The New 2007 US News Top Colleges

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
141

<p>
[quote]
Perhaps he would also admit that working hard and getting help while at Berkeley would've been better than either a) not going to Berkeley, or b) going to Berkeley, slacking, failing, and dropping out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, nobody is denying that he was irresponsible. He would be the first person to admit that. Nobody is saying that he is blameless. </p>

<p>But my point is, Berkeley is not blameless either. Keep in mind that Berkeley matriculated him as a 17 year old kid. He wasn't an adult - he was still a minor. While he was the one who actually failed and ruined his academic record, Berkeley ENABLED it to happen. So Berkeley deserves some of the blame too. For example, if I leave a loaded gun lying around that some 17 year old kid finds and uses to kill somebody, that kid obviously deserves blame, but I also deserve blame for leaving a gun lying around for a kid to find. You can't just create the potential for something bad to happen, and then what that bad thing actually does happen, just expect to walk away scot-free by blaming everything on the perpetrators. You also deserve blame for creating the potential for danger. You deserve blame for being irresponsible. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Would you think from knowing him (I'm trusting your evaluation of him here) that he couldn't have gotten passing grades at Berkeley?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The situation is actually quite complex. What really killed him is that he got admitted into EECS, and then quickly fell into the 'engineering major trap' that I talk about a lot, where if you do poorly, you can't switch majors. I am fairly confident that he could have graduated from L&S. But he got let into EECS. I think his high school record showed significant EECS-style deficiencies - i.e. he never took high school calculus (even though it was offered), his SAT math score is not that high, I don't think he took a single AP science course, etc. </p>

<p>Hence, I think he should not have been admitted to EECS. In fact, I even asked him why he chose to apply through EECS and his answer was simple - he heard that it was the hardest major to get admitted into, so that's why he chose it, because he was basically 'attracted' by the difficulty. But he had no idea that a major trap existed. He didn't even know what EECS really was. </p>

<p>Remember, we're talking about a 17 year kid here. He's never been out in the world. He doesn't know what's really going on out there. He's never lived by himself, he's really never had to take care of himself. And yet Berkeley expects him to make a choice about what major he wants, and if he does poorly, he can find that that choice is irrevocable because of the major trap. Do you really think it's responsible to force kids to make choices like that? </p>

<p>But the point stands that he would have been far far better off not having been admitted to Berkeley EECS at all, then to have gotten in, and flunked out. Or, at very least, what Berkeley could have done is reject him for EECS but transfer his file to L&S so that that adcom could make a decision about him. But to admit him into a major for which he clearly wasn't ready, come on, that's irresponsible. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As for staying beyond 4 years, what I've heard of our system is you have to petition to get every extra semester, and it's near impossible to get two extra semesters approved. The guy you knew that was around 8 years--that should be impossible under the current system. It probably either occurred awhile ago, or was an extreme anomaly

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, you would think that is the case, right? But as vicissitudes rightly pointed out, why is there such a big difference between the 4 and the 6 year graduation rate?</p>

142

<p>sakky, didn't you say your friend was an R&C scholar?</p>

143

<p>
[quote]
Every person has a right to fail, Sakky.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Everybody has the right to fail, but not everybody has the right to fail AT BERKELEY. As Vicissitudes correctly pointed out, only 25% of applicants actually get in. So 75% of applicants were rejected, and hence were not given the right to fail. Berkeley is not open admissions, and has no plans to be. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The university (or rather some data-mining program) should not reject someone just because he/she came from a school/neighborhood that has a history of students who fail out of Cal. If you make the grades, attain the scores, and involve yourself in the activities- your merits earn your acceptance. In essence, the program you are proposing punishes a student for being poor, for being a minority, for being under-privileged. Your system rewards students from affluent backgrounds and punishes those students who overcame great adversities to earn the grades/scores they did- only to be denied admission because of the place they come from

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, again, you are presuming that my system will reduce only the percentage of poor URM's who get admitted. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I suspect that what we may find is that my system may also reduce the percentage of lazy rich white/Asian students who get admitted - those students who know they never have to work a day in their lives and thus are simply not motivated. </p>

<p>Secondly, I never said that my data-mining program would reject somebody JUST for going to a bad school. A number of factors would be involved, with the quality of your school being one of them. After all, why shouldn't this be the case? If a school is bad, it's bad. The answer is then to fix that school, not to force Berkeley to pick up the pieces by admitting students from that school. </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. Take a look at the way graduate admissions are run at Berkeley, particularly PhD admissions. Nobody harangues the Berkeley PhD programs to accept students from bad colleges. Nobody says "well, this student went to a crappy undergrad college, so his education isn't very good, but he should be allowed to get into the Berkeley EECS PhD program anyway." There are plenty of undergrad programs in the state of California that sent NOBODY to a Berkeley graduate program last year. In one year that I recall, the Berkeley Chemical Engineering PhD program admitted students from only 10 undergrad programs in the world, and only ONE of them (Caltech) was in the state of California. It's been years, probably decades, since somebody from, say, San Jose State, has been admitted for a Berkeley ChemE PhD. Yet nobody goes around accusing the PhD programs of not 'providing opportunity'. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Simply put: if a student meets the admissions requirements, then that is good enough for me. It's none of my concern whether the student has a greater likelihood to fail because of x, y, or z factors. Why not hire more counselors, more professors, more advisors to actually FIX the problem- instead of denying the students the right to fail, or dare I say- succeed. (gasp!)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But what are these 'admissions requirements' of which you speak? They are inherently nebulous. Like vicissitudes pointed out, 75% of people who apply to Berkeley get rejected. I would suspect that many, probably most of them, met the "admissions requirements" in the sense that they fulfilled the UC Master Plan strictures of being UC-eligible. But they still didn't get in. </p>

<p>The point is, Berkeley is rejecting most of its applicants anyway. So how is that any different from Berkeley rejecting people who have met the 'admissions requirements'? </p>

<p>The truth is, admissions requirements are inherently dynamic. There is no such thing as a fixed admissions requirement. Berkeley has only X number of seats to hand out every year. If in one year, Berkeley has 100X applicants, then Berkeley will dynamically raise the 'admissions requirements' for that year. Berkeley tries to pick the best students out of whatever pool of applicants they happen to get. Berkeley (and no school besides a CC) will admit every single student who has met some fixed standard. If Berkeley has X seats, and 100X applicants have met the requirements, that still means that the bottom 99X of them will not get in, even though they technically met 'the requirement'.</p>

<p>Same thing happens with grad admissions. Just because you meet 'the requirements' for getting into a Berkeley PhD program, that doesn't mean that you will get in. Far from it in fact. Most successful applicants far far exceed the 'requirements'. Same thing happens with a job. Just because you meet the job requirements doesn't mean that you will actually get an offer. It's a competitive process. You have to compete against all the other interested parties who want the same thing you want. This is not Berkeley specific, and it's not even UC specific. CSU's run competitive admissions too. You can meet the requirements, and find that you still didn't get into SJSU. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Your proposal unintentionally (or intentionally, depending on how you look at it) creates a distinct class in American society. Not only do minorities face the difficulties of culture barriers, language barriers, economic barriers, steretypes, etc...they also have to face discrmination when they attempt to enter the one place where they should be treated equally, where they will be provided the vehicle that will propel them out of their rut and get them on their feet- EDUCATION.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me ask you this. Why is it that so many Asians and Jews seem to be able to overcome all of these barriers that you mention? Asians and Jews face tremendous cultural barriers, language barriers, economic barriers, stereotypes, and all that stuff that you mention. Yet they manage to succeed anyway. </p>

<p>For example, there are a LOT of poverty-stricken Asian immigrants whose families can't speak English, who are forced to live in bad neighborhoods with bad schools, taunted for their accents, and yet plenty of them manage to succeed anyway. For example, I know one family who fled from the Vietnam War and arrived with literally nothing more than the shirts on their back, and speaking no English, and had to live in some of the worst neighborhoods you can imagine. Yet one of the boys went to MIT for undergrad, and then went to Harvard Business School. His brother got his bachelor's, master's, and PhD at MIT (hence becoming "MIT-cubed"). 2 sisters also went to highly prominent schools (I think one went to Wellesley on a full ride). To this day, the parents still speak only highly accented English and I don't think they ever made more than 25k a year. Yet look at the kids.</p>

<p>Or look at the history of the Jews. Most American Jews are descended from poverty-stricken Eastern European immigrants who were fleeing oppression, yet still found plenty of oppression here as a despised class who worshipped the "wrong" religion and behaved in the "wrong" way. The Lower East Side of NYC of the late 1800's/early 1900's, where many of these Jews lived, was one of the most crowded and poverty-stricken metropolitan areas in the world, with rampant crime and abysmal living conditions. Yet Jewish-Americans today are one of the most economically successful and educated ethnic groups in the country, in fact, arguably the most successful, despite rampant discrimination. For example, many Ivy League schools used to follow an admissions policy of deliberately discriminating against Jews (the so-called "Jewish quotas" or Numerus Clausus), both in admissions and in terms of faculty hiring. Many hospitals refused to hire Jewish doctors, many "white-shoe" law firms refused to hire Jewish lawyers, many banks refused to hire Jewish bankers. </p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus_clausus#Numerus_clausus_in_the_United_States%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus_clausus#Numerus_clausus_in_the_United_States&lt;/a> </p>

<p>The point is, Asians and Jews manage to succeed despite heavy discrimination. That obviously doesn't make discrimination right, but it does mean that discrimination is beatable. </p>

<p>But anyway, all of that is neither here nor there. I don't know if my policies will disproporionately hurt URM enrollment. Like I said, it may hurt the enrollment of lazy rich whites. Who knows? Whichever group is likely to flunk out is going to be 'hurt', but I don't know which group that is.</p>

144

<p>
[quote]
sakky, didn't you say your friend was an R&C scholar?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>True. That's another part of the problem right there. Keep in mind that this was the days pre-Prop 209, when things like admissions and RC scholarships were affected by AA. </p>

<p>But the RC scholarship is not relevant to this discussion. I am not talking about him losing his scholarship (which he did because of his poor grades). I am talking about the simple issue of just graduating at all. I think it is fairly clear, to both me and to him at least, that he was not ready for EECS, and so should therefore have never been admitted to EECS.</p>

145

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, your whole argument about your friend being better off had he not gone to Berkeley I don't buy. The reason? Because he was given the <em>chance</em> to fail, the <em>chance</em> to succeed...Though he did not take full advantage of all the opportunities that were before him, he still had the opportunity. There have been plenty of Hispanics, just like your friend who failed out, who actually made it. Yet if we go with your logic, you would greatly reduce the number of opportunities for Hispanics to go to Berkeley, because of people like your friend who were not ready for Berkeley. Your friend is not representative of his high school, of his neighborhood, nor his ethnicity. He is a representative of himself. His mistakes should not affect the people of his hometown. His siblings, who once looked with admiration at their older brother who had been accepted to Berkeley, should not be punished because of his failure. Education isn't about predicting who is going to get by and graduate, it's about educating, about providing opportunities when there seem to be none. Through education, and in most cases ONLY through education can one rise out of poverty and improve his place in this life. Therefore, to have that taken away because of the results of a stupid, heartless, mindless "data-mining" machine is just absurd. End of Story.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're going right off the rails. I am not "taking away" the opportunity for an education. If I am taking away anything, I am taking away the opportunity for an education AT BERKELEY. But that's not the same thing as taking away an opportunity for an education as a whole. There are plenty of other schools out there. You can go to a lower UC. You can go to a CalState. You can go to a community college. There are plenty of other places you can go. </p>

<p>What I am talking about is a matching process that optimally places students in the school in which they are the most likely to succeed. According to his words, my friend would have been off going to a lower UC. Or to a Cal State. I agree with him. If he had done that, he probably would have graduated. </p>

<p>You're acting like Berkeley is the only school that people can go to, as if Berkeley is the only school that provides opportunities. What about all the other schools? </p>

<p>You also talk about the providing education and opportunity. Well, let me ask you, exactly how much education are you really getting when you are flunking your classes? How much opportunity does that give you? It's like taking me, a short unathletic guy, and having me play in the NFL, where I am getting squashed in every single play. Does that really teach me how to play football? Wouldn't I learn much more and be much happier if I was actually playing at a league in which I was actually competitive? How much are you really learning when you are constantly being crushed by guys twice your size? If I had to play in just one NFL scrimmage, not only would I learn nothing, I would probably end up in a hospital. </p>

<p>My real goal is to prevent people from ruining their academic record by going to a school that they are not ready for. This is not mean-spirited, it is actually COMPASSIONATE. If my friend had gone to a CalState, he would have had better grades, he would have graduated, and he now would have a decent job. Instead, he ended up having to take a job tossing boxes in the Oakland distribution center of FedEx. I want these people to have the best opportunities they can, but they're not going to have it by going to a school that is too difficult for them.</p>

146

<p>
[quote]
True. That's another part of the problem right there. Keep in mind that this was the days pre-Prop 209, when things like admissions and RC scholarships were affected by AA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well if that's the case, it's interesting that you keep using him as an example. Because if you want Berkeley to change for the better (not admitting people who can't make it,) I think it's fairly obvious that it already has changed - at least in certain ways. I strongly doubt "unqualified for Berkeley" poor, URM students are being provided with the R&C Scholarship nowdays. Since that is probably so, it may just be the case that instead of coming to Berkeley and getting lots of loans, these students have chosen to go to a lower UC that did offer them R&C or a CSU/CC. Likewise, I doubt there is AA in EECS admission anymore and I think that can be confirmed by the EXTREME lack of darker, non-Filipino faces in both lower and upper div tech classes at Berkeley. So, unless AA comes back, your friend's story is rather outdated and might not provide an accurate picture of Berkeley's admission "mistakes" among current or future undergrads.</p>

147

<p>
[quote]
What I am talking about is a matching process that optimally places students in the school in which they are the most likely to succeed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>sakky, where do you think the various URM recruitment and retention centers fit into your proposal?</p>

<p>It seems to me like the student leaders and political sponsors of said centers will go up in flames if the "unqualified" applicant group you want Berkeley to actively deny admission does in fact turn out to be URMs. These are the same groups that are notorious for constantly pressuring the admissions office to admit more URMs. If the adcom doesn't budge, these students usually run an editorial in the DailyCal decrying "institution racism" precicely because they think VERY highly of Berkeley and think that if Berkeley rejects URMs, it must be racist and wants to create an education caste system. (UC for whites and asians, everything else for URMs.) These same toughts dangerously trickle down to students (both high school and college) all over the state - ultimately hightening their racial awareness and propating racial tension. That's not the California I want to live in. And if Berkeley has to let in "unqualifed" URMs in order to HELP avert it, I'm willing to support Berkeley in doing that.</p>

<p>Moreover, I've never heard these same groups link URM dropouts to Berkeley's "institutional racism." It just doesn't seem to happen-leading me to believe that they KNOW Berkeley's "racism" isn't the problem - it's something else, something which I think revolves around money and family pressure. Afterall, Berkeley can't really give these students more fin aid money because it just doesn't have it. And it can't change URM students' families' attitudes towards college. Yet, it needs to admit these students - if only to "look good" to the recruitment and retention centers. Again, I don't think that can be changed. California is in the beginning stages of a massive demographic revolution and its important that Berkeley at least "look" welcoming to URMs (through admit numbers) - even if they are, like some whites and asians, "unqualified."</p>

148

<p>
[quote]
But my point is, Berkeley is not blameless either. Keep in mind that Berkeley matriculated him as a 17 year old kid.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Whoa, whoa, whoa. You had me up to there. You're saying that one year makes a difference? Gimme a break. I began attending Berkeley at 17 and have not dropped out. Keep it relevant. You <em>might</em> have had a point if he was 7-years old and not a prodigy (and had really rich parents who donated a large sum of money).</p>

<p>Further, you are arguing that your friend basically lied on his application. He wrote he wanted to major in EECS without knowing what EECS was? He applied to Berkeley without researching major transfers, even though we had no idea what he wanted to study? You're making me feel less and less sorry for him.</p>

<p>
[quote]
For example, if I leave a loaded gun lying around that some 17 year old kid finds and uses to kill somebody, that kid obviously deserves blame, but I also deserve blame for leaving a gun lying around for a kid to find.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And yet if the "kid" were 18, you'd have no such liability. It's a wonder how our legal system works, isn't it? If you're going to argue based on such a broken system, then I don't think I even need to rebut your argument. I think it's been too long since you were 17. They're much more mature and intelligent than you remember.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Do you really think it's responsible to force kids to make choices like that?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes. Do you realize how cushy the college life is? All you have to do it spend 2 hours filling out some stuff you did in high school, write a few essays, and mail in the application with $80. It's expensive, but then they give you somewhere to live and something to do for four years.</p>

<p>What if he didn't go to college? He'd have to live on his own, find an apartment, a job for a high school graduate (likely not far above minimum wage), and start really taking care of himself. If that's fair, I don't see why it isn't fair for a 17-year old to spend a few hours learning about where s/he will spend the next 4 years of his/her life.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If my friend had gone to a CalState, he would have had better grades, he would have graduated, and he now would have a decent job.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If your friend is as incompetent as you make him sound, I don't think you could reasonably expect such a course of events. Getting C's in EECS is not hard, even for someone that didn't take Calculus in high school and didn't take AP classes. AP classes are supposed to be equivalent to college material, which is why they can be used for college credits in many cases. Regular high school courses are meant to prepare a student for college. I don't see this as a good reason to reject someone, especially when we have entry level classes meant for people with a lack of AP credits.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Everybody has the right to fail, but not everybody has the right to fail AT BERKELEY. As Vicissitudes correctly pointed out, only 25% of applicants actually get in. So 75% of applicants were rejected, and hence were not given the right to fail. Berkeley is not open admissions, and has no plans to be.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>His point is, I believe, that the student holds an overwhelming majority of the blame in most cases (especially in the case of your friend). If students like the one you knew are failing out, then I'd be happy to know they are. Some people don't belong in college, any college, and he probably falls into that category. Sorry, it's sad, but we need FedEx workers. If he isn't willing to study enough to not fail college classes, he shouldn't be doing anything requiring that type of work ethic and/or intellectual capacity. FedEx fits the bill.</p>

<p>Further, there's nothing stopping him from trying again. Sure he may be a bit old, but community colleges are there for anybody. If he's still at FedEx and made no further attempts at college, it's only more evidence that either a) he can't afford it (which is definitely plausible, but nothing prevents him from saving up, and community college is cheap), or b) he is as lazy as you've previously indicated.</p>

149

<p>
[quote]
Sure he may be a bit old, but community colleges are there for anybody.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But he won't be able to transfer out off the community college because no four year college will take him with crappy Berkeley grades...(which he needs to report....)</p>

150

<p>That not necessarily true. I don't have experience in this area, but I'd imagine doing well at a community college for two years would count for something toward attending a 4-year college, and there are some colleges with very low admission standards out there.</p>

151

<p>Well, from the way sakky describes the situation, it appears that the student in question had less than a 2.0 at Berkeley. It could have very well been a 1.0 or less over several semesters. Since most colleges only allow students to transfer if they have 3.0+, it appears likely that even if sakky's friend did go to community college, he would have to take an unnaturally large amount of units and do well in them in order to get an overall 3.0. But if you're working at FedEx and (probably) have a family, taking such a course load might prove to be impossible. You might as well just wait till your kids grow up and hope they learned from your mistakes and help you when you're older.</p>

152

<p>
[quote]
And if Berkeley has to let in "unqualifed" URMs in order to HELP avert it, I'm willing to support Berkeley in doing that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In other words, if there are URMs throwing thousands of dollars (keep in mind they are often POOR), put years of their lives into Berkeley, only to get horrible grades, feel miserable, and flunk out, but it makes Berkeley look better politically, you'd go for it?</p>

<p>Okay, I have thought about what you said and I would agree that it's hard for Berkeley to accept less URMs. Then I thought, what about schools like HYPS? They seem to have no trouble getting quality URMs, which suggests something else to me, that Berkeley could get quality URMs, but don't because Berkeley loses them to HYPS. So, if Berkeley wants to admit less "unqualified URMS" and still admit many URMs, then Berkeley can take initiative and make its programs better, and give more incentives for top URMs to choose Berkeley. For example, I bet many URMs are very poor and get full rides from HYPS. How about establishing a special kind of scholarship for URMs, similar to Regent Scholars, say, a scholarship for outstanding minority students? I bet that might convince some top URMs to choose Berkeley over another school. But I think we can agree that what Berkeley is doing now isn't working too well. Whether it is the fault of URMs or not, the fact is that only about 50% of Berkeley students are graduating in 4 years, and I think that's a problem.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You had me up to there. You're saying that one year makes a difference? Gimme a break. I began attending Berkeley at 17 and have not dropped out. Keep it relevant. You <em>might</em> have had a point if he was 7-years old and not a prodigy (and had really rich parents who donated a large sum of money).</p>

<p>Further, you are arguing that your friend basically lied on his application. He wrote he wanted to major in EECS without knowing what EECS was? He applied to Berkeley without researching major transfers, even though we had no idea what he wanted to study? You're making me feel less and less sorry for him.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Writing that I want to major in EECS without knowing what it is, is not lying. I want to major in a hard major, and EECS is a hard major, so I want to major in EECS. How is that lying?</p>

<p>Besides, I think it has been mentioned before that the student is to blame also. But come on, if a student didn't take high school calculus or AP science courses it's not a good idea to admit him into EECS at Berkeley.</p>

<p>
[quote]
He applied to Berkeley without researching major transfers, even though we had no idea what he wanted to study?

[/quote]

[quote]
I think it's been too long since you were 17. They're much more mature and intelligent than you remember.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually I just recently attended a freshmen orientation during Welcome Week and when the presentation came to what they called "capped majors" many gasps and confused voices went across the room and questions abounded. When asked how many people have heard of them before I think about 1/3 of the room raised their hand.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If your friend is as incompetent as you make him sound, I don't think you could reasonably expect such a course of events.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, EECS often have weeders, meaning say, 25% of the class get Ds and Fs. All of the students in EECS at Berkeley, including the 25% who will inevitably get Ds and Fs, probably have at least a 3.5 GPA in high school and an SAT score of at least 1800. Someone with those stats would no doubt be a relatively strong student at a Cal State where the average GPA/SAT of students is, I would imagine, lower. So, it seems entirely feasible to me that a failing Berkeley engineering student could be doing much better at a Cal State, or even a lower UC.</p>

153

<p>
[quote]
But come on, if a student didn't take high school calculus or AP science courses it's not a good idea to admit him into EECS at Berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why not? We have physics 7A and 7B, math 1A and 1B. What, are EECS kids supposed to be "too good" to take those courses? I've taken a bunch of EECS courses, being an EECS major, and can say with certainty there are many paths through EECS that someone could take where they could minimize not having AP science & math in high school.</p>

<p>For example, if s/he needs to take math 1A, 1B, physics 7A, 7B, which is typical, and wants to take all of those before taking EE20N and EE40, since they use some of those concepts, s/he can pack the first two years with humanities courses to eliminate those requirements. There's nothing wrong with that, and the student can do just as well as any other, except maybe being unable to take as many upper divs as someone with AP credits.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Actually I just recently attended a freshmen orientation during Welcome Week and when the presentation came to what they called "capped majors" many gasps and confused voices went across the room and questions abounded. When asked how many people have heard of them before I think about 1/3 of the room raised their hand.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Great excuse. Nobody else does it, so why should I?</p>

<p>
[quote]
EECS often have weeders, meaning say, 25% of the class get Ds and Fs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, and if we get rid of those 25%, we just shift everything up a little and the bottom 25% of the new set still fails. We still have failing students. Or do you want everyone to get A's and B's? That's called grade inflation, and that's bad. Failing is necessary for the system to work.</p>

154

<p>
[quote]
In other words, if there are URMs throwing thousands of dollars (keep in mind they are often POOR), put years of their lives into Berkeley, only to get horrible grades, feel miserable, and flunk out, but it makes Berkeley look better politically, you'd go for it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course. I am of the opinion that some college experience is better than none.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Okay, I have thought about what you said and I would agree that it's hard for Berkeley to accept less URMs. Then I thought, what about schools like HYPS? They seem to have no trouble getting quality URMs, which suggests something else to me, that Berkeley could get quality URMs, but don't because Berkeley loses them to HYPS.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course Berkeley loses many of them to HYPS! Berkeley is less prestigious and students of all colors tend to blindly choose based on prestige. That is particularily applicable in California I think - California's college-bound high school seniors seem to know much less about colleges (many seem to blindly go to the school that accepts them that has the most prestige) than their East Coast counterparts who appear to more frequently choose colleges based on factors other than prestige. (For example: LAC students. Since there are more LACs in the East, it may well be the case that since Eastern students arguably know more about LACs, they are more likely to choose a LAC. In California, it seems that most students only care about UC, CSU, CC, and HYPS.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, if Berkeley wants to admit less "unqualified URMS" and still admit many URMs, then Berkeley can take initiative and make its programs better, and give more incentives for top URMs to choose Berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well I actually think that Berkeley offers EXTENSIVE and OUTSTANDING academic programs for URMs. I actually think they are stronger than HYPS' URM programs because HYPS know that their URM students don't need THAT much help in their classes and even if they do, the extreme grade inflation will more or less guarantee that the students will graduate. At Berkeley, things are a bit different - both because it's generally tougher to do well and because the URM students that come to Berkeley are probably not as strong as HYPS URM students. Just off the top of my head, these are some of the extremely well-run and generally well-funded programs at Berkeley for URMs: </p>

<p>Biology Scholars Program
BRIDGES Summer Program
McNair Scholars Program
Haas Scholars Program
Transfer Student Center
College of Chemistry Scholars Program
Center for URM Engineering Students
Raza Recruitment and Retention Center
Native American Recruitment and Retention Center
African-American Recruitment and Retention Center</p>

<p>
[quote]
For example, I bet many URMs are very poor and get full rides from HYPS. How about establishing a special kind of scholarship for URMs, similar to Regent Scholars, say, a scholarship for outstanding minority students?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, that's all great and good. But where's the money going to come from? The state? Nope, the state is in the hands of a UC hater. Private sources? Nope, private sources like to legislate where their money goes. You'd have to get a super-rich philanthropist involved in such a scheme.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I bet that might convince some top URMs to choose Berkeley over another school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, some. But most would still be blinded by HYPS' prestige. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But I think we can agree that what Berkeley is doing now isn't working too well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm willing to bet that if you looked at the reasons why URMs dropped out of Berkeley, you would see that it's generally not because of Berkeley's academics. I think that most URMs at Berkeley, since they ARE mostly in grade inflated humanities and social science majors, actually drop out or take longer than 4 years to graduate because of other reasons which don't directly relate to Berkeley's academic programs. For example, I know this URM girl who dropped out of Berkeley not because she couldn't handle the academics or couldn't pay for it (she got plenty of grants and generous loans because of her extreme need,) but because she got and extreme case of homesickness. (She lived in Los Angeles.) Now, I think that that sort of experience is quite representative of Hispanic students. Afterall, Hispanics live by and large with their extended families and are generally socialized into loving that scenario. That idealized experience is just not something Hispanic 17 year olds will find in radically individualized Berkeley. But there is NO WAY to predict which Hispanic kid will be able to adapt and which will not. Consequently, just because Juan, an incoming Berkeley Hispanic freshman, fails to adapt to Berkeley and drops out his second semester shouldn't mean that his sister Juana, a prospective Berkeley freshman who has basically the same scores and grades and high school experiences as Juan should be rejected. If she was, and Berkeley's methods were discoverd, ("she cames from bad stock so let's reject her!",) Berkeley might very well find itself facing a lawsuit for racial profiling.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Whether it is the fault of URMs or not, the fact is that only about 50% of Berkeley students are graduating in 4 years, and I think that's a problem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why is it a problem? I personally love feeling like an ant as I walk through Sproul Plaza. If everyone graduated in four years, the school would feel so empty.</p>

155

<p>dobby,</p>

<p>Is your username supposed to be a mockery of another famous poster on here? You've been certainly imitating his posting style... :mad:</p>

156

<p>
[quote]
Why not? We have physics 7A and 7B, math 1A and 1B. What, are EECS kids supposed to be "too good" to take those courses?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, just that if you haven't taken calculus or advanced science courses in high school (like almost everyone else in EECS and who are enrolled in classes like physics 7A and math 1A) then you are basically behind everyone else and you won't do as well. For example, I know a guy who took AP Calculus BC test and got a 4, which is almost good enough for him to test out of Math 1A AND Math 1B yet he still took Math 1A over again. These are the kinds of people Berkeley students will be competing against, so if you don't have a good load of advanced courses under your belt you will probably struggle.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, and if we get rid of those 25%, we just shift everything up a little and the bottom 25% of the new set still fails.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not necessarily. Where is it written in stone that a certain percentage must receive failing grades in weeders? Or that we must have weeders at all? Weeders exist because Berkeley overadmits students, some of whom probably can't handle the upper division class work, so they are weeded out by weeders. Isn't it better to weed them out in the admissions process than to weed them out after spending 1-2 years and spending thousands of money at Berkeley?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Of course. I am of the opinion that some college experience is better than none.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Once again, you are thinking in terms of Berkeley-or-nothing. I am of the opinion that graduating from a slightly less prestigious university is much better than flunking out of a slightly more prestigious university.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well I actually think that Berkeley offers EXTENSIVE and OUTSTANDING academic programs for URMs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay, but why are top URMS still not choosing Berkeley? Perhaps Berkeley doesn't advertise these programs enough. The solution would be to advertise more rigorously. Maybe they are just "blinded by prestige." Berkeley need to make its undergrad program better and more attractive then. But there's something that is not being done to attract these URMs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, that's all great and good. But where's the money going to come from? The state? Nope, the state is in the hands of a UC hater. Private sources? Nope, private sources like to legislate where their money goes. You'd have to get a super-rich philanthropist involved in such a scheme.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let's think about it this way. Say tomorrow Berkeley gets a large donation. Would Berkeley use it to provide outstanding financial aid to URMs? Probably not. Which then leads me to think that the problem isn't that Berkeley lacks money, it's that Berkeley just isn't that interested in being aggresive in competing for these students. If it really wanted to, it would find ways to come up with more money. I'm sure not all the money in the university is being allocated 100% efficiently. For example, in the dorms, a large portion of what we pay for dorming goes into a fund which is used for things like maintaining the facilities and providing for building activities like a pizza party. I bet they're not even using half of that money! The ping-pong ball has been missing for a year, and the ice cream social held during welcome week barely had any ice cream. Berkeley can certainly get more money by allocating resources more efficiently.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm willing to bet that if you looked at the reasons why URMs dropped out of Berkeley, you would see that it's generally not because of Berkeley's academics. I think that most URMs at Berkeley, since they ARE mostly in grade inflated humanities and social science majors, actually drop out or take longer than 4 years to graduate because of other reasons which don't directly relate to Berkeley's academic programs. For example, I know this URM girl who dropped out of Berkeley not because she couldn't handle the academics or couldn't pay for it (she got plenty of grants and generous loans because of her extreme need,) but because she got and extreme case of homesickness.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's going to take more than one story for me to believe that homesickness is a larger factor than academics in why students flunk out.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why is it a problem? I personally love feeling like an ant as I walk through Sproul Plaza. If everyone graduated in four years, the school would feel so empty.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It may not be a problem for you, but it certainly is a problem for all those other people in Sproul Plaza who want to, but cannot graduate in 4 years for some reason. I don't think many students like paying another $25000 and taking yet another year of classes just to get that diploma.</p>

157

<p>
[quote]
No, just that if you haven't taken calculus or advanced science courses in high school (like almost everyone else in EECS and who are enrolled in classes like physics 7A and math 1A) then you are basically behind everyone else and you won't do as well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Firstly, Math 1A and Physics 7A are designed for students not having had AP experience. Yes, there is a high level of competition, but competing with students who have taken an AP class doesn't mean the student shouldn't be able to do well--it simply means s/he will have to work harder than the student with experience, which I feel is acceptable.</p>

<p>Further, what about students who didn't have the option of AP science courses or Calculus courses? It's a bit unfair to exclude students when they never had an opportunity to take those classes. I agree to an extent that we shouldn't be taking many students who had AP Calculus/Physics/Chem/Bio available and didn't take them into the EECS major, because it shows they probably aren't actually interested in EECS, otherwise they would've gotten into such related subjects.</p>

<p>However, a student who lives in a lower-class community where they've barely heard of AP courses shouldn't be penalized for that situation. S/he was never given the chance in high school to demonstrate his/her abilities in calculus or AP courses, and if s/he was an exceptional student in his/her environment, s/he should be given a chance at the college level.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Not necessarily. Where is it written in stone that a certain percentage must receive failing grades in weeders? Or that we must have weeders at all? Weeders exist because Berkeley overadmits students, some of whom probably can't handle the upper division class work, so they are weeded out by weeders.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A college that doesn't fail students is not doing its job. If no students are failing, then the college needs to raise its standards so students do fail. Simply, if no student fails, that means the curriculum is not challenging enough for the students in that class--they aren't learning up to their potential. Otherwise, you get grade inflation and a poor education overall.</p>

<p>25% failure is an arbitrary measure, but not a bad one to curve to in general (at least 10% should fail I'd say--25% is maybe a little high). Either way, you're not going to get rid of failing students because they are the evidence that the education the non-failing students received is worth something.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Isn't it better to weed them out in the admissions process than to weed them out after spending 1-2 years and spending thousands of money at Berkeley?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, if you could guarantee me you could identify an applicant who would fail classes and drop out of college, I would say definitely. But you can't. Your suggested metric of "people not having taken calculus and/or AP science in high school shouldn't be admitted into EECS" is a terrible way of making such a determination.</p>

158

<p>
[quote]
Yes, there is a high level of competition, but competing with students who have taken an AP class doesn't mean the student shouldn't be able to do well--it simply means s/he will have to work harder than the student with experience, which I feel is acceptable.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But why would the student with no AP experience work harder and be more motivated? I think he would be less motivated since the most motivated students would have taken calculus in high school.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Further, what about students who didn't have the option of AP science courses or Calculus courses? It's a bit unfair to exclude students when they never had an opportunity to take those classes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, for those who don't have the AP option, they could go with IB. No IB? Community college is always available. Don't want to do that? Perhaps the school has a reputation for having advanced science courses on par with AP courses. But if none of these options are available, then I guess the student is stuck without advanced science courses, and I don't think he is prepared enough for Berkeley. Seems unfair? Well, that's really a problem with the California high schools then, for not offering advanced science courses (notice not necessarily AP), and not with Berkeley.</p>

<p>Still, if the student shows in some way that he/she clearly has outstanding abilities in math/sciences, I have no problem with admitting that student. But not when something like high school calculus was available and the student didn't take it (which I assume is the case in sakky's anecdote).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, if you could guarantee me you could identify an applicant who would fail classes and drop out of college, I would say definitely. But you can't. Your suggested metric of "people not having taken calculus and/or AP science in high school shouldn't be admitted into EECS" is a terrible way of making such a determination.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't say I could guarantee anything. If I could do that there wouldn't be a need for the college admissions process. I'm just trying to come up of ways to reasonably predict if an applicant will succeed in Berkeley. Isn't that what the entire admissions process is designed to do anyway? Aren't the 75% rejected every year rejected because Berkeley doesn't think they are capable of keeping up with Berkeley work? Isn't that why people with 2.0 HS GPA and 800 on the SATs don't bother applying to Berkeley? I don't see how my suggested metric is that different. Again, I'm not saying that if someone hasn't taken calculus, he can't be admitted. That's just one of many tools Berkeley can use.</p>

<p>On a lighter note, I just met someone yesterday named eudean, and it reminded me of you. :) I'm not sure if it's spelled the same way. It's pronounced you-dee-yen.</p>

159

<p>
[quote]
Well, for those who don't have the AP option, they could go with IB. No IB? Community college is always available. Don't want to do that? Perhaps the school has a reputation for having advanced science courses on par with AP courses. But if none of these options are available, then I guess the student is stuck without advanced science courses, and I don't think he is prepared enough for Berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What makes AP, IB, or community college kids special? That they were given a slightly harder course than someone else? How does that tell you the student is intelligent? It may show some degree of hard work, but really, anyone can pass an AP test if s/he pays a little attention in class.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't see how my suggested metric is that different.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your metric is completely unproven and unfairly punishes a group of people that have no control over their situation. I mean, just go to south central LA and tell them, "No matter what classes you take, no matter how good you do, you cannot get into Berkeley by this policy. Sorry." It doesn't matter if one of them gets perfect marks on everything, was an exceptional athlete and/or musician, clearly extremeley talented--but no calculus, no AP sciences, no IB, no community college because s/he couldn't due to financial or other circumstances.</p>

<p>I agree that the classes a student has taken should be factored in to admissions, but only in a reasonable fashion. I believe that the admissions officers should be able to decide if a student is prepared for Berkeley or not based on the entire application without blacklisting someone for something they had no control over. Yeah, we can toss out the 2.0GPA students pretty quickly, but there's a good reason for that. Same with the 800SAT students. There isn't a good justification for doing it with the applications you're talking about.</p>

<p>
[quote]
On a lighter note, I just met someone yesterday named eudean, and it reminded me of you. I'm not sure if it's spelled the same way. It's pronounced you-dee-yen.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's crazy. I wasn't sure whether they existed, but I guess I just have to accept my first name isn't unique.</p>

160

<p>
[quote]
What makes AP, IB, or community college kids special? That they were given a slightly harder course than someone else? How does that tell you the student is intelligent? It may show some degree of hard work, but really, anyone can pass an AP test if s/he pays a little attention in class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It doesn't make them special; it just makes them more prepared. You can take the brightest kid in the world, don't let him take elementary/middle/high school and just wait until he's 18 and toss him in Berkeley, and he wouldn't do very well.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your metric is completely unproven and unfairly punishes a group of people that have no control over their situation. I mean, just go to south central LA and tell them, "No matter what classes you take, no matter how good you do, you cannot get into Berkeley by this policy. Sorry." It doesn't matter if one of them gets perfect marks on everything, was an exceptional athlete and/or musician, clearly extremeley talented--but no calculus, no AP sciences, no IB, no community college because s/he couldn't due to financial or other circumstances.</p>

<p>I agree that the classes a student has taken should be factored in to admissions, but only in a reasonable fashion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>All I am saying is that the classes a student has taken should be factored into admissions in a reasonable fashion. I'm not saying if the student has no AP classes then it's auto-reject. Maybe the student did well in math competitions. Maybe the student won science fairs. Maybe the student excelled in all his math/science courses and has good recommendations (which wouldn't apply to Berkeley I guess, huh?). There are so many ways to show that the student is talented/intelligent. But if the student has absolutely nothing to show, then even if he is very intelligent, Berkeley doesn't know that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's crazy. I wasn't sure whether they existed, but I guess I just have to accept my first name isn't unique.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You know, I think the guy was Korean. It could have been Yoo-Din. Or you know, some kind of Korean name that sounds like "Eudean." I didn't know that was your actual first name.</p>