<p>Is it possible to get a 3.9+ GPA while double majoring in EECS and Business (from Haas)?</p>
<p>Discuss.</p>
<p>Highly, highly, highly unlikely.</p>
<p>Most people don't break 3.5 in EECS, without Haas. Many get 2.x. With lower division recommended course averages of 2.5 to 2.9, and upper division recommended course averages of 2.7 to 3.1, a 3.9+ is insane.</p>
<p>To put EECS GPA into perspective, one can get into the Berkeley MS program with only a 3.5, provided the undergraduate research and recommendations are fantastic. That means that a 3.5 is highly regarded.</p>
<p>A 3.9+ is possible; my roommate has a GPA greater than 3.9. Is it likely? Hell no. I'd guess that you'd have to be in the top 1% or 2% of EECS students.</p>
<p>I am a Regent's scholar, which I know doesn't mean much regarding my college GPA, but isn't it sort of an indicator that I can at least get a 3.5+?</p>
<p>your high school stats and how you do in college are pretty much unrelated imo. high school students tend to think 3.5 is a "low" gpa even at college (i did too) but you'll soon realize that 3.5 at berkeley engineering is well above average.</p>
<p>Ok, this may sound uninformed (and it very well could be), but considering Berkeley's poor performance of getting students into top medical schools, wouldn't majoring in EECS kill any chance of my getting into a top medical school? The reason I ask is it may turn out I suddenly fall in love with biology in college, and decide to go pre-med.</p>
<p>No, but it might be hard.</p>
<p>oh well you didn't mention your possible intention of going premed on your other posts
there is no doubt that gpa is the most important factor in med school admissions. that's why people usually don't do engineering + premed together. besides, the only engineering that is related to premed is bioE, and it's well known that doing bioE to impress medschools is not going to work at all.
engineering + premed is definitely possible, but i wouldn't do it. it's just too much work and it's really difficult to handle, even if you are very smart and talented.
just another note, my roommate switched from chemistry to ib (easiest major at cal, or so says my roommate)</p>
<p>Anyone know the average GPA for economics majors?</p>
<p>Overall 3.5 at Berkeley in ANYTHING is well above average. 3.5 is a -solid- GPA.</p>
<p>Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but what GPA must one maintain as an EECS major to graduate?</p>
<p>there's no minimum gpa. i think you have to pass all your required classes (C- or above) and get 120 units total. if it's not your required class, they will give you credit for D- or above, i think. so that could mean that getting straight C-s on your required courses and D-s on the other classes, which will be a sub 2.0 gpa. actually i think you still need a 2.0+ gpa.
anyway, the point is that there is no "minimum" gpa that you need.</p>
<p>Hah to the 3.9... not likely... and that's without the double major in Haas</p>
<p>Regent's scholar being an indicator that you can at least get a 3.5? ehh maybe...
I wouldn't put a guarantee on that.</p>
<p>Yes a 3.5 gpa (on graduation) at Berkeley is a solid GPA that's Hard to get... about top 25% about already</p>
<p>You have to remember especially in engineering, those grade distributions (about 2.7 average for lower div and 2.9 average for upper div) put you against all the other engineering majors in your class... And grades are done not by how well you actually did, but by how well you actually did compared to everyone else.</p>
<p>Speaking from experience, yes it seems that 3.5 coming from high school is low... but you'll see it as high Very Fast.
I have a gpa slightly lower than 3.0 (average ~50th percentile) right now as a first year mechE major, definitely different from the mostly As and a few Bs I used to get easily and without trying much in high school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there's no minimum gpa. i think you have to pass all your required classes (C- or above) and get 120 units total. if it's not your required class, they will give you credit for D- or above, i think. so that could mean that getting straight C-s on your required courses and D-s on the other classes, which will be a sub 2.0 gpa. actually i think you still need a 2.0+ gpa.
anyway, the point is that there is no "minimum" gpa that you need.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, yes there is.</p>
<p>"Minimum Grade-Point Average. You must maintain a minimum overall grade point average (GPA) of 2.000 (corresponding to a ‘C’ letter grade). You will be subject to academic probation or dismissal if you fail to maintain this average, or if your GPA for any given semester is below 2.000. To graduate, you must obtain an average GPA of 2.000 overall and in all upper-division technical courses you take."</p>
<p>Being a Regent's Scholar in no way means that you will be able to get a 3.5. I know plenty of Regent's Scholars who are quite average, and many students without a Regent's Scholarship who do far better.</p>
<p>It might mean that you have a better-than-average shot at getting above a 3.0...</p>
<p>"You have to remember especially in engineering, those grade distributions (about 2.7 average for lower div and 2.9 average for upper div) put you against all the other engineering majors in your class... And grades are done not by how well you actually did, but by how well you actually did compared to everyone else.</p>
<p>Speaking from experience, yes it seems that 3.5 coming from high school is low... but you'll see it as high Very Fast.
I have a gpa slightly lower than 3.0 (average ~50th percentile) right now as a first year mechE major, definitely different from the mostly As and a few Bs I used to get easily and without trying much in high school."</p>
<p>Yes, but how will grad schools look at this? This is why I'm afraid of going to Berkeley; I feel I will have no chance at good grad schools with a <3.00 GPA.</p>
<p>Azure, you're fine (as in, eligible) for the very top MS programs with a 3.5+, which is definetely possible to attain if you belong in a top MS program.</p>
<p>Keep in mind, rumor has it many grad schools (especially the top ones) know that Berkeley is very difficult and will give you allowances and adjustments, especially if you have solid GRE/GMAT/LSAT test scores. Basically, take your final Cal GPA and add somewhere between .2 to .333 points to it, and you are on the level with the grade inflation from schools like the Farm and Harvard. How true this is, is up to debate -- but I do know people that have gone to very good law and graduate schools from Cal, with 3.45-3.6 range GPAs, because they had good GREs and LSATs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Keep in mind, rumor has it many grad schools (especially the top ones) know that Berkeley is very difficult and will give you allowances and adjustments, especially if you have solid GRE/GMAT/LSAT test scores
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know about that. Let's look at some data. </p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm#school%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm#school</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm</a></p>
<p>Seems to me, at least in the case of law/medical schools, that Berkeley undergrads are not given much compensation for their GPA. Heck, in many cases, Berkeley undergrads actually require * higher * grades and standardized test scores to get into the top law/med schools than others do. That's right - * higher *. Even Berkeley's own law school seems to require conspicuously high grades and test scores from its own undergrads.</p>
<p>"Higher" - Pray tell where you come to that conclusion? I am new at this forum, but Sakky seems to live here and his only mission is to state that:</p>
<p>Cal does not deserve its reputation
Many Cal students are below average
Cal grads are not as good as others in getting into Med/Law school</p>
<p>OK, got the message already... at least the football team is doing better. I don't want to start an discussion on your facts and othe stuff. Just getting bored at your constant rants about Cal.</p>
<p>Peace</p>
<p>i think underestimating people at cal is a big mistake. A lot of them surprise me because they have some talent or are very good at a particular subject. I think academics isn't all that is in reputation, a lot of people are very ambitious and hard working.</p>