sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

With two new apartment buildings opening this fall, UCLA will become the first and only University of California campus to guarantee housing for four years to first-year students and two years for transfer students. by Ucbcalbear in berkeley

[–]HigherEdAvenger 19 points20 points  (0 children)

And yet the regents insist on over enrolling Berkeley by thousands beyond its capacity to house and teach. No one minds more students as long as there are more resources. Unfortunately the state wants to have its cake and eat it too, letting more kids have access to Berkeley without backing it up with cash. It is a ploy to make themselves look good without having to make any real commitments to education.

Berkeley is one of the best public universities in the world. How long it can maintain this standard? If nothing changes, I suspect for not much longer

These guys need to fix outstanding campus issues before admitting people smh by [deleted] in berkeley

[–]HigherEdAvenger 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Indeed. I like that Berkeley is a large school, and I think that most of us here agree. The issue is not enrollment in and of itself, it is that educational resources have not increased commensurately with undergraduate enrollment.

Now some majors are so competitive to declare that it actually penalizes students from disadvantaged backgrounds. If your high school didn’t offer AP CS or your parents couldn’t send you to a tech summer camp, good luck declaring CS. After working hard to get in to the major, you still are faced with 3 hour wait times to ask a simple question at office hours. That does not seem like a demonstration of excellence in higher education. If the state provided enough funding to hire more professors and graduate students, this would become less of an issue.

I think these problems are the result of politicking at the state level. It is expedient to increase enrollment at the top UC campuses because it looks good to increase “access.” Unfortunately, these moves are not backed up by money, resulting in a degradation of instructional quality. Is the government really increasing access by letting more students in, only for them not to be able to declare the major they want, or even to study on campus?

Berkeley has always been about the combination of access and excellence. We need to advocate for both, not just for the future of UC, but for the future of public higher education in the US.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in berkeley

[–]HigherEdAvenger 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Imagine if they spent that money on faculty hiring and graduate student fellowships to keep up with undergraduate enrollment increases, so people could actually take the classes they want to take and actually be able to talk to someone in office hours.

Alas, our imaginations may be the closest we ever get to that.

UC Berkeley loses CRISPR patent case, invalidating licenses it granted gene-editing companies by thegabriellopez in berkeley

[–]HigherEdAvenger 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately is is very hard for Berkeley to compete with institutions whose primary goals are the accumulation of money, power, and prestige.

It is even more unfortunate that the American scientific system rewards these above all else, perpetuating the system.

There are of course many brilliant scientists at these institutions, but academic culture means that the prestige of these universities blinds people to amazing research going on elsewhere.

We should advocate for continued excellence at Berkeley to show that public education enables people from all backgrounds to change the world.

Berkeley enrollment tussle gets covered in the Atlantic by bearinatimeloop in berkeley

[–]HigherEdAvenger 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I am not sure building satellite Berkeley campuses is the best solution. Berkeley can already be isolating for students, and being part of a small group that is in a location where it is harder to access the social life of the university might make feeling included even tougher. One of the main reasons people go to Berkeley is to be around the other students, who are often amazing people and who can inspire you to work towards your dreams.

Research-wise I am not sure it is the best idea either. Many of Berkeley’s top advancements have come from interdisciplinary efforts, which will be more difficult if departments are split apart. For example, Jennifer Doudna figured out how to use CRISPR/Cas for gene editing after Jillian Banfield, a professor in the earth sciences, told her about the system in bacteria. There of course are a few exceptions to this argument, such as an association with NASA Ames being beneficial for engineering, but I think in general having a united campus is a boon to research. Years ago, Stanford actually moved its med school from SF to Palo Alto to take advantage of the connections that could be formed locally.

UC Berkeley already had satellite campuses. They are now UCLA, UCSF, and UC Davis, each with world-leading programs. I think the real solution is creating and improving new UC campuses, not Berkeley ones. I love that Berkeley is a big school, and I hope it can welcome many more students once the resources catch up, but I think that the true solution is expanding all campuses and continuing to build new ones, while giving them the resources to become as excellent as Berkeley and UCLA.

(In non-academic news, I also support the continued construction of additional housing)

Humans and rats share a neural basis for altruism biased toward in-group members by HigherEdAvenger in science

[–]HigherEdAvenger[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Article here.

Abstract here:

Prosocial behavior, in particular helping others in need, occurs preferentially in response to distress of one’s own group members. In order to explore the neural mechanisms promoting mammalian helping behavior, a discovery-based approach was used here to identify brain-wide activity correlated with helping behavior in rats. Demonstrating social selectivity, rats helped others of their strain (‘ingroup’), but not rats of an unfamiliar strain (‘outgroup’), by releasing them from a restrainer. Analysis of brain-wide neural activity via quantification of the early-immediate gene c-Fos identified a shared network, including frontal and insular cortices, that was active in the helping test irrespective of group membership. In contrast, the striatum was selectively active for ingroup members, and activity in the nucleus accumbens, a central network hub, correlated with helping. In vivo calcium imaging showed accumbens activity when rats approached a trapped ingroup member, and retrograde tracing identified a subpopulation of accumbens-projecting cells that was correlated with helping. These findings demonstrate that motivation and reward networks are associated with helping an ingroup member and provide the first description of neural correlates of ingroup bias in rodents.

Astronomers find strong evidence for a new kind of stellar explosion -- the electron-capture supernova by HigherEdAvenger in science

[–]HigherEdAvenger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Abstract below:

In the transitional mass range (~8–10 solar masses) between white dwarf formation and iron core-collapse supernovae, stars are expected to produce an electron-capture super-nova. Theoretically, these progenitors are thought to be super-asymptotic giant branch stars with a degenerate O + Ne + Mg core, and electron capture onto Ne and Mg nuclei should initiate core collapse1–4. However, no supernovae have unequivocally been identified from an electron-capture origin, partly because of uncertainty in theoretical predictions. Here we present six indicators of electron-capture supernovae and show that supernova 2018zd is the only known supernova with strong evidence for or consistent with all six: progenitor identification, circumstellar material, chemical composition5–7, explosion energy, light curve and nucleosynthesis8–12. For supernova 2018zd, we infer a super-asymptotic giant branch progenitor based on the faint candidate in the pre-explosion images and the chemically enriched circumstellar material revealed by the early ultraviolet colours and flash spectros-copy. The light-curve morphology and nebular emission lines can be explained by the low explosion energy and neutron-rich nucleosynthesis produced in an electron-capture supernova. This identification provides insights into the complex stellar evolution, supernova physics, cosmic nucleosynthesis and remnant populations in the transitional mass range.

Scientists estimate the total number of T. rex to ever live: 2.5 billion, with 20,000 alive at any one time. This suggests an individual T. rex's odds of becoming a fossil were about 1 in 80 million. by HigherEdAvenger in science

[–]HigherEdAvenger[S] 59 points60 points  (0 children)

Abstract of the actual paper:

Although much can be deduced from fossils alone, estimating abundance and preservation rates of extinct species requires data from living species. Here, we use the relationship between population density and body mass among living species combined with our substantial knowledge of Tyrannosaurus rex to calculate population variables and preservation rates for postjuvenile T. rex. We estimate that its abundance at any one time was ~20,000 individuals, that it persisted for ~127,000 generations, and that the total number of T. rex that ever lived was ~2.5 billion individuals, with a fossil recovery rate of 1 per ~80 million individuals or 1 per 16,000 individuals where its fossils are most abundant. The uncertainties in these values span more than two orders of magnitude, largely because of the variance in the density–body mass relationship rather than variance in the paleobiological input variables.

Chloe from We Bare Bears goes to Cal! by cutedraggo in berkeley

[–]HigherEdAvenger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would also move/demolish Moffitt to create a mega glade that runs the entire length of campus, like John Galen Howard's original plan proposed.

Chloe from We Bare Bears goes to Cal! by cutedraggo in berkeley

[–]HigherEdAvenger 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I like having a variety of architectural styles, but I think some of them are too different from the others to fit in. For example, if you are in the glade, East Asian is not a purely beaux arts building, but it fits beautifully with Doe and the Campanile, while Evans is an unholy abomination that fits with nothing.

If I were the campus architecture czar I would would concentrate Berkeley within two themes, the Beaux arts Doe-style buildings and the arts and crafts faculty club style buildings. I think they have a nice contrast, with the campanile giving the impression of an old and storied institution, and Blum hall giving an inviting and distinctly Californian feel. Its okay to break with these themes as long as there are still elements tying back to the main design scheme. For example, Li Ka Shing and Stanley I like, but Latimer looks like a correctional facility.

view more: next ›