The New 2007 US News Top Colleges

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
61

<p>Matt, </p>

<p>I believe you're missing a few points. One would be that theres no guarrentee that a transfer student from a cc would have gotten in the first time around (if they did, why would they have gone to cc?). Also, they're GPA's are marginally higher because they were taking classes at cc's. I don't think anyone will disagree with me that a cc would have easier classes than berkeley. I bet money these students didn't transfer in with 3.37s, they wouldn't have gotten in. They probably had 3.7 3.8 3.9 from a cc, and then did substantially worse at berkeley which brought it down.</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
Come on, eudean. You, I, and I think even CalX would agree that the Berkeley administration ain't exactly the most responsive in the world, especially to the undergrads.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I agree completely. Berkeley administration is like the DMV. Nothing ever gets done. We just have such a different view of the important things I guess. It honestly does not bother me at all that the administration is slow. Why? Because it has never affected me. I send in a check by the time it's due, and a week past the deadline they tell me they got it. That's fine--they always do get it.</p>

<p>Faculty to student ratio I can agree on. I have no doubt that a larger faculty:student ratio would be great. I think we try to mitigate factors by using GSIs to split 1:500 into 1:20 ratios, but when GSIs suck it doesn't help at all. Standards for GSIs should be higher as a result. I don't think smaller lectures is a big deal necessarily. I believe the professor should be able to delegate answering students questions at least in part to the GSIs, so I don't think more lecturers would necessarily help.</p>

<p>But that's just my view of it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, it's not terribly different from one of my former proposals, which is for Berkeley to run an honors college, the way that UCLA does not (but something better than UCLA's current structure).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hmmm, I don't know about this. I just don't see the necessity of it. We have a bunch of smart kids, we have honors societies where they can hang out together. What advantage do they get in an honors college? If they get priority enrollment, then perhaps. Would they get to take a special set of exclusive courses? I'd still think it was a bad idea--those courses should be offered to everyone. Maybe there's some purpose, but I'm just not seeing it.</p>

63

<p>"but when GSIs suck it doesn't help at all. Standards for GSIs should be higher as a result."</p>

<p>So those student evaluations of GSIs are useless? I assumed that would be used to rehire or fire GSIs (I'm assuming not all graduate students are GSIs, so there is a pool of GSIs to choose from).</p>

64

<p>I have no idea if they do anything. I have had some bad GSIs, though (to be fair, I've had some great ones, too). That's all I can say.</p>

65

<p>"I believe you're missing a few points. One would be that theres no guarrentee that a transfer student from a cc would have gotten in the first time around (if they did, why would they have gone to cc?)."</p>

<p>Students with high SAT scores and low HS grades are not uncommon at CCs. As simply a matter of intelligence some transfers are second to none. </p>

<p>"Also, they're GPA's are marginally higher because they were taking classes at cc's. I don't think anyone will disagree with me that a cc would have easier classes than berkeley."</p>

<p>Depends on how you define easy, but however you define it, the statistic I quoted was a Berkeley GPA.</p>

<p>"I bet money these students didn't transfer in with 3.37s, they wouldn't have gotten in. They probably had 3.7 3.8 3.9 from a cc, and then did substantially worse at berkeley which brought it down."</p>

<p>The same could be said of continuing students. You need a 4.0+ (3.7-3.8UW) from HS just to get in, but most people will never maintain that average.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
Matt, </p>

<p>I believe you're missing a few points. One would be that theres no guarrentee that a transfer student from a cc would have gotten in the first time around (if they did, why would they have gone to cc?). Also, they're GPA's are marginally higher because they were taking classes at cc's. I don't think anyone will disagree with me that a cc would have easier classes than berkeley. I bet money these students didn't transfer in with 3.37s, they wouldn't have gotten in. They probably had 3.7 3.8 3.9 from a cc, and then did substantially worse at berkeley which brought it down.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>you've got it wrong. the 3.37 is what they attained WHILE at berkeley, meaning if you average the two seperate sets of GPA, it will actually be around 3.6-7. the UC gpa on each student's transcript never accounts for the grades a student received at a cc. </p>

<p>since such a huge number of transfers are admitted each year, you're bound to get some students who cannot compete with the rest of the students. however, you're also going to have those who set curves. you can't generalize the whole transfer student population in general.</p>

<p>however, by looking at the gpa data, one can assume the a majority of them fall in between the two aforementioned categories, unless the standard deviation is really high</p>

67

<p>There is still some correlation between SAT and college GPA.</p>

<p>The best correlation is to be found between both HS GPA and SAT.</p>

<p>CC students are invariably students with decent GPA's in HS but bad SAT's (or they would've gotten into the school in the first place).</p>

<p>Knowing the difficulty of technical classes at Berkeley, I seriously doubt any of them set any curves.</p>

<p>The people who set curves at Berkeley are usually in-state students who got into HYSPM but chose to go to Berkeley for financial reasons.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
Oh, I agree completely. Berkeley administration is like the DMV. Nothing ever gets done. We just have such a different view of the important things I guess. It honestly does not bother me at all that the administration is slow. Why? Because it has never affected me. I send in a check by the time it's due, and a week past the deadline they tell me they got it. That's fine--they always do get it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would submit that perhaps you aren't bothered by it because you've never tried to actually change anything at Berkeley. Ever try to change any programs at Berkeley? Enact reforms? Trust me, it's GLACIALLY slow. </p>

<p>What's worse is not just that it's glacially slow, but that the administration often times seems to actively fight reform. From my experiences with the administration, I believe there is a strong rearguard core of bureaucrats who simply do not want anything to change. They've carved out their own cushy little empire and they don't want to deal with anything that might actually require that might change things. </p>

<p>A better, more flexible administration would work wonders because it would be the fulcrum upon which you could enact many other reforms. For example, as I stated in another thread, why can't the physics and math department teach more classes outside their department, such as engineering and CS classes? These departments have a lot of faculty and not that many students majoring in those subjects. Other than all of the 'gateway courses' such as physics 7/8/10 and Math 1/16/53/54/55, math/physics classes are pretty small and there aren't that many of them. So what exactly are all these math and physics profs doing with all their time? Couldn't some of them be repositioned to expand capacity in CS or engineering? </p>

<p>For example, take EE117 and Physics 110. Aren't they basically the same thing - electromagnetic fields/waves? Or take Math 118 (wavelets and signal processing). Honestly, isn't that really a class more appropriate for EE? Isn't CS 174 (Combinatorics and Discrete Probability) really just a math class? CS 170 and 172 are also arguably math classes. In fact, Alistair Sinclair, who teaches CS 170/172/174, sometimes publishes his articles in mathematics journals. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Hmmm, I don't know about this. I just don't see the necessity of it. We have a bunch of smart kids, we have honors societies where they can hang out together. What advantage do they get in an honors college? If they get priority enrollment, then perhaps. Would they get to take a special set of exclusive courses? I'd still think it was a bad idea--those courses should be offered to everyone. Maybe there's some purpose, but I'm just not seeing it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We could offer a number of things to sweeten the pot. Most notable would be something that guarantees admission to graduate school, such as a BS/MD program with UCSF, or a BA/JD with Boalt. </p>

<p>The real purpose is obvious - to be able to attract students who would otherwise be heading off to one of the top private schools. This is how recruiting works in the real world. If a company wants to get top talent, it has to be able to offer top perks. Schools that want to get top talent also have to be willing to offer top perks. </p>

<p>Now, if you say that you don't really want Berkeley to get the best students, then that's a different discussion entirely. But I envision the honors college as a method to tip the scales to get more of the better students to come to Berkeley as opposed to another school. </p>

<p>Lest you think this is unseemly, let me tell you a story. I know a guy who was thinking of getting his doctorate and had to figure out which school to go to. He ended up choosing Harvard. Why? Many reasons, but undoubtedly part of it was that Harvard gave him about $10k more in funding than any other school did. And that funding came in the form of a full fellowship, whereas the other schools wanted him to do TA/RA work. Plus, Harvard gave him a plush private office, with oak wood paneling and a stellar view, and the other schools didn't offer him any private office at all. Harvard may have even given him a parking spot. Maybe most important of all, Harvard offered him first dibs on any advisor he wanted. Basically, Harvard really really wanted this student to come, and so sweetened the office to get him. </p>

<p>I think Berkeley should try to compete for this talent. For example, for the honors students, why not give them a private desk somewhere on campus - or at least a locker? I would have loved to have had a place on campus to use as a temporary dropoff point instead of always having to carry all my stuff with me. Why not give them, say, a parking spot (which would be HUGE at Berkeley). There are a lot of little things that Berkeley could offer. It would be nice if we could offer them to everybody, but if we can't, we at least use these perks to #1 entice the best students to come to Berkeley, and #2 to encourage stronger performance by the current students (as those current students who perform well would be invited to the honors college).</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
Most notable would be something that guarantees admission to graduate school, such as a BS/MD program with UCSF, or a BA/JD with Boalt.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hell yeah. I'm all for that.</p>

<p>Edit: Though look at UCLA, they have three ways to earn honors and it doesn't seem to help them all that much. Department honors for doing a research project/honors thesis, College honors by way of your GPA, and honors courses that can only be taken as a part of an invite-only honors program.</p>

70

<p>
[quote]
"According to the Office of Student Research, the latest six-year graduation rate of freshmen was 82 percent, identical to the four-year graduation rate of community-college transfers. At the end of the fall 2000 semester, the average GPA of transfer students was 3.37, compared with 3.28 for all students."</p>

<p><a href="https://osr2.berkeley.edu/menu_contr...nal_data.phtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;https://osr2.berkeley.edu/menu_contr...nal_data.phtml&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, this point gets raised over and over again, but what people constantly fail to see if that transfer students can skip over some or all of Berkeley weeders. Hence, it is entirely natural for them to have higher GPA's than the freshman-admits. Hell, if I didn't have to count my weeder grades, I would have had a substantialy higher GPA too. I'm also quite confident that a whole lot more freshman-admits would be able to graduate if they didn't flunk out or drop out because of the weeders. After all, those classes that are the most likely to flunk you out are the weeders. </p>

<p>The analysis that SHOULD be performed is one that compares the performance of the transfer students against the freshman-admits get IN THE SAME CLASSES. In other words, without counting the Berkeley weeders that the transfer get to skip over. </p>

<p>In other words, the Office of Student Research report is an entirely misleading report because it insists on comparing apples to oranges.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
Now, if you say that you don't really want Berkeley to get the best students, then that's a different discussion entirely. But I envision the honors college as a method to tip the scales to get more of the better students to come to Berkeley as opposed to another school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've been thinking about the honors program idea based on my own experiences with UCLA's...and I think it could either work really well or just fizzle.</p>

<p>It would work really well if it managed to differentiate itself from the campus-at-large. Unfortunately, that would involve the administration doing tons of groundwork for establishing a program that not only creates a sort of caste at the school (which offends many people, it seems), but also requires that it "prove" its value to the students and the world.</p>

<p>I fear that any honors college at Cal would get bogged down in the system and just end up being "liberalized" into an excuse to get priority enrollment like at UCLA... Any thoughts?</p>

72

<p>Matt,</p>

<p>Actually, the three types of honors are:</p>

<p>Latin honors
Departmental honors
College honors</p>

<p>I think that departmental honors, while on the diploma isn't uber impressive, offers TONS of real-world benefit. Why? Because it makes the student finish a significant research paper. Having a nice and substantial research paper really helped me with grad admissions because it gave me something substantial to reference in my SOPs. It also allowed me to demonstrate that graduate-level work was within my range.</p>

<p>I think that the departmental honors program at UCLA is one of the best successes in terms of "honors" programs. College honors is another piece of gold foil on your diploma, sadly...</p>

73

<p>"See, this point gets raised over and over again, but what people constantly fail to see if that transfer students can skip over some or all of Berkeley weeders."</p>

<p>As a matter of intelligence the difference is nil, when you delve into the issue of weeders the debate shifts from an examination of student talent to an evaluation of a persons work ethic.</p>

74

<p>"Because it makes the student finish a significant research paper. Having a nice and substantial research paper really helped me with grad admissions because it gave me something substantial to reference in my SOPs."</p>

<p>Where are the incentives for these students? Students actually interested in research at major research universities! I agree with that assessment.</p>

<p>And it's a shame at graduation, Cal doesn't use the Latin language to announce a students graduating with honors...but I suppose that’s played out nowadays...</p>

75

<p>But intelligence is only part of the story when it comes to college success, no?</p>

<p>I knew plenty of very smart folks in college who didn't do well because they were more interested in partying and whatnot. </p>

<p>But I do question, at least to an extent, the weeder debate. My girlfriend and I compared her CC "weeder equivalents" with the UCLA weeder syllabi, and we generally found them to be the same in terms of material, grading ethic, and grading curves. I wonder if perhaps in recent years, with the further cementing of CC transfers into the UC universe, many CC profs have sought to make their weeders more like "the real thing?"</p>

<p>Edit: But I'd be likely to agree with the inclusion of SAT scores as a UC transfer requirement. Whether we "like" the SAT or not, it's a good standardized, same-across-the-board, can't be changed CC to CC, score that does at least provide somewhat of a metric for comparing students CC to CC.</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
"See, this point gets raised over and over again, but what people constantly fail to see if that transfer students can skip over some or all of Berkeley weeders."</p>

<p>As a matter of intelligence the difference is nil, when you delve into the issue of weeders the debate shifts from an examination of student talent to an evaluation of a persons work ethic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What that means is that there is no real "proof" that transfer students are doing better than freshman-admits are. The fact that transfer students have a higher Berkeley GPA than the freshman-admits by itself means nothing if they don't take the same classes, and in particular, if the transfers don't have to take the weeders. Like I said, if I didn't have to take the weeders, my GPA would have been higher too. Nor is an examination of graduation rates conclusive in any way - like I said, the freshman-admit graduation rate would be almost certainly higher if they didn't have to take weeders. </p>

<p>Hence, the OSR report proves nothing. In fact, it's actually a dangerous report because not only does it prove nothing, but people actually THINK that it proves something when it does not. What the OSR ought to do is compare the GPA's and grad-rates of transfers vs. the ** post-weeder ** GPA's and grad rates of the freshman-admits. Otherwise, you are simply making a deceitful comparison between apples and oranges.</p>

77

<p>^ Well I do know that ever few years the state sends evaluators to each CCC to get a certification. I don't know if it's gone so far as to require standardized course structure or anything like that.</p>

<p>"But intelligence is only part of the story when it comes to college success, no?"</p>

<p>Meh. Perhaps more in the working world after college, but if I were a college administrator, I'm looking for fresh new ideas more than people who work really hard.</p>

78

<p>"Hence, the OSR report proves nothing. In fact, it's actually a dangerous report because not only does it prove nothing, but people actually THINK that it proves something when it does not. What the OSR ought to do is compare the GPA's and grad-rates of transfers vs. the post-weeder GPA's and grad rates of the freshman-admits. Otherwise, you are simply making a deceitful comparison between apples and oranges."</p>

<p>Sure there’s is no evidence to suggest transfers are in any way superior, but there is also none to suggest they perform any worse. Therefore it's fallacious to suggest Berkeley should be worse in the USNews rankings based only on the number of transfers. (Kinda making a giant circle back the OPs original topic)</p>

79

<p>Matt,</p>

<p>Y'know, I hate to work with clichés, but it's been said that Feynman wasn't the most innately "brilliant" physicist ever to walk the earth. He just loved what he did, worked hard, and was a bit original. </p>

<p>I think we should look for balance. But I'm probably just repeating what you think.</p>

80

<p>"I'm looking for fresh new ideas more than people who work really hard."</p>

<p>I think this applies more to the humanities and social sciences now that I think about it.</p>