Every decision regarding the curriculum has to be made with a complex number of factors in mind, and a decision to uphold one principle may result in sacrifices in other areas. This section contains a number of brief examples of the kinds of repercussions that can result from an attempt to maintain or improve the undergraduate education delivered by our academic departments.

The Department of Chemical Engineering changed its major requirements to emphasize relevant experiments and render more concrete the theoretical concepts taught in its undergraduate courses. This has enhanced the quality of the undergraduate program in Chemical Engineering, but the revision entailed an additional teaching burden not matched by a corresponding increase in the size of the department’s faculty. This has resulted in a decrease in the number of undergraduate and graduate electives the department can offer each year. The Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research (IEOR) has seen an increase of 14% in its enrollments since 1993-94. The department has accommodated the enrollment demand by making the courses larger (and increasing the number of laboratory or discussion sections), but the Chair reports that the level of individual attention in these courses has declined from modest to marginal in some of the larger courses as a result. In addition, the decision to devote resources to the undergraduate program in IEOR has reduced the graduate curriculum to a bare-bones state, making it difficult to recruit the best graduate students.

Some of the decisions have affected the quality of the undergraduate education the departments can provide. One example of this has already appeared in section A (Ensuring the Availability of Classes), where we discussed the English Department’s decision to hire recent Ph.D.’s to teach required upper-division seminars. The Department of Molecular and Cell Biology reports that because the department is unable to accommodate all its majors in a required laboratory course, it now grants waivers to students who can show that they will receive a comprehensive research-based laboratory training by some other means. The Chair finds this waiver regrettable, but the shortage of lab space renders such a measure necessary. Some undergraduate courses in Molecular and Cell Biology also continue to be combined with graduate courses, due to an inability to staff the full complement of courses on each level. It is likely that a course designed specifically for undergraduates would be preferable to a course whose target audience is so diverse in terms of academic-preparation level.

On the whole, however, we can rest assured that the range of programs and initiatives documented in this report are serving their purpose: providing a high quality undergraduate education for the students who choose to come to Berkeley. This does not mean that we will rest on our laurels. As the ongoing work of the Commission on Undergraduate Education and the continuous improvements taking place at the departmental level illustrate, we are motivated to work hard to deserve the excellent reputation that we enjoy.