Blowing the Whistle on the UC Berkeley Mathematics Department • Hacker News Board

Re: Blowing the Whistle on the UC Berkeley Mathematics Department

#191

Post by runholm » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 1:59 PM UTC

j2kun wrote: post #183

philip1209 wrote: post #78

I'm not associated with UC Berkeley, but I have been involved in a lot of campus politics in the past. Because I see many alumni commenting here about the effectiveness of this lecturer, I offer a suggestion: Give a restricted gift to the university. Earmark it for something like the salary or research of Dr. Coward. If they want to play politics, you can too and restrict that your donations are tied to his continued…

Why not just send Coward a check directly?

It's not about the money, it's about sending a message.

Re: Blowing the Whistle on the UC Berkeley Mathematics Department

#192

Post by studentrob » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 2:02 PM UTC

moron4hire wrote: post #175

studentrob wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but presumably some of the money in the existing budget for said thing can be moved around. So, say you donate $10 to Professor X's classroom and his existing budget is $50. You bumped it to $60. They can just take $10 from the existing budget and put it elsewhere. Your $10 still goes to that class, and the total goes back to $50. What you really want to know is whether the budget has increased by the amount yo…

That's a very good question. I will have to ask my mother, as that is literally her business, to know such things.

Cool, let us know what she says!

Even with more transparent reporting, it'd still be possible in some cases to hide where the money is really going. There could have already been a planned budget increase, for example.

Ultimately it just comes down to trust. If I don't trust the wider institution, I will not donate to a subsidiary. And with more and more schools operating like businesses these days, it's hard to know who to trust.

Re: Blowing the Whistle on the UC Berkeley Mathematics Department

#193

Post by escherplex » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 2:04 PM UTC

brianchu wrote: post #88

escherplex wrote: post #55

Curious. Was it ever considered that this may be fallout from the decision to hold classes during the campus AFSCME strike back in late November 2013, justification outlined in an impassioned e-mail sent to students? see: http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2014-... and the collection of heated pro/con responses which followed. Absolutely bizarre. Reminds me of the dismissal of the physicist David…

Doubtful. I was a student during that time and I can't recall any math or CS (or STEM) classes that cancelled a class session because of the strike. The most that happened was some teaching assistants cancelled their section for one day.

Started reading Peat's 'Infinite Potential - The Life and Times of David Bohm' yesterday and came across this post on HN. Knowing of the stir created by the 2013 e-mail, the possible parallels with events associated with Bohm's dismissal from Princeton (although for seemingly opposite political reasons) were striking. As an irrelevant aside, Bohm's 3-world intentionality/stochastic/objectified space hypothesis is interesting because it reduces the Schrödinger cat metaphor to a useful fiction.

Re: Blowing the Whistle on the UC Berkeley Mathematics Department

#194

Post by caskance » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 2:07 PM UTC

ytinifx wrote: post #140

I'm 100% on the side of Berkeley's math department here. In my opinion, the way AC has gone about things reflects upon his personality and why he is (probably) disliked by members of the math department. Read through what he calls his "evidence" to support his claims and you will see that there is more than enough reason to doubt his claims. All the comments about Berkeley not caring about undergraduate math educatio…

Hald in particular is everything Coward wishes he could be. He does a great job of teaching undergrad calculus in a way that is engaging while still meeting expectations of other departments.

Re: Blowing the Whistle on the UC Berkeley Mathematics Department

#195

Post by argonaut » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 2:07 PM UTC

caskance wrote: post #188

argonaut wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no evidence to indicate he deviated from the actual required content of the course, only that his lecturing style deviated from what the department wanted. (This is indicated by the department having reviewed and approved his final, among other things). Also, I'll repost what I said earlier: there is no evidence he gave out A's more freely than other professors. The grade distribution for one of Coward's cla…

And that by itself is inconclusive, as all the lazy students looking for easy A's know to sign up for Coward's class.

I wasn't claiming he was harder on the students. I was claiming that there is absolutely no evidence he was popular because he gave out easy As. So you're agreeing with me.

Re: Blowing the Whistle on the UC Berkeley Mathematics Department

#196

Post by caskance » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

fernly wrote: post #13

I'm a bit puzzled by the statement that he is asking "campus authorities" to "overrule" his firing. Why would he want to continue working there, or, how could he expect to be able to work in a department after indicting it in this fashion? With this document hasn't he pretty thoroughly burned his bridges?

Harrison sued UCB for sexual discrimination 20 years ago and she's continued working there the whole time.

Re: Blowing the Whistle on the UC Berkeley Mathematics Department

#197

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 2:10 PM UTC

raykaye47 wrote: post #143

I went to Cal and I took Math 1A and I agree that the professors there don't give a fuck about engaging and motivating you. Math 1A is a weeder class and is meant to discourage dumb people from the sciences and push them into easier majors like Communications or PoliSci, etc.

[deleted]

Re: Blowing the Whistle on the UC Berkeley Mathematics Department

#198

Post by caskance » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 2:11 PM UTC

argonaut wrote: post #195

caskance wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that by itself is inconclusive, as all the lazy students looking for easy A's know to sign up for Coward's class.

I wasn't claiming he was harder on the students. I was claiming that there is absolutely no evidence he was popular because he gave out easy As. So you're agreeing with me.

I studied there, and during that time, spoke to and tutored many such students. Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence.

Re: Blowing the Whistle on the UC Berkeley Mathematics Department

#199

Post by zhte415 » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 2:14 PM UTC

philip1209 wrote: post #78

I'm not associated with UC Berkeley, but I have been involved in a lot of campus politics in the past. Because I see many alumni commenting here about the effectiveness of this lecturer, I offer a suggestion: Give a restricted gift to the university. Earmark it for something like the salary or research of Dr. Coward. If they want to play politics, you can too and restrict that your donations are tied to his continued…

This sounds like a terrible idea that can be easily abused. To distill, it amounts to 'get this donation because I'm happy with your work' which is great, until incentives get involved. A parent giving an incentive? A student from a wealthy family giving a kick-back as preferential treatment has been given to them to start a research career? Following a research interest and de-prioritising others? The conflicts of interests are clear and exist and impact today.

Re: Blowing the Whistle on the UC Berkeley Mathematics Department

#200

Post by argonaut » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 2:15 PM UTC

caskance wrote: post #198

argonaut wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't claiming he was harder on the students. I was claiming that there is absolutely no evidence he was popular because he gave out easy As. So you're agreeing with me.

I studied there, and during that time, spoke to and tutored many such students. Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence.

And I brought to you a non-anecdotal, total-population statistic. Again, justifying the null hypothesis (that there is no evidence he was any harder or easier on students in the grade distribution).