<p>sakky,
Not from this thread but this was posted recently.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-berkeley/601764-how-withdrawal-without-semester-out-policy-right-now.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-berkeley/601764-how-withdrawal-without-semester-out-policy-right-now.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, but the example is more powerful when you show that people are willing to take a lower expected value for lower risk. </p>
<p>The bottom line is, like it or not, Berkeley is a risky school, relative to the top privates. There is a greater chance that you won’t even graduate at all, and if you do, that you will do so with a mediocre GPA. Now, I certainly agree with webhappy that if you can graduate from EECS with a top GPA, then you’re sitting pretty. But how many people can do that?</p>
<p>I think I differ w/ you in how we perceive Brown. You seem to lump Brown into the category of top privates (ie, guaranteed $400,000). Given your example of a 50-50 chance of gaining 1 million or nothing, I don’t believe Brown is anywhere near 40% of the maximum amount (I would prob place it more around $100,000). I asked above if you thought Brown grads were getting awesome jobs that I don’t know of, and you neglected to answer this point. I’m also factoring that the cost of choosing Brown is very steep (ie, private school tuition) and the choice of choosing Berkeley is much lower. If you’re getting fin aid and both schools cost the same to you, Brown becomes much more attractive.</p>
<p>To achieve a UC weighted GPA of 4.5 would necessarily mean taking only 4 courses each semester, which is highly improbable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not saying that they get awesome jobs, although many do in fact do so, i.e. in consulting or (before the crash) Ibanking. Besides, is the average Berkeley graduate really getting an awesome job? {Again, the average Berkeley graduate is not a star EECS student.} Let’s be honest. Lots of Berkeley graduates end up with quite mediocre jobs. </p>
<p>I am simply saying that Brown students have a higher chance of graduating, and probably with a higher GPA to boot. You yourself conceded that that is extremely useful if you want to go to graduate school, especially law or med school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The cost of Berkeley is much lower…for Californians. Yet the fact is, the vast majority of American are obviously not from California. More specifically, the vast majority of applicants to Brown are not from California. </p>
<p>Look, if you’re not from California, then the costs of the two schools is almost the same.</p>
<p>The harsh grading in math/science classes is specifically designed to force people out of those fields of study. Whether you agree with it or not, it is a design feature, not a bug.</p>
<p>
10% ;D
Wasn’t there a thread somewhere about the average starting salary at Cal and other schools. Cal’s salary isn’t lower than Brown, if not higher.
You must be in marketing. =)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is high school UC GPA. What’s highly improbable mean? 4 courses each semester is highly improbable. Are you serious? Most high school students take 6 courses per semester.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This seems quite obvious to me. Why would anyone chose a lower expected value for equal or more risk? I agree with your earlier statement that people in general are more risk adverse. </p>
<p>Finally, there exist a feeling of satisfaction that you cannot quite put a price on just by being able to say you graduated from Berkeley. Cal’s reputation is ubiquitous. I cannot say the same thing about Brown’s reputation with as much conviction.</p>
<p>sakky, I must add that you are one of CC’s most valuable member. Your knowledge about colleges is indeed vast. I have noticed your responses in many different categories, not just Cal. Thanks for all your posts throughout the years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I would be quite surprised if there was a significant difference, especially after correcting for major. I certainly agree that Berkeley engineering students make more starting money than do non-engineers, because engineers in general will make more to start than will non-engineers. Hence, if you want to study engineering (and are actually good enough to complete the major), then you should prefer Berkeley over Brown. I’ve never disputed that. But what if you’re not an engineering student? </p>
<p>To give you a case in point, let’s take a look at the reported jobs of the graduates of the English major from Berkeley in 2003-2006. I choose these years and not more recent ones because in recent years the economy was starting to slump due to the subprime bust, but in 2003-2006, the economy was still pretty good. While some people got pretty good jobs, the readers can decide how good some of the other jobs are. For example, I see one person who ended up as a head cashier at Barnes & Nobles. {Hey, at least it was head cashier, right?} Another person became a Starbucks barista: basically the guy who makes your coffee for you. I see somebody who became “bar staff” (basically, a bartender) at Sam Smith. I see the assorted waitresses, receptionists, file clerks, and so forth. I even see somebody working as a lumber puller at the Lumber Baron: basically somebody who works at a sawmill, stacking wood. </p>
<p>[Career</a> Center - What Can I Do With a Major In…?](<a href=“http://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/English.stm]Career”>http://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/English.stm) </p>
<p>Now, I’m not going to say these are bad jobs. You can decide that. All I will say is that these are jobs that you probably could have gotten right out of high school. I really don’t think you need to have gone to Berkeley to end up being a Starbucks barista, or a lumber puller. </p>
<p>Now, to be fair, there probably are some Brown graduates who also end up in these kinds of jobs. But that doesn’t take away from the point here, which is that while not every Brown graduate ends up with an “awesome” job, neither does every Berkeley graduate. </p>
<p>Secondly, and more importantly, I have been emphasizing the risk that is involved. We have to factor in those students at both schools who don’t even graduate. What if you go to Berkeley and flunk out, as I know has happened to many students, especially in engineering? What salary are you going to get now? On the other hand, as middsmith has shown, it’s practically impossible to actually flunk out of Brown. </p>
<p>Like I’ve said, even if the average Berkeley graduate’s salary really was higher than that of Brown, people might still prefer Brown anyway, just for the risk aversion. You go to Brown, you know you’re not going to flunk out, and that ‘insurance’ might be worth taking a lower average salary, depending on your risk preferences. </p>
<p>I can think of quite a number of people who flunked out of Berkeley who would clearly have been better off going to Brown. After all, at least they would have graduated. Maybe they wouldn’t have gotten top grades, but at least they would have graduated. That’s clearly far better than ending up with no degree at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am well aware that it is a design feature. </p>
<p>However, my question is, why is it a design feature only for the technical majors like math/science? Why don’t all the other majors also try to force people out through harsh grading? Why only tech? </p>
<p>This gets to what I have been saying in previous threads. Why is it that certain majors, i.e. the “Studies” majors simply assign less work and implement easier grading than do other majors? It has been said that the tech departments, especially engineering, are out to instill a strong work ethic in their students. Ok, but then shouldn’t all of the departments want to instill a work ethic in their students? Does that mean that certain departments are simply not interested in having hard-working students?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some majors are looking to attract students, not scare hem off. Anyway, the goal of the university isn’t to kick out 50% of matriculated freshmen, it’s to graduate as many as possible in an appropriate major. For better or worse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but that doesn’t answer the question of why should certain majors be looking to attract students, and other majors look to scare them off? </p>
<p>An even better question is, whether that is really socially beneficial. What you end up with is a system that rewards laziness. Those majors who are looking to attract students are doing so basically by “bribing” them through a lower workload and easier grading. You would think that Berkeley would want to encourage all of its students to learn how to work hard. Not just some of its students, but all of its students. But as long as there some easy ‘escape hatch’ majors available, then students will be able to graduate without ever learning how to work hard. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not saying that I want to kick out 50% of matriculated freshmen either. That’s why I advocated that the best solution is, for those students who aren’t going to make it, don’t admit them in the first place. Why even admit students that you’re just going to kick out anyway? </p>
<p>But fine, let’s say that you can’t be more selective for political reasons. Then why not just allow students who are struggling in the difficult majors to leave with a clean slate? For example, take a guy who is flunking his engineering courses, landing on academic probation, and hence wants to switch majors. Why not just expunge his engineering grades and release him from probation while letting him switch? Why does he need to carry his failed engineering grades on his transcript forever, like the mark of Cain? The guy isn’t going to major in engineering anyway, so who cares what his engineering grades were? Why does he need to be put on probation (which is just one step away from expulsion) because of bad grades in a major which he is no longer pursuing? </p>
<p>The upshot is that, if Berkeley really wanted to improve its graduation rate, then it should let students freely switch away from difficult majors with a clean slate. If somebody wants to try a difficult major and find out that it’s not for him, he should be able to move on with his life. He shouldn’t have his academic transcript permanently besmirched.</p>
<p>well, i think that because we need different skills in different professions. like a engineer needs very strong logic thinkings, while a businessman needs very good interpersonal skills. So, every university tend to cultivate people of different field diffrerently. U.S. students good at doing a certain subjects, but they might not good at logical thinking, such as math, physics, which is taught deeply in China, and some other countries like that. So, asian students, or international students can do mathematics, physics very well, because, they receive very good education in those fields, and they are forced to study very hard in those subject under their education system. There is no doubt, US higher education is the best in the world. But, the fundemental education in a lot of asian country like china are excellent. I know that Cal students are all brilliant and competitve, and i also graduate form one of the best high school in my home town, and competed with a lot of smart students there. But, my english is comparatively weak. So, do you think that i can graduate from Cal with a fair gpa? Do you think that i have a very chance of being kicked out from Cal?</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>If you want a response to a specific, somewhat unrelated query you should post a new thread. Forum etiquette, friend. </p>
<p>Anyway, as a premed in EECS I think this topic is interesting. Personally, I applied Eng: Undeclared, but went EECS because those classes were the ones where I didn’t feel like I was doing “busy work”, I felt that I got to learn a lot on my own. That’s Berkeley Engineering for you, you’re made to figure stuff on your own. </p>
<p>It does make me jealous sometimes that some of my fellow premeds at Brown may have an easier time getting into medical school, but I didn’t go to college for it to be easy! Plus I’ve gotten great research opportunities at Cal with ease. </p>
<p>It comes down to this: Berkeley students, who flunk out of engineering deserve to flunk out. Engineering is not terribly difficult or abstruse, its simply time-consuming–theres a clear distinction. If these students don’t put in the hours to succeed, why should they be able to succeed at a company? Why should someone who has other priorities dilute the engineering degree? For better or worse, this weed-out increases the prestige of the engineering degree.</p>
<p>However, I do agree that Berkeley engineers should be given generous options if they cannot hack engineering for whatever reason. They should have at least earned that with their hard work in high school and the difficulty they have to cope with on a daily basis. Also another flaw in my argument is that EECS courseload is unusually relevant to work stuff, so an EECS GPA may mean much more than mere “grades”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sakky, I think you know exactly why some majors are easier than others. You just want someone else to say it. Let’s face it, the easy majors or design your own major exist to accommodate athletes. There is a direct correlation between alumni giving rates and how well the football team does. Whether there is a socially beneficial consequence of easy majors, I do not know, but there is definitely an economic benefit.</p>
<p>There are so many different reasons why every school has easy majors. Attrition and graduation rates both play a role in solidifying a school’s reputation. In the long run, it is arguably better for universities to have graduates than drop outs. I am not saying that universities should graduate failing students. However, schools should provide enough resources and options to help every student succeed. </p>
<p>It is extremely difficult to compare public and privates institutions. The mission and methods of achieving it is completely different. There are basically only three school profiles and their respective strategies: </p>
<p>1) Hard to get in, easy grading(Stanford, Harvard)
2) Hard to get in, difficult grading (Cornell, Berkeley, MIT, Caltech)
3) Easy to get in, easy grading (lower ranked or regional public/private schools)</p>
<p>Over the years, 1 and 2 have built their respective reputations around these models and it is extremely difficult for them to diverge. Can you realistically see 1 and 2 switching places? I suspect that it would extremely difficult for a school such as Cal to switch to a Stanford grade distribution. We all know that all A’s are created equally. Can anyone on this board honestly say that if they were a recruiter and all else being equal, that they would take a 3.5 GPA student from group 3 over 3.2 or even 3.0 GPA from group 2? So while we can argue all day about why grades tend to be lower at Cal, I would definitely take a 3.2 GPA in a “studies” major at Cal than a 3.5 GPA from group 3 any day. This brings us back to your earlier comments which assume if one could graduate from Cal which brings us back to easy majors and a second opportunity for students to succeed at Berkeley.</p>
<p>^
where would the other uc’s be?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Institutions of higher education (ie. medical school) would look more favorably on the 3.5 from group 3 over the 3.2/3.0 from group 2 with all else being equal.</p>
<p>What should also be noted is why can’t MIT/Berkeley be in group #1? That seems like the best scenario for a student at that school. And that’s what Sakky is saying. </p>
<p>Given Berkeley’s relative difficulty of admission (wrt group #3) why can’t they have higher grading curves? I would think this would make Berkeley more prestigious because Berkeley suddenly would be a MUCH more desirable place to go for school and thus would have lower admission rates and perhaps matriculants with higher stats.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What major is that 3.5 from group 3? A job that will take on a studies major is probably not going to be very stringent in terms of GPA in the first place. They would probably value experience more than anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am going to have to disagree with you on this point. On the surface, 3.5 from group 3 appears more attractive to top schools than 3.0 from group 2. If it truly was this easy, why are so many high school students so eager to apply to schools with a rigorous course load and harsh grading policy? Why not apply to a school from group 3 and graduate with a 3.5 or higher therefore increasing one’s chances of acceptance into a top graduate school. Admission into top schools requires much more than a high GPA score. </p>
<p>Top schools generally recruit from a pool of elite schools (basically any school that has its own forum on this board + military institutions + top liberal arts colleges + top international schools). Every now and again, an extraordinary candidate from a low ranked or little known school will matriculate into a top law school such as #1 Yale.</p>
<p>US law school applicants who apply to ABA approved schools must generally report all grades and institutions attended so that LSDAS can create an Academic Summary Report. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[PowerScore®</a> LSAT Preparation | Free LSAT Help Area](<a href=“http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/lsdas.cfm]PowerScore®”>What is CAS? (formerly LSDAS) | PowerScore)</p>
<p>This point is critical because the admission committees know the relative strength of a particular school and an applicant’s rank within that school. High statistics (GPA + GMAT/GRE/LSAT/MCAT scores) are no doubt extremely important to a class profile since it can be perceive as an overall strength of the applicant pools and program. However, schools generally also publish what undergraduate schools their applicants yield from. This is basically similar to undergraduate admission process and goes back to the point that all GPA are not equal.</p>
<p>Due to this fact, one can argue that a 3.0 from Berkeley as compared to a 3.5 from California State University at Long Beach (CSULB). All else being equal, I highly doubt that the latter will stand a chance in the admission process compared to the former. Ceteris paribus, 4.0 GPA from Cal will always prevail over 4.0 GPA from group 3. </p>
<p>I assume that medical/graduate schools evaluate candidates GPA via similar processes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can give you four reasons for why someone would choose a #2 school over a #3 school:</p>
<p>1) They don’t know that graduate schools don’t really offer ‘compensation’ for one’s GPA for the difficulty of your school. Liquidmetal is (sadly) correct in that somebody with a 3.5 in a group 3 school probably would be picked by grad schools over somebody with a 3.0 from Berkeley (given the same test scores and other application characteristics). In other words, they believe that the Berkeley education is more valued by grad schools than it really is. </p>
<p>2) They want the prestige. Let’s face it: a lot of people want to go to the most famous school they can in order to impress their friends and families. It’s highly idealistic that think that people really will choose the school that fits them the best, but I think we all know that many (probably most) people won’t do that. Brand name is a powerful draw, and Berkeley does have a powerful brand name. If you’re a California state resident, as the vast majority of Berkeley students are, then Berkeley may well be the easiest school you can get into that has an elite brand name. </p>
<p>3)Their parents force them to go to Berkeley. This is somewhat related to point 2 above, and seems to be particularly prevalent within Asian families. Many students are forced by their parents go to Berkeley simply because it was the most prestigious school they got into, and like I said, for many Californians, Berkeley is the easiest school they can get into that has an elite brand name. {In other words, if they had gotten into HYPSM, their parents would have made them go there, but they didn’t get in.} When I say “force”, I mean that their parents would basically have chosen not to pay for a ‘lesser’ school. I can think of quite a few people for which this was the case. </p>
<p>Now, of course, one can simply say that those parents shouldn’t be so controlling. Yeah, probably not. But what can I say? Maybe those parents shouldn’t be that way, but they are that way. That’s the reality that a lot of kids have to deal with. </p>
<h1>4) Overconfidence. I happen to think this is the most important reason of all, and an entire body of research in the psychology literature confirms the presence of overconfidence, particularly among the young.</h1>
<p>Let me tell you about one study that I read. Competitive track athletes in a multi-stage heat race were gauged, before and after each heat, for their confidence in survived the next heat. Each heat eliminates the worst competitors. Those who survived each heat were even more confident of surviving subsequent heats. For example, let’s say, before my first heat, that my confidence of surviving that first heat, on a scale of 1-10 (10 is high) was a 5. Then I survive the heat to proceed to the 2nd round. Now, my confidence of surviving the 2nd round heat is now a 7. Now, my confidence of surviving the 3rd heat is a 9, etc. Hence, my confidence is continually increasing with each heat.</p>
<p>But when you think about it, that’s a psychological bias. After all, each heat becomes more and more difficult, because each heat eliminates the losers. Hence, the competition becomes tougher and tougher. Hence, my confidence in surviving subsequent heats should actually be decreasing, not increasing, because as the competition gets more difficult, my confidence in winning should decline. But that’s not what happens. What actually happens is that each time I survive a heat, I take that as a signal about how strong I am, hence increasing my confidence. However, what I fail to see is that my competitors in the next heat got the same signal. </p>
<p>That is precisely what I see happening at Berkeley and other top schools. If you got into Berkeley, you obviously did well in high school. So you’re probably feeling highly confident about your abilities. What you fail to see is that everybody else at Berkeley also did well in high school. Yet, some people at Berkeley won’t do well. In any competition, some people have to “lose”.</p>
<p>The difference between Berkeley and, say, Harvard or Stanford is what it means to “lose”. If you “lose” at Harvard or Stanford, you will probably still graduate, and with a respectable GPA also. It won’t be a great GPA, but it will still be respectable. The grade inflation at those schools is such that it’s practically impossible to get a truly terrible grade. But to “lose” at Berkeley may actually mean flunking out. I know quite a few people who flunked out of Berkeley, and, frankly, they almost certainly would have graduated if they had gone to Harvard or Stanford instead. Granted, their grades would have been mediocre, but at least they would have graduated. </p>
<p>This is the trap that faces many Berkeley students. They choose Berkeley and not some easier, low-ranked school because they are highly confident that they will succeed at Berkeley. For some of them, their confidence is justified, because they really do succeed at Berkeley. Hence, Berkeley is indeed a great school for them. </p>
<p>But what about the ones who are clearly overconfident, and hence do poorly? What happens to them? As it stands now, these students don’t really have great options. Other schools may not want to take them because of their bad record at Berkeley. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly, nobody disputes that a 4.0 from Berkeley is better than a 4.0 from a lower-ranked school. That’s not an interesting comparison to make.</p>
<p>The interesting comparison is between, like you said, a 3.0 at Berkeley vs. a 3.5 at CSULB. The sad truth is that, ceteris paribus, the latter will probably win. Sad but true. This topic has been debated at length in the premed and prelaw sections of CC, but the general consensus is that the latter will win. While there is some amount of GPA “compensation”, a 0.5 factor is probably a bit high. </p>
<p>But don’t take my word for it. Here is a document that discusses this very topic for premeds. Granted, it’s directed to Stanford premed, but the same principle applies to Berkeley.</p>
<p>*Myth #11.
I AM ALWAYS BEST OFF TAKING ALL MY
INTRODUCTORY PRE-MED CLASSES AT
STANFORD.</p>
<p>False. It is true that it is more difficult to get
an A in a Stanford pre-med class than it is at most other
schools. This is easier to understand since you are
graded on a curve with some of America’s best students.
Consequently, an ‘A’ at Stanford can mean a lot,
particularly in science classes with a ‘C’ mean.
However, most of you won’t get A’s in every
class. And because of this, some of you certainly
would have had higher GPA’s elsewhere. It is also true
that medical school know this and will take it into account.</p>
<p>However, this ‘forgiveness factor’ is not infinite.
Getting a 4.0 in your pre-med requirements at a
junior college will certainly make you a stronger applicant
than a 3.5 in your pre-med requirements at Stanford.
One admissions officer I spoke with estimated
the bump factor of attending a school like Harvard or
Stanford to be between 0.3 and 0.5 of a grade point.
For some of you, an ‘A’ in high school could
be achieved through hard work and determination.
This is not necessarily true of the pre-med classes at
Stanford. Everyone is trying hard. They are all smart.
And the classes can be very difficult.</p>
<p>The upshot of all of this is that some of you
may be more successful applying to medical school by
taking most of your pre-med classes elsewhere. And I
have certainly known many applicants who would have
been more successful applying to medical school if they
had pursued their academic passions at Stanford and
took their pre-med classes elsewhere, either in summers
or in a year off. I have also known students at Stanford—
who would have been fantastic physicians—who
quit the pre-med process in frustration without exploring
this option. If you want to be a doctor and are
struggling at Stanford, this option is worth exploring.</p>
<p>I say this with some hesitancy because I know
it may cause controversy and it is difficult to know who
would be statistically better off focusing their pre-med
energies at a less competitive institution. I should also
add, however, that all such ‘core’ classes cover the material
required both for the MCAT and to be a good
doctor.</p>
<p>This in no way is meant to imply you made the
wrong choice by coming to Stanford if you are a premed.
Quite the contrary, Stanford may be the best
place in the country for pre-meds to attend college.
You can attain a first-rate education in any field and
simultaneously approach your pre-med curriculum with
more flexibility and more creativity than at nearly any
other university.</p>
<p>Take home point: Consider taking some of
your pre-med classes elsewhere if you are hitting a wall
here. Many successful medical school applicants have
done this.*</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.questscholars.org/oldstuff/activities/professional/pre-med_letter/premed-letter-2001-2-pdf.pdf[/url]”>http://www.questscholars.org/oldstuff/activities/professional/pre-med_letter/premed-letter-2001-2-pdf.pdf</a></p>