7/17    Which of the current issues do you think will be UC's biggest
        reason for their downfall? 1) Creating UC Merced, 2) Abolishing
        the SAT, 3) Allowing them to consider race in admissions, or 4)
        Automatically accepting the top 4% of high school students?
        \_ Blatantly loaded question. First present a definition of "downfall"
           and hard evidence that the UC is undergoing "downfall"
        \_ 3 and 4.
        \_ True, it's loaded, and true there's no hard evidence I can give
           to prove it. But a hand-wavey explanation would be that
           the prestige of the UC system is going down, especially Cal's.
           Especially wrt Cal, they are riding on the high laurels that
           they used to have. Next, looking at Cal graduates (from ugrad
           and grad), they aren't as successfull/productive as those from
           other schools. Next, look at the intelligence (or whatever
           you wanna call it) of incoming students. Half are getting
           smarter (due to a more selective admissions process) and the
           other half are even dumber than before (due to automatic
           admissions, and most of all, our favorite: affirmative action).
           That latter half will help bring UC down even more.
           \_ gee, Cal managed to get along with affirmative action for 30
              years...was it "riding on high laurels" then?  (Whatever that
              means).  -tom
                   \_ lameness.  why don't you realize this.  Cal sucks
                      for different things.  if you like people to hire
                      for a cube farm who will work hard and never complain
                      until they get strokes from overwork, then cal's great.
                      But if you want leaders and people who will inovate
                      and come up with new ways of thinking, then look
                      elsewhere.  I'm not even sure cal grad school has it.
                \_ That's when it was making an effort providing
                   high-quality professors (i.e. people who could do
                   research AND teach; you don't find the teaching
                   component part of the criteria anymore,
                   unfortunately), recruiting high-quality students,
                   and not let the bullshit politics and political
                   correctness interfere with its mission. So, despite
                   the affirmative action, it was successfull enough
                   in the other areas.
                   \_ really, what evidence do you have that teaching
                      isn't part of recruitment criteria?  I'm sure that the
                      L&S Deans would be very surprised to hear that, seeing
                      as how they're the ones actually doing the faculty
                      searches.  Oh wait, you're just an anonymous cowardly
                      troll with no real point.  Sorry I said anything.  -tom
                      \_ a friend of mine applied for a fulltime faculty
                         position on the math department.  he was working
                         as soft-money part time faculty, and he told me
                         all the department wanted was a list of publications
                         and research qualifications, and did not even ask
                         about teaching.  perhaps the math department
                         is worse than most cal departments, though.
                      \_ Tom's right (throughout this thread), here are some
                         URLs to support him; you come up with some evidence
                         that contradicts below, THEN we'll have a argument.
                         http://www.berkeley.edu/about/honors
                         http://uga.berkeley.edu/sled/dta.html
                        \_ Anonymity is irrelevant here. So...how do I
                           know teaching isn't part of the recruitment
                           criteria? Tell me you aren't that oblivious.
                           Haven't you taken a course at Cal? Don't you
                           see firsthand the quality of the "teaching"?
                           So tell your L&S deans to do a better job, if
                           you wanna keep playing that card. And...no
                           need to apologize for saying anything.
           \_ Translation: "Cal was DAMN GOOD right up until I graduated.
                (Just like *me*!)  Then it all started going to hell.  Kids
                these days . . . "
                \_ Nah, it was already on the downhill while I was
                   there. But now it's gonna plummet now, due to reasons
                   1-4 from above, though. That stuff DID happen after
                   I graduated.
                   \_ Cal engineering will be fine. There are a lot of
                      poor bright people like me who prefer going to
                      public school because its cheaper which allows us
                      to graduate without being saddled with debt.
        \_ It has nothing to do with race.  When I was in L&S CS, most of
           the students were oppurtunists who cheated on tests and did
           the minimum to get by.  And most of these people were Asians.
           I'd say it has more to do with people who are unable to enjoy
           learning.  And BTW, I'm also Asian who made it out with a 3.5
           so it's not a jealously thing.
           \_ You graduated from L&S with only a 3.5? Damn you must have
              been slacking off. There is no excuse for graduating from
              L&S with under 3.8 since there is no real course work
              (except if you were math or physics, which you weren't).
              \_ I did REALLY bad freshman year.
           \_ The issue is that these people, myself included, didn't go to
              college "to learn." They go because you need it to get the big
              bucks. But really they just want to have fun and don't
              particularly give a shit about Scheme or n-channel mosfets
              or the OSI reference model. I liked learning about history.
              There's an inherent problem with my knowing history though:
              it's not particularly useful to ANYONE ELSE WHO WILL PAY ME.
              \_ I'll bet alot of history majors are making double your
                 salary.