<p>"...the Hewlett Challenge will leverage a total of
$220 million in private support for our faculty and graduate students."</p>
<p>not undergrads eh?</p>
<p>not necessarily; the press release says some professors are demanding upgrades in facilities for grads and undergrads:</p>
<p>it's just a good thing overall, to have some money with few hidden strings to spend on whatever is needed at the time.</p>
<p>not surprised. at berkeley, faculty are much more important than grad students and grad students are much more important than undergrads. seems like much of the money for expanding undergrad resources comes from the private funds - which sorta defeats certain core assumptions many people, including myself, have about the correct way to run a public university</p>
<p>actually i'm not surprised either, considering berkeley is famous for its grad programs, which somewhat leaks into its (reputation, prestige, excellence) undergrad program</p>
<p>
[quote]
not surprised. at berkeley, faculty are much more important than grad students and grad students are much more important than undergrads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You think it's any different at any similarly funded private school? Faculty retention is a different goal from aiding undergrads. I am surprised, though, that you don't see the connection between the two. What if Berkeley poured all its resources into student aid, but didn't pay above the lowest 10% of salary range for comparable univerities. Students would be well supported to have access to fourth-rate professors. And having top graduate students is important for faculty retention as well. Why the negativity? The university receives its largest private gift and all you can say is: why didn't I get any of it? In fact, you did, but not directly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
seems like much of the money for expanding undergrad resources comes from the private funds - which sorta defeats certain core assumptions many people, including myself, have about the correct way to run a public university
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What? So it should turn down private resources because the state doesn't provide enough? Have you looked at state politics and the budget situation in recent years? What are you implying?</p>
<p>yea, that quote i had to read twice when i first saw it in my email. regardless of where this money is going directly, i'm really hoping that it'll have a positive effect on undergraduate education and that it doesn't take too long for it's effects to be noticed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You think it's any different at any similarly funded private school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't really know. Which private schools have funds that could be compared to Berkeley? Probably none, since Berkeley is a public school and much of its funding comes from the state of California.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Faculty retention is a different goal from aiding undergrads. I am surprised, though, that you don't see the connection between the two. What if Berkeley poured all its resources into student aid, but didn't pay above the lowest 10% of salary range for comparable univerities. Students would be well supported to have access to fourth-rate professors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To be honest, I think a certain number of Berkeley undergrads would be very happy to get taught by "fourth-rate professors" rather than "world-class professors." Berkeley currently has tons of "world-class professors" and many of them are not good teachers. What's the real benefit of having a "world-class" professor teach a student Math 1A if that student is failing the class? Granted, some students may benefit from having world-class profs - but it should not be forgotten that some students undoubtedly suffer as a direct result of the teaching/grading style of some of Berkeley's "world-class" professors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And having top graduate students is important for faculty retention as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not too sure that's the case. I can think of plenty of profs who would be happier without graduate students. No matter how you look at it, working with students of any level is often not very exciting for many faculty members. I suspect this may be due to the fact that though the students may feel like they are on top of the world for getting to interact with recognized geniuses (many of Berkeley's "world-class" profs,) seasoned profs know that the "brilliant" students really aren't that different from other students they have encountered in their career.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why the negativity? The university receives its largest private gift and all you can say is: why didn't I get any of it? In fact, you did, but not directly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Basically, yeah. Why should I get excited about something that doesn't really relate to me? Maybe you think there's some reason, but why should I care about that? I care about what matters to me, and I bet most students at Berkeley (and people in the world) are the same way.</p>
<p>the more i see about this in newspapers, the more i'm reminded that undergrads here are always at the bottom of the fcking ladder. big irony... $110 million to our school. so what?</p>
<p>(i'm sure the net effect of the donation for undergrads will amount to at least $1 million though, but still...)</p>
<p>^^ you aren't at the bottom in this case. The aid that this donation brings will definitely have an impact on you -- you're able to retain better professors, which will get the school more grants/aid, which will give you more opportunity (even free up money that would otherwise be spent), etc. It has a huge impact on everyone at Berkeley.</p>
<p>Same foundation gave twice as much to Stanford</p>
<p>Well, William Hewlett did graduate from Stanford in 1934 so I'm not surprised they donated more money to his alma mater than to Cal, their rival school.</p>
<p>i am kinda angry whenever i hear about harvard's endowment (20 billion give or take a couple billion). seriously, all that money should go to charities or something. most of it is probably invested in who knows what.</p>
<p>fyi. cal is at 2-3 billion.</p>
<p>Actually, Harvard's endowment</a> is $35 billion. Crazy, huh? And yet, they bother to charge their students a high tuition to attend.</p>
<p>
[quote]
fyi. cal is at 2-3 billion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, it's at about $3.3 billion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To be honest, I think a certain number of Berkeley undergrads would be very happy to get taught by "fourth-rate professors" rather than "world-class professors." Berkeley currently has tons of "world-class professors" and many of them are not good teachers. What's the real benefit of having a "world-class" professor teach a student Math 1A if that student is failing the class? Granted, some students may benefit from having world-class profs - but it should not be forgotten that some students undoubtedly suffer as a direct result of the teaching/grading style of some of Berkeley's "world-class" professors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're confusing two, or actually three, issues. Yes, there are "world-class professors who are lousy teachers. The distinction of "world-class" relates to research, publishing, and sometimes "talking head" profile typically. World-class is just not a label that applies to a professor without a research profile. The quality of their being world-class has little to do with whether or not they are good or bad teachers. There are plenty of "c league" professors at lesser universities who are also bad teachers. </p>
<p>You said you are sure that a certain number of Berkeley students would be happy having "fourth-rate professors." What you were trying to say, it seems obvious, is that students would much rather have good professors -- those who are good at teaching -- rather than famous professors. But the problem you are pointing out is endemic to all the top research universities, and I can speak on that topic with authority. There is a heft of professors who are lousy teachers who are there -- at all the research universities of note -- because of their research profile. I can speak to this at other universities because I have been there.</p>
<p>In other words, people don't want "fourth-rate" professors, they want good teachers. And if all else is equal, they will also want their good teachers to be "world-class."</p>
<p>So when you, in your bitterness and sour grapes purport to speak for a "certain number of Berkeley undergrads," you are doing a disservice to the vastly greater population of Berkeley undergrads that undoubtedly would want world-class professors who are also good teachers. And the challenge for students at all research universities is to be savvy enough to find and embrace the professors that offer both qualities. </p>
<p>I submit you should withdraw from Berkeley immediately and apply to the best LAC that will take you. Because LAC's put a premium on the classroom experience unlike research universities. I also submit that you would do better to not try to complain your way into the LAC -- paraphrased as: "I haven't been able to do well in my student life 'cause Berkeley just doesn't treat me right, with all its world-class faculty" -- because generally complaining is the mark of a loser. </p>
<p>This is advice given to you for life, not just for college applications: If you don't like something, seek to change it. If you can't change it, then separate yourself from it. It's a pretty simple principle.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not too sure that's the case. I can think of plenty of profs who would be happier without graduate students. No matter how you look at it, working with students of any level is often not very exciting for many faculty members. I suspect this may be due to the fact that though the students may feel like they are on top of the world for getting to interact with recognized geniuses (many of Berkeley's "world-class" profs,) seasoned profs know that the "brilliant" students really aren't that different from other students they have encountered in their career.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha ha ha. I am laughing out loud if you think that professors don't want graduate students. This shows you up, though, as a humanities major. I'll bet significant money if you think this is the case you study the humanities. In the sciences, it is quite different. And other professors may not want graduate students in the sense that they don't like to actually work at teaching or dealing with students. This is unfortunately true that there is a cadre of students like this at every university, particularly research universities</p>
<p>It amazes me to hear you make so many generalizations that don't hold up. Places like Berkeley regular turn away the best of the best for graduate study in pretty much every field. And you think that the professors think that the people who are admitted are close to "run of the mill," as you implied? What are you smoking? You are confusing humility with lack of standards. There is a difference. The friends I have who went to Berkeley for PhDs across a variety of fields are to a t amazing people who have gone on to be professors in good schools or otherwise do great things.</p>
<p>Paraphrasing one of them who went to an Ivy League school undergrad: "I have immense respect for a Berkeley undergrad who does well -- moreso than one who did well at my undergrad. He/she has proven he/she is not only smart, but also incredibly mature. I wasn't that savvy as an undergrad and needed to be baby-sat."</p>
<p>If I were you and you decide to stay, in the time that you have left at Berkeley, I would concentrate on being considered in that category. I would also concentrate on developing the savvy, and imparting it to your classmates, to find the great professors among Berkeley's world-class faculty and avoid the ones that aren't good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Basically, yeah. Why should I get excited about something that doesn't really relate to me? Maybe you think there's some reason, but why should I care about that? I care about what matters to me, and I bet most students at Berkeley (and people in the world) are the same way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you aren't swift enough to see the connection between that and what undergrads in the future will get, you shouldn't blame it on Berkeley, you might just have been born that way.</p>
<p>As I said, my recommendation is for you to demonstrate your maturity and savvy by withdrawing from Berkeley and getting a life that doesn't leave you so embittered and manifestly egocentric. Remember what I said about the mark of a loser? I am not kidding.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the more i see about this in newspapers, the more i'm reminded that undergrads here are always at the bottom of the fcking ladder. big irony... $110 million to our school. so what?</p>
<p>(i'm sure the net effect of the donation for undergrads will amount to at least $1 million though, but still...)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See message directly above.</p>
<p>The current fundraising campaign for Berkeley has both undergrad and grad resources established as priorities. If you knew anything about fundraising you'd know that schools can't dictate which elements of a campaign a donor will decide to prioritize. The principle is also known as "not biting the hand that feeds you." </p>
<p>And this brings me to the next point:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't really know. Which private schools have funds that could be compared to Berkeley? Probably none, since Berkeley is a public school and much of its funding comes from the state of California.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did you know that Stanford's endowment provides that university with $200 million more per year than all of the state funding going to Berkeley does? And if you know the principle of fungibility of funds, you know that generally speaking the richer your university becomes, the better off everyone is going to be in terms of available resources. In other words, there may be somewhat lessened pressure after this gift and others to take money from other parts of the university, to maintain faculty quality.</p>
<p>In other words, quite your bellyaching: it's a good thing for everyone the university got this money. Why can't you just see it? What whiners you guys are! It's embarrassing. Seriously: drop out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You said you are sure that a certain number of Berkeley students would be happy having "fourth-rate professors." What you were trying to say, it seems obvious, is that students would much rather have good professors -- those who are good at teaching -- rather than famous professors. But the problem you are pointing out is endemic to all the top research universities, and I can speak on that topic with authority. There is a heft of professors who are lousy teachers who are there -- at all the research universities of note -- because of their research profile. I can speak to this at other universities because I have been there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alright - so you're saying Berkeley is not the only top research university with many lousy teachers. I agree with that observation. What I don't agree with is using A's X to justify B's X. If Berkeley really wanted to, it could "raid" departments nationwide of top researchers who are also good teachers. But this doesn't seem to be happening - Berkeley recruits faculty members on little else other than research.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So when you, in your bitterness and sour grapes purport to speak for a "certain number of Berkeley undergrads," you are doing a disservice to the vastly greater population of Berkeley undergrads that undoubtedly would want world-class professors who are also good teachers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, I'm not about to try to present every view in my posts. I'm going to write about what I want to write about at that moment in time. If you think I'm biased and providing senseless bad info, you are free to keep criticizing me. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And the challenge for students at all research universities is to be savvy enough to find and embrace the professors that offer both qualities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But why can't the school make it easier? Why should students have to try so much? I feel Berkeley is particularly bad at this. Down at UCLA, undergrads are heavily encouraged to do research it seems, the school seems to care as a whole a lot more about teaching, and the students and faculty seems happier. If another UC be a research powerhouse and have good teaching, why can't Berkeley? I suspect underneath it all that Berkeley just doesn't CARE about bad teaching.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I submit you should withdraw from Berkeley immediately and apply to the best LAC that will take you. Because LAC's put a premium on the classroom experience unlike research universities. I also submit that you would do better to not try to complain your way into the LAC -- paraphrased as: "I haven't been able to do well in my student life 'cause Berkeley just doesn't treat me right, with all its world-class faculty" -- because generally complaining is the mark of a loser.</p>
<p>This is advice given to you for life, not just for college applications: If you don't like something, seek to change it. If you can't change it, then separate yourself from it. It's a pretty simple principle.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What's with this logic that if a person doesn't appear to like something, s/he MUST abandon ship? If you don't like the way the country is heading, should you absolutely move to Mexico?</p>
<p>And besides, why do you think that if I criticize Berkeley, it means I don't like many aspects of its specific relationship to me? The Berkeley-dobby relationship is doing just fine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ha ha ha. I am laughing out loud if you think that professors don't want graduate students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Note that I didn't say all profs don't want grad students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
This shows you up, though, as a humanities major. I'll bet significant money if you think this is the case you study the humanities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm a science major so cough it up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the sciences, it is quite different. And other professors may not want graduate students in the sense that they don't like to actually work at teaching or dealing with students. This is unfortunately true that there is a cadre of students like this at every university, particularly research universities
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alright, it sounds like we agree. I don't understand why you think we don't. Some profs want grad students, some don't. I'd wager most don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It amazes me to hear you make so many generalizations that don't hold up. Places like Berkeley regular turn away the best of the best for graduate study in pretty much every field. And you think that the professors think that the people who are admitted are close to "run of the mill," as you implied? What are you smoking? You are confusing humility with lack of standards. There is a difference. The friends I have who went to Berkeley for PhDs across a variety of fields are to a t amazing people who have gone on to be professors in good schools or otherwise do great things.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, all I'm saying is that as with many other human populations, most Berkeley grad students are average Berkeley grad students. Like the average grad students at other top schools like Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, the vast majority of these grad students will NEVER be allowed to serve on the faculties of Berkeley, Harvard, Stanford, or Yale. In other words, most grad students at Berkeley are pretty ordinary as far as Berkeley grad students go. To a seasoned professor, what's so special about a Berkeley grad student in a sea of Berkeley grad students? Granted, some are special (and may get be offered a position on the faculty before they complete their dissertation to prove it!) But by and large, Berkeley grad students are not much different than other Berkeley grad students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Paraphrasing one of them who went to an Ivy League school undergrad: "I have immense respect for a Berkeley undergrad who does well -- moreso than one who did well at my undergrad. He/she has proven he/she is not only smart, but also incredibly mature. I wasn't that savvy as an undergrad and needed to be baby-sat."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Key phrase: "does well." Berkeley undergrads who do well, like undergrads at other institutions who do well, do well. This should not be surprising. But what about the large tail end of students who DON'T DO WELL?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you aren't swift enough to see the connection between that and what undergrads in the future will get, you shouldn't blame it on Berkeley, you might just have been born that way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's those qualifications again. Undergrads in the future. What about undergrads NOW?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I were you and you decide to stay, in the time that you have left at Berkeley, I would concentrate on being considered in that category. I would also concentrate on developing the savvy, and imparting it to your classmates, to find the great professors among Berkeley's world-class faculty and avoid the ones that aren't good.</p>
<p>As I said, my recommendation is for you to demonstrate your maturity and savvy by withdrawing from Berkeley and getting a life that doesn't leave you so embittered and manifestly egocentric. Remember what I said about the mark of a loser? I am not kidding.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, my recommendation for YOU is to stop thinking that you are any less "biased" than I am and quit trying to censor me. All I'm trying to do is make people aware that Berkeley has many good and bad aspects associated with it. On the other hand, you seem perfectly happy to only focus on the good things about Berkeley. Why do you want to hide information from students? Because you want to feel good about your Berkeley background? In other words, are you simple being "manifestly egocentric"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, my recommendation for YOU is to stop thinking that you are any less "biased" than I am and quit trying to censor me. All I'm trying to do is make people aware that Berkeley has many good and bad aspects associated with it. On the other hand, you seem perfectly happy to only focus on the good things about Berkeley. Why do you want to hide information from students? Because you want to feel good about your Berkeley background? In other words, are you simple being "manifestly egocentric"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In my experience, it's only when I force your hand through calling your rants into question that you stop with uselessly overgeneralizing diatribes and actually moderate your responses. The earlier post claimed to speak for "a certain number of Berkeley undergrads" and now you are basically claiming to speak only for yourself. That's more appropriate.</p>
<p>I just consider you to have a pretty serious "grass is always greener on the other side" complex. And I suggest you try to do well at Berkeley and go to a school that you think does it a lot better. As I have done. In that situation, you are likely to realize the basis of your complaining is pretty much the same in a lot of research universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my experience, it's only when I force your hand through calling your rants into question that you stop with uselessly overgeneralizing diatribes and actually moderate your responses. The earlier post claimed to speak for "a certain number of Berkeley undergrads" and now you are basically claiming to speak only for yourself. That's more appropriate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think its interesting that you fail to mention the part where I said "I think" right before "a certain number of Berkeley undergrads."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just consider you to have a pretty serious "grass is always greener on the other side" complex. And I suggest you try to do well at Berkeley and go to a school that you think does it a lot better. As I have done. In that situation, you are likely to realize the basis of your complaining is pretty much the same in a lot of research universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There you go again, claiming that I dislike Berkeley because I'm not doing well. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I dislike Berkeley because it consciously allows thousands of OTHER students to not do well. I'm doing quite well. But unlike you and other people who do well, I'm not one to fall for the idea that simply because I and a certain number of others are doing well, it means everyone else must be doing well. It should be obvious that there are students of various levels of ability at Berkeley. I'm not really concerned right now with the top end of the curve, those students will be fine. What worries me are the thousands of kids who aren't doing as well as they'd like to. Now perhaps the reason they find themselves in such hapless situations has a lot to do with who the way the do things and the way they are, but the role of the situation they find themselves in should not be forgotten.</p>
<p>What it all comes down to are opinions about what the best learning environment is. You seem to think the student should do most of the work. I say students should do some work, but not as much as Berkeley requires one to do if one wants access to Berkeley's vaunted resources.</p>
<p>Berkeley is great. Not a whole lot of students take advantage of what Berkeley has though. Hopefully as a calso counselor this past summer I managed to inspire new students to be more proactive during their stay here.</p>