For both, the department and overall major are called “EECS”.
For UCB, the 326 is probably the entire EECS major, since class enrollments in upper division EE courses are small enough that there can be nowhere near 326 per year emphasizing EE. The column for CS is probably the size of the separate L&S CS major.
For MIT, EECS course 6 has three submajors (6-1, 6-2, 6-3) within the department, plus some others that are jointly offered with another department: https://www.eecs.mit.edu/curriculum2017 . It is likely that the number under CSE is that of 6-3, while the number under CS is that of the joint programs, while the number under EE is that of 6-1 and 6-2.
Absolutely not. They’re hoping to see a greater balance in their classes. Sorry, I called you penguin20 in my other thread; I paged through the names w/o much thought.
Re#118: it is probably true that the M-F ratio is not the same in each department.
I cant say what difference this might make in terms of classwork (being a guy…)".
But, based on my experience at my own school, socially it would make virtually no difference whatsoever. Most social relationships are developed in the dorms. And in the dorms the overall school M-F ratio is what is most applicable. Almost all relationships I can recall were between people with different majors; in fact, at my U most were between people attending different colleges of the university. They met in the dorms.
Interesting, my D who attends Michigan loves penguins too. Just a day or two ago, she told me she wanted one. :lol:
Not that it matters in your decision regarding Cal vs. MIT, but in my D’s math classes, both lower and upper divisions, were nearly all male. Her current math class of about 50 students has 3 females.
As long as don’t let the boys “run you over” at either school. From what I’m told, initially, before the first exam, they tend to think you’re not very bright. After the 1st exam, attitudes change.
I think the M:F emphasis for tech only schools makes more sense because the majority of their students are tech majors, unlike schools with a broad catalog of majors like UCB.
The College of Engineering at my son’s school has a high M:F ratio, but many of his friends were/are female engineers and women outside of the CENG. I don’t get a sense at all that the women were ever “run over.” In fact, I think that through exposure to strong women, the men walked out a better than they walked in.
As for sexist comments, I don’t think a 80:20 F:M ratio would eliminate that. There will be idiots in every crowd.
"Re #11:
Are there any anecdotal stories you could supply about cooperation/competition at Cal and MIT? "
I have no firsthand info, but at my I-Bank I worked with three MIT grads, and I do recall some of their conversations. They found the coursework quite difficult. I don’t recall any discussion/inference about competition though. IIRC nowadays they don’'t give grades freshman year, is that correct? So maybe that helps.
Not the competition you had in mind perhaps, but my D1 nearly attended Wellesley, and some of those women take buses to go to MIT frat parties. I got the sense that MIT men do not necessarily confine themselves socially to their classmates. Of course that can work both ways…
As for Berkeley I know literally nothing, perhaps you have past HS classmates who are currently attending. There are also past CC threads you can look up, of perhaps varying applicability and accuracy
MIT students on the whole are somewhat smarter than Cal students, that might figure into grading/course difficulty levels , etc. somehow or other. I attended Cornell (ages ago) and I recall that, at that time, the intro physics book MIT used for their freshman physics course (writen by an MIT prof), that everyone there had to take, was the same one Cornell used for its advanced, honors-level, for exceptionally well prepared intended-majors only, physics course.
It was a higher-level book than the one used for the "regular"course for engineers, with more advanced problems, using a lot more calculus a lot sooner. (The "regular course"books were written by profs at RPI and CMU).
We were told that the freshman CS classes could be hairy since there were a lot of pre-CS majors in them. The pre-CS majors, who were from the college of letters and science as opposed to engineering), need a certain GPA in certain CS classes to be accepted into the major, and as such, they can be very grade conscious.
If you are referring to UCB L&S CS, students need a 3.3 GPA (B+) GPA in CS 61A, 61B, 70 to enter the major. Note that CS 61A and 61B explicitly do not grade on a curve, so there is no incentive to cutthroat other students in those courses. Past grade distributions suggest that about half of the students in those three CS courses earn a B+ or higher grade.
In the better programs there aren’t “close enough for engineering” classes. The engineers take math with the math majors, proofs and all and physics with the physics majors.
Well I guess mine was not a "better"program then.
There were three different intro courses a potential physics major could take.
One was the engineering course, one, at the same level, was mostly for non-physics scence majors in arts & sciences.
But the harder one was preferred for majors.
I agree with that statement. Undergraduate programs differ along many different dimensions, so it is not possible to rank them absolutely. That is why it is important to evaluate your choices in terms of the dimensions you value.
If you value a supportive undergraduate experience I think that the statistics I presented in post #51 are telling.
We have also learned that the percentage of women in engineering is significantly higher at MIT than at Berkeley. Furthermore the 4-year graduation rate at MIT is 82%, while it is 73% at Berkeley (all majors). Those statistics suggest that MIT will offer you the more supportive learning environment.
MIT has a thriving undergraduate research program that matches students with professors and their research groups. Check out the UROP website. https://urop.mit.edu
Nobody on the internet can tell you whether or not the superior undergraduate environment at MIT is worth the additional cost. That depends on what you and your family value and can afford.
All things equal, I would choose MIT. I would go to Cal if the money was substantially different. Cal has an excellent reputation. I just believe (as an MIT alum) that you can get an excellent (equivalent) education at many schools, and it is not worth going into debt or straining your family financially when an excellent option is available (again, my personal belief).
While MIT was generally not cutthroat, certain majors are significantly more difficult than others. And, Course 6 is definitely one of the more difficult majors. I remember a lot of freshmen who intended to major in course 6 switching out to other courses, including courses both other engineering, as well as econ and Sloan. It doesn’t mean these students are not smart, but it is a reality that course 6 is not for everyone.
As far as students working together, I never remember gender being an issue for study groups at MIT, although a lot of time we had to trek across the bridge to Boston to do group projects or problem sets to work with friends.
MIT does not have a house system like Harvard, Yale, Caltech, etc. Many students move off campus after freshman year.
I can’t comment on Cal other than it has an excellent reputation and I am not sure I agree with a comment that MIT students are smarter than the Cal students, certainly there are plenty of Cal students (at least the top ones) who are smarter than plenty of MIT students.
@monydad . . . per your last two P’s in post #127:
MIT grad, ^^, addressed the first sentence.
Re bold, Most E-type students are taking significant amounts of Calc in high school, so definitely, times have changed. So I would guess that intro physics courses in college would use a lot more differential calc, rates of change, etc.
All the three courses I mentioned used calculus. Which the vast majority of the engineering students had taken in high school.
However, IIRC, the problems in the advanced one required vector calculus…
However times may have changed, my past experience suggests the MIT course today is likely to be highly challenging based on current standards.
That was my point, not the specific subject matter from x zillion years ago.
My guess is Cal probably has a track that is at a similar level. But I dont know this.
