@monydad . . . I just read a blurb by an MIT grad from the previous century. He said they didn’t use multivariable calc in an into course in physics. I’m just passing this along as it’s out of my realm. Multivariable is definitely a step up and more of a college course – apparently, but also out of my scope as I didn’t study E or physics – but there are some high-school students who do take it. And I’m sure a lot of them are Caltech and MIT types, as well as Berkeley types also.
OP is in EECS, so there is no pressure to meet the 3.3 GPA that L&S CS aspirants are looking for.
Perhaps, but it would seem those ( the first two) arent “better” programs…
Re#138 I’m not sure now that it actually required vector calculus, it seems unlikely first semester, now that I think about it. Though I’m sure they had it second semester, I recall seeing a non-watered down version of Maxwell’s equations.
I do remember for sure it seemed to be harder than our book. And I thought they all had to take that course, 'with that book, I didnt know there was another…
So I may be completely mistaken, as it happens.
Quick comment from the parent with a daughter at MIT. She has not found it competitive between students at all (with the exception of pre-med at times) - the students are collaborative as they often need to be to be successful. They support each other. As for living on campus, those who do move off campus almost always move into fraternities or sororities. Many live in the dorms all four years - they all have distinct personalities and the students form close relationships with others in the dorms. It’s not uncommon to live in the same dorm all the way through - and the older students mentor the younger ones. As for being female in engineering, she has never mentioned that being an issue at all. MIT is hard and stressful, but there is a lot of support for students too.
“Furthermore the 4-year graduation rate at MIT is 82%, while it is 73% at Berkeley (all majors).”
The average time to graduate for EECS, according to Berkeley is 7.92 semesters, so less than four years. Probably a lot of AP credit, maybe summer classes. Also as another data point there were 1251 EECS students enrolled in 2014, so if you assume say 30% are freshman, that would mean 375 students, and there were 335 degrees awarded, so 90% graduated. There may be transfers in the 335 number, but that’s a tough program to transfer into. Even if you assume a few transfers, the grad rate is over 80%, maybe higher than MIT’s overall number.
“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.”
You can’t assume everyone has the same background or interest in a course like physics. Here’s Stanford’s physics choices:
the "teen" series: for the humanities or social science student who wishes to become familiar with the content and methodology of modern physics
the "20" series: an algebra-based sequence for life science and pre-medical students
the "40" series: a calculus-based sequence for most physical science and engineering students
the "60" series: for students with significant preparation in physics and calculus
And here’s Stanford’s list of nobel prize winners in Physics:
https://physics.stanford.edu/about/awards/nobel-prize
just so people don’t think Stanford has a puff Physics program because they offer a non-calculus based Physics course.
It is fairly common for the second physics course for physics and engineering majors (that includes electricity and magnetism) to have multivariable calculus as a corequisite (this is true for UCB Physics 5B and 7B, and for MIT 8.022 but not 8.02). This is probably not ideal from a teaching standpoint compared to having it as a prerequisite, but requiring it as a prerequisite may mean having to delay that physics course too much in the course sequencing for students who start math in calculus 1 (despite common notions on these forums, many engineering majors do start in calculus 1 in college, though this is less common at the most selective colleges).
Note that because AP physics C E&M does not use multivariable calculus, it is less likely to be accepted for subject credit than AP physics C mechanics.
I took AP physics C E&M, AP physics C mechanics, multivariable calculus, and linear algebra at my community college, as well as 13 other APs at school. My course list at Berkeley, therefore, would look like this:
- COMPSCI 61A – The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
- COMPSCI 61B – Data Structures, or 61BL – Data Structures and Programming Methodology
- ELENG 16A – Designing Information Devices and Systems I
- MATH 1B – Calculus
- Reading & Composition Part B Course
- COMPSCI 61C – Great Ideas of Computer Architecture, or 61CL – Machine Structures
- ELENG 16B – Designing Information Devices and Systems II
- COMPSCI 70 – Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory
- Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences Upper Division Technical Electives (5)
- Technical Elective
- Humanities/Social Sciences Courses (2)
- Ethics/Social Implications of Technology
- Free Electives (7)
If I am to take four classes a semester, and I have 24 classes, I’d be able to graduate from EECS in three years. At 20, I’d have enough time to get in a technical masters before job-hunting, if I wanted.
These are the links I used.
https://engineering.berkeley.edu/students/undergraduate-guide/degree-requirements/major-programs/electrical-engineering-computer-sciences/#8f
https://engineering.berkeley.edu/2016-17-undergraduate-guide/2016-17-exams-ap-ib-a-level-and-transfer-credit-information/#apexam-note2
Re: #146
You will need 3 H/SS courses (including 2 upper division and one American Cultures) in addition to R&C B. Some (but not all) ethical implications of technology courses can also count as H/SS courses.
Regarding the ethical implications of technology courses, you may want to take CS 195 or H195 anyway, even though it does not double up on another requirement, and even if you choose to take another such course as well. Many of the topics will be quite relevant to how computing relates to other parts of society. Here is the course home page and readings: http://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs195/sp20/
@theloniusmonk, I’m simply stating a fact that is exemplified by Stanford…some schools have an easier path for engineers. That’s not to say that the engineering path is a puff class or that a full proofs Calc series will result in a better engineer. It is indeed though a shortcut at some schools, but not at others. I remember a conversation with my son, now graduated, like it was yesterday. He started first quarter in a Calc 3 honors section. The instructor said engineers like to say we don’t need the right answer. we need an answer that is good enough. Then he went on to say, we won’t be playing that game in this class. You’ll learn how to derive the correct answer. Period. Is it better? I don’t know? I didn’t take that series. Those who did (my son excluded, because he’s self deprecating and truly believes anyone has the capacity to master tensor calculus given the motivation and time; heck, I didn’t even know what a tensor was until he took continuum mechanics) wear it like a badge.
You will be more than prepared at any school for engineering. I don’t know about Cal, but I assume that the students accepted into your program are consistently strong /experienced in math and physics.
MIT intro (freshman) math and physics classes are very doable. MIT does not admit by major, so the range of abilities/experience for freshmen in math and physics is much bigger than people imagine. MIT admits freshman who do not have Calc (or their calc was so poor it really doesn’t count - yes, I know this from both profs and students), so while it may be more difficult than some other colleges, it is very doable and you will be fine if you select MIT. Of course, as you advance in engineering classes the math will certainly be much more difficult, but if you do well in the foundational classes you will be very well prepared for future engineering classes.
If your goal is to graduate in three years, then Cal is the way to go (based on what you have said - I do not know the details of grad. early at Cal). I know very few people who have graduated in less than four years from MIT, and they did that years ago.
I think Berkeley undergrad EECS is massively over-rated and is riding on the coattails of its graduate program. I live in the Bay Area and know lots of EECS alumni. They’re pretty much indistinguishable from CS grads of any good flagship university. That said, if it’s a lot cheaper than MIT, go to Cal.
MIT. Speak to current students about the opportunities available to them at each school. Also speak to alumni who can provide some perspective on post-college employment.
Is there a specific need to graduate in 3 years? If not, I’d suggest that you use that time to dive deeper into some areas you enjoy or to broaden your experience outside CS. This is the path that our S has taken. In addition to his CS specialty (AI/ML) he worked with the math department to take classes to achieve a minor, he has also taken classes in ethics, political science, and religions. Interestingly he can relate all these different classes back to (you guessed it) CS.
@penguin2 Congratulations on your great choices! I don’t know anything about Cal to comment, but my son recently graduated from MIT. He had a great experience.
He never had a problem getting the class he wanted
He never had a problem with housing
The students are collaborative
It was easy for him to secure research opportunities with professors
You can take placement tests to place out of classes that you don’t feel you need to take
My son loved living in Boston
It is possible to graduate in three years if you desire…my son had a friend who was a varsity athlete that graduated in three years.
Good luck with your decision.
I agree wholeheartedly with @Rivet2000. Our son did the same. He started taking graduate courses at the end of his 3rd year and walked with a thesis based MS in 5. He ended up being hired as the first new grad at a startup composed of industry heavy hitters (something uncommon as startups don’t have the time to mentor and groom employees; they need production on day one). The depth of his curriculum and the complexity of his projects gave them comfort in his potential.
@simba9, this can be said of most any school with a big graduate program. That’s where reputations are made. It’s also why it’s hard to rank schools with doctoral programs against schools without. When push comes to shove and evidence is requested to support the reputation of an undergraduate program, it doesn’t usually materialize. Undergraduate engineering and CS programs differ in the margins, cost certainly being one of them. That’s where students should look to find fit. We’ve been sold a bill of goods though that undergraduate institutions differ greatly, can be thus ranked, and that rank will determine your lifetime success. There is simply no evidence to support that and plenty of evidence to show that die is cast at the time of HS graduation.
“Period. Is it better? I don’t know?”
You said it was better, now it seems you’re back tracking, recall your comment:
“In the better programs there aren’t “close enough for engineering” classes.”
This is Princeton, again not forcing all students to take the same classes:
PHY 101 Introductory Physics I
A course in fundamental physics that covers classical mechanics, fluid mechanics, basic thermodynamics, sounds, and waves. Meets premedical requirements.
PHY 103 General Physics I
The physical laws that govern the motion of objects, forces, and forms of energy in mechanical systems are studied at an introductory level. Calculus-based, primarily for engineering and science students, meets premedical requirements.
PHY 105 Advanced Physics (Mechanics)
PHY105 is an advanced first year course in classical mechanics, taught at a more sophisticated level than PHY103.
"Then he went on to say, we won’t be playing that game in this class. "
Looks like the Princeton professor is playing a whole lot of games for the pre-med and humanities students taking the class.
The only specific need I can point to for graduating in three years is saving 30K. Depending on my family’s financial situation, that can go to my younger sibling’s college tuition, or it can go to a master’s degree somewhere. Either way, I would rather finish the undergrad in three years than take filler courses for a year.
@theloniusmonk, That’s the thing, we aren’t talking pre-med and humanities. We’re talking engineering and computer science. Of course all students shouldn’t be required to take the most advanced series. They certainly don’t at my son’s school. That class consisted of physics, math and engineering majors. The question is whether or not engineers should. At some schools like Cal Poly, Caltech and MIT, (and I’m sure there are others) it’s simply not an option. You get the full math experience. Engineering students take those classes with the math and physics students. Some do have honors sections and they may be distinguished by curriculum, by class size and instructor pool, or by both.
OP, if you choose to go to MIT, take full advantage of it. Spend all four years, even if you have enough credits to graduate in three. Better prepare yourself by taking other interesting and valuable courses beyond the minimum requirements.
If your family finances are uncertain (particularly if you need to ensure that your sibling does not get shortchanged on college money compared to you), then wouldn’t that be the deciding factor? I.e. $30k less per year, and more likely to have the option of graduating in 6 or 7 semesters instead of 8 semesters to save a semester or year of cost.