<p>I don’t think the average is that high, but here’s the link for chem-e majors for the class of 2001. You can find more links on the career center’s website.</p>
<p>They start in the mid -50 ks, which is decent compared to the rest of Berkeley. This was the class of 2001 though, so it might be higher depending on demand for later classes. You could make in the early 60ks to early 70ks?</p>
<p>Thanks for the link. What kind of GPA do you need for grad school at, say Stanford? Also the 10% “seeking employment” mean that their GPA’s were too low to get jobs or get into school?</p>
<p>You have a rather interesting notion of what a ‘break’ is. To me, a ‘break’ from physics does not mean doing a whole bunch of math reading. That’s not exactly much of a break in my opinion. A break would be more like watching a Red Sox game or fiddling around on the Internet. </p>
<p>But hey, if you’re the kind of guy who actually considers math to be a break from physics (or vice versa), then more power to you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe the situation is still entirely valid. Again, self-study implies that the person has complete control over when to study. So the guy who is taking 3 classes and self-studying a 4th can put that “4th” class away for awhile. For example, if a whole bunch of stuff is due in those 3 other classes, then he can simply delay doing anything for that self-study class until his time is freed up. Then when his time is freed up, he can burn through a whole bunch of that 4th class. The point is, he no longer has to worry about following a set schedule with that 4th class. He never has to drop everything to get some assignment done for that 4th class. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I believe that now you’re introducing another variable. I completely agree with you that a typical 18 year old would not get much out of 4 years and complete access to books, but no classes, but because of the simple problem of maturity. Most typical 18 year olds are immature. Most of them would probably take that 4 years and just use it to party and lounge around and do nothing. Classes are therefore good for these students because they at least force them to do something. </p>
<p>What I am saying is that a highly motivated person would probably learn more just by self-study than by the artificial scheduling and grading that is inherent to classes. </p>
<p>So then that may beg the question of why we even need classes at all, and like I said, I agree that there is value in the economic and social consistency of classes. Anybody can say that they know a lot about subject X, but employers and grad schools will believe you only if you have taken classes on that subject and gotten good grades. That’s because they don’t have the time, and usually not the expertise, to assess whether you really know that subject or not, so having passed classes serves as the proxy. This has the useful social/economic benefit of deterring liars and con artists. For example, somebody can just lie and say that he self-studied a whole bunch of topics when in reality, he was drinking at the bar the whole time. However, if somebody has actually passed some classes on a particular topic, that’s pretty good proof that he actually did something. </p>
<p>Hence, I agree that there are valuable market signalling aspects to classes, and that’s why we still need them. But that’s quite different from saying that classes are truly the most effective way for an individual to learn.</p>
<p>Heh, yeah, I guess my view of a break is different. I can work for 8 hours without your type of breaks as long as I have 5 different tasks to work on. If I have only one task, no way will I get through 8 hours working on it unless it happens to be amazingly engrossing. For example, if I’m doing physics homework and I get stuck on something, I find that switching over to math homework is a good way to take a break. Stop thinking about the problem for awhile, relax, do something else that is coming clearly, then go back to it later. A break from the problem, not from work. For course, if both are mental roadblocks, then I need a real break.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, I though that was exactly what you meant by context switching. I’m reading about this self-study subject, but oh I have to stop to do my math homework right now. I’ll have to “switch contexts”, go do that, then I can come back to my self study. It’s true that the self study subject doesn’t cause context switching itself (no need to drop your math homework to self study), but self study doesn’t eliminate context switching. It only reduces it (and not a while lot–assuming each class introduces approximately the same amount of context switching, the reduction is 1/4 in this example).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I think it depends on the difficulty of the subject, but I agree that for simpler, mainstream topics this is true. I often complained in high school that I would’ve learned far more if I had just stayed home instead of going to class to waste my time (especially since high schools almost always teach to the lowest common denominator). I think when we say “highly motivated”, though, we really are referring to students that would sit down and read a textbook cover-to-cover and do many practice problems to learn a problem. Most human beings couldn’t do that (I don’t think I could).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Classes will never be the most effective way for an individual to learn. At the same time, I don’t believe self-study is either. For the majority of individuals, it would have to be tutoring. One on one study with somebody that knows what he’s talking about and can explain it. Even for a highly motivated invidual, with the proper tutor, I still believe this is true.</p>
<p>Still, if we constrained ourselves to comparing classes to self-study for highly motivated individuals in terms of amount learned over time, I believe self-study wins for simpler topics, but classes win for highly complex topics (simple and complex being relative to the individual in question).</p>
<p>Hm… 14 upper div IEOR courses… 7 per semester. That’s ~21 units/semester. So that means you <em>should</em> start taking IEOR courses your sophomore year. For your 6 social science/humanities you could take them for P/NP basis to ease the courseload. Although most take them for a grade because they are much easier, you won’t be having that much time on your hands to balance so many courses at once. Hope this helps…</p>
<p>Yup, I already did the math myself. I have 19 AP credits going into Berkeley, and I have History AP credit so I only need 5 humanities classes. (120-19)/6=17 units per semester. I’ll pretty much have all the prereqs done after my freshman year so I can focus on the 14 IEOR classes and 5-6 stats classes for my second and third year. It looks simple on paper, but I have no idea what the course load is like.</p>
<p>Yup. Chances are, your plans will change once you arrive this fall and get a taste of college academics. Quite a few of my friends sure did after the 1st year.</p>
<p>I know this used to happen 10 years ago, and not just with EECS at Berkeley, but with EECS at many other schools. I don’t know about now, but it wouldn’t surprise me, as there is something of a mini-tech boom going on, with dotcoms once again being hot. Not as hot as in, say, 1999, but still pretty hot.</p>
<p>What I am saying is that the benefits to doubling are very minimal. I’ve seen plenty of people get doubles, and then still get beat out for a job or for the grad school they want by others who just have a single major. In fact, just a little while ago, I heard one person who doubled in business and engineering (not at Berkeley, but at another school) who said, frankly, he probably would have been better off just getting a single degree, and using that extra time to work on his interview skills or do more recruiting/networking. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The issue here is that, sadly, there are a lot of majors that force you to learn things that, quite frankly, you just don’t need to know. Self-study allows you to learn the things that you actually like and skip over the things that you don’t like. To give you an example, if somebody likes EE and wants to do EE (and only EE, not computer science), why is this person forced to take a class on data structures? You don’t need to know data structures if you intend to work as an EE. ChemE’s don’t need to know, say, PChem lab (Chem125). Computer scientists/software developers do not really need to know Signals/Systems. Hence, these classes should be optional. Those who want to take these classes should be free to take them, but those who don’t should be allowed to do something else.</p>
<p>But sadly, every major, whether at Berkeley or elsewhere, inevitably has classes that some students just don’t want to take, but are forced to take them if they want to complete the major. That’s why I think self-study is often times a better way to go because it allows you to pick the things that are actually useful to you, and skip over things that are not useful to you and not interesting to you.</p>
<p>There exist such jobs, but good jobs at good companies will require going through an interview. It just doesn’t make sense for a company to hire somebody without doing an interview first unless they really need a worker, or that worker is doing something that won’t be critical (which probably isn’t the kind of job you want). The biggest tech companies are notorious for the difficulty of their interview processes, so I wouldn’t count on getting a job without having good interview skills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think every major forces you to learn things you don’t need to know, and will never need to know. I concur that learning practical things doesn’t often happen in a classroom–or at least not when compared to working in a job for an equivalent amount of time. At the same time, I don’t believe it is Berkeley’s job (or purpose) to prepare students for specific jobs. That’s what trade schools are for. It’s really not the best way to view college, IMO.</p>
<p>An analogous scenario is the role high school plays in education. Honestly, the most important thing I learned in high school was how to be at school for 11 hours per day, get home dead tired, work hard to get all of my homework done, and go do it the next day for 5 days straight before getting a break. High school taught me how to do a lot of work on a little sleep. Calculus, physics, history, English–those were just tools to teach me this primary lesson, though they had their own side benefits.</p>
<p>College is a different experience, but still not driven primarily by subject matter. It’s about taking on something new, something different, and learning it quickly and completely. It teaches you not necessarily how to work hard, because hard work doesn’t necessarily mean success in college. It teaches you how to learn efficiently. If you can’t get a solid grasp of a course’s material by the first midterm, you’re in deep trouble. It doesn’t matter what class you take, this is the primary lesson either way.</p>
<p>A job is just the application of these two things. You have to be able to stick to a rigid schedule where you must complete a lot of work and have deadlines. You also have to be flexible in being able to learn new material quickly and efficiently. That’s what education is for. Specific subject matter isn’t nearly as important, IMO, as these basic lessons. You’ve got 4 years to master each one, and if you can finish early that’s fine–whether for financial reasons or simply because you don’t like college. If you like college and don’t mind paying for an extra semester or year, then there’s no reason not to stay. It really doesn’t matter in the end.</p>