<p>There are a lot of benefits from having a smaller motivated class.</p>
<p>LOTS. I could take the OCW courses available online at MIT and get a superior learning to what I get at Berkeley most times.</p>
<p>The teachers here are as qualified as the teachers at any other top school, so saying they are bad here (or good here) is saying the same for many of the other top schools. There is a constant flux of teachers coming and going, mostly to and from the same five or six schools. Harvard takes teachers from Cal, Yale, Stanford, Umich etc, and we return the favor as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most college students don't want any personal attention from their professors in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure I agree with that. By the same logic, why don't all high schools just cram hundreds of students into one lecture hall for a single class? Each high school could then hire only 1 math teacher. That math teacher could then teach only 4 classes a day - one class for each grade level - and then maybe a 5th or a 6th class for the AP students and the remedial students. Schools could save money by not having to hire multiple math teachers. Maybe hire some people off the street to help out in grading homeworks, but that's all you would need to do. If personal attention really doesn't matter, then why don't high schools operate this way?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The teachers here are as qualified as the teachers at any other top school, so saying they are bad here (or good here) is saying the same for many of the other top schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The issue is not the qualifications of the teachers. The issues are how much access you can get to the teacher, and what are the other things that support whether the undergraduate academic environment is a good one (or not).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure I agree with that. By the same logic, why don't all high schools just cram hundreds of students into one lecture hall for a single class? Each high school could then hire only 1 math teacher. That math teacher could then teach only 4 classes a day - one class for each grade level - and then maybe a 5th or a 6th class for the AP students and the remedial students. Schools could save money by not having to hire multiple math teachers. Maybe hire some people off the street to help out in grading homeworks, but that's all you would need to do. If personal attention really doesn't matter, then why don't high schools operate this way?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think your logic in any way follows mine. </p>
<p>High school students, as a whole, are fundamentally different than college students, as a whole. In high school, kids tend to have lots of friends whom they usually can't help but talking to in class, thereby making a police figure, a teacher, necessary. In college, it's very unlikely that you'll get students obsessively talking or otherwise distracting the entire class by doing stupid things-a notorius aspect of high school life. If they do, the professor will almost universally either kick them out, pause the lecture until the disturber is too embarrased, or simply cancel the lecture and thereby turn the disturbing student into everyone's hate object. </p>
<p>I stand by what I said. Most college students do not want personal attention. If they did, office hours at colleges....all the way from Harvard to Noname community college would always be packed. We all know the reality is much different.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are a lot of benefits from having a smaller motivated class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said there wasn't. What I said was that not very many college students want the personal attention from their professors in the first place.</p>
<p>Most do because they need recommendations. </p>
<p>You might be right that "most" do not care because they just want the degree and money. As such they don't belong in college.</p>
<p>THose that do care about learning and enriching their lives DO want professor attention. We should respect the wishes of these students as well as it is these students who are more likely to be future leaders and innovators.</p>
<p>We could easily send the rest of the students to trade schools and whatnot and it would result in those students who don't care getting the same academic experience.</p>
<p>Ok. Wow. Well, I can't say I agree. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Most do because they need recommendations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are out of your mind. Most college students graduate without ever meeting their professors, much less asking for a recommendation. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You might be right that "most" do not care because they just want the degree and money. As such they don't belong in college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok, contradiction in the first sentence. I suggest you straighten out your ideas. About your "they don't belong in college" comment, I can't say I agree with it. It's an unrealistic personal dream of yours. No U.S. legislative body would pass such a law. I can't think of a single person I know (and I know a lot of people) who would support such a law. It would wreck American meritocracy. Also, what gives you the right to decide what people's goals in life should be? That's right, nothing. </p>
<p>
[quote]
THose that do care about learning and enriching their lives DO want professor attention. We should respect the wishes of these students as well as it is these students who are more likely to be future leaders and innovators.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Highly you-centered. The intellectual elite (with a few exceptions) has never nor will ever direct public policy. Get over it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
We could easily send the rest of the students to trade schools and whatnot and it would result in those students who don't care getting the same academic experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who do you think you are? Stalin? </p>
<p>Besides your ludicrous education plan would not mean "the same academic experience" for the students at trade schools, they would obviously be deprived of at least the possibility of hardcore academics.</p>
<p>Please, how many prelaws, premeds, and future graduate students are there? Its a significant amount, probably over half the campus when the economy is doing badly.</p>
<p>Colleges use to mean more when only a smaller percentage of the population got degrees, the SAT was scaled to be tougher, classes could be harder, etc. Smaller = higher standards because the distribution of intelligence and ability tends to vary little over time. </p>
<p>How does limiting sizes limit merit? There are tons of things people can do without a college degree that can make them money, and tons of educational alternatives that would be better suited for people that struggle through college or get by with cheating and playing the gpa game.</p>
<p>The elites do direct policy. The persuasive chain goes:
1) The media alerts the public to a problem.
2) The elites come up with solutions.
3) The public decides which solutions they like.
4) The legislature acts.</p>
<p>Most people are sheep and bandwagon onto the opinions of those at the top. I'm sorry if you've blinded yourself to this fact in your politically-correct, quasi-reality, but its the truth.</p>
<p>You compare my proposal for an educational system that offers more choices and demands higher standards off people as somehow equivalent to Stalinist gulags and genocide.</p>
<p>Please come back when you can elevate the conversation beyond petty recantations and platitudes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please, how many prelaws, premeds, and future graduate students are there? Its a significant amount, probably over half the campus when the economy is doing badly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>According to the latest census, 42.8% of Americans have had some college experience. Yet, only 8.9% of Americans have graduate or professional degrees. What does this mean? Although there are many points to consider, and many deviations to acknowledge, it should be obvious that THE MAJORITY OF COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE NOT PRELAWS, PREMEDS, OR FUTURE GRADUATE STUDENTS. This means they will not need recommendations and do NOT need to know their professors on a personal basis. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Colleges use to mean more when only a smaller percentage of the population got degrees, the SAT was scaled to be tougher, classes could be harder, etc. Smaller = higher standards because the distribution of intelligence and ability tends to vary little over time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...and your point is? I never said anything to the contrary. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly. </p>
<p>
[quote]
How does limiting sizes limit merit? There are tons of things people can do without a college degree that can make them money, and tons of educational alternatives that would be better suited for people that struggle through college or get by with cheating and playing the gpa game.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You limit merit by cutting it out of the picture. Just who is to decide if people really want or "should" be in college? What criteria would you use? How could you avoid racism, sexism, ableism, and all the other isms? Or would you not? Maybe what you secretly want is to limit the number of minority and women students? Obviously they are, as a group, the less qualified-the ones fit for trade schools under your Stalinist system. I'm calling it Stalinist because it is Stalinist. If I could I would call it Hitlerist, but it's not Hitlerist. Hitler was against all non-military or home economics educaton.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The elites do direct policy. The persuasive chain goes:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I explicitly said the INTELLECTUAL elite-meaning university professors, writers, and top private researchers. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Most people are sheep and bandwagon onto the opinions of those at the top. I'm sorry if you've blinded yourself to this fact in your politically-correct, quasi-reality, but its the truth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are really quite something. Stop putting words I never say into my mouth. I am far from a politically corrent loudmouth. I'm actually quite conservative on most issues. But aside from my personal politics, it is you who blind yourself from the fact that most Americans love the idea of going to college. They do not go there without wanting to, they go there exactly because they've joined the bandwagon that says college is something which, if at all possible, should be done-even if you're not smart enough. People still try. It's the American way. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You compare my proposal for an educational system that offers more choices and demands higher standards off people as somehow equivalent to Stalinist gulags and genocide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no. If you knew your Soviet history, you would have realized that I evoked Stalin because of the stringent educational decrees passed before and during his rule which accomplished exactly what you are proposing---state imposed decisions on people's educational destiny without so much as a consultation. You brought out the gulags and genocide all on your very own. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Please come back when you can elevate the conversation beyond petty recantations and platitudes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll come back whenever I feel like it, as should you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The issue is not the qualifications of the teachers. The issues are how much access you can get to the teacher, and what are the other things that support whether the undergraduate academic environment is a good one (or not).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. Just chiming in the the teaching quality debate though, you will have bad professors/awesome professors no matter where you go, no matter which school he or she graduated from. One of my professors is like a true genius, and he went to Harvard (both ugrad and grad) but he is absolutely a HORRIBLE teacher (the man is damn brilliant though...).</p>
<p>And the I agree, most college kids do not want (or do not really care for) personal attention. But the kids who do take the initiative to get to know their professors, go to their office hours.. they will be more likely to be successful than the passive kid who never went to any office hours etc.</p>
<p>Exactly. If you want to get recommendations, you'll have to try harder. No student at any large university automatically receives personal attention. And even if they do, they still have to work to develop it. </p>
<p>In the end, its really frustrating to get into these debates. If you as an undergraduate care so much about getting to know professors, go to their office hours! I've done it, and I've both been invited to lunch and coffee with the same professor. It's not that hard. Quit your *****ing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
High school students, as a whole, are fundamentally different than college students, as a whole. In high school, kids tend to have lots of friends whom they usually can't help but talking to in class, thereby making a police figure, a teacher, necessary. In college, it's very unlikely that you'll get students obsessively talking or otherwise distracting the entire class by doing stupid things-a notorius aspect of high school life. If they do, the professor will almost universally either kick them out, pause the lecture until the disturber is too embarrased, or simply cancel the lecture and thereby turn the disturbing student into everyone's hate object.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that many high school students are immature. But the response to that would be for high school teachers to boot out any disruptive students in those large lectures. </p>
<p>But I fundamentally disagree with your notion that most college students don't want personal attention. If that were true, then why does Berkeley even bother to have its highly successful freshman/sophomore seminars? Berkeley implemented these seminars in direct response to complaints that the undergrad program does not provide enough personal attention, and they have been constantly oversubscribed every since they've been offered. The problem with these seminars is that there quite simply aren't enough of them. But if the students really don't want the personal attention, then why is Berkeley wasting resources in trying to provide it. Maybe Berkeley ought to cancel these seminars immediately.</p>
<p>I'll put it to you another way. Why is it that, time and time again, the biggest complaint about Berkeley is that the school is impersonal and that the school makes you feel like a number? Why does this keep coming up, if they don't want personal attention? </p>
<p>Finally, I would point to what happens in the Berkeley graduate programs, which tend to offer tremendous amounts of personal attention. You never hear of a Berkeley PhD student complaining that he has no access to his profs and that he feels like a number. So your premise would be that high school students need personal attention and small class sizes, but undergrads do not, but graduate students do? What makes undergrads so different from everybody else?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the end, its really frustrating to get into these debates. If you as an undergraduate care so much about getting to know professors, go to their office hours! I've done it, and I've both been invited to lunch and coffee with the same professor. It's not that hard. Quit your *****ing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously you can get the personal attention if you put in the effort. Nobody is denying that.</p>
<p>The issue is, why do you need to have to put in the effort? Other schools don't require it. Heck, the graduate programs at Berkeley don't require it. For example, if you're an MBA student at the Haas school, you can get all kinds of professor rec's and personal attention without putting in any effort at all. The same is true for the doctoral students and the Boalt law students. So the question is, if the grad students can get that? why can't the undergrad students get that?</p>
<p>"The issue is, why do you need to have to put in the effort? Other schools don't require it."</p>
<p>Really? So at Harvard or MIT, when you're in a lecture with 100 people the famous professors will go out of their way to give you personal attention? That's impressive. Cal has some huge classes, but so do all the other research schools, and I seriously doubt that professors at those other schools are going out of their way to give students personal attention.</p>
<p>I never said that ALL other schools provide personal attention. </p>
<p>What I am saying is that there are schools like Princeton, like the LAC's that do indeed provide extensive personal attention. This is something that plenty of Berkeley undergrads seem to want, judging by the fact that those fresh/soph seminars are almost always overfilled. And in fact, Berkeley itself provides plenty of personal attention...but to its graduate students. </p>
<p>This is just a nasty nihilistic way of thinking. Just because other people jump off a bridge doesn't mean that you have to jump off a bridge too.</p>
<p>Sakky~ isn't that a problem in most large universities though? I currently go to NYU and I do indeed, "feel like a number." I am sure things would be different in say, Amherst or Princeton, but aren't there more schools like Berkeley/NYU (i.e. large research universities) than there are LACs?</p>
<p>I might be wrong, since I am basing my assertion mostly on hearsay.</p>
<p>I'm not nihilistic. I'm just countering your argument that other schools don't require an effort to get personal attention. Most schools DO require effort. Sure, some don't, but the majority of the "top" schools do.</p>
<p>The level to which you, sakky, twist arguments in all the wrong ways has never ceased to amaze me. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree that many high school students are immature. But the response to that would be for high school teachers to boot out any disruptive students in those large lectures.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is structually ridiculous. High school students are, in general, not legally considered adults, meaning they cannot be treated like adults in college. If there WERE large lecture halls in high school in which teachers could kick disrupting students out, those students would then be out wrecking the hallways. Complete chaos and lockdown would soon follow. These are kids we are talking about. Most of them do not yet value education. Why? Mainly BECAUSE THEY AREN'T PAYING FOR IT! And they aren't around people who are paying for it, either! (private schools are not in the majority.) </p>
<p>
[quote]
But I fundamentally disagree with your notion that most college students don't want personal attention. If that were true, then why does Berkeley even bother to have its highly successful freshman/sophomore seminars? Berkeley implemented these seminars in direct response to complaints that the undergrad program does not provide enough personal attention, and they have been constantly oversubscribed every since they've been offered. The problem with these seminars is that there quite simply aren't enough of them. But if the students really don't want the personal attention, then why is Berkeley wasting resources in trying to provide it. Maybe Berkeley ought to cancel these seminars immediately.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are quite confused, sakky. First you say you don't agree that most college students don't want personal attention. But then you particularly point out the Berkeley case. Berkeley undergrads do not represent "most college students." The thread has gone from talking about just Berkeley to college in general. You don't seem to recognize that. Now, about these freshman/sophomore seminars at Berkleley. I agree, they are quite successful. However, does that imply that most Berkeley students want to be in one? NO! It simply implies that Berkeley has more students who want personal attention via freshman/sophomore than are structurally possible. And I'm not sure I even agree with your belief that they are filled to capacity. I don't have time nor the desire to go thorough the catalog (<a href="http://fss.berkeley.edu/about/FSS_Spring_2006.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://fss.berkeley.edu/about/FSS_Spring_2006.pdf</a>) and match it up with the number of enrollees listed in the schedule of classes (<a href="http://schedule.berkeley.edu/srchsprg.html)%5B/url%5D">http://schedule.berkeley.edu/srchsprg.html)</a>, but I'll just say that my friend was in a freshman/sophmore seminar and he says that he initially was shopping for one and went to three of them. All three had less than the 15 limit on the first day and all three eventually had less than 11 students. He ended up sticking to the one with 9 students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll put it to you another way. Why is it that, time and time again, the biggest complaint about Berkeley is that the school is impersonal and that the school makes you feel like a number? Why does this keep coming up, if they don't want personal attention?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I really thought you were smarter than this. The fact that many people (especially on CC) complain about Berkeley undergrad's impersonal aspects does not mean most undergrads feel that way. I am restating what I already said and you seem to have ignored. IF most undergrads at Berkeley (or any other college) REALLY wanted personal attention, they would go to office hours. BUT THE REALITY IS THAT MOST PROFESSORS-all the way from Harvard to community college-are known to bemoan the fact that very few, if any, students come to their office hours. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, I would point to what happens in the Berkeley graduate programs, which tend to offer tremendous amounts of personal attention. You never hear of a Berkeley PhD student complaining that he has no access to his profs and that he feels like a number. So your premise would be that high school students need personal attention and small class sizes, but undergrads do not, but graduate students do? What makes undergrads so different from everybody else?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again you have twisted my viewpoint and either misunderstood or consciously misrepresented it. Note that I am BIG on qualifiers. I always say "most" or "few" or "in general." Thus, my viewpoint is actually that most high school students, since they are immature and still considered children, cannot under most circumstances be treated like college students. About undergrads, yes I do believe that the vast majority of them do not want personal attention. Do not confuse the ambitious minority that flocks to freshman/sophomore seminars with most of the student population, who do not willingly flock to anything academic. Now, grad students, in general, are fundamentally different than high school students and undergrads. Unlike high schoolers, they are hoping to make a carrer out of their education, not torch down the school. And unlike undergrads, they are focused on a topic and are serious about it. Undergrads, for the most part, get lost between schoolwork which is WAAAAAAAAAAAY harder than it was high school, work (which a large number of them must do in order to keep going to school-unlike high schoolers who get it for free and grads who get it from grants/fellowships/etc.,) and sex and booze (self-explanatory.) Most undergrads go to college for the reasons Polite Antagonis pointed out-fancy looking degree and the promise of $$$. Why is this so? Mainly because most of them come from bad high schools in which intellectualism isn't stressed very much, but that still doesn't mean that the undergrads who want to become grad students cannot escape the herd. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The issue is, why do you need to have to put in the effort? Other schools don't require it. Heck, the graduate programs at Berkeley don't require it. For example, if you're an MBA student at the Haas school, you can get all kinds of professor rec's and personal attention without putting in any effort at all. The same is true for the doctoral students and the Boalt law students. So the question is, if the grad students can get that? why can't the undergrad students get that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I already tried to answer this, but let me say it again. BECAUSE IT'S STRUCTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Undergraduate education in the U.S., like in Europe and all other supradeveloped areas has been turned into a degree machine. There is no stopping this socioeconomic process. It's been here "benefitting" human society ever since the nineteenth century and its here to stay.</p>
<p>I have always agreed that Berkeley is not the only school that has a problem with impersonality. </p>
<p>But that doesn't make it OK. So what if other schools have problems with impersonality? Just because other schools are impersonal doesn't mean that it's OK for Berkeley to be impersonal. Just because Scott Peterson murdered his wife doesn't mean that other people should murder their wives. </p>
<p>I agree that there are some, probably many, Berkeley students who don't care about personal attention. But I would assert that there are many who do. After all, the fresh/soph seminars are overcapacity for a reason. For those students who don't care about personal attention, sure, give them the big lecture classes. But for those who do care, I believe that efforts can be made to accomodate them.</p>
<p>This is not dissimilar to some of the idea that Calkidd has put forth. Berkeley probably should have 2 tracks, one for the premed/prelaw/pre-X careerist students who just want to get their tickest punched so that they can move on to med/law/whatever-school, and another track for those people who really care about the education.</p>