just got a our of the new bioE facility

<p>
[quote]
Oh, I don't know about that. Generally, what PhD students have is at least a desk, if not an entire office (although sometimes that office is shared).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What exactly do you mean by "generally"? "Average"? And thus "most"?</p>

<p>In my experience knowing and hearing about departamental space, it seems unlikely that the general PhD student at Berkeley has "at least a desk." But I'm not saying some grads don't have desks, I'm saying there's large numbers, probably the majority, who do not. For example, I know for a fact that every PhD student in the psychology department, even the first years, has a desk and many have offices which they share with another grad. Yet, not all grad students just down the hall in Education have a desk. Similarly, almost no grad students in the humanities departments housed in Dwinelle Hall have a desk. Sure, virtually all departments have graduate lounges with lockers, but a desk would be much better.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But that office tends to have plenty of food and coffee lying around.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While that may be true, those offices do not have the "atmosphere" that Eshleman library provides. Even if grad students prefer to stay in those offices and the adjacent labs late into the night, and many do, it would be much better if they knew they could go home at any hour and be safe while doing it. That's just not the case.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have often times wondered why Berkeley can't offer similar arrangements to its undergrads. In fact, some undergrads do get that, but only if they agree to take on extra responsibilities. For example, the officers of the student chapter of AICHE (the American Institute of Chemical Engineers) have a cozy little office in Latimer, overlooking the Chemistry Computer Lab. I know many officers used it as a storage and study space. The office has a microwave and a coffee machine, it has a community computer. It's pretty nice. But of course, you could only get a key if you were an officer.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Other examples would include undergraduate researcher apprentices who have been determined to be trustworthy and thus allowed to enter labs and study/sleep/eat/live at any hour of the day.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And then there is the after-hours access to libraries that graduate students enjoy. For example, grad students in chemistry/ChemE can get into the Hildebrand Chemistry library anytime they want to. That's a nice thing because that library isn't exactly open all that often. For example, it's only open from 1-5 on the weekends. That's pretty weak.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're right about this one, although I'm not sure it carries much weight. If they have offices and lounges, why would chem grads want to walk out on the cold courtyard at such an hour? No letting in other people, no food? Who would want that? Besides, virtually all chem articles are now online are they not? They could check it from their laptops. If you were talking about philosophy grad students, who have access to the phil library at any hour they want to be there, then I could see how after hours library usage is relevant, since phil has been slower to digitalize its articles than the hard sciences like chem.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, I don't know. Harvard undergrads get free football tickets too, but the fact is except for Harvard vs. Yale, game attendance is pretty sparse. I remember when Cal football was bad (i.e. in 2001, the team only won 1 game), attendance was pretty sparse. Football is a pretty dicey thing. Cal isn't USC or Michigan - there is no history of consistently good football recently. In some seasons Cal is good, in others, Cal is bad. So resting school spirit on the football team seems like a hit-or-miss affair to me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not debating the fact that Cal isn't really a football school. I'm drawing attention to the other fact that first year undergrads get free tickets whereas first year grads do not. I view that as an example of Berkeley being more welcoming to undergrads than it is to grads.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I can appreciate the desirability of some fresh/soph seminars. But the truth is, most PhD students don't do their actual "learning" in classes or even seminars.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is mostly true. But just because "most" PhD students don't learn that much in seminars, does that mean that Berkeley should screw the ones who do want to be in seminars that are actually underenrolled? I say no. There are strong reasons for having a grad student in a fresh/soph seminar. They bring a lot of maturity and knowledge to the table which could both benefit the prof and the undergrads in the seminar. If an MCB student who knows basically nothing about the history of biology but yet is an outstanding research with an interest in the history of his field, why should he not be allowed to get credit for doing work and making meaningful contributions to the seminar?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Nor is most of their interaction with profs accomplished that way. Instead, as a PhD student who has reached the dissertation phase, you are generally expected to meet with your advisor periodically. THAT becomes your "real" seminar - basically a one-on-one meeting to hash out what you've been doing and what needs to be done. Frankly, you can't get a much better learning environment than a periodic one-on-one meeting with a prof.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But what about grad students who haven't yet "reached the dissertation phase"? I can assure you, many grad students who haven't been approved to continue on would like being able to sit through a relatively easy seminar that at least partly touches on their interests. It would both help them gain general knowledge on a specific topic and expand their working bibliography. That is particularly applicable to humanities grad students who attended lesser undergrad institutions where professors do not usually dictate the course of the field to the same extent that Berkeley, Harvard, and Yale professors do.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, many of the best Haas profs teach only MBA courses. Hence, if you're not an MBA student, you will never see these profs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not true. I know a undergraduate research apprentice who does research with an MBA prof who only deals with MBA students in the classroom.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The same is true of the law classes at Boalt - few undergrads are able to obtain the necessary approvals to take actual Boalt law classes, and many (probably most) Boalt law professors teach only law classes. While law students do use Telebears, they effectively get exclusive access to Boalt classes via their specially designated Boalt ID numbers. I seem to recall one undergrad initially being able to sign up for Boalt classes through Telebears, but later found that he was dropped from all those courses when the system discovered that he wasn't a Boalt student.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's interesting because I happen to know one undergrad who said he had an incredibly easy time getting into a Boalt class and staying there. He dropped the class when he realized that it would show up as "legal studies" on his trascript.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think it's any more of a joke than the equivalent organizations at other schools. Of course, one might argue that they are ALL jokes, but that's a different issue entirely. Furthermore, I would argue that the Graduate Assembly is no less ineffective than is ASUC. Seriously, look at all of the times that ASUC got snubbed by the administration. So maybe they're ALL equally ineffective.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I do think all of them are ineffective, what I'm saying is that the Graduate Assembly is more ineffective than the ASUC. It may quite well represent an example of preferential treatment for undergrads. Big concrete building vs. one room cabin.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yeah, but I would hardly translate that into a general truism regarding the time allotted to graduate students. Like I said, graduate students almost by definition have to have more time with profs simply because they have to be constantly checking in with their advisors. Hence, the advisors have to be making time for these students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I did not "translate" anything into a "general truism." What I said was that many profs do not allow graduate students to talk to them during office hours. I then said it is yet another example of grads getting screwed by undergrads at Berkeley, although I do agree that they get screwed less than the undergrads.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What exactly do you mean by "generally"? "Average"? And thus "most"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As in the median student. For example, virtually every PhD student in the technical subjects past the first year has at least a desk, and often times, an entire lab bench. In fact, because of their research, they basically need to have at least that much space. </p>

<p>I'm also not talking about master's degree students or professional students. I am restricting my discussion to only PhD students here. </p>

<p>
[quote]
While that may be true, those offices do not have the "atmosphere" that Eshleman library provides. Even if grad students prefer to stay in those offices and the adjacent labs late into the night, and many do, it would be much better if they knew they could go home at any hour and be safe while doing it. That's just not the case.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Safety seems to be a general problem throughout the entire campus, not just restricted to the graduate students. Plenty of undergrads * also * complain about the safety of campus. I remember plenty of undergrads wishing they could move around at night on campus, but not feeling safe in doing it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You're right about this one, although I'm not sure it carries much weight. If they have offices and lounges, why would chem grads want to walk out on the cold courtyard at such an hour?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Walking out in the cold courtyard? Huh? Don't you realize that the entire Chemistry/Chemical-Engineering cluster is connected by underground tunnels? You go from Hildebrand -> Giaque -> Gilman -> Tan -> Latimer -> Lewis all without taking a single step outside. </p>

<p>
[quote]
No letting in other people, no food? Who would want that?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, what do you mean who would want that? I know I would have definitely wanted that. Often times you want to have full rein of a library, without having to worry about other students (except possibly other graduate students) taking resources. As a scientist/engineer, some of your best ideas seem to arrive at around 2 in the morning, and it's very nice to have access to resources to validate them, rather than waiting for the library to open. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Besides, virtually all chem articles are now online are they not?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, not really. Mostly, it's due to licensing issues - numerous chemical journals still refuse to publish some of their materials, especially their back-catalogs, online. Keep in mind that the electronic publishing revolution only took a hold during the 90's. If you want to find an article published before that time, you are often times forced to find a physical copy. This is especially so if you are talking about a non-US technical journal, and there was a lot of good chemistry and chemical engineering coming out of Europe that was published before the 90's. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not debating the fact that Cal isn't really a football school. I'm drawing attention to the other fact that first year undergrads get free tickets whereas first year grads do not. I view that as an example of Berkeley being more welcoming to undergrads than it is to grads.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I don't know. Like has been said before, the PhD students are largely getting paid to come, whereas most undergrads have to pay to be there. If I was an undergrad, I'd probably prefer the cash value of the tickets rather than the tickets themselves. Especially when Cal football was bad, like, again that 2001 seasaon when the team only won 1 game. I can always buy retail tickets or scalp something for the games that I actually want to see. </p>

<p>Just take this season for instance. There were only 3 or maybe 4 home games that were interesting to see - the Big Game (of course), UCLA, and maybe Oregon and Arizona State. I wouldn't have been too excited to go to the game against Portland State, for instance. Or Minnesota. Unless you're an absolutely die-hard fan, tickets to those games don't exactly add much value. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If an MCB student who knows basically nothing about the history of biology but yet is an outstanding research with an interest in the history of his field, why should he not be allowed to get credit for doing work and making meaningful contributions to the seminar?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, by the same token, most graduate departments at Stanford, Harvard and MIT deeply frown upon graduate students trying to claim credit for classes that are meant for lower-division undergrads. Hence, I don't see this as a problem specific to Berkeley. Their attitudes seem to be the same as the attitude presented to Berkeley - that graduate students are expected to take "real" graduate classes. </p>

<p>
[quote]
That's interesting because I happen to know one undergrad who said he had an incredibly easy time getting into a Boalt class and staying there. He dropped the class when he realized that it would show up as "legal studies" on his trascript.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, that's interesting too. I have a strong feeling that he is either lying and he didn't really get officialy registered into the class at all, or he has found a major loophole in the system. If it is the latter, then perhaps he should publish how he did it for all of the other undergrads students who can't figure out how to beat the system to get into the law classes. Heck, I even knew of graduate students (i.e. Haas MBA students) who tried to take Boalt law classes and were denied. </p>

<p>Note, to be clear, I am not talking about any of the JSP classes. Nor am I talking about the Legal Studies classes. I am well aware that undergrads can get into those classes. I am talking specifically about the actual law classes that are part of the Boalt JD program. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But what about grad students who haven't yet "reached the dissertation phase"? I can assure you, many grad students who haven't been approved to continue on would like being able to sit through a relatively easy seminar that at least partly touches on their interests. It would both help them gain general knowledge on a specific topic and expand their working bibliography. That is particularly applicable to humanities grad students who attended lesser undergrad institutions where professors do not usually dictate the course of the field to the same extent that Berkeley, Harvard, and Yale professors do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ths issue is not whether the guy can sit through the class. Like you said, nobody was trying to physically prevent that student from sitting in the class. The issue is whether you will get credit for it. For example, a Harvard or MIT doctoral student who tries to get official course credit for a freshman/sophomore level class is going to get laughed out of his department. What the departments will invariably tell him is that if he wants to learn that stuff, he should arrange to take a 'reading' course, which is basically a one-on-one seminar with that same prof about the same material, but with graduate-level expectations. Reading courses are generally available to most PhD students in good academic standing. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Not true. I know a undergraduate research apprentice who does research with an MBA prof who only deals with MBA students in the classroom.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Come on, you know what I meant. Obviously if you aggressively fight for something, and you're lucky, you might be able to get an opportunity with even a Nobel Prize winner who never normally teaches anybody, not even grad students.</p>

<p>What I am saying is that if you are a * normal * undergrad who is just taking classes, you will never see these profs. The vast majority of undergrads do not engage in research. And if you're one of these people, you will not see those profs who do not teach undergrad classes. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I do think all of them are ineffective, what I'm saying is that the Graduate Assembly is more ineffective than the ASUC. It may quite well represent an example of preferential treatment for undergrads. Big concrete building vs. one room cabin.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? Big concrete building? What big concrete building? Did ASUC upgrade recently? If so, good, but somehow I doubt it. If you are referring to the MLK Student Union or Eshleman, you should bear in mind that ASUC only occupies one part of one floor of Eshleman, as well as perhaps one part of MLK. But that's it. They certainly don't control an entire building, last time I checked. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I did not "translate" anything into a "general truism." What I said was that many profs do not allow graduate students to talk to them during office hours. I then said it is yet another example of grads getting screwed by undergrads at Berkeley, although I do agree that they get screwed less than the undergrads.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, I would hardly take this as an example of grad students getting 'screwed' by the system, because grad students get access to numerous "de-facto" office hours simply by virtue of their many advisor meetings, colloquias, WIP seminars, and so forth. So the fact that they may not have access to "official" office hours hardly seems like a loss.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Just take this season for instance. There were only 3 or maybe 4 home games that were interesting to see - the Big Game (of course), UCLA, and maybe Oregon and Arizona State. I wouldn't have been too excited to go to the game against Portland State, for instance. Or Minnesota. Unless you're an absolutely die-hard fan, tickets to those games don't exactly add much value.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not to mention the fact that first-year students actually had to pay for the UCLA game and the Big Game.</p>

<p>hm I just realized a "t" is missing from the topic title..</p>