Why is Berkeley ranked relatively low?

<p>
[quote]
Do me a favor, Sakky, and name 3 things, or 5 if you want, that Berkeley could do to better manage itself and make it have as good as undergrad as its graduate programs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, given the political situation, I don't think it's ever going to have as good of an undergrad program as its grad program, unless the school is willing to run its undergrad program like its grad program - i.e., to greatly heighten selectivity. What really hurts Berkeley is, frankly, the long tail end of mediocre undergrads who just don't care very much about their education and are more interested in partying than in their studies, coupled with the fact that the very best high school students tend to prefer to go elsewhere. </p>

<p>However, Berkeley can do numerous things to make the program better. You could have searched for them through my old posts, where I have talked about this subject in great detail. But since you asked, I'll give you 3. </p>

<p>1) Offer perks to compete for the best undergrad applicants. Right now, the best high school seniors strongly tend to prefer schools like HYPSM over Berkeley. This is especially true for OOS applicants for which Berkeley can't even offer a state-funded tuition subsidy. But this could be changed. For example, Berkeley could offer some combined graduate programs, i.e. BA/MD programs (with UCSF or UCD), BA/JD, or BA/MBA programs, etc. The BS/MD program would be especially attractive given the heightened competition to get into med school nowadays - many students will turn down even HYPSM for a no-name school that offers them a guaranteed MD slot. Instituting such a program with UCSF would instantly give Berkeley arguably the most desirable undergraduate program in the country. </p>

<p>2)Get rid of impaction immediately, or if you cannot, then at least attempt to reduce its scope. I still don't understand why impaction is such a problem. You don't need to hire actual professors - lecturers would suffice. Many Berkeley departments already hire lecturers. So why can't you hire a bunch more so that you can offer more classes and hence reduce impaction? For example, I'm quite sure that many of Berkeley's postdocs would like to serve as lecturers for a semester or 2. You could probably also find some research scientists at LBL or Livermore who would also be interested in serving as lecturers for a few semesters, or even just for the summer part-time (to give you an example of how this works, Henrik Wallman of the ChemE department is a lecturer in ChemE and also a research scientist at LBL). You could also offer lecturer positions for a few semesters to those Berkeley assistant profs who failed to get tenure. </p>

<p>These guys probably wouldn't ask for a lot of money. Many of them would be very happy to do it on the cheap in order to build theie resume - i.e., to just "say" that they taught at Berkeley. Heck, I would do it for a semester, and you wouldn't have to pay me much, just so that I could say that I taught a class at Berkeley. </p>

<p>Now of course it is true that it is better for students to be taught by actual profs than by a bunch of lecturers. But that's not what's on the table. What's on the table is being taught by a bunch of lecturers vs. not even being able to get into the major at all (because it's impacted). </p>

<p>Reducing impaction may also require proper rationalization of Berkeley's resources. Why is it that MCB, which has by far the most undergrads of any major on campus, is not impacted, but smaller majors are impacted? Why is it that the MCB department has been able to organize itself to handle all interested students, but the other departments are unable to do so? </p>

<p>By removing impaction, Berkeley would become a more attractive undergrad school. In particular, it would remove one of the major advantages that a school like Stanford has over Berkeley. One of Stanford's great perks is the ability to switch to any major you want at any time. If you come in thinking you want to major in Art, but find out later that you actually want to major in EE, you just go right ahead. Nobody is going to stop you. Not so at Berkeley. The upshot is then twofold - you have Berkeley students who end up having to complete majors that they don't really want (because they couldn't get their first-choice major). You also have students who ex-ante decide to go to another school (i.e. Stanford) rather than Berkeley in order to preserve their freedom to choose their major. </p>

<p>3) Consonant with point #2 above, Berkeley needs to get rid of the 'engineering major trap' right now. In fact, it should have gotten rid of it years ago. The 'engineering major trap' is the phenomenom where engineering students who are doing poorly want to switch out of engineering but cannot because none of Berkeley's other colleges want to take them. For example, L&S advises that you need around a 3.0 to successfully switch in. Trust me, there are * plenty * of Berkeley engineering students who have nowhere near a 3.0. Not even close. There are plenty of eng students who are doing poorly, * and are forced to stay in engineering*. </p>

<p>What is ironic is that there are also plenty of students in L&S who are also doing poorly. Yet they are allowed to stay in L&S. So if they are allowed to stay, then why is it so bad for L&S to allow those engineering students who are doing poorly to switch in? </p>

<p>The upshot is, once again, you have students who end up having to major in something they don't want. A lot of those poorly performing engineering students desperately need to change majors. But they cannot, unless they want to take the drastic step of transferring to another university entirely (which then begs the question of which reputable school is going to admit you as a transfer if you're doing poorly at your home university). Incidentally, this is why so many engineers flunk out. After all, if you're doing poorly in a major, * and you're forced to stay in that major*, is it really so surprising that you may end up flunking out? </p>

<p>Incidentally, this leads to the notion of the 'swap'. There are some students in L&S who have done relatively well in engineering prereqs and want to switch into engineering, but were denied. At the same time, there are engineering students who are doing poorly and want to switch to L&S and were denied. Why can't you just let these 2 students swap places? Both students are then better off. It's a win-win. In contrast, by denying both students, they're both worse off as they both end up in majors they don't really want. That's a clear lose-lose. </p>

<p>4) Make Berkeley more competitive for the major international scholarships like the Rhodes. It's striking to me that a school as large as Berkeley (23,000 undergrads) has produced only 25 total Rhodes Scholars in the entire 100+ year history of the Rhodes program. Berkeley hasn't had a Rhodes winner since 2002-2003. This year alone, Harvard had TEN, despite having less than 1/3 of the undergrads that Berkeley does. Stanford had 4, again, despite having less than 1/3 of the undergrads. </p>

<p>Here is what the last Berkeley Rhodes winner, Ankur Luthra, had to say about it. </p>

<p>*Luthra thinks it’s great that he won, but less admirable that “an elite institution” like Berkeley makes such a poor showing in the Rhodes competition year after year.</p>

<p>....according to Luthra,...Berkeley faculty aren’t doing as much as they could to encourage qualified students to apply. </p>

<p>...while subcommittee members are deeply involved in the process of identifying and aiding the most motivated candidates, other faculty, Lukra believes, aren’t taking the key initial step in the process: encouraging qualified candidates to apply in the first place.</p>

<p>“The level of faculty awareness about the scholarship itself is tremendous, obviously,” Luthra says, “but it’s at the next level — where a faculty member decides to actually nominate a student or two, or to approach qualified students and tell them about the scholarship — that the steps aren’t being taken. They have a huge role to play, probably the biggest role in the process — since so many students will never hear about the Rhodes in the first place if a faculty member doesn’t tell them about it and encourage them to apply.”</p>

<p>There’s more to faculty involvement in Rhodes candidacies than that, of course — including the writing of letters of recommendation , which to be effective must show a more detailed familiarity with a student’s academic skills than is acquired at the podium in a 600-seat lecture hall. But it’s a vitalpart of the process, and one that, according to Alicia Hayes, program coordinator of the Scholarship Connection Office, contributes more than Luthra acknowledges to the reluctance of Berkeley students to follow through on their impulse to apply for a Rhodes or other prestigious scholarship. </p>

<p>One faculty member with extensive experience in the Rhodes application process agrees with Hayes. Steven Botterill, associate professor of Italian Studies, chaired the Rhodes/Mitchell/Marshall subcommittee this past year. “At Ivy League colleges, with their smaller student bodies and more intimate faculty/student ratios,” he observes, “the process of grooming potential Rhodes Scholars begins early on in a student’s undergraduate career. By the time students at Berkeley make closer contact with faculty, it’s often their junior year – and that’s a bit late to be building the kind of close intellectual relationship with a faculty member that supports the recommendation the Rhodes committees want to see. We’ve seen it year after year here: With the best will in the world, Berkeley faculty don’t get to know students as individuals when they’re teaching large lower-division courses with 700 or 800 students.” *</p>

<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2003/02/19_rhode.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2003/02/19_rhode.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I happen to know personally several former Berkeley students who I think probably could have won the Rhodes, or at least been strong Rhodes finalists, if they had gone to other schools. But putting them aside, consider the University Medalists. Adrian Down, this year's Medalist, didn't win a single high-prestige scholarship (i.e. Rhodes, Truman, Marshall, Soros). Neither did any of this year's finalists. Why not? Obviously these students are not lacking in ability. So why can't they win these schoarships?</p>

<p>
[quote]
* Bottom line - size does not dictate quality. THAT is the point. *</p>

<p>It actually does at a certain point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But that's a simple contradiction in terms. Either size (by itself) dictates quality, or it doesn't. If size dictates quality up to a certain point, what you're really trying to say is that an interaction effect exists with some other factor(s), which ultimately really means that size doesn't dictate quality, but rather a combination of size PLUS those other factors that determine quality. </p>

<p>But even if you want me to discuss the point under your new terms, I think it's fairly clear that Berkeley is past the point where size helps. I'll put it starkly. Right now, Berkeley has impacted majors such that some students end up not getting the major that they really want. Hence, I think that clearly shows that Berkeley is too big, at least relative to the organizational structure it chooses to run. Berkeley should either change its org structure (see my post #64), or should reduce its size.</p>

<p>Sakky: I appreciate your thoughtful and lengthy response to my question. I don't have time to respond now, but will try to do so soon.</p>

<p>"In 1989, the first year that the rankings included such statistics as graduation rates and financial resources, the University of California at Berkeley, which had been ranked fifth, plummeted to No. 24."</p>

<p>Source: <a href="http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i38/38a01301.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i38/38a01301.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>That's the long and short of it: the ranking methodology. I attended Berkeley and I can tell you that you'll get a top-notch education if you are a serious student. I attended Stanford as well (Sakky hates it when I mention this fact), and you cannot convince me that you'd get a "better" education at Stanford (ranked 5th) than at Berkeley (ranked 21st). The quality of STUDENTS at Stanford is slightly higher ON AVERAGE than at Berkeley, but that does not say anything about the quality of the SCHOOL.</p>

<p>If you choose to place a lot of weight on US New's arbitrary rankings, then Berkeley is the "21st best" university in the US for undergraduate studies. If you choose to place a lot of weight on Washington Monthly's arbitrary rankings, then Berkeley is the "2nd best" university in the US for undergraduate studies. ( <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegechart.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegechart.html&lt;/a> ). I personally think it's all a crock of bull*****: Berkeley is as great as you want it to be...if you're smart and a serious student, a Berkeley undergraduate education will take you anywhere.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley is as great as you want it to be...if you're smart and a serious student, a Berkeley undergraduate education will take you anywhere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So what you're saying is that not all students are able to do well at Berkeley. Indeed, there's quite a few doing very badly. Do you not care about them?</p>

<p>It sounds like you just want to justify a system you believe to be good. But is it really that good? No it's not. Just because a set of undergrads are able to thrive does not mean that no action should be taken to eliminate the problems which plague another set of students.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's the long and short of it: the ranking methodology.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would actually argue that if the ranking methodology becomes more indicative of the true quality of a school, then the ranking actually becomes better. </p>

<p>It is of course true that all rankings are inherently arbitrary. Just like any test for any class is inherently arbitrary. What ultimately matters in assessing the validity of a test is whether it fairly measures the body of material than a student in that class should know. For example, I would expect a student who has taken a calculus class to actually know how to take derivatives and integrals. Somebody who has taken a basic language class should be expected to have learned some basic vocabulary. </p>

<p>In the case of a college, I think it is entirely fair to look at graduation rate. After all, aren't all students at a college supposed to be trying to graduate? If not, then what exactly are they doing? Hence, it certainly seems to me that schools should be judged on their graduation rate. </p>

<p>Now, granted, no school can ever consistently reach a 100% graduation rate. There will always be some people at any school, i.e. Bill Gates or Jason Kidd who voluntarily choose to leave before graduation because they find something better to do. Every school has some of these people, so it's really a wash. What I am talking about is a * comparative* analysis - i.e. why do some schools consistently suffer from a low graduation rate relative to other schools? That seems to indicate one of 2 possibilities, both bad: either you're not properly supporting the students that you have, or you're just not being careful enough to admit only those students who can actually handle the material. {Which leads to my perennial question on this board which has still never been answered satisfactorily - why do schools insist on admitting students who are going to flunk out? It would seem to me that a far better solution would be to simpy not admit those students in the first place.} </p>

<p>Put another way, if given 2 choices of schools of similar academic quality, but one has a lower graduation rate than the other, why would you want to choose the one with the lower graduation rate? That seems to me to be like the choice between buying 2 similar cars, but one of them having airbags and the other not. Why wouldn't you want the safer choice? </p>

<p>As far as financial resources goes, the same holds true. Ceteris paribus, why wouldn't you want to choose a school that has greater financial resources. If nothing else, doing so will probably give you access to better equipment, better infrastructure, better everything, on a per-capita basis. Why wouldn't you want that? </p>

<p>
[quote]
That's the long and short of it: the ranking methodology. I attended Berkeley and I can tell you that you'll get a top-notch education if you are a serious student. I attended Stanford as well (Sakky hates it when I mention this fact),

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I LOVE this fact, because that means that you can help me to comfirm some facts regarding Berkeley vs. Stanford. See below. </p>

<p>
[quote]
and you cannot convince me that you'd get a "better" education at Stanford (ranked 5th) than at Berkeley (ranked 21st). The quality of STUDENTS at Stanford is slightly higher ON AVERAGE than at Berkeley, but that does not say anything about the quality of the SCHOOL.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll give you one * very simple* example regarding how Stanford is better than Berkeley. One word: impaction. As a Stanford undergrad, you are free to choose any major at Stanford, and freely switch whenever you want. If you come in wanting to major in English and then decide later you'd rather switch to engineering, or vice versa, you just do it. Nobody will stop you. Can a Berkeley student say the same? Exactly, I didn't think so. </p>

<p>
[quote]
if you're smart and a serious student, a Berkeley undergraduate education will take you anywhere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
that you'll get a top-notch education if you are a serious student.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I make the same observation as dobby did. I see that you're making these interesting caveats - that "if" you're this or that, you can accomplish a great deal at Berkeley. Of course! I have always stated that the best Berkeley students do very well for themselves.</p>

<p>What I am interested in are those Berkeley students who are not the best ones. What happens to them? </p>

<p>As a case in point, take a look at what hapepns to the graduates of the Berkeley English major. Sure, some of them do quite well, going to law school at Stanford, med school at UCSF, or getting into PhD programs at Berkeley or Yale. But what about the others? I see one person ended up as a barista at Starbucks (basically the guy who makes your coffee for you). One became head cashier at Barnes & Nobles (hey, at least it was head cashier, right?). Plenty of other people became bartenders, waiters, receptionists, file clerks, etc. I don't know about you, but I suspect that these are not the kinds of jobs that a Berkeley graduate probably had in mind. </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/English.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/English.stm&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Or take a look at the law school admissions stats. About 20% of Berkeley prelaws who actually apply to law school don't even get into any law school at all. Specifically, take the case of Western State University College of Law, a USNews 4th-tier law school that doesn't even hold full ABA accreditation (it holds only provisional accreditation). In 2006, of the 5 Berkeley prelaws applied to Western State, 2 of them didn't even get in. Think about that. Here are some Berkeley students who couldn't even get admitted to a 4th tier, non-fully-accredited law school. </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Again, this all just indicates that some Berkeley students are indeed not doing that well. What about them?</p>

<p>sakky, you bring up some excellent points. That's the first time I've ever seen Berkeley's law school matriculation statistics, and I'm shocked at how poor they actually are.</p>

<p>Again, you missed the point. The 'typical' Berkeley STUDENT is not at the same level as the 'typical' HYPSM STUDENT, but a smart, hard-working student would have the same opportunities at Berkeley as he/she would have at HYPSM. Yes, there are many many students at Berkeley who are not hard-working, and there are even some that are quite frankly pretty dumb, but why should they even matter in relation to the smart, motivated individual seeking a top-notch education? </p>

<p>The Berkeley bashers on this forum seem to have beef with that fact that Berkeley admits a bunch of "fodder" (that end up getting chewed up by the grading curves anyway). There are even quite a few Berkeley students and ex-students that resent the fact that a lot of "low-quality" students mooch off of Berkeley's international reputation and they seem to want to turn Berkeley into a public Stanford, where the "best and brightest" go to study together, date each other, and network among each other.....kind of like in the Ivy League.</p>

<p>But I've got news for you guys: that is NOT the mission of University of California, and unless you're too dull to notice, the University has been trying to split the resources among many campuses spread across California in recent decades in order to provide the best possible education to as many people as possible, for the lowest price possible. Does this sound like the mission of HYPSM+ Ivy League schools (with their billions and billions of dollars of UNSPENT endowment) to you? The mission of the so-called "elite" private schools is to climb up the prestige ladder, and that's it. When you're at the very top like Harvard is, you're not using your multi-billion dollar endowment to provide free education to all students nor are you trying to expand the school to provide a "Harvard education" to as many students as possible....instead, you're spending the bare minimum...and usually to buy out the best profs from other schools to stay at the top of the prestige ladder.</p>

<p>I personally think the mission of University of California is FAR more noble, but that's just me. </p>

<p>If you want a great education (and for a relatively low cost if you're in-state) and you don't care that much about college prestige, please, come to Berkeley. I personally had the best time of my life as a student at Cal. If you want a "great" education and you are willing to spend the extra money for an awe-invoking AFFILIATION, then by all means, aim for those "elite" private schools. Shoot, "invest" your future at USC, which is sky-rocketing up the prestige ladder on its way to become the "Stanford of Southern California" in the near future. I envision a day when the Sakky's of the future claim that it's "common sense" that USC is a "far superior" school to UCLA, just like it's "common sense" that Stanford is a "far superior" school to UC Berkeley because "US News says so"....and i'll just laugh my ass off. </p>

<p>I think a school should be judged by what the school can offer to its smart, serious students, and NOT by the characteristics of its "average admit"</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, there are many many students at Berkeley who are not hard-working, and there are even some that are quite frankly pretty dumb, but why should they even matter in relation to the smart, motivated individual seeking a top-notch education?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because the "smart, motivated individuals" are often surrounded by the "dumb, not hard-working" crowd. sakky has made this argument before but I'll make it again. You don't get as much out your discussion section if nobody else in the class did the reading. You don't get as much out of assignments if the people you're working with have no idea what's going on. You don't get as much out of socializing (intellectually) if your friends don't have any insights to share. Unfortunately peers do have an effect on your education, otherwise I wouldn't mind the uneven student body that occupies Berkeley.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There are even quite a few Berkeley students and ex-students that resent the fact that a lot of "low-quality" students mooch off of Berkeley's international reputation and they seem to want to turn Berkeley into a public Stanford, where the "best and brightest" go to study together, date each other, and network among each other.....kind of like in the Ivy League.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, the Berkeley administration itself keeps touting Berkeley as "the nation's top public school", tells their own admits that they are "among the brightest in the country", and, with regards to the Washington Monthly's rankings, declares that "Berkeley is ranked 2nd while Harvard is ranked 28th". It seems like Berkeley administrators also want to turn Berkeley into a public Stanford, or at least emulate its prestige with regards to the respective undergraduate programs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But I've got news for you guys: that is NOT the mission of University of California, and unless you're too dull to notice, the University has been trying to split the resources among many campuses spread across California in recent decades in order to provide the best possible education to as many people as possible, for the lowest price possible.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If that's so, why does Berkeley still flunk out so many students (relative to top privates)? That's essentially not providing them with an education since Berkeley did not give them a degree and hence they are basically considered "high school graduates." If Berkeley would admit fewer students, say cut out the bottom 10%, and have those students forced to attend another school, say UCSD, I'm fairly certain that more of those students would graduate from UCSD than Berkeley. In the end, wouldn't that be REALLY providing more people with a college education? Yet that's not what Berkeley, nor the UC system, is doing is it?</p>

<p>
[quote]
When you're at the very top like Harvard is, you're not using your multi-billion dollar endowment to provide free education to all students...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, Harvard consistently offers the most aggressive financial aid for its students. I think just in the past year or two Harvard decided to give out full rides to all students whose family incomes are below $60,000, something no other school was offering. Now I agree that it could still afford to give better financial aid to its students but given the climate of college financial aid, Harvard is considered to be quite generous.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think a school should be judged by what the school can offer to its smart, serious students, and NOT by the characteristics of its "average admit"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think a school should be judged by what it can offer to ALL its students. If it's just going to provide a great education to its smart, serious students and flunk everyone else, why not only admit the smart, serious students?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The Berkeley bashers on this forum seem to have beef with that fact that Berkeley admits a bunch of "fodder" (that end up getting chewed up by the grading curves anyway). There are even quite a few Berkeley students and ex-students that resent the fact that a lot of "low-quality" students mooch off of Berkeley's international reputation and they seem to want to turn Berkeley into a public Stanford, where the "best and brightest" go to study together, date each other, and network among each other.....kind of like in the Ivy League.</p>

<p>But I've got news for you guys: that is NOT the mission of University of California, and unless you're too dull to notice, the University has been trying to split the resources among many campuses spread across California in recent decades in order to provide the best possible education to as many people as possible, for the lowest price possible. Does this sound like the mission of HYPSM+ Ivy League schools (with their billions and billions of dollars of UNSPENT endowment) to you? The mission of the so-called "elite" private schools is to climb up the prestige ladder, and that's it. When you're at the very top like Harvard is, you're not using your multi-billion dollar endowment to provide free education to all students nor are you trying to expand the school to provide a "Harvard education" to as many students as possible....instead, you're spending the bare minimum...and usually to buy out the best profs from other schools to stay at the top of the prestige ladder.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Isn't it odd that you claim that, in your words, "where the "best and brightest" go to study together, date each other, and network among each other.....kind of like in the Ivy League" is supposedly not the mission of the University of California, yet this is exactly what the Berkeley graduate*programs do. For example, how many dumb and lazy people get admitted to the Berkeley PhD programs? Or to the Boalt law school? Or the Haas MBA program? I would say that it's pretty close to zero. Perhaps *you have been too dull to notice just how much more selective the Berkeley graduate programs are relative to the undergraduate program.</p>

<p>Hence, it certainly seems to me that the Berkeley graduate programs are not trying to educate the most people for the least possible cost. Far from it, in fact. That therefore begs the question - how can the Berkeley graduate programs be so selective, but not the undergraduate program? Last time I checked, all of the grad programs were "public" programs in the sense that all California residents receive a state-backed tuition subsidy (and the PhD students, because their tuitions are covered by their departments, are counseled to quickly establish California residency so their departments can avoid paying OOS fees). Yet you don't see, say, the Berkeley Chemistry PhD program admitting large numbers of mediocre students. Why not? Why don't you protest to Berkeley that the graduate programs ought to be admitting more students for otherwise they are not fulfilling their "mission" to the people of California? Why don't you tell them that those grad programs are not behaving "nobly"? </p>

<p>Let's also keep in mind that the bulk of Berkeley's international reputation comes from its graduate programs. Whatever else you might say, I think there is no dispute that Berkeley's graduate programs are far higher regarded than its undergraduate program. They are also far more selective. That seems to be a quite simple and direct relationship right there. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If you want a great education (and for a relatively low cost if you're in-state)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Low cost only if you're above a certain income threshold. As I have said before, if your family's income is relatively modest, you may find that the top private schools are actually* cheaper* than Berkeley, once financial aid is factored in. As a case in point, Harvard now guarantees a full package without parental contribution to any student whose family makes less than 60k. Can Berkeley say the same? I will always remember one guy (a Californian) joking that he had always dreamed of going to Berkeley but he couldn't afford it, so he had "no choice" but to go to Harvard. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Shoot, "invest" your future at USC, which is sky-rocketing up the prestige ladder on its way to become the "Stanford of Southern California" in the near future. I envision a day when the Sakky's of the future claim that it's "common sense" that USC is a "far superior" school to UCLA, just like it's "common sense" that Stanford is a "far superior" school to UC Berkeley because "US News says so"....and i'll just laugh my ass off.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm laughing my ass off at your attempts to put words in my mouth. I've never said that Stanford is a "far superior" school to UCBerkeley in any aggregate sense. It all depends on what program we're talking about. For example, I certainly don't believe that Stanford is a "far superior" school to Berkeley at which to get your PhD. In fact, for many PhD programs (i.e. chemistry), Berkeley is the better school. </p>

<p>But as far as undergrad is concerned, it is unavoidable that Stanford is a better and more desirable school than Berkeley is. Look at Berkeley's yield compared to Stanford's yield. Then look at the respective cross-admit yield. Then look at the revealed preference. It is simply undeniable that the majority of people who are picking between the 2 UG programs will choose Stanford. </p>

<p>There are plenty of reasons for why this is the case, but I will again repeat just one - Stanford has no impaction. You go to Stanford undergrad and you can major in anything you want, and freely switch majors at any time. Can Berkeley undergrads say the same? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Because the "smart, motivated individuals" are often surrounded by the "dumb, not hard-working" crowd. sakky has made this argument before but I'll make it again. You don't get as much out your discussion section if nobody else in the class did the reading. You don't get as much out of assignments if the people you're working with have no idea what's going on. You don't get as much out of socializing (intellectually) if your friends don't have any insights to share. Unfortunately peers do have an effect on your education, otherwise I wouldn't mind the uneven student body that occupies Berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll call you and raise. What makes it even worse is that these students will often times take away spaces in classes that you want. It's bad enough not getting the class (or discussion/lab section) you want at the time that you want it. It's even worse when you know that some of those spaces have been taken by some students who you know aren't serious about doing the work, or will barely even show up. If you're not going to be a serious student, I think it's only fair that you forfeit class seats to those students who are actually going to be serious. Sadly that doesn't happen at Berkeley. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think a school should be judged by what the school can offer to its smart, serious students, and NOT by the characteristics of its "average admit"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe schools should be judged by how well all its studetns are doing, including how its worst students are doing. If even the worst students are doing fairly well for themselves, then that's the mark of a very good school indeed. </p>

<p>But if the worst students are performing terribly, then that's a problem, particularly so if the school itself treats them poorly. In the case of Berkeley, the worst students flunk out and have their academic records permanently trashed. Hence, they are *worse off * than if they had never gone to Berkeley at all.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As usual... I think this is all just in your mind, sakky. Prove it!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What is Berkeley's yield percentage again? Something like 40% last time I checked. In other words, the majority of students admitted to Berkeley choose to go somewhere else.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Get rid of impaction immediately, or if you cannot, then at least attempt to reduce its scope. I still don't understand why impaction is such a problem. You don't need to hire actual professors - lecturers would suffice. Many Berkeley departments already hire lecturers. </p>

<p>I wonder how would this make Berkeley a more attractive school to go to than Harvard/Stanford...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>lt's better than having impaction. That is by far the worst option.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I thought you and people like you LOVE schools like Dartmouth and Brown because the students there are not handdled by SAs or TAs???

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The best option is to simply expand the size of the regular faculty to accomodate all the students.</p>

<p>But if you can't have that, then the next best step is to use temp lecturers. Not optimal but a lot better than what has Berkeley has chosen to do, which is to simply deny some students a chance to get into the major at all. I'd rather be taught by a bunch of temps than to not even get into the major at all. It's better than nothing. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This is silly. I have not met anyone in my entire life who chose a college because it had sent so many students to win Rhodes...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That misses the point. It doesn't matter whether somebody would actually choose a school because it generates lots of Rhodes winners. The point is that some students at Berkeley who might have been able to win the Rhodes had they gone elsewhere ended up not winning. That's a problem. I can certainly think of a few who I thought had a serious chance of winning the Rhodes and didn't even make the finals.</p>

<p>
[quote]
My gf got into Dartmouth, Columbia, Duke and UPenn but chose to go to Berkeley even if she's an OOS student. Please take note that, as an OOS, Berkeley was way more expensive for her to go to than Columbia or Duke where she got a good sum of scholarship privileges had she went there instead.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I think one person is hardly a large enough sample pool from which to draw a conclusion. How about 3,200 top high school seniors? From a NY Times article last year:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/weekinreview/17leonhardt.html?ex=1316145600&en=94d34ff57060717f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/weekinreview/17leonhardt.html?ex=1316145600&en=94d34ff57060717f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>If you look at the chart, you can see that students prefer Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, U Penn, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Duke, Georgetown, Northwestern, and UVa to Berkeley, while preferring Berkeley to only Tufts and UCLA.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I wonder how would this make Berkeley a more attractive school to go to than Harvard/Stanford...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It would make Berkeley a more attractive school than the current Berkeley, which is a step in the right direction.</p>

<p>Regarding my previous post, I feel like I should try to put things more into perspective. It may seem like I completely disagreed with formerlyabcdefgh but actually I agree with him about a lot of points he raised, mainly that the problems often discussed on this forum affect the smarter, more motivated students to a lesser degree. Thus, if we were comparing Berkeley to say, Stanford for a certain student who got into both, impaction may be less of a problem since that student will probably be bright enough to get into the major he wants (I know sakky has a counterexample to this, I said probably). Now we should also be concerned with the less-motivated students, but to say that they would have fared better at Stanford might not be a valid argument since that students probably didn't have the choice of attending Stanford, due to his laziness. His choices might have come down to Berkeley vs. UCSD, in which case Berkeley is probably the better choice in most cases. Thus, although I raised some problems, I don't think they are as prevalent as my post have made them seem.</p>

<p>I find joshua007's posts very insightful.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, all top schools have lost admitted students too. Brown and Dartmouth’s enrollment yields, for example, are in the 40%++ too,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nope, wrong:</p>

<p>Brown - 58%
Dartmouth - 49.5%
Columbia - 58.3%</p>

<p>
[quote]
So your statement that – “What really hurts Berkeley is, frankly, the long tail end of mediocre undergrads who just don't care very much about their education and are more interested in partying than in their studies, coupled with the fact that the very best high school students tend to prefer to go elsewhere.” – is also applicable to all top schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course it is applicable everywhere (except for that last sentence being applicable to Harvard). The difference is in *the degree <a href="no%20pun%20intended">/i</a>. Just like all cities have crime, but some have more crime than others. Just because you can never reduce your crime rate to zero doesn't mean that you don't even try to keep it down. </p>

<p>Let me put it to you this way. Berkeley's PhD programs compete toe-to-toe with other schools, including the top privates. So why can't the Berkeley undergrad program do that? </p>

<p>
[quote]
But then again, what bothered me was your allegation that Berkeley students just don’t care very much about their education and are more interested in partying. I think you made a bold statement there which you can hardly prove. Thus I said, if you’re so sure about your allegation, prove it. Prove it to us that Berkeley students care more about partying than studying. Don’t be offended for what I ask you sakky. I know you’re an educated person. But you often give us an impression that you’re fond of hasty generalization.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, you have deliberately misquoted me. I never said that ALL Berkeley students care more about partying than studying. If you don't believe me, then why don't you point to the quote where I specifically said such a thing. In fact, I have always said taht the top Berkeley undergrads work hard and do quite well for themselves.</p>

<p>What I am pointing to are those students who DON'T do well. Many of them don't do well simply because they don't really want to study. They don't want to work hard.</p>

<p>Want proof? Simple. Go to frathouse row on a weekday during the regular semester and just talk to the people there. You will quickly realize that many of those students haven't been to class for awhile. There are people who flunk out of even the creampuff majors. How do you explain that, if these people actually were more interested in studying than partying? How much more proof do you need? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, again, I am sorry to tell you this, but I don’t think you are providing a solution. Just think more deeply and then ask yourself these: 1. “how can removing the “cupping” makes Berkeley a more attractive school to go to than schools like Columbia, Dartmouth and Brown?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but I think you are deliberately choosing not to see the solution. The REAL question is, does impaction (what you apparently call "cupping") that happens today make Berkeley a more attractive school than those alternatives? Of course not - after all, is there anybody who actually likes impaction? Is there anybody who actually likes not having free choice regarding which major he can enter? Since when is less choice better than more choice? </p>

<p>Now of course I recognize that Columbia practices a form of impaction too - notably that free migration between the Fu School and the rest of Columbia is not entirely free. But that's Columbia's problem. At least Columbia has no impaction within each school. For example, if you're in Columbia College, you can freely choose any major within Columbia College. Can somebody in Berkeley L&S say the same? </p>

<p>
[quote]
How would Berkeley become more attractive with most of its lecturers are just TAs while those at Dartmouth/Brown are real profs?”

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? You've deliberately distorted my words again. When did I ever propose that "most of the lecturers be just TA's?" What I said is that Berkeley can hire more * lecturers*, or adjuncts. TA's are not lecturers or adjuncts. Lecturers/adjuncts are simply those faculty members who are not on the regular professorial track. Sometimes they are post-docs. Sometimes they are research scientsts who are affiliated with one of the research labs (i.e. LBL). Sometimes they are former profs who couldn't or didn't want to become full profs (often times for family reasons, this is especially prevalent with women taking care of children). </p>

<p>Lest you think this proposal is unusual, I should point out that right now plenty of Berkeley's faculty members are lecturers or adjuncts. Like I said before, Henrik Wallman (who teaches the senior capstone ChemE design and unit ops class) is a lecturer, with his fultime affiliation being that of a research scientist at LBL. Mike Clancy, who teaches many of the lower-division CS courses, is a lecturer. So are Brian Harvey and Dan Garcia. Heck, Clancy, Harvey and Garcia each almost certainly teach more Berkeley students every semester than most of the actual Berkeley CS profs do (simply because Clancy, Harvey, and Garcia are usually the ones teaching the large lower-division CS courses). In other words, as a Berkeley CS student, you are far more likely to have a class taught by Clancy, Harvey, or Garcia, than by any single Berkeley CS prof. The MCB department (the department with the largest undergrad enrollment) has a number of lecturers and adjuncts - David Presti, Mark Alper, Corey Goodman, etc. The same could be said for plenty of other departments.</p>

<p>Note, of all of the faculty members mentioned above, all of them (except for Clancy) have PhD's. Most of Berkeley's lecturers/adjuncts are fully-fledged PhD's. Furthermore, lest you think that they are bad teachers, I would say there's no discernable difference. In fact, I would actually argue that in many cases, they are better in terms of their teaching ability than many of the professors. As a case in point, I would argue that lecturer Brian Harvey is a better teacher than many of the CS profs. </p>

<p>Hence, I am not proposing anything new or radical. I am simply proposing that Berkeley expand something * that they are already doing*. You complain that Berkeley shouldn't be hiring lecturers and adjuncts, which conveniently ignores the fact that Berkeley is * already doing just that*. </p>

<p>Besides, let's not kid ourselves here. You don't think Dartmouth, Brown, or Columbia don't also use lecturers or adjuncts? Really? In fact, just poking around right now with a simple Internet search, I see that Dartmouth's Studio Arts department has a slew of lecturers and adjuncts, or the so-called "Special Instructor" (which is just another form of lecturer, in their faculty. I see that Dartmouth's engineering faculty includes several "Research Engineers" (which is basically what lecturer Henrik Wallman is at Berkeley). Or take Paul Buhle of the American Civilizations and History departments at Brown. He's a lecturer. The Brown University language departments seem to employ a slew of lecturers.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Esart/faculty.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sart/faculty.htm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/directories/faculty.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/directories/faculty.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.brown.edu/Departments/AmCiv/faculty/pbuhle.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.brown.edu/Departments/AmCiv/faculty/pbuhle.pdf&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.brown.edu/Departments/CLS/members.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.brown.edu/Departments/CLS/members.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The bottom line is this. Most universities out there, including the top ones, use lecturers & adjuncts. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a well-understood and accepted practice. They are used as a relatively cheap way to expand your capacity. Furthermore, Berkeley is * already using them. *. So if you're already hiring some anyway, why not hire some more to eliminate impaction?</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you have 23k students and you just let all of them choose to do or enroll whatever subject they want to enroll, that’s going to give the school a hell of a mess.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, it's a management issue. But I hardly see how it's an insurmountable one. After all, the largest undergraduate major is MCB. Yet MCB is not impacted. MCB is perfectly willing to take all comers. So if they can figure out a way to do that, why is it so hard for departments with smaller enrollments to do the same? And, yes, MCB uses lecturers and adjuncts. </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2006Majors.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2006Majors.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Adding lecturers would entail a colossal logistic requirement. And if Berkeley will allocate a budget for that, it might as well divert that money to provide scholarships to its top applicants (both in-state and OOS).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, like I said, Berkeley * already* has lecturers. Yet Berkeley has apparently figured out how to do that without any "colossal logistic requirement". So what's so complicated about hiring some more? </p>

<p>Secondly, lecturers are cheap. I believe you can actually look up the salaries of the various lecturers that Berkeley hires (as they are all public employees), but the point is, they are quite cheap. It wouldn't cost very much at all to hire more lecturers. Heck, I know many post-docs would happily do it for the same salary as what they're getting paid now. I happen to know a number of post-docs at other schools who work temporarily as lecturers, making the same (low) salary. They do it because they know it looks good on their CV, as they can now say that they have instructional experience. </p>

<p>So, sure, I agree, it would cost some money. But from a bang-for-the-buck standpoint, this is one of the most efficient things Berkeley can do. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You must remember that you were trying to provide a solution. So I asked you – is your solution really a solution, because a solution should address the problem. Winning Rhodes would certainly adds more prestige…but that is more of an individual merit rather than a school’s. And again, high school students do not choose schools based on the number of students who won Rhodes. They usually check the strength of the program in the schools and the school’s general prestige.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, you misunderstand. The lack of Rhodes winners is a general symptom of a larger underlying problem - that being the lack of close involvement between faculty and students and the accompanying lack of faculty support for students (or of the faculty even knowing who the students are). It is the root problem that I am most interested in, and symptoms are just a method to demonstrate that the problem exists and should be fixed. Fix the root problem and other problems will take care of themselves. </p>

<p>Besides, you invoked the notion of general prestige. Yet the fact is, general prestige is something that is built over time, and a school that wins major scholarships builds "prestige capital" over the long term. Let's face it. Harvard's great success in winning major awards enhances its prestige. In fact, a strong network effect exists - Harvard's prestige draws better students who then go on to win major awards therefore enhancing Harvard's prestige still further, hence drawing even better students, and so forth. </p>

<p>But you have to start somewhere. It was not inevitable that Harvard become the most prestigious school in the country. Harvard has strong prestige because of policies enacted by its leadership to enhance its prestige. In the past, Berkeley undergrads won awards at a blistering pace. Recently, the pace has slackened. And it is fair to ask why.</p>

<p>joshua--I wouldnt dismiss sakky's point so fast. I was apprehensive about choosing Berkeley because of what I had heard about impacted majors</p>

<p>also, (correct me if im wrong) adding more lecturers might solve another problem..availability of classes, which students CERTAINLY think of when they consider berkeley. the first thing my counselor said when I told her I was choosing Berkeley was that "classes you want fill up fast." I cant tell you whether or not thats true..i just dont have enough experience at berkeley. but I think that's one of cal's biggest stereotypes, one that sets it apart from other top-tier schools</p>

<p>
[quote]
Okay, but do you have any idea how expensive it is for Berkeley to hire MORE teaching staff? If Berkeley has the money for that, might as well divert that money to offer a full scholarship (plus stipend) to Berkeley's top applicants, say the top 200 Berkeley applicants and call them -- The Berkeley Scholars. (This is just an example) Wouldn't that be more effective and direct, or even would yield a faster result?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And how expensive are new lecturers? Answer - not very. You'd be selling the Berkeley name to them to these lecturers. Berkeley does have a strong academic name, so I would imagine, given the tight state of academic hiring right now, newly minted PhD's would be coming out of the woodwork to work as lecturers for Berkeley, if just for a semester or two. After all, afterwards, they can say that they were actually on the Berkeley faculty, which will help them land a real professorial job later on (not just because of the Berkeley name, but arguably more importantly because of the contacts they'd be building among the Berkeley faculty). It's certainly better than having to serve a post-doc, which is what many newly minted PhD's end up doing (or not even being able to stay in academia at all). I would argue you would be able to pay even less than you would have to pay a postdoc (who don't make that much), again, because the position would be highly desirable if you're trying to build an academic career.</p>

<p>Furthermore, and more importantly, you wouldn't need that many of them. One extra lecturer could probably handle 2 classes a semester, with perhaps an average of 50 students in each class. So that basically means that the presence of just one extra lecturer position means the department could offer 100 more seats in the major for that year. For example, if we hired a lecturer to teach EE20 and EE 40, then that would free up whoever is teaching those classes now to teach other upper-division EE courses, and so forth.</p>

<p>Hence, extra lecturers serve as strong 'force multipliers'. Just one extra lecturer position, managed correctly, translates into a large reduction of impaction. So like I said, it's a very cheap and effective way to quickly improve Berkeley's UG program. You just stick that lecturer with those classes that no profs really want to teach, thereby freeing up those profs to teach what they actually want to teach. Those lecturers would be happy to do so, because like I said, there aren't exactly a lot of academic job openings out there anyway, so being a Berkeley lecturer, even if low-paid and having to teach undesirable courses, is still better than just being a post-doc (or having to leave academia entirely). Hence, just hiring a few more lecturers could greatly ease, and possible solve the impaction problem, at a far lower cost than your Berkeley Scholar idea (which is actually something that I have proposed myself). Hence, from a cost-effectiveness standpoint, the lecturer idea is better. </p>

<p>But besides, I think this is all missing the general point. Personally, I suspect that the lack of faculty is even the real problem, something that I have discussed with other posters here (i.e. eudean). </p>

<p>As a case in point, take economics, an impacted major. Why exactly is economics impacted? I invoke the Spring 2007 schedule of classes with enrollment numbers. Notice how * not a single* economics lecture was actually filled to capacity. * Not a single one*. Now, granted, some of the discussion sections and seminars were filled. And probably some of the lectures were overbooked in the beginning of the semester (when people were still shopping for classes). Nevertheless, the fact is, the economics department had space available within their course lectures. </p>

<p><a href="http://sis.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=SP&p_classif=--+Choose+a+Course+Classification+--&p_deptname=Economics&p_presuf=--+Choose+a+Course+Prefix%2FSuffix+--&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=&x=41&y=0%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sis.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=SP&p_classif=--+Choose+a+Course+Classification+--&p_deptname=Economics&p_presuf=--+Choose+a+Course+Prefix%2FSuffix+--&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=&x=41&y=0&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Yet at the same time, some people who wanted to declare the econ major were not allowed to so do. Why? I could at least somewhat understand blocking incoming students if your courses are really tapped out. But they weren't. Course space was available. And I predict that when the fall semester enrollment hashes out (around October or so), course space will also be found to be available. </p>

<p>And even if the econ lectures do get filled out, that just calls for more management optimization. For example, have you ever noticed how some departments have lots and lots of profs, yet relatively very few actual declared majors? I.e. the math department? If economics courses really do get filled to capacity, why not have the math department teach some of the more quant-heavy courses? Game theory, for example, is basically just a branch of mathematics, and many of its most important contributors (von Neumann, Nash, Aumann) were not economists, they were mathematicians. So why not have a math prof teach the game theory course? {Note, I see that this fall, game theory will be taught by a poli-sci prof, not an econ prof, but it wasn't always this way} Similarly, why not have the statistics department teach the econometrics courses? Similarly, why not have the history department teach the economic history courses? By doing so, you would free up econ profs to teach other things. </p>

<p>Note how doing these steps * cost you nothing extra*. After all, you're not hiring any new people. All you're doing is optimizing your current resources. This is basic operations management 101 here. By doing so, you can at least decrease the problems of impaction, and perhaps eliminate it entirely. </p>

<p>I said it before, I'll say it again. If the MCB department can figure out how to accomodate the most students of all the majors (conferring nearly 500 bachelor's degrees a year) without having to resort to impaction, then why can't other departments figure out how to do that? It costs nothing except a bit of optimization time. </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2006Majors.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2006Majors.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>But I think the truth is fairly clear. Those departments don't solve their impaction problem because they don't WANT to solve the problem. They LIKE having impaction. Yet that's a pretty terrible thing to the student who couldn't get into the major and is now forced to study something he doesn't really want. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The loophole of your solution is that, you ignored the fact that Berkeley became famous because of its fantastic faculty line-up. In other words, Berkeley became Berkeley hugely because of the profs that teach there. (Didn’t Einstein teach there before?) Berkeley is actually different from top private schools like Dartmouth which is sort of like known as a social club -- rather than a academic powerhouse. Now, if you take those famous profs away from Berkeley students, I am not sure what the impact would be. But i suggest do not do hasty moves

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, and who said anything about taking away those famous profs from Berkeley? At no time did I ever advocate getting rid of any of the profs. Those famous profs will still be there. But at the same time, they will be supplemented, if necessary, with lecturers. And hopefully, you may be able to optimize your offerings in a way that you don't even need lecturers. </p>

<p>Again, you have to contrast my suggestion with what is happening right now. Right now, like I said, many students can't get into the major they want. The Berkeley econ department has quite a few highly regarded profs, including some Nobel prize winners. * But who cares, if you can't even get into the major?*. It's like those profs don't even exist to you. I am attempting to offer a way for all Berkeley students to be able to get into the major that they actually want. By doing so, then they can interact with the famous profs in the department that they actually care about, as opposed to interacting with famous profs in a department they don't actually want to be in.</p>

<p>
[quote]
OK, so, what are trying to say? LOL.... Those figures are still FAR from 100%. Even Harvard does not have a 100% enrollment yield?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course! But they're better than Berkeley's, * and that's the point*. Similarly, no city is crime-free, but some cities have more crime than others. Just because you can never eliminate all crime in your city doesn't mean that you don't try to fight crime. Otherwise, why not just shut down the police department and let the criminals run rampant, because since you can't eliminate all crime, you might as well not bother to fight it at all, right? Similarly, while no school has a 100% yield, that doesn't mean that you don't try to improve your yield. Is this really such a complicated point? LOL indeed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
My point is, I think you're thinking is far too advanced -- that probably tells how old you are. The fact is, most fresh high school grads don't care about those things that much YET. When they apply to college, they usually have a specific major in mind. For example, students who want to study engineering apply to Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, CMU, Cornell and the like ... Those who want to go into IBanking are usually ttracted to schools like Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Wharton, Haas, Ross and the like. Impaction is NOT YET in the minds of most high school students. Thus, I cannot see how removing that would help boost Berkeley's image

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? Have a specific major in mind? I doubt it. If that were the case, then why do so many Berkeley students come in as 'Undeclared'? </p>

<p>Besides, consider this thought exercise. What if it was the case that all Berkeley students were locked into the major that they state on their application, with no opportunity to change it, ever. I think we would all agree that Berkeley would become a far far less desirable school. But why? If what you are saying is correct, then all these high school seniors already have a specific major in mind anyway, so this rule will have no impact on them anyway. So they shouldn't care. But we all know that they * do care*. They want to have that freedom. They want to be free to switch majors if they find out they like something better, or if what they picked is not for them. That's what I'm trying to give them. I want Berkeley students to be able to switch majors freely. What's so great about having all these programs if you can't get into the one that you want?</p>

<p>I find joshua007's posts very insightful.</p>

<p>
[quote]
How much is not very?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Probably no more than a postdoc - say (with no experience) $30k for a 9 month (2 semester) contract, plus another 10k if he teaches in the summer session. Keep in mind, many of these lecturers would most likely be post-docs themselves who make the same kind of money (i.e. 40k for the whole year). </p>

<p>Lest you think these salaries are unusual, consider the salaries that postdocs at Stanford get paid, as well as the NIH minimum salaries.</p>

<p><a href="http://postdocs.stanford.edu/handbook/salary%202006.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://postdocs.stanford.edu/handbook/salary%202006.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think I could actually make an argument to pay the lecturers *less*than the postdocs. Again, keep in mind that I would be offering experience that is arguably more valuable than the post-doc experience, especially if you are not gunning for a tenure-track position at a major research university (and the vast majority of colleges in the US are not major research universities). For example, if you are just satisfied with later getting a position at an average university (i.e. some regional school) then saying that you were a former lecturer at Berkeley is a major filip in your cap. </p>

<p>Let's also keep in mind that many people will treat the lecturer position as basically a part-time job. They will also hold down partial appointments as research scientists or engineers. For example, Henrik Wallman is a lecturer in the ChemE department. He is also a research scientist at LBL. I don't know how he manages to juggle both responsibilities, but he manages to do so, and so I have to imagine he is drawing 2 paychecks (one from the ChemE department, one from LBL). Maybe he is only drawing partial paychecks from each because he can't be a full-time employee in either of his jobs. But no matter, the point is, he has 2 income sources. </p>

<p><a href="http://eetd.lbl.gov/staff/wallman-ph.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://eetd.lbl.gov/staff/wallman-ph.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://cheme.berkeley.edu/people/people_lecturers.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://cheme.berkeley.edu/people/people_lecturers.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Hence, if the ChemE department is paying Wallman a pittance to be a lecturer, that doesn't really matter to him because it's not his "real" job. Similarly, I strongly suspect that plenty of other research scientists and research engineers in the various other labs and research centers around campus would be amenable to working as part-time lecturers, even if they get paid very little, just to be able to get the teaching experience and the exposure and networking with the regular faculty. It strengthens their resume. In the case of Wallman, I strongly suspect that he hopes to one day get a professor position at Berkeley or some other major research university, and since he couldn't get a tenure-track position the normal way, he is pursuing this 'alternative route'. It sometimes work - sometimes lecturers do get converted to assistant prof. Granted, it's not common, but the fact is, if Wallman had continued to be just an LBL research scientist, he would basically never have gotten a major tenure-track position. By taking on a lecturer position, at least he has a chance. </p>

<p>Hence, the point is, because we would basically selling the valuable experience and networking opportunities, we could probably pay less than a regular post-doc salary. But even having to pay the post-doc salary equivalent is still quite cheap. I hardly see this as breaking the bank. </p>

<p>
[quote]
How many will you plan to hire?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hopefully zero. Because, as I said before, I am convinced that much (indeed, perhaps all) of the impaction problem is just a management problem. The courses have space. They have available professors. They just don't want to use them properly. For example, why exactly is EECS impacted when EECS courses have space? Same thing with econ. At the very least, you can raise the impaction limit to the point where you truly have run out of course space. After all, if there is space available, you might as well let somebody use it. </p>

<p>After that point is reached, then you just hire enough lecturers in each major to eliminate whatever impaction is remaining. Like I calculated above, it wouldn't be that many. Just one extra lecturer (teaching the standard load of 2 courses a semester) can reduce a LOT of impaction. </p>

<p>
[quote]
How much will each of them would cost?</p>

<p>How much would this proposal would cost to Berkeley?</p>

<p>Can Berkeley afford it at this very moment?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]

Lastly, why is giving scholarship grants plus stipend to the top Berkeley qualifiers more expensive than hiring teaching staff instead?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look at what you've just done. First you complain that my proposal would cost money (and I agree it would). But then you make a counterproposal that would almost certainly cost more money. If Berkeley can't afford my proposal, then they certainly can't afford yours. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Your proposal is good, but is it workable at the current state given the politics involved inside the administration?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And here your proposal encounters the same problem as above. You talk about the political problems associated with my proposal, yet your proposal, I would argue, is just as politically problematic, if not more so. Think of it this way. Aside from athletic scholarships, Berkeley does not offer a single, fixed-sum, merit-based scholarship awards to matriculating students. Not a single one. Even the awards of the Regents/Chancellor scholarships are indexed on financial aid - hence, if you're rich, the R/C scholarship would only award you the minimum amount (which I believe is $1000 per year). If you're poor and you win, then you get a correspondingly higher amount, but that basically means that the R/C Scholarship is just a form of financial aid. </p>

<p>What (I think) you are proposing is that merit-based awards NOT be indexed on family income. For simplicity, let's call them the "joshua" awards. I presume that what you are saying is that if you win a joshua award, you would receive a fixed sum that would cover both tuition as well as a living stipend, regardless of what your family income is. In other words, if you come from a family of millionaires and win a joshua award, you would still receive the full amount. </p>

<p>Notice how that is a mighty sea change from what happens today. Presumably many of the future joshua awards would be the equivalents of the winners of the R/C awards today. Yet, like I said, the R/C awards provide only an indexed fund amount. You are proposing to fix that amount. </p>

<p>In other words, you are proposing to do something that Berkeley has never done before. In fact, it violates the egalitarian principle that Berkeley attempts to espouse with regards to merit-based awards.. Personally, I do not agree with that principle, but nevertheless, I recognize that it is a principle to which Berkeley adheres. Contrast that with MY proposal. Like I said, Berkeley already hires lecturers. So I am not proposing anything that Berkeley isn't already doing. I am just proposing that Berkeley do more of it. </p>

<p>Nor is the notion of eliminating impaction politically provocative. Many Berkeley majors, including many of the largest ones such as MCB and political science, are not impacted. Furthermore, many of the impacted majors of today, especially the ones in L&S, were not impacted in the past. It was only in recent years that economic became impacted; 10 years ago, it was not. </p>

<p>Hence, the point is, my proposal does not include anything that Berkeley either isn't already doing right now, or did in the recent past. Your proposal is a different matter altogether. From a political standpoint, it is obviously much easier to do more of something that is already being done than to kick off a program that has never been done before.</p>