a semester. Not a bad way to force people to go out. I know people would complain you can't force people to be nice to each other but I'm betting that a lot of people that are in the grey area that want to get out but are afraid of the responses and being different. Think of university programs as a way of kickjumping activities that can snowball into more substantial things. I think that could be cheap and be effective. </p>

<p>I'm sure a lot of people are happy with the way things are but I really don't think Berkeley offers a lot of choices. Aside from a few huge megaclubs like AAA, which aren't for everyone, most of the clubs are pretty empty and don't meet much.</p>

<p>"I’ve spoke with the Dean of L and S, and he said that the committee did not want to create two classes of undergraduates. He knows Berkeley loses students to Harvard, Stanford, maybe even UCLA because of Berkeley’s lack of an honors program, but he said that the reason it was rejected in committee was because of that. There are probably other reasons, but this is what he mentioned."</p>

<p>That seems silly to me. I think if students proved they wanted it, there would be a good chance of implementation. As I pointed out, it can make everyone better off.</p>

<p>"PA, so you really think that a normal distribution is the best system? Do you really think that the honors kids wouldn’t be very concerned about grades?"</p>

<p>As I said, honor kids would get an absolute scale but be forced to work much harder so not a bunch of kids would want to do it. Non-honor kids would be graded by quota but since a lot of smart people would be in honors they'd have an easier time.</p>

<p>Most schools grade by a curve/quota system to aportion A's, B's, etc. by how well a student does to the rest of the class. Normally distributed tests are the best way to do this fairly. Having the difference between an A and B be 1 point out of 35 like UGBA10 seems ridiculously arbritary.</p>

<p>"What extent of the campus would you allow to be a part of the honors college? How would you organize it, exactly? And really, if some honors college were created, it would just take the current curriculum and make it more difficult- there wouldn’t be any “dumbing down.”"</p>

<p>Maybe not dumb down, but an honors system would allow you test much more which I like and allow for more interaction between professors and motivated students, and motivated students with each other. Let's be honest, many Berkeley classes you can do online, especially the weeder classes. Just do the reading, practice the problem, and go to the midterms. A big part of the value of college is by interacting with students on your level and fleshing out ideas and engaging each other. I feel that this doesn't happen at Berkeley since there are so many people that are either unprepared or unmotivated or lacking in ability. There is also a coordination problem because even if you meet someone you like it is very easy to lose touch because the campus is so big.</p>

<p>An honors system would help solve a lot of this.</p>

<p>"How do you imagine that an honors system wouldn’t cost much? I also wonder about another factor, who can access the system? How exclusive would you be?"</p>

<p>As I suggested make it require much more work and rigorous testing and allow for students to sign up for it if they want.</p>

<p>If its too expensive, perhaps it could just be a series of "honors classes" that all students would take in stead of their breadth requirements in a wide variety of disciplines. For example, you are required to take a history class and a philosophy class. Instead of having a major-specific honors, you can have just a general honors program where students could take honors-level breadth courses. That would be cheap since a standardized class could be used for all the majors and everyone needs to take breadth requirements.</p>

<p>You can also make it so that people are more likely to form substantial continuing relationships with each other. For example, if you enroll in History Honors for one semester, you are also automatically enrolled in Philosophy Honors the next semester. The same students would stay in both classes and it would be more like a high school system where students meet each other on a more regular basis.</p>

<p>Maybe its not as good as a major-specific honors system but it's still an improvment.</p>