Will a Cal degree no longer be worth what it once was?

<p>I don’t have anything against transfers, but I hate how easy classes are for them.</p>

<p>Let’s be serious. Lower division weeder courses are much more difficult than upper division courses. And transfers get to skip the hardest part about Berkeley while still reaping the same benefits as us Freshmen admits.</p>

<p>I also dislike how much easier it is for transfers to get into Haas. I’d pick a 40% admissions rate from a community college over a 50% admissions rate at Berkeley any ****ing day.</p>

<p>OP here. I really can’t believe this thread is stilling breathing. </p>

<p>I just had to turn down Berkeley for purely financial reasons. I’m so saddened by the way things worked out, but I will be able to attend USC for essentially no cost. Thanks for all of your input everyone!</p>

<p>bookmarked, (in case the thread isn’t over).</p>

<p>@Moschisms – you shouldn’t be surprised that the tread is still breathing. Berkeley is a very touchy subject.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You actually didn’t answer my question: do you really think that nearly 500 MCB seniors - not even counting any nonseniors - have done research? </p>

<p>I believe that, at most, the number is half. After all, let’s face it, not all MCB students are doing that well. {Perhaps you just happen to know only high-performing MCB students and if so, good for you, but your experience is not representative.} Let’s face it, if you’re getting below a 3.0 in MCB, you’re probably not champing at the bit to be doing any MCB research. You probably just want to graduate and move on with your life. </p>

<p>But again, like I said, the overwhelming majority of faculty at Berkeley are not in the natural sciences. Yet they are still subject to the same research and publication pressures. For example, only a small percentage of Berkeley humanities undergraduates engage in academic research, or even know what it is, but all of Berkeley’s humanities professors do. Because they must. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Um, no, I didn’t say that all of the faculty would be given this deal. What I said is that only the specific top faculty who you want to raid would be given this deal. The rest of the faculty would not be given this deal. </p>

<p>Also, it should be noted that I never said that they necessarily would be exempt from teaching forever. A new assistant professor might be exempted from teaching until their tenure review. If they pass their review, then their tenure offer would come with teaching requirements. {They could then choose to turn down the tenure offer and go to some other university if they still don’t want to teach.} A senior tenured faculty member would be exempt for X number of years.</p>

<p>Is this really such a shocking idea? Then it should be said that that is what most research universities offer right now. Yale just recently offered one person a faculty position with a multi-year (I believe 3-year) teaching exemption. Heck, like I said, Berkeley too famously offered a long-standing teaching exemption to Yuan Lee. </p>

<p>Any teaching backlog could then be filled by adjuncts or lecturers who are not part of the standard tenure-track ladder faculty. Again, this is something that practically every research university does…including Berkeley. Carlo Alesandrini and Henrik Wallman co-teach the (required) chemical engineering senior design course, Shannon Ciston teaches the (required) chemical engineering technical communication course, and Henrik Wallman also teaches the required chemical process control course. All of them are lecturers, not professors. Yet nobody seems to have a problem with that, as Berkeley still runs a top-ranked chemical engineering program. Similarly, the Berkeley CS department has several lecturers and adjuncts (Trevor Darrell, Paul Hilfinger, Armando Fox, Dan Garcia, Brian Harvey, Mike Clancy), and nobody seems to have a problem with that.</p>

<p>And so I ask: can anybody come up with a counterargument as to exactly why this proposal wouldn’t work?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This statement is probably the most outrageous that I have ever read on cc. It is physically (and financially) impossible for it to be true. Heck, most UC students have enough trouble getting lab times, much less a lab position, even if to just wash bottles.</p>

<p>btw: on another thread, a UCI student has posted that its Chem dept has cut organic slots next year, and the students are advised to take it over the summer instead. Otherwise, if they are shut out of the fall registration, many sci majors will not be able to graduate in 4 years.</p>

<p>go bears everyone</p>

<p>[Despite</a> glittering outside offers, Berkeley’s faculty are choosing to stay](<a href=“http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/05/07/faculty-retention/]Despite”>Despite glittering outside offers, Berkeley’s faculty are choosing to stay | Berkeley News)</p>

<p>"Let’s be serious. Lower division weeder courses are much more difficult than upper division courses. And transfers get to skip the hardest part about Berkeley while still reaping the same benefits as us Freshmen admits.</p>

<p>I also dislike how much easier it is for transfers to get into Haas. I’d pick a 40% admissions rate from a community college over a 50% admissions rate at Berkeley any ****ing day."</p>

<p>This is actually true. I don’t hate transfer students or think they’re inferior or anything (it’s actually smart/efficient method to transfer in after 2 years of CC)</p>

<p>I just hate the system =/</p>

<p>I know… the transfer students end up with superb looking GPA, because they don’t have to deal with the weeder classes… which are designed to lower everyone’s GPA</p>