Breaking UCB News: "Random" = Linear
Initially I thought I would need a couple hundred responses to confidently confirm or dis-confirm the TeleBears rumors.
But after about 120, the picture is clear. Painfully clear.
(4/17/08, 16:37. Thank you, Matt, for the graphic. Click to enlarge.)
Other resources (through 4/17/08):
Excel spreadsheet with all data (IP addressed deleted)
PDF of registration dates by law class
PDF of registration dates by undergraduate application
Link to the survey. (Helpful for interpreting the spreadsheet.)
The two PDFs include data from both 2009 and 2010, so they're a little jumbled. But the Excel document tells the whole story. It's true that there were some outliers (I'm sorry, but I remain politely skeptical that anyone has an appointment time between midnight and two AM) but oddballs notwithstanding, neither I nor the spreadsheet have any big surprises to share.
TeleBears Times are Allocated First by Class:
--The class of 2009 will register on the 23/24th
--The class of 2010 will register on the 24/25th
That shouldn't rub many of you the wrong way. A large percentage of you were comfortable allocating times by credits anyway.
What you will not like is this: whether, say, a particular rising 2L's registration day is the 23rd or 24th is not random. And it almost certainly never was. In fact, it is so glaringly un-random that I am flabbergasted anyone who actually knows could try to claim otherwise. I don't know who has been lying to DO, but I hope she stops by to kick their ass before she heads to Irvine. Here is the the breakout:
TeleBears Days Within Each Class:
Students who applied to UC Berkeley for their undergraduate studies have identification numbers substantially lower than those of us who did not. Even if a person was not accepted here for undergraduate work, their current student identification numbers are in the 1500xxxx range, compared to the 1990xxxx range from the class of 2010. On reasonable explanation is that denials of undergraduate admission created a record, which was re-activated by the law school application. (Another reasonable explanation is that there is a God, and He hates the rest of us. They're equally plausible.)
These lower numbers in turn correlate to earlier registration days -- people with identification numbers in the 1500xxxx range register on the first day of their class. People in the 1990xxxx range do not.
TeleBears Times Within Each Class:
Within each class, Telebears times correlate lock step to student ID numbers. The higher your number, the later your registration time. Every time. End of story.
But . . . . you knew that all along, didn't you?
Like most of you, I'm irritated.
My ability to experience a class with any of Boalt's celebrity professors is hamstrung by an arbitrary decision I made (or rather, didn't make) in 2000, when I began my college journey--namely, the decision to submit an application to Berkeley. Eight years later, CP II with B*ndy? Forget it. Evidence with Sw*ft? Yeah, right. Crim Pro with M*rphy? Nope.
I don't know if there is anything I can do about this right now, except to give a big shout out to the pointy-headed bureaucrats who have been collectively screwing an arbitrarily defined subset of Boalties for God only knows how long.
So, Pointy-Headed Bureaucrats: I don't appreciate you right now. Which, in case you missed it, is a polite way of saying something else entirely.
*sigh*
Maybe those of us at the tail end can can make a "Mod 13" or something. Since we'll be in the same classes for the next couple years, and all.
We can iron out the details this September . . . in Janitor Law.
If you have not completed the survey, please do so here. It will take only a moment, and as the commentary notes, more responses are merrier.
Well, statistically speaking, anyway.
But after about 120, the picture is clear. Painfully clear.
(4/17/08, 16:37. Thank you, Matt, for the graphic. Click to enlarge.)
Other resources (through 4/17/08):
Excel spreadsheet with all data (IP addressed deleted)
PDF of registration dates by law class
PDF of registration dates by undergraduate application
Link to the survey. (Helpful for interpreting the spreadsheet.)
The two PDFs include data from both 2009 and 2010, so they're a little jumbled. But the Excel document tells the whole story. It's true that there were some outliers (I'm sorry, but I remain politely skeptical that anyone has an appointment time between midnight and two AM) but oddballs notwithstanding, neither I nor the spreadsheet have any big surprises to share.
TeleBears Times are Allocated First by Class:
--The class of 2009 will register on the 23/24th
--The class of 2010 will register on the 24/25th
That shouldn't rub many of you the wrong way. A large percentage of you were comfortable allocating times by credits anyway.
What you will not like is this: whether, say, a particular rising 2L's registration day is the 23rd or 24th is not random. And it almost certainly never was. In fact, it is so glaringly un-random that I am flabbergasted anyone who actually knows could try to claim otherwise. I don't know who has been lying to DO, but I hope she stops by to kick their ass before she heads to Irvine. Here is the the breakout:
TeleBears Days Within Each Class:
Students who applied to UC Berkeley for their undergraduate studies have identification numbers substantially lower than those of us who did not. Even if a person was not accepted here for undergraduate work, their current student identification numbers are in the 1500xxxx range, compared to the 1990xxxx range from the class of 2010. On reasonable explanation is that denials of undergraduate admission created a record, which was re-activated by the law school application. (Another reasonable explanation is that there is a God, and He hates the rest of us. They're equally plausible.)
These lower numbers in turn correlate to earlier registration days -- people with identification numbers in the 1500xxxx range register on the first day of their class. People in the 1990xxxx range do not.
TeleBears Times Within Each Class:
Within each class, Telebears times correlate lock step to student ID numbers. The higher your number, the later your registration time. Every time. End of story.
But . . . . you knew that all along, didn't you?
Like most of you, I'm irritated.
My ability to experience a class with any of Boalt's celebrity professors is hamstrung by an arbitrary decision I made (or rather, didn't make) in 2000, when I began my college journey--namely, the decision to submit an application to Berkeley. Eight years later, CP II with B*ndy? Forget it. Evidence with Sw*ft? Yeah, right. Crim Pro with M*rphy? Nope.
I don't know if there is anything I can do about this right now, except to give a big shout out to the pointy-headed bureaucrats who have been collectively screwing an arbitrarily defined subset of Boalties for God only knows how long.
So, Pointy-Headed Bureaucrats: I don't appreciate you right now. Which, in case you missed it, is a polite way of saying something else entirely.
*sigh*
Maybe those of us at the tail end can can make a "Mod 13" or something. Since we'll be in the same classes for the next couple years, and all.
We can iron out the details this September . . . in Janitor Law.
*************
If you have not completed the survey, please do so here. It will take only a moment, and as the commentary notes, more responses are merrier.
Well, statistically speaking, anyway.
Labels: Technology Rants, The Resident Evil
posted by Patrick Bageant at 8:47 PM
76 Comments:
Ha ha ha. I went to Berkeley as an undergrad over 10 years ago (student ID# 122....) and my Telebears appointment was last week!
Well, that's yucky. Thanks for doing the work to confirm the suspicion, Patrick. And don't lose heart. There are 2Ls in Swift's evidence so no matter how late your appointment time is, you should be able to take it your 3L year. And while the big shot names are definitely good, don't feel you're getting the total shaft if you have to take classes with lesser-knowns. Especially don't fear the visiting professors. Some of my best classes have been with visitors. They try a little harder. I'm not talking about adjuncts of course. Fear them.
I don't really care that much when my registration is, since, as a 1L, I have yet to be denied a class I wanted.
However, this is, to use the vernacular, rather whack. Especially since we were all assured that the system was "random".
Nice work. I have no idea if you're correct in your conclusions, but I admire your effort.
At first I thought 9:22 was kidding, but you know how you can log into Tele-Bears and see how full various classes are? There's somebody already in Civ Pro II and two people in Erin Murphy's Crime and Tech Seminar, which is capped at 20. And my appointment is still eight days away...
9:23 - yet the worst class I've ever had in my entire life is with a visiting prof (who shall go unnamed - but it's a business law course that's this semester). I'm not even exaggerating.
Patrick: Nice work on this. I was skeptical at first, but the numbers don't lie.
However: There's a chance that there is some truth to the process including a "random" aspect.
From personal experience: I'm usually ahead of everyone I know, but this semester I'm behind. True, though, it's within a matter of hours.
So maybe your SID contributes to some grander order, yet there's randomness within a block of time. Say, for example, my SID puts me in the group that goes on the 23rd between 4 and 6. Then they scramble those up. Maybe?
Theresa said:
I also have a very low number--I applied to Berkeley and was a spring admit in 1995. My number is 127******. I also applied and got into Cal for graduate school but decided not to attend. I always had good registration times.
Interestingly, I know that the berkeley people held onto my information from some earlier time (either undergrad or grad). When I applied for financial aid and logged into Bearfacts back in the spring of 2005 after I was admitted, my old parents' address was in the computer. My family moved from that address four years earlier!
Why did Sh*lanski lie at the 3L class meeting this year and claim that Telebears times are random? Does he not have the data? Or, is the administration too lazy to change the code that assigns registration time?
As a 2L who has _never_ gotten the classes I wanted due to late registration times, I'm really pissed.
Well, here's my suggestion. First, continue to run the survey to try and get the number up to 200-300. Then, take results of the survey to DE and demand an immediate student-referendum or town-hall on the policy. And if they don't acquiesce, give your tuition dollars to a law school that cares about its students.
What a terrific finding. Maybe the high point for the blog (trailing only Armen's Simpsons quizes). I hope someone makes some noise. But, as a 143XXXX-er...not too much (thanks California public school education!) Oh, wait, I'm a 3L. Do whatever you want.
teh internets let you hunt in packs, not herds. awesome job harnessing that power. well played.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if DE/DO, etc., really do believe they are randomized every semester.
But *somebody* out there knows that (1) appointment times aren't issued randomly, AND that (2) people are telling law students otherwise.
That person is pathetic.
Someone did this in my mod last year and it definitely turned out the same way - anyone who had applied to Berkeley as an undergrad/went here as an undergrad had a lower student ID number and earlier registration time. And the same exact order of enrollment carried over to the Fall 2007 & Spring 2008 class sign-ups. There is no way our enrollment times are randomized.
Awwww, shit.
Patrick - You're the Woodward & Bernstein of our time. Seriously, seriously seriously good work.
By the way, the captcha I just entered was "liedhim". Coincidence? I think not.
Well played, Patrick, well played.
We need a cool nickname for this budding scandal.
"registrationgate" is just stupid.
"telef*cked" is just vulgar.
anybody?
No fair. I'm crossing my fingers that as the last rising 3L to register I will at least have some luck! I don't understand why they wouldn't just randomize it.
By the way, great job with this survey!
I'm also a 2L who has NEVER gotten the classes I really wanted b/c of my stupid registration times (my i.d. is 1917). Thanks, Patrick, for doing this. I'm glad my anger is justified!
And I'm kind of partial to "registrationgate," actually.
Katogate?
10:13 is my hero.
i also heart 10:13.
Maybe "Telebitch"? Keeps the B, anyhow.
And the only reason that the arguably fair result of 2Ls registering before 1Ls obtains is because they applied to Berkeley before 1Ls. This makes me (high SID#) sooooo angry.
To piggy back on 9:37, I knew something was fishy when I first logged on to BearFacts and the e-mail address they had on file was my lausd.k12.ca.us account! Then I realized my UID was lower than others. Then I took ES and SB for SEVERAL courses, including hard-to-get-into seminars--jointly taught!!!
This is my way of congratulating Patrick on doing great work and explaining why it never crossed my mind to do the same.
I don't really see the problem with this. Those who've loved Cal all along should be rewarded. ;)
Are you going to take these results to DE/DO? As a fello 199-er I think you should.
Man, this is infuriating. With the dwindling good Professors at Boalt, the fact that I will likely be denied from their classes because of my ID# makes me very sad. I love this school, but I am seriously considering transferring to Harvard, where all the good Boalt professors are going anyway!
8:28: Don't be an ass and claim that we have a "dwindling [number of] good professors." There's a legitimate reason to be upset about non-random registration times, but don't change the debate and insult the faculty. Edley has brought in a ton of new people recently, making the faculty better, not worse.
not only do non-Cal appliers take a back seat, but i love how the younger students who did apply to Cal but clearly after (and sometimes a good 10 or so years after) take a back seat to our older student body.
A couple of thoughts.
The tone of an email Dean S sent me this morning was confidence inspiring. I don't think he is very happy about this.
Second, if you are a boalt student who has not completed the survey, please do so here. It will only take a moment, and as a previous commentator noted, the results will have more statistical worth if there are a few hundred responses.
Patrick--I haven't taken statistics in a very long time, or maybe (okay, probably) I'm just really dumb, but....I'm not quite seeing how you reached your conclusions. Can you offer a bit more detail about the data, and let us know where we should be looking on the Excel spreadsheet?
In hindsight, I should have done separate surveys for each class -- it would be more clear.
Go to the raw data tab at the bottom of the spreadsheet, and you will see each response, one per row, 2-89, or whatever they are.
Answers to the survey questions are coded as 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., correlating to the multiple choices on the survey. So, a 1 in Column S means the person did not apply to UCB for undergrad. An entry of 2 means they applied but were rejected, etc. That's why you will probably need a copy of the survey to make sense of the spreadsheet.
The first thing to do, since there is nothing to be gained by comparing 2Ls to 3Ls, is sort the tables out by column Q, which is graduation year. An entry of 2 in this column is the class of '09, a 3 is '10.
Column T has SID numbers. W has TeleBears dates, etc.
Go through by class and sort low SID numbers into one pile, and high SID numbers into another pile. Then compare the appointment days for folks in the low SID pile with the days for the folks in the high SID pile. They're earlier.
Next, pick an individual TeleBears day, and (again, by class) sort the early times from the late ones. Compare the SID's from the late pile to the SID's from the early pile. They are higher.
Thats the simple version. No statistics needed.
What really irks me about this is that they flat out lied to us numerous times about the "random" assignment of telebears times. Of course, as someone who applied to UC's for undergrad, I'm not complaining too much; shouldn't loyalty count for something? (I kid...)
Patrick, mind posting Dean S's email? I'm curious. And did you contact him with the survey results or is he a loyal N&Ber?
oh, okay. i thought you did a correlation and i just couldn't find it.
What do you mean by "Dean S. is on it"?
It probably is random with the SID groups.
I can see in the undergraduate context it makes sense to separate people out by the SIDS so that Seniors go before juniors and so on. It does not make sense in the graduate school context.
A few things....
Patrick, by "Dean S" do you mean Sh*lanski? That is my best guess, given that in antitrust whenever he asks us stuff like "The registrar emailed you guys your review session schedule, right?", he is shocked and very unhappy when we all laugh and say "no." This kind of thing has happened a couple times this semester. He seems to really care about students, and can't believe how out-of-the-loop we are sometimes.
However, to be fair to both the administration and the registrar, it is very possible that our appointment times are being assigned through the main campus registrar (after all, Telebears is for the whole campus, not just Boalt). My guess is that someone long ago request randomized registration times for law students, the main campus sort of chuckled to themselves and said "sure," and then just kept using the system they have in place for everyone else and assumed no one would ever figure it out.
I could be wrong, but I'd rather give our adminstration and registrar's office the benefit of the doubt.
10:44 -- a correlation isn't worth too much right now, since the sample size is smallish. Tell all your friends to fill out the survey!
11:03 --
While Dean S is surely a loyal N&B reader, I did also send him an email. And by Dean S I do mean Sh*lanski.
Like you, I don't think there is good reason to blame Boalt Admin, or the Boalt Registrar. While I don't feel comfortable posting his email here (I wouldn't appreciate it if someone did that to ME!) he did indicate that the appointment times are assigned by the campus registrar, and that he had been "repeatedly assured by campus" that there are no such correlations.
That means that he must have repeatedly asked. Which tends to prove his good faith.
He seemed really upset by this (his reply came within ten minutes of when I emailed him) and, as I said above, I found the tone to be confidence inspiring.
11:03: It's not that hard to figure out. Go to the faculty list on the Boalt website, and see who is a dean who deals with J.D. students, whose last name begins "S."
Jesus.
11:18: That was necessary why? Don't be a jerk, it's unbecoming.
11:18,
Why the rude tone? I just wanted to see if it was Sh*lanski, because I have him for antitrust, really like him, and wanted to see if "Dean S" referred to him b/c this issue seems like something he would rightfully be outraged about. And I DID check the faculty page first, and at the top section where all the deans are listed there are no fewer than THREE people with a last name that starts with S. I realize that one of these people is not explicitly referred to as an "associate dean" on that list, but I have had that person as a professor and he would frequently talk about his duties in helping run the school, so I always assumed that he counted as a dean (and since he is listed with the rest of them, maybe he is considered a dean). Not to mention the other, actual "associate dean" whose last name begins with S--just because he handles JSP doesn't mean he wouldn't care about registration times. I am guessing those people register for courses, too.
Anyway, I really don't understand how anything I typed was so stupid that it would actually annoy someone.
--11:03
Here is the important question of the day: what if it is actually random, and this just happens to be the one semester where telebears randomized us in the precise order of our student id numbers? (Because, after all, it is theoretically possible...)
Matt,
I was in Kim's mod last year, and someone in our mod checked the same thing last year and reached the same result (though admittedly the sample size was much smaller). So I doubt it's just coincidence.
As a '02 applicant to Berkeley (now a 160****) I'm obviously reaping the benefits of this skewed and unfair system. Good job catching it guys.
And Matt, I love your comment. If this actually turned out to be some random statistical phenomenon, I'd say it's time to put 100 monkeys into the Main Reading room with typewriters, leave them there until they come out with a bestselling novel.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS.
No wonder I wasn't able to get into Swift's class--my number starts 19169.
This also effectively penalizes Boalties from outside California, who are less likely to have applied to UCB as a 17 year old.
Alternatively, maybe they used Prof. Tall*y's random number generator...
Laura (SID 1917...) from CA said...
Mike whether it effectively penalizes Boalties from outside California is sort of beside the point when we know who it actually penalizes -- ie everyone who didn't apply to Berkeley for undergrad, whether or not they're from California.
The odds of it randomly being selected in the exact linear order are 1/270!.
Note - the '!' is not a gesture of my incredulity, but rather a mathematical term that means 'multiply, subtract & repeat'. This means the odds are 1/(270*269*268*267*...*2*1).
This works out to be (roughly) = 1/6,662,100,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000
or in other words, not very likely. And remember, you have to actually square this number (making it much much smaller) in order to account for both classes being organized linearly.
what would really drive the point home is to separate out the data by class, and then do a line graph on each: SIS number of the vertical axis, appointment time on the horizontal. (I was going to call them the X and Y axis but I forgot which is which..) Should end up with a fairly linear relationship.
1:29,
I was going to do that, but based on the spreadsheet released last night, the vast majority of the numbers are the on the same data point (e.g., for 1Ls, the 10:00-12:00 registration block on the 25th), so we would need more data points before that type of representation would work. For now, the bar graph is probably the best way to demonstrate the trend.
Do you think we can get the telebears admin (whoever they are) to release the source code that generates registration appointments?
The code for such an important function should really be released to students so we can be sure that the process is really random.
I think what may have happened is that Berkeley bought telebears from some company, and it might be difficult to get said company to update it or even release the code. Or even worse, the people who wrote it thought that correlating registration times with SID number would be a simple algorithm to give priority to the students with more time at berkeley.
I emailed the registrar asking who wrote telebears and asking for the source code. We'll see what they say.
I'm skeptical about letting the Boalt Admin off the hook so easily. It seems like they've either been flat-out lying (which I don't believe, for the record), or they've been duped for years by the campus registrar despite ongoing and fairly perennial complaints about the telebears system (which I believe). The latter has to speak, at least, to their competence and attitude about responding to student concerns.
It seems like the only time the admin actually does respond is when studnets essentially pull a woodward & bernstein (nice job, patrick), or mount an organized campaign. I could understand that if students were asking for the moon, but this is ridiculous.
FWIW, I had a conversations with DO and with the Boalt Registrar today, both of whom explained to me that students have expressed concerns in the past, and that in the past they have brought the issue to the campus registrar. For years the campus registrar has "assured" them that there are no patterns in appointment time distribution.
So my impression is that for the last few years the Boalt Admin (DO and the Registrar) have been fielding a handful of student complaints on one hand, and assurances from the campus that such complaints are unfounded on the other.
I gave each of them numbers and graphs (thanks Matt) and they seemed eager to make the problem go away for us. For example, Registrar J. had already been making phone calls and talking to IT people when I met with her today, and she and DO had already gone through the facebook and manually matched Berkeley grads to their appointment times -- with the same results we found here.
And all of this, keep in mind, was less than 8 hours after I raised the issue with them today. So, while I can't speak for responsiveness in the past, thus far I feel like they have been really great about this one.
I know its been said already, but I just wanted to say: goddamn that's some fine graph work.
I don't think it's fair to criticize the Boalt admin for not really stepping up until now (and I am saying this as a repeatedly screwed over 2L who never applied to Berkeley undergrad). The complaints they got before were probably from a handful of students who actually decided to speak up about their bad appt times, and these complaints were likely spread out over a period of several years. This wouldn't make anyone all that suspicious, because even in a truly random system there are probably going to be a few people who just always seem to get screwed. So when the Boalt admins asked the main campus registrar after hearing various individual complaints, it made perfect sense for them to believe that the regisrar was telling the truth. Maybe the administration should have conducted it's own Patrick-style study, but based on the evidence they had, I think they did enough.
Damn it liberal agitation is sexy!
11:01 -- For Cal ugrad your ID number does NOT affect your TeleBEARS time; your units (i.e., class standing) and student-athlete designation determine your appointment. It's highly possible for a freshman with lots of community college or AP credits to have an earlier time than a junior who began their frosh year with only his/her A-F (or is it H, now?) requirements. Student-athletes, at all years, have the first telebears appointments (ahead of grad students and all other undergrads).
It's actually really weird that TeleBEARS times aren't sorted by the same measure (grad units) and then randomly distributed along specific days for the law school. I'm pretty sure each department has the capacity to override the campus, if given the authorization. I can understand the argument for outsourcing the responsibility (takes lots of time, yada yada), but why didn't they just bring appointment-generation in-house instead of relying on central campus?
I don't think it would be a good idea to do law school registration times based on credits completed. 1Ls would get word of this, and stress themselves out trying to take 2 5 unit classes or something just to get decent classes the rest of their time here. That system is much more appropriate for undergrad, where there is a wider selection of classes and more varied interests. And, people trying to graduate early.
I say we need to be grouped by (1) completed semesters, and then (2) randomization. Perhaps people with "dependants" or something getting priority too, but other than that, level playing field
I don't think it's some gigantic administration conspiracy. But if DO and the Registrar have been getting complaints over a period of years, you would think they would look into it a little more deeply.
I mean, PB was able to prove it pretty dramatically in less than 24 hours. I'm guessing DO has access to our SID and telebear appointments; she could have created a more accurate graph in five minutes.
Wow. Never before have I found a graph so interesting. The question is, what will be done about it?
It sounds like the admin is working hard to fix this problem, but what can we expect? Will we be assigned new (and actually random) registration times before this next cycle? By next year? I can't imagine it's easy to work within the larger Cal bureaucracy, but now that's the truth out, I would hope the problem will be dealt with as soon as possible.
In either case, I think Dean O owes us a mass e-mail. A lot of people read this blog, but it's time someone broke the news to the large Boalt community.
Also, I suggest "randomgate." You gotta stick with three-syllables when naming "-gates."
anybody else find it funny (not really funny ha ha, but you get what i mean) that the lethal injection post gets 6 comments total and the telebears appointment time gets 61 (no wait, now 62). we have interesting priorities.
and i really do mean we, because quite frankly i too am guilty of this - i definitely commented on this thread but not the other one. interesting how there's more outrage and discussion over our place in line in picking classes than a government policy that involves, oh you know, killing people. [mind you this isn't a condemnation of the death penalty or the lethal injection method, i'm firmly undecided as to where i stand on that issue]
Earlier registration time for people with dependents? I don't agree. What about people with long commutes? And those who want to work one day a week? And those who are training for marathons? It just seems to prioritize one set of life choices over everyone else's.
7:17, we can't control the Supreme Court opinion on lethal injection. We comment more on this issue because we know we have more control over this (direct access to Admin).
7:17, I had the same reaction earlier today. We do seem to have weird priorities. Although I have to admit I have had a few in person discussions about the supreme court decision, and maybe others have, so maybe people are talked out.
But as to control of the situation: a similar, but less graph-heavy study was conducted last year, with the same results. The response from the administration was that they had conducted their own research and had received different results. So good luck on initiating change...
Last, I'm surprised there has been no discussion yet of the correlation between bar passage and class ranking. Talk about the administration putting their money where their mouth is; Dean Edley said he would get back to us about the bar passage rate and he certainly has.
I do not doubt that the Deans believed times were randomized. I bet whatever vendor programmed the system told them it was (and that vendor, having underbid for the project, had no incentive to do anything more than half-assed). But after assuring us for YEARS that the times are random, I'm disappointed that the administration never once tried to independently verify the data. It would take all of 10 minutes in excel. Next we'll find out grades are based on SID.
Not like the correlation needed to be made any stronger, but....
I am the only 2L who indicated "didnt apply to UC Berkeley as undergrad" while still getting a 4/23 registration time.
The truth is I applied to UC Berkeley and withdrew when I was accepted Early Decision elsewhere. I notified them immediately that I was withdrawing...probably sometime in January. Long before admission decisions were have to been made. But in hindsight, it is entirely possible I was given an ID number when I applied that stayed in the system even though I withdrew my app.
Didn't mean to ruin the survey, but I figured "didnt apply" was the best answer because technically I didn't get an answer. But now you can get rid of that ourlier.
Good job on coming forward, 10:39. That will make that graph look even stronger than it already does.
You fail at taking surveys, 10:39.
But nice job coming forward.
10:03 - I was holding off on that discussion until if/when Edley ever sends out the official data. Hopefully it happens tomorrow or early next week.
please post the email from dean s. thanks.
I can't wait until the undergrads find out. Telebears actually makes a serious difference for them.
I predict we'll have parents submitting a Cal application upon birth of their children to secure low id numbers.
You know, I was all excited when I first saw my registration time a couple of weeks ago. I am a 2L (didn't apply to Cal undergrad), and I have been repeatedly shafted with late afternoon registration times. But for fall 2008, I noticed I had a morning time. I thought that I'd finally won the "random" lottery, until I realized that those in my class who applied to undergrad here get to register the DAY BEFORE I do. And I only have a morning time b/c I am rising 3L. Mother F*****.
Any updates? I was half expecting an email from DO on Friday.
My guess is that they do randomize registration times based on SID groupings. That is probably how they break it down for undergrads and allow seniors to register before juniors etc. Why they would use such a system for graduate schools is beyond me. Stupid Berkeley.
I'll admit that I, too, was hopeful of getting an email from Dean O. I hoped it would say that our registration times would be re-randomized given these recent discoveries and that we would receive new ones on Monday. But alas, the big bureaucracy seems too slow for that. Maybe we can expect changes by 2012...
. . . no updates. As of this AM, DO says they're still trying to figure out exactly why this happened.
Behold, the power of N&B:
Based on the informal Boalt Hall survey of Tele-BEARS appointment time assignments, the campus has reviewed the program that assigns appointment times to students. It was learned that the system uses an algorithm based on students' SID numbers and sequential time slots. The assignments were such that some students with older SIDs (i.e., lower in numerical value) generally received earlier appointments than those with newer SIDs. (This has been occurring since 2003, as a byproduct of a major system change; prior to that, the assignments were truly random.) Modifications will be made, beginning with the Spring 2009 iteration of Tele-BEARS, so that the appointments are assigned in a more randomized fashion. This will work toward ensuring a more fair and equitable distribution of appointment time slots to all students. Thank you for your commitment on this issue.
----------------------------------------------------------
Russell Low
Office of the Registrar
University of California, Berkeley
120 Sproul Hall #5404
Berkeley, CA 94720-5404
Post a Comment
<< Home