<p>I am an international student, and i currently studied in michigan state. i get a gpa of 3.92, and i want to transfer to cal. Because of the appealing reputation. Do you think that it is wise for me to transfer? If i apply and luckily gain admission to cal, do you think that it is very hard to graduate from cal?</p>
<p>Cal is a public university that will admit most anyone who otherwise qualifies on paper. Supposedly, Cal is relative easy to get in (compared to its peer institutions) but hard to get out (graduate).</p>
<p>As long as you can maintain a 2.0 GPA, you will graduate.</p>
<p>with little work, everyone can graduate from any college.</p>
<p>You will probably graduate, but will likely in the process kiss your dream good bye for going to medical or law school.</p>
<p>TaxBEar- I think it is the opposite, very difficult to get in to Berkeley, less difficult to graduate, though a great deal of effort to graduate with a 3.5+ GPA. </p>
<p>The admissions % is pretty low and likely to get worse with budget cuts and people forgoing privates</p>
<p>I agree with somemom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think Tax Bear was making a relative comparison: that is, relative to its peers (who I take to be the top private schools). Hence, I think Tax Bear is correct: Berkeley is (relatively) easy to get into but hard to graduate from, notably because it’s practically impossible to actually flunk out of the top private schools. You may not get good grades, but you will almost certainly graduate. {As a case in point, both George Bush and John Kerry managed to graduate from Yale despite both of them freely acknowledging that they were unmotivated students at the time. Furthermore, these were the days before widespread grade inflation from professors trying to protect their students from the Vietnam War draft.} </p>
<p>As for the OP’s question, I think it is highly dependent on your major. There are plenty of majors that are quite easy to pass. {Frankly, how do you think so many of the football players manage to stay eligible?} Again, you may not get top grades, but you will almost certainly pass. On the other hand, there are other majors in which it is quite easy to fail. Notice how very few of the football players will major in engineering or CS, for example.</p>
<p>To support sakky’s assertion, here’s the grade distribution from Brown.</p>
<p><a href=“Office of Institutional Research | Brown University”>Office of Institutional Research | Brown University;
<p>It is really impossible to fail at Brown. Since the 70’s no student has ever failed a class. 1.5% gets C, 50%+ get A, 17% get B, the rest Pass. (Brown doesn’t have plus/minus) Good grief.</p>
<p>Personally, I would say that that’s to the great credit to Brown. Frankly, I wish Berkeley would institute that kind of grading policy. If the problem is that Berkeley wants to eliminate students who aren’t good enough to make the cut, then the answer is to simply not admit them in the first place. After all, why admit students who are just going to flunk out anyway? </p>
<p>{For those who would contend that it is impossible to know who is going to flunk out, I would suggest a retrospective statistical analysis: go through the records of all of the former Berkeley students who flunked out, mine those records for attributes that indicate that somebody is highly likely to flunk out, and then, in future cycles, simply admit fewer students with those attributes. Nor do I consider this to be a punitive measure for those students; if anything, it will be helpful. After all, these are students who are applying to Berkeley, hence are UC eligible. Hence, even if now rejected from Berkeley, they are going to get into some school, (i.e. a lower UC or a CSU), and that school will be more aligned with their abilities, hence providing them with a higher chance of actually graduating. It’s far better to graduate from SJSU than to flunk out of Berkeley. }</p>
<p>However, I think a far far bigger problem is that some majors are simply easier than others. Not just at Berkeley, but at schools nationwide. For example, schools with major football and basketball programs are notorious for steering their athletes towards easy majors. It raises the question of why exactly do some majors have to be so much harder than others. {I.e. why exactly does Berkeley EECS have to grade so much harder than other majors?} It also raises the “strategy” of, if you just want to minimize your chances of flunking out without having to study very hard, taking one of those easy majors. </p>
<p>*"The athletics academic advisers said, ‘This is what everybody is doing. It’s the easiest major,’ " recalls Cline, who emphasizes that ultimately he — not his advisers — chose his degree program…</p>
<p>Some athletes say they have pursued — or have been steered to — degree programs that helped keep them eligible for sports but didn’t prepare them for post-sports careers.</p>
<p>“A major in eligibility, with a minor in beating the system,” says C. Keith Harrison, an associate professor at the University of Central Florida, where he is associate director of the Institute of Diversity and Ethics in Sports…</p>
<p>“You hear which majors, and which classes, are the easiest and you take them,” Tadman says. “You’re going to school so you can stay in sports. You’re not going for a degree. … It’s a joke.”…</p>
<p>“So if I’m at a Georgia Tech, I’m not going to tell a young man he can’t major in engineering,” Hewitt said. “But I certainly will counsel him before he takes that first class that … if you decide to go down this road and for some reason you find it harder than you expected and you decide to change your major, you’re probably more than likely going to end up being ineligible” for sports… *</p>
<p>[College</a> athletes studies guided toward ‘major in eligibility’ - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-11-18-majors-cover_N.htm]College”>http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-11-18-majors-cover_N.htm)</p>
<p>But here’s what nobody is discussing: whether Harbaugh spoke the truth when he called out Michigan for admitting “borderline guys” and for steering athletes toward softer majors than the general student population.</p>
<p>[ESPN</a> - Numbers the major point in Harbaugh-Michigan crossfire - Columnist](<a href=“Numbers the major point in Harbaugh-Michigan crossfire - ESPN”>http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=2966536&sportCat=ncf)</p>
<p>Sakky, I get your argument why pre-meds and pre-laws could really like a school like Brown that’s extremely generous with the A’s. But for everyone else, is Brown really a better school than UC-B? I actually disagree with this notion, unless Brown grads are getting great jobs post graduation that I don’t know of. From what I can tell, a Brown degree is not really respected. OTOH, an EECS degree from UC-B is respected by many ppl and yields a better job than a “studies” major from UC-B or a random degree from Brown. In other words, some majors grade harder so that ppl know that its graduates are high quality. </p>
<p>I agree with your previously made arguments that a school like Stanford can grade easily, even in a usu tough major like CS, since the perceived strength of its undergrad population means that Stanford does not need to weed out any of its students.</p>
<p>I actually consider Brown and Stanford’s grading policy to be much more fair. Berkeley’s grading policy is much more harsh. For example, I heard that 1 math professor gives 25% of her students F’s. I agree that instead of grading harshly, the university should not let weaker applicants in to have a better grading policy.</p>
<p>Anybody have or know where to find the “flunk or grade stats” for engineering students at UCB?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s more than just pre-laws and pre-meds who benefit. In general, Brown (and similar schools) are a risk-averse choice.</p>
<p>Let me illustrate what I mean. Let’s say I gave you 2 choices. You can either have a guaranteed $400k. Or, we can flip a coin, where with heads, you get a million dollars (but with tails, you get nothing). It has been shown that most people will take the former, even though it is “worth” less from an expected value standpoint. Why? Because most people are risk-averse. Most people want guarantees, to the point that they are willing to give up value to get it. They don’t want to run the risk of ending up with nothing. This is the same rationale for the insurance industry: people are willing to pay for insurance to protect their wealth. </p>
<p>Now, I see that you said that somebody with a Berkeley EECS degree will be better off than somebody with a degree from Brown. But that illustrates the paragraph that I stated above. If you knew that the coin flip was in fact going to land heads, then obviously you would prefer that to the $400k. The problem is, you don’t know that, ex-ante. What if the coin flip lands tails? Similarly, if you knew that you really could complete that Berkeley EECS degree, then you should just go ahead and do that. But you don’t know that. Lots of people who enter engineering at Berkeley won’t actually finish the major, either because they flunk out entirely, or because they switch majors (sometimes because they find something they like better, but sometimes because they know that if they stayed in engineering, they would flunk out). </p>
<p>In other words, what if you get into Brown because you would rather go to Berkeley for EECS… and then you flunk out? You’re probably wishing that you had gone to Brown instead. But you can’t. That choice is long gone. Just like if you chose the coin flip and gotten tails, then obviously you would have preferred to have taken the guaranteed $400k. But you can’t. </p>
<p>Look, whether we like it or not, we live in a world where, in order to get a decent job, you basically need a degree. Barring certain niche careers such as entrepreneurship or entertainment, you basically need a degree. Many companies won’t even bother to interview you if you don’t have a degree. Your specific major, or even the school you graduated from are minor concerns compared to just having a degree at all. That’s the big cutoff. It’s like sports playoffs: the big cutoff is between those teams who make the playoffs and those that don’t. Within the playoff teams, it is obviously better to have a higher seeding. But that’s a minor concern compared to just making the playoffs at all. That’s why it’s better to get a degree, even from a no-name school, than to flunk out of Berkeley, for employers won’t care why you don’t have a degree. They are just going to see that you don’t have a degree.</p>
<p>Which then leads to the question: why don’t more Berkeley students switch to one of the easy “football” majors rather than just flunk out of engineering or other difficult majors? Well, I think it has a lot to do with overconfidence. Let’s be honest. Most teenagers are overconfident about their own abilities. They think they’re invincible. That’s why they do reckless things, because they don’t think anything bad will happen to them. If you get into Berkeley engineering, it means that you were a pretty good student in high school. So, you’re probably feeling pretty confident. What you don’t realize is that all of your engineering classmates also did well in high school, and they are your competitors on the grade curve. Yet some people have to be weeded out. Nobody thinks it’s going to be them, but at the end of the day, some people are going to be weeded out. By the time you realize that it’s going to be you, you may already be on academic probation, in which case it may not be so easy for you to switch to L&S (due to the stupid rule that allows only those with good grades to switch in). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that then begs the question of why don’t all the majors do that then. After all, shouldn’t all majors want people to know who their high quality graduates are? </p>
<p>The other way to look at it is, again, through the lens of risk aversion. Sure, the harsh grading lets those graduates who actually survive that harsh grading be known as high quality graduates. But what if you don’t survive the harsh grading? </p>
<p>Like I’ve always said, Berkeley is a great place for those students who do well. For those students, Berkeley offers a plethora of resources that few other schools can match.</p>
<p>The problem is, what about those students who don’t do well? What happens to them? I think we can all think of students who didn’t do well. I certainly can. They would have been better off if they had gone to another (easier) school. I’m not just talking about those who flunked out. I’m also talking about those who graduated, but with mediocre grades (say, a 2.5 or less). While they did graduate, they had a pretty painful time, and hence they would probably have been better off somewhere else.</p>
<p>OP- Sakky is right if you are comparing the path to graduation against an Ivy type school, from what I know it is more difficult to get into an Ivy and less difficult to graduate from an IVY/Stanford as compared to CAL.</p>
<p>However, compared to most other schools, it would be harder to get into CAL, compared to other UCs, other state schools and small schools- so "harder’ depends on your perspective!</p>
<p>
A guy from my HS with great stats (1500+/1600) was put on academic probation in EECS. Can adcom predict something like this? Granted, EECS stats are quite higher.</p>
<p>
They always publish the number of students admitted to each major every year. Look at that number and look at the numbers at graduation. You’ll have a rough estimate.</p>
<p>
Someone’s been taking finance classes.<br>
E(event1) = 400k.
E(event2) = 0.5<em>0 + 0.5</em>1mil = 500k.
I suspect NOT most people will take the former if expected value of the latter is 100k higher. =).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think they would be able to predict that. After all, you would be looking at not only stats, but also which high school he came from, what his high school grades were (especially in math/science), and so forth. </p>
<p>But that’s missing the point. Obviously you won’t be able to predict every case. Predictions are never perfect. The idea is to be able to predict a large number of cases. For example, smoking is a prominent indicator of lung cancer. Now, is it a perfect indicator? Of course not. Some people who get lung cancer don’t smoke, and some people who smoke won’t get lung cancer. But it is a statistically significant enough of an indicator that health insurance companies charge higher premiums of smokers. I am simply asking for the Berkeley adcom to behave like an insurance actuary. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes they would. In fact, modern economics and finance is based on the very principle of risk aversion: people are willing to trade lower (expected) returns for lower risk.</p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. Why do people buy government bonds? After all, the historical expected real return on equities is about 10%, far higher than the historical expected yield of bonds So why buy bonds? The answer is simple - because it is less risky. You won’t make much money, but you probably won’t lose much money either. Buying the right equities can make you rich quick, but can also lose all your money. </p>
<p>But don’t take my word for it. Read the following. What is important to note is that expected values do not take into account risk. </p>
<p>[Risk</a> premium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_premium]Risk”>Risk premium - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>It’s hard to fathom that some students with 2300 SAT and 4.5 UC GPA(high school GPA) are receiving Ds and Fs at UCB. UCB is not doing enough to help these students. They are obviously smart and hard workers.</p>
<p>
It’s not that hard to receive Ds and Fs in certain majors. You’re graded on a curve. If all of your classmates did extra credit and you don’t, you’re obviously not smart and not hard-working enough. UCB is really no country for old men.<br>
I’m familiar with risk aversion, I was just pointing out that usually people who make that kind of statement about 400k or coin toss contrive the example by awarding 2 events with the same expected value.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t see any mention of somebody with a 4.5 UC GPA.</p>
<p>i am a business major international student, so do you think that if i can luckily gain adimission to berkeley, can i graudate with a decent gpa? Frankly, my english language is not strong enough, but i am smart, and competitive. I am interested in finance. Can i find a job or enter in a good graduate school by my graudation form berkeley?</p>