<p>You are one of the most prolific posters when it comes to UC Berkeley. Why are you so interested in this school? Where did you go to school?</p>
<p>Let's just say that I am connected to the school, and I care about what happens over there. I have always maintained that the undergrad program at Berkeley, while pretty good, has some serious flaws, and I hope Berkeley will fix those flaws.</p>
<p>What do you want to see fixed and how?</p>
<p>First of all, I think there is no 'physical' reason that Berkeley couldn't offer the best undergraduate program in the country. The facilities are there, the star profs are there, the strong library system is there, basically, all the 'physical' infrastructure is there. Not only that, but the administrative and managerial knowledge necessary to run a top-ranked program is there. Look at how strong the Berkeley graduate programs are. Clearly, Berkeley knows how to run strong programs. There is no reason that Berkeley couldn't do the same for its undergraduate program. As of right now, the reality is that Berkeley's undergraduate program, while pretty good, is not the best in the country. But it could be. </p>
<p>The first thing I would do is enact a program to upgrade the undergraduate student body. This would comprise several steps. I would compete heavily to try to convince the best high school seniors not only in California, but around the world, to apply to and matriculate at Berkeley. I would greatly and vastly expand the Regent and Chancellor Scholar's program and fill it with perks to aggressively compete for the best students such that more of them will choose Berkeley, rather than HYPSMC. I would start running an Honors College (i.e. a "college within a college") which would be inspired by UCLA's Honors program. I would turn one of the dorms (probably Foothill, or maybe Unit 3) into an Honors dorm. I would offer preferred seating in classes, and special honors-only seminars, to these honors students. I would provide them with preferred admission to any major at Berkeley, including heavily impacted ones like EECS or bus-ad. That's just a short list of perks I would include, there would be many others. But the point is that right now, a guy who gets admitted to both Berkeley or HYPSMC is almost always going to choose HYPSMC, unless money is a problem. I want that choice to no longer be so easy. Berkeley should be able to aggressively compete against HYPSMC for these students. </p>
<p>Along those lines, I would seriously explore more connections between the undergraduate program and the graduate program. For example, how about a combined bachelors/MD program with UCSF? Considering how hard it is to get into med-school these days, guaranteed admission into one of the elite med-schools in the world is nothing to sneeze at. Right now, choosing Harvard over Berkeley is a pretty easy choice, unless money is a problem. However, choosing Harvard over the combined Berkeley/UCSF bachelors/MD program would be a very tough choice. Or how about a joint bachelors/JD program with Boalt? Or how about more 5-year bachelors/masters programs? Berkeley already has a few, but I think Berkeley could use far more. Berkeley's graduate programs are strong, and I think we could leverage their strength more. </p>
<p>Secondly, I would have to seriously consider slashing the enrollments of the 'puff' majors. I am not going to name those majors, but we know what they are. Right now, we all know that those majors are filled with lazy, do-nothing students. Don't get me wrong, not all those students in those majors are lazy. Some of them are very hard working. But we all know that many of them are not. Berkeley is in a budget crisis, and yet Berkeley continues to provide seats for these students - in effect, using scarce budget resources to subsidize laziness. I would probably implement some policies that state that anybody who wants to declare one of those puff majors has to get minimum grades in certain weeder courses, that ensures that only those students who are actually dedicated to the subject will be allowed to major in it. If you don't have those grades, you won't be allowed to sign up for later courses. Berkeley can't be going around wasting money on class seats to students who don't want to work and don't want to study. </p>
<p>The taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing those students who just want to drink and party all day long. Hey, don't get me wrong, I like to drink and party too, but the main purpose of a school is to study and learn. </p>
<p>That's just a short list of the ideas I have been thinking about. I don't think I need to get into all of them at this time. But the point is, Berkeley could do a lot better. It just has to WANT to do better. The present administration (as well as most of the previous ones) seem to not really want Berkeley to have a better undergrad program.</p>
<p>those sound like very good ideas sakky, impressive!</p>
<p>I agree, those are all good ideas, but they don't have too much to do with the quality of undergrad education. Instead, they seem more concerned with prestige and rankings. How, for example, does retaining more HYP students affect me? It really doesn't, except for maybe a slight bump in in-class intelegence, which is still pretty darn high incase you're wondering. Like I said, these are good ideas, and some would even make for a better education, specifically having an honors program, but the real problem here, the elephant in the room, is money. Plain and simple, money. You want less crowed classes? Money will fix that. You want more perks? Money fixes that too. Charging a relatively low amount for tuition, plus declining state funding, has caused most of the problems with undergrad education. That said, I'm all for bumbing up the prestige/ranking for the school too, so I wish they'd implement some of the things that sakky mentioned.</p>
<p>thanks sakky. in my daughters case your vision would convince a very talented, very special, high school senior to come to Berkeley. her childhood dream was stanford. we live in san jose so she is familiar with both berkeley and stanford. as she went through her high school years, berkeley became number one. honestly, it because she doubted her ability to get into stanford (geographic diversity wasn't in her favor, we also heard they took the top student from each school and she wasn't in the top three). we were praying just as hard for berkeley as she applied to stanford, MIT and columbia. lo and behold, they all offered her admission. because of what you mention is lacking, plus the non-existent financial aid assistance, she is looking at the other three. how wonderful if she was a 100% product of the california school system. but there's not outreach to her from Cal, whereas MIT and Columbia have really made the extra effort to let her know they want her. small efforts have big payoffs as my daughter does know about appreciating opportunities presented to her. Obviously I am very biased, but she would have been a great addition to your school Berkeley.
Prestige and rankings will draw attention, but eventually quality and personal assessment of overall goals will be the deciding factor for her.</p>
<p>I was really enlightened by your post. Thanks!</p>
<p>just kneel down to the almight sakky- I truly think she knows everything</p>
<p>Sakky, I think your ideas are pretty good. </p>
<p>You are pretty tough on Berkeley. Berkeley does get a very strong student body. This year, the kids I know, many are choosing Berkeley over Stanford. (Many aren't).</p>
<p>Berkeley is well regarded all over the world. My friends from overseas...they all know Berkeley.</p>
<p>Here are a few of my thoughts:</p>
<p>It is a state school, but the state is incredibly large, and incredibly diverse. There are enough great students in this state to fill the school.</p>
<p>Berkeley will take more lower SAT scorers than the other top schools. This doesn't bother me because SAT scores measure income better than anything else. Also, SAT scores can change. Just because I am a 1000 scorer at age 18, doesn't mean I am a 1000 scorer at 22. </p>
<p>Berkeley positively influences a greater number of poor people than any other top school in the nation. For all the talk about financial aid at other schools, Berkeley has more Pell Grant students in numbers and percentages than any other top school. That's a good thing. Poor people are more affected by a good education than any other class. When you look at how many Berkeley students are first generation or second generation Americans, you realize that Berkeley is really the most diverse top school in the US. </p>
<p>With all the negatives you mention, you can still get a great education at Berkeley. The other schools you mentioned aren't perfect. Harvard has problems too.
So while you dwell on the negatives, realize there are many positives at Berkeley.</p>
<p>Where do you go, Sakky?</p>
<p>Well, first to conor, I'm afraid I have to disagree that my ideas have nothing to do with the quality of the undergraduate program and only have to do with rankings and prestige. The fact is, the quality of the student body is an intimate piece of the overall undergraduate experience. The reality is, you are not just learning from your classes. You are also learning from the students around you. </p>
<p>Think of it this way. Don't you remember those high school classes in English or in History where the class consisted of a round-table discussion by the students, and where the teacher was serving just as a moderator. I can't be the only one who had high school classes like that. I think we all had classes like that. So in those classes, it is really the students who were teaching each other. If the students were expressing creative and thoughtful ideas, then you ended up learning more. Conversely, if the students were not saying intelligent things, or didn't care about what was going on, or hadn't even done the reading, then you ended up learning less. Your learning was directly influenced by how strong the other students around you were.</p>
<p>Let's not also forget that college is not like high school. In high school, you go to school during the day, and then you come home. In college, most students actually live there. You actually spend only a minority of your time in class. The majority of your time is spent with other students - and you will end up doing what college students have always done, talking about politics, holding rap sessions and so forth. Hence, the better the students are around you, again, the more you will learn. College education is not just about going to class. It's about the entire experience, of which socializing with other students and engaging in intellectual discourse with them is an integral part. The better the other students are, the more you will tend to learn. </p>
<p>I would finally point to the strong environmental part of education. The fact is, human beings are social creatures and tend to take cues from people around them. When you see other people around you studying hard and wanting to learn, then you tend to want to do that. But when you see other people not really wanting to study, who don't want to go to class, who just want to drink and party all day long, then you tend to want to do that too. Yes, you can always make the choice to study when people around you are not. But it's a hard choice to make. When your roommate is waving Oakland A's tickets in front of your face, it's a very hard choice to turn them down in order to study. </p>
<p>The point is that the quality of the students around you strongly affect the overall education that you will get. That is why I am such a strong supporter of upgrading the student body. If you want to improve the undergraduate experience at Berkeley, you gotta get a stronger undergraduate student body. </p>
<p>And that's why I believe I have answered your second objection, conor, which is the money issue. I thought I already answered it, but I'll answer it again. Berkeley says that it doesn't have money, and yet what do I see but Berkeley continuing to have all these seats in creampuff majors. I am not going to name those majors, but you and I both know what I'm talking about. We both know that there are a lot of Berkeley undergrads that are just sitting around, doing nothing, taking easy classes in easy majors, where they rarely have to study and rarely have to lift a finger. They are in those classes because they know it's easy for them to pass. And Berkeley is spending precious money on subsidizing them. So on the one hand, Berkeley is crying poverty, and on the other hand, Berkeley continues to throw money away to, basically, subsidize laziness and drinking. </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that every student in those majors is being lazy. I am well aware that some students in those majors really do care about the subject matter. But I think we can all agree that a lot of students in those majors don't care about the material. They're only in those majors because they're easy. Basically, they just want to get an easy Berkeley degree, and they want the state to subsidize them to get it. </p>
<p>I would end that immediately. Basically, I would identify these creampuff majors and force them to vastly upgrade their rigor. For example, I would institute weeder gateway courses, just like how EECS and ChemE have weeder gateway courses. If you don't get a certain grade in those weeder courses, you can't declare the major. Or I would force anybody who wants to declare those majors to pass an entry exam. Or perhaps something else. The goal is to make sure that only those people who are truly dedicated to learning the material in the major would actually be allowed to declare the major. One of two things would happen. Either #1, those students who are currently slacking and basically riding on the system would improve their study habits and motivation. Or, #2, those students would leave Berkeley. Either way, it's a good thing. In the first case, the overall student quality would get better (and as I explained above, that positively impacts everybody). Or, #2, Berkeley would save money by no longer having to subsidize easy do-nothing degrees for those students. Either way, Berkeley is better off. </p>
<p>I have another idea about how Berkeley can save money. I would institute a policy to encourage faster graduation time. The fact is, Berkeley's average graduation time for undergrads is too long. True, some of it has to do with not being able to get classes on time. But the fact is, a lot of it has to do with students not really feeling much desire to graduate on time. This is why you get students who hang around for 6 or 7 or 8 years, or sometimes even more, without graduating. I know a guy who had been a Berkeley undergrad for over 10 years (he eventually left without getting a degree). I think we can all agree that that is ridiculous. It might be difficult to get some classes at Berkeley, but it's not THAT difficult. These guys are just lollygagging around. So, on the one hand, Berkeley is crying poverty, and on the other hand, Berkeley continues to subsidize these guys who obviously are just lollygagging. Why should Berkeley spend precious money subsidizing these guys? </p>
<p>I would propose, first of all, cutting off the state subsidy after, say, 5-6 years. If you want to hang around Berkeley for more than 5-6 years, fine, but we're going to start charging you full fare. </p>
<p>I would also propose a cash bonus to people who graduate early. How about this. Let's say you graduate 1 year early. Then I propose to pay you a percentage (say, 25%) of whatever it would have cost the state to have educated you in Berkeley for that 1 year. So you get money, and Berkeley saves money. Everybody wins. </p>
<p>By encouraging people to graduate earlier, Berkeley saves money. Berkeley will no longer be throwing money away by subsidizing guys who are just lollygagging around, not really trying to graduate. And by encouraging students to graduate faster than 4 years, Berkeley saves money by not having to subsidize them for all 4 years. </p>
<p>Now, to dstark, first off, I never disputed that the undergrad program at Berkeley is pretty good, although I think we can all agree that it could be a lot better. Furthermore, I never disputed that overall, the Berkeley undergrad student body is pretty strong, yet I believe that it is not strong enough. And I am harsh on Berkeley because I see that Berkeley could do many easy things to make the undergrad experience better. It's just that Berkeley doesn't WANT to do those things. That's why I have to be harsh. There's a big difference between "can't" and "don't want to". </p>
<p>However, I think something should be added to your discussion of how Berkeley helps the poor. Perhaps the problem is, what do we mean by 'poor'? In particularly, I would couch things in light of Harvard's new policy of providing full aid to anybody whose family makes less than 60k and full aid in the form of grants to anybody whose family makes less than 40k. Remember that the income of the average US household is only about 45k. It seems to me that if you really are poor (or even if you make slightly more than the average household), then the best financial deal out there is now Harvard. I don't see Berkeley matching Harvard's policy.</p>
<p>Nor, is this a particularly new Harvard policy. I think that Harvard has had such a policy for years, it's just that they have now formally codified it. I happen to know several people who are California state residents who got into both Harvard and Berkeley and found that, after financial aid was calculated, it was actually cheaper for them to go to Harvard. One of them was joking that he really wanted to go to Berkeley but he couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. </p>
<p>Now, I know what you're going to say, few people who would qualify for full rides at Harvard are good enough to get in anyway. But that's exactly my point. After all, if it's only a few people we're talking about, then it should be easy for Berkeley to match, right? Hence, I should not have to hear about poor people who got into Berkeley and HYPSMC and found out that it was actually cheaper to go to HYPSMC. If Berkeley truly is out to help the poor, then Berkeley should have no problem in matching HYPSMC aid offers. After all, these are the people who are both poor and who are of high quality (or, at least, good enough to get into HYPSMC), so it seems to me that they are exactly the kind of student that Berkeley should want. I find it totally ironic that Berkeley, who is supposedly the low-cost option, would actually lose these students because of cost.</p>
<p>Harvard's policy of providing a full ride for those families earning $40,000 or less is also being instituted by Yale as well.</p>
<p>Berkeley helps the poor because it actually <em>admits</em> the poor in the first place. Harvards policy is great in theory but the admissions are an institution thats set up to work against the poor and middle class in the first place. Legacy, private school contacts etc. etc. </p>
<p>There's a difference between affirmative action, and giving a lollipop to every black person who attends. Lollipops are nice, but theyre not going to bring about social change </p>
<p>By the way, sakky, what is considered a "fluff major"? I applied as a political science major. Is that a "fluff" major?</p>
<p>I'll add one more thing.</p>
<p>I have identified two types of undergraduate Berkeley students who I think are detrimental to Berkeley. The guys who deliberately choose to major in something easy because they just want to be taking easy classes, because they don't really want to study, they don't really want to work, and they just want to get an easy Berkeley degree. And then there are the guys who are lollygagging around, hanging around for years on end, and never graduating. Berkeley needs to do something about these guys, for three reasons. Two reasons I discussed in my previous post - #1, they negatively impact the overall academic environment of Berkeley (just from an environmental standpoint, it's not good for Berkeley to have all these students who are just lounging around, doing nothing). #2 - they cost money for Berkeley to have them around, and Berkeley doesn't exactly have a whole lot of money right now.</p>
<p>But there's a third reason that may be even more important than the other two. Simply put, each of these students is taking up a spot that could be used more productively by another student who is actually serious and wants to study and learn. And I think that's the biggest crime of all. There are all these HS seniors who were willing and ready to work hard and who would have really benefited from coming to Berkeley. They really would have been great additions to the Berkeley community. Yet they can't get in, because those other guys are taking up available seats. When you look at it that way, I think you really have no choice but to conclude that Berkeley really needs to do something about these guys, either to get them to shape up, or get rid of them. These guys can't just be allowed to just lounge around and take up valuable Berkeley admissions spots like that.</p>
<p>Bigbrother, first of all, I have not said a single word about AA, nor will I. This discussion has nothing to do with AA.</p>
<p>However, I will address your other point of Harvard admitting very few poor people (and then giving them lavish aid). That's exactly the point I was making - if it's really true that Harvard admits very few poor people and then gives them lavish aid, then it should not be a problem for Berkeley to match that aid to those very few people. After all, you said it yourself, it's only a few people, so why can't Berkeley match the aid for only that small number of people? If it's easy to do, then why not do it? I should not have to hear about any poor person going to Harvard because it's cheaper than going to Berkeley. </p>
<p>Eiffelguy87, As far as what is a 'fluff' major, well, I think I ought not to name them right now. But once you get to Berkeley, you will learn soon enough what they are.</p>
<p>I brought up AA for an <em>analogy</em> about what "helping" people really means. Both lollipops and AA will help Black students, but obviously one of them helps in a more significant way.</p>
<p>Harvard meanwhile pretty much has opposite-AA going as far as the poor and middle class go. </p>
<p>And yeah, I agree, Berkeley definitely should try to match the aid. But considering the aid "helping" is looking at things from a microscopic perspective, one person at a time. Harvard's aid helps specific <em>people</em> but it doesn't help the poor and middle class.</p>
<p>Sakky, so what exactly is your relatinoship with Berk? Do you go there? Are you an alum? What do you do now?</p>
<p>And regarding your ideas, I like them a lot... but what are you or other individuals actually doing to bring about such change? And how would one go about changing the current policies?</p>
<p>Sakky, you make a lot of good points. I am not going to nit-pick at most of them. Some I agree with, some I don't.</p>
<p>I don't think we should be rushing students through college just to save money so I can't agree with your 3 year program.</p>
<p>You can argue all you want about Harvard's programs for the poor, or Yale's or Princeton's or Stanford's. You can bring up individuals that benefit more from these programs than Cal's. These people should go to other schools.</p>
<p>With all these great programs the other schools have, Berkeley educates more poor people by percentages and by sheer numbers of students. None of these other schools come close. They don't. So maybe you should go on their threads and complain that they aren't educating enough poor people. Berkeley loses some poor students, but it educates more poor people than Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Princeton combined!</p>
<p>Sakky nobody really knows which school is number one in educating people. Berkeley will never be number one in a magazine. So what?
For some people Harvard may be the best school, others CalTech, Stanford, Wesleyan, Smith , the Naval Academy, Whitman, etc. With all its faults, for some people Berkeley is the best school.</p>
<p>You keep harping on the fact that there are students at Berkeley that shouldn't be there. Berkeley takes bigger risks in their admittance policy than the other schools. They take more disadvantaged youth than the other schools. More risk, more failures. Failure is OK. The students at Berkeley are not suffering because a small amount of students are not showing up for class.</p>
<p>Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and MIT are not the only schools getting strong students. There is no monopoly on good students. There are more good students than top schools. </p>
<p>The student body of Berkeley is very strong. Guess what, students at Stanford care about Oakland A's games too. Because somebody has a non-academic interest, doesn't make the person a poor student.
You only sit in a class about 15 hours a day. Outside of class, the school, fellow students, the town, close proximity to SF, you can get an amazing education.
If you go there and don't that is your fault.</p>
<p>We live in a great country where there are many choices that will do the job.</p>
<p>Sakky, I didn't say that your ideas have nothing to do with undergrad quality. I said some did, some didn't. I said in my post that having a group of smart, hardworking people around you helps tremendously, but I also said that most people at Cal are already pretty smart and work pretty hard. I truly believe that most Cal students, or at least a big chunk of them, are only slightly lower than those who were addmitted to the IVYs. So the difference would not be that noticable in that area. The problem, if you chose to look at it like that, is that Cal is a public state school that tries to accept as many "qualified" california students as possible. This bothers alot of people who are interested in being "elite," meaning they get off on the fact that very few people get to attend said school. I bet you if Harvard decided to expand and admit twice as many students as it does now, its popularity would plumet, even if nothing else about changed other than admission rates. Like it or not, its human nature to want to seperate yourself from people that you don't feel are at your level, academically or otherwise.</p>