<p>
[quote]
That's not the right analogy. The right analogy is that the two-year-old would obviously prefer to live in a world without disease, where he wouldn't HAVE to get a shot. Poor people would prefer to instead live in a world where they aren't poor.</p>
<p>In my example, that's exactly the choice that is provided. Those people who are admitted to Berkeley and to a top private school will probably prefer that top private school if, for no other reason, they won't have to worry about impacted majors. That's analogous to the 2-year-old having the choice to live in a world without disease, such that he doesn't have to get a shot in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're using the analogy in a different way than I see it. In theory, if you get into a selective private that doesn't have impacted majors, then you've got a different, comparable world except that it doesn't have disease. If you have that option, it's a good option to take. If you're a good student, it won't matter.</p>
<p>My idea of the analogy was whether to have impacted majors at Berkeley or not--one world, two possibilities, both with negative consequences in some respects. It is my view that not having impacted majors at Berkeley would be disease-like, and the slight pain of a shot--having impacted majors--is worth the improvement in quality of education. For some students, it goes down. For the vast majority, it goes up. Simple choice for Berkeley to make.</p>
<p>I know, you're argument is that this attracts students away from Berkeley (to schools where impaction isn't a big deal), and therefore detracts from the quality of education. I simply disagree, as always.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have never seen any evidence (hard evidence or anecdotes) that Stanford profs are harsher than Berkeley profs. If you have some, please present it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, I don't have to. I'm not arguing that one set of professors is more harsh than the others. If you want to argue that, then doing so with anecdotes only is a pretty weak way of going about it, even if that is the only way (which I don't strictly believe--random survey would get you reasonable results).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then let's go ask some students, current and former, who couldn't get into the major that they wanted. Would you like me to introduce you to them? Maybe you could ask THEM whether they think this issue isn't that important to many Berkeley undergraduate students, or whether I am blowing this all out of proportion. I'm sure they would be able to give you quite an earful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why ask only those that have been antagonized by impacted majors? Why not ask everybody? Certainly, those other students deserve to be heard on the issue because they attend Berkeley, too, and are also affected by impacted majors. Take a fair poll. I don't know what the results will be, but I do know what would happen if you asked a bunch of republicans if Bush is a good president or not--just like you know what people that didn't get in to their intended majors would say about impacted majors. But that statistic isn't relevant--just like mine wouldn't mean Bush is a good president, yours wouldn't mean impacted major are bad. It would mean it was bad for those students, but only if it is bad for the majority of students is it actually bad overall.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Conversely, you haven't shown that Berkeley advisors are good by any standard. The point is, I have heard plenty of advising horror stories. This is a problem at Berkeley, even if they are just mere anecdotes. Nobody should feel fearful of their advisors. Yet that is what evidently happens, at least to some people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but I'm not arguing Berkeley's advisors are good. You're arguing that they're not. I'm arguing that you can't argue that without evidence (besides one or two anecdotes, because I've got my own anecdotes to counter those). Further, to argue that the advising is bad is vague. I agree, the college of engineering advisors are useless for telling you what classes to take, and are bad in that respect. But that's not their job. That's what your department advisor is for. That's what all the professors in your department are for. If the professors at Berkeley are significantly worse than the professors at other universities at telling students what classes to take, you'll have a strong point. But you can't just say it is so without real support.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, I think you are the one that is confused. Again, I am looking at the situation from the eyes of the potential student. Again, take a student who got into Berkeley and also to one of the top private schools. Given the fact that Berkeley has impacted majors and the others don't, why should he choose Berkeley and risk not getting into the major he wants? It all comes down to another reason not to choose Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm looking at it from the eyes of students educated at Berkeley. Certainly there is on better authority on what the education is like at Berkeley. Prospective students can't possibly know. Their opinions as to the quality of Berkeley's education are almost meaningless. I'm not saying Berkeley is as attractive to prospective students as other schools, I'm saying that Berkeley quality of education is on par with those other schools. Again, completely different things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To give you an example, the CS major rejects some people with 3.5's. If you are getting a 3.5 in CS classes, you are pretty good. Yet even some of them get denied. Do you think that's what ought to be happening? Clearly these students would have been better off at another school where they could have majored in CS with no problems.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, those students would've been better off elsewhere. Too bad for those students. It's great for every single other student in the CS major that those students didn't get in, though. Unless there are more 3.5GPA students applying and getting rejected from the CS major than there are students in the CS major in total, I don't see how this is a bad thing for Berkeley education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can even shut down certain unpopular majors. Why not?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, why not shut down all but the 10 most popular majors. Screw all those people that wanted to major in other things! They don't matter. Only those in the impacted majors matter, because well people wanted to major in them.</p>
<p>Oh, but if we shut down majors that people were applying in to, we've got the same damn problem! One way or another, someone's not getting the major they want at Berkeley. Yes, there's a certain point at which I'd say you could drop a major. You've already cited the fact that Berkeley does drop unpopular majors. It'd better be damn unpopular, though. How many students couldn't get into Econ? How many students were in the major that was dropped? If the former isn't greater than the latter, it isn't worth it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's 10 minutes of possibly painful beration.</p>
<p>The question is not whether you will be better or worse off. The question is, why put yourself through any pain if you don't have to? Who really enjoys pain?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, the question is whether it significantly affects the quality of education at Berkeley (because that IS what we're talking about, right?). I say it doesn't. You?</p>
<p>Look, give me reasons to believe the same quality of education at HYPSM cannot be had at Berkeley (or is significantly more difficult to have). That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about what propsective students prefer or about people that didn't get into their desired major UNLESS you can tie any of that to the quality of education at Berkeley.</p>