A "B" in Berkeley is an "A" at Stanford

singh2010 · June 14, 2012, 1:47am

^ It’s not affirmative action if somebody is admitted for his/her athletic ability.

texaspg · June 14, 2012, 1:56am

^ Stanford says someone is URM. They are not telling you they admitted that person because he cured cancer or can run 40 yards in 4.1 seconds or a golf phenom. So you would never know why part other than those kids you knew in your own school.

Students have a tendency to overestimate themselves and underestimate their classmates without realizing that a difference of 200 points in scores or 5% in rank is negligible in college admissions based on other weightages for ECs. Based on what my kid has said about others just like you do but where they ended up with admissions, I have figured out it is totally irrelevant if someone scored 2400 or 36 (in fact there were several in my kid’s school) and where they got in vs someone with lower scores but excellent ECs that the classmates don’t seem to have a clue about.

There is a white kid who has a thread claiming to have 1800 score but has gotten into Harvard and Stanford. Her claim to fame is that she did a lot of work in Haiti over a 2 year period.

singh2010 · June 14, 2012, 2:09am

At my high school at least, everybody in the high achieving classes knew pretty much exactly what everyone else in their classes was doing (academics, EC’s, AND social life). Most of us went to school together for over a decade.

I agree with you that EC’s play a huge role in admissions. Nobody in this thread is calling it affirmative action if somebody is admitted for great EC’s. We are talking about cases in which we believe there were no special EC’s.

sakky · June 14, 2012, 2:51am

No problem at all. If it is the case that URM-status and athletics are statistically confounded, then separating and enumerating their effects with a proper statistical admissions model would be trivial, for the data should be readily available. I would imagine that practically zero Stanford applicants who have extensive high school sports experience would deliberately choose not to mention this in their application. {Why would you ever do that?} And certainly accounting for Stanford’s admittees who are recruited athletes would take nothing more than a phone call to the athletic department.

The upshot is that Stanford today could declare that they are expunging all effects of URM status within their admissions process (except for tracking purposes) while still retaining the use of covariates of URM status such as athletics or socioeconomic status that are far less politically controversial. Stanford would then be able to reap the public relations rewards of being able to declare that they have devised a truly “race-blind” process, an ideal that the United States strives to emulate (albeit imperfectly), and which Martin Luther King Jr. himself famously affirmed.

And if phantasmagoric is correct that the effect of URM status - separated from any of its covariates - has “very little” admissions effect anyway(and I take him at his word that this is so), then, by definition, it should then make “very little” difference if Stanford removed that effect. And it would surely make even less difference if Stanford could investigate and identify any other important covariants of URM-status and incorporate them as well.

But Stanford deliberately chooses not to do this, but rather insists on incorporating race in its admissions system despite its politically controversial nature. And I suppose that is their right. But then they have to be willing to accept that many applicants who are rejected will blame race. {By the same token, while it may be my legal right to wear a Yankees cap at Fenway Park, if I exercise that right, I have to be willing to accept that I will likely be blamed if the Sox lose.}

terenc · June 14, 2012, 4:46am

This will be the third time I have repeated this:

This would suggest that Stanford’s GPA is about 0.3 higher than Berkeley’s average GPA, a point which matches up almost perfectly by the fact that an A+ at Stanford is a 4.3 while a Berkeley A+ is a 4.0 - though it is certainly true that A+s are uncommon at Stanford, they are also equally uncommon at Berkeley.

I never based my entire argument on an anecdote.

And I did not say you said that.
Let me rephrase what I said earlier.

I’m saying that Stanford has lax grading relative to Berkeley.

You’re saying that unless we account for the “rigor of the standards” (the strength of the student body), we cannot draw that conclusion (the conclusion that Stanford has relatively lax grading) - there is insufficient evidence and ythere are alternate explanations.

Assuming that these external variables are taken into account, there are 3 logical scenarios:

External variables have no impact, or have a negative impact (i.e. external variables show that Stanford has even weaker “rigor of standards” than Berkeley)
External variables have an impact and show that Stanford has stronger “rigor of standards,” but not enough to fully account for differences in grading distribution
External variables have an impact and show that Stanford has stronger “rigor of standards,” which fully accounts for differences in grading distribution

Only Scenario 3 negates my argument. Scenarios 1 and 2 result in my argument standing.

Therfore, in order for your assertion to prove my argument wrong, it is a required condition that scenario 3 be true.

Because if the differences in rigor of standards do not “completely” account for the grading differences; well, then, that means that there IS an inherent difference that external variables do not account for, and thus I CAN draw my conclusion.

Yet you’re trying to apply a hypothetical situation to prove a point about a real-world situation (real-world grading standards). Basically, the way you have set up your hypothetical situation, the rules are magically changed - under your hypothetical situation, the grading guidelines of Berkeley disappear and, as you said “the grading guidelines don’t apply”, which renders that situation utterly irrelevant to the real-world, in which the grading guidelines DO apply.

If you take the top 25% of Berkeley and put them in CS61A, the average would be a B-, because that’s what the grading guidelines for CS61A dictate. You can’t just say wave your hands and say “oh, the grading guidelines would disappear.”

phantasmagoric · June 15, 2012, 1:04am

terenc,

It suggests nothing. Stanford’s average GPA 11 years ago may not have changed nearly as much - you’re just guessing.

The more important point here is that you haven’t established any reason to believe that grades are inflated in the CS department. Even though you know a couple people from Stanford CS. :rolleyes:

But you have no way of knowing whether they do or do not. I don’t either, and I’ve said as much. That’s the point: you’re drawing absurd conclusions without any data. You’re saying that scenario 1/2 is the case, and have nothing to back it up other than your skepticism that somehow there isn’t much (or any) difference between a student body of 26,000 and one of 6,900.

Yes, because I tried explaining it to you in as many ways as possible, and you still didn’t get it - or rather, you refuse to believe the conclusion that the difference in student bodies exists and makes a tangible difference in student success as measured by GPA. I was at a loss for ways to demonstrate to you clearly what my point is. That’s why I posed two possibilities: one in which there’s a single class and you paid attention only to the top 25% of students [not according to their Berkeley GPA] and one in which there are two identical classes with the top 25% in one and a normal mixed class in the other. You then focused solely on the second possibility in an attempt to straw-man the whole point. Do you not think that the top 25% of entering students are going to do better in CS 61A (taking it with everyone else), even with the grading guidelines?

I’d still like to know what you think of about the strong correlation between selectivity and GPA, which you didn’t address.

That seemed to be the case in your first post on this thread,

It wasn’t “Source: these statistics.” It was “my argument is right because of the following anecdotal evidence.”

Anyway, there’s no way we’re going to agree on any conclusions if we don’t agree that there are marked differences in the student bodies that would lead to substantial differences in student success.

phantasmagoric · June 15, 2012, 1:19am

sakky, I thought my point on this was clear. Perhaps not. As I said before, tracking/recording the data is inherently tied to the degree to which they use AA, i.e. in some years (even for some applicants), it becomes more relevant, while in others it’s largely or completely irrelevant. Yes, it’s entirely possible to separate the two, but the point is that they track/record in order to temper and fine-tune the AA policy.

No. My personal opinion on this - whether it should or should not - does not matter. I’m simply offering to you an explanation, which is what you asked me for.

Because it’s worse to end a policy (like AA), only to have to go back on that policy somewhere down the road because of blips in outreach and recruitment. Political, in other words - hence, ‘insurance.’

I have little patience for those who denigrate the accomplishments of others because of their ethnicity. That pushes my buttons. That’s essentially what many of these rants and attacks on AA boil down to, so if they’re going to be condescending to URMs, they deserve condescension themselves. (FWIW I’m not URM.)

sakky · June 15, 2012, 6:18am

I’m well aware that they track in order to implement AA. But my point is that the two don’t need to be bundled together. There is such a concept as neutral data-gathering, after all. Researchers do it all the time.

Fine, then it is Stanford that is effectively arguing that they should continue to implement the policy of providing a purely race-predicated admissions boost, even if only a “very little” boost.

I don’t know why you would ever need to go back. Like I said, you could continue to monitor race for tracking purposes, and therefore continue to assess the quality of your non-race-based admissions policy.

That’s a somewhat ironic stance considering that denigrating the accomplishments of others because of their race is effectively what Stanford is doing through continuing to insist on the implementation of race-based AA. Isn’t a race-based AA policy effectively denigrating the accomplishments of a white or Asian applicant just because of their race, even if (as you say) only by a “very little” amount? Seems to me that if you want to condemn those who would denigrate the accomplishments of others based on their race, let’s condemn all parties who do so.

Or let me give you a stark example. Why is it perfectly acceptable for universities like Stanford to engage in race-based AA (again, even if only by a “very little” amount) based on the notion that - as you said - race serves as a useful statistical proxy that correlates with other traits that the university would like to provide wider access, such as poverty or low-quality high schools, when it is deeply politically controversial for police departments to engage in racial profiling? After all, there is widespread agreement amongst sociologists and criminologists - even amongst the most politically left-wing - that race and violent crime are statistically significantly correlated. {The sociological debate centers around theories of causation of the statistical racial disparities of violent crime, but that such statistical disparities do exist is widely accepted.} If racial profiling is to be condemned, then why shouldn’t race-based AA?

phantasmagoric · June 15, 2012, 6:34pm

sakky,

Exactly - which is why they back away from AA to whatever extent possible (including to zero), as determined by the qualifications of the applicants and their socioeconomic background. That extent dictates how much ‘bundling’ is desirable.

As I’ve indicated, how much diversity (along whatever axis, be it geographic or ethnic or whathaveyou) depends on how well the admissions office does its job and indirectly on how well other admissions offices do their jobs. In other words, outreach (before students apply) and recruitment (getting the specific admits to attend over competitors) are what determine whether they might need to go back on it. As it stands, socioeconomic factors can account for much of the ethnic diversity. But to say that they would never need to go back on the policy is naive. While background gives you a lot of leg room, it may not always be the case for every year or for every applicant. That’s not the society that we live in just yet - hence, ‘insurance.’

You and I have different conceptions of what the word “denigrate” means. In the context of these discussions, I mean it as a verbal attack on certain kinds of students. As far as I can see, viewing AA policies this way is a real metaphorical stretch on the word “denigrate.” You’re free to disagree, as you clearly have a different view of the word.

That’s not what I have argued - but rather the reverse, namely that socioeconomic factors serve as a useful proxy for traits such as ethnicity. To demonstrate, if you ignored socioeconomic factors completely, you’d find that the URMs at these elite private schools would be overwhelmingly well-to-do. And in fact, that’s what was the case for a very long time: even the black or Hispanic or Native students were disproportionately well-to-do, relative to the general population. That is changing with the increased focus on background. Indeed it’s becoming increasingly common on CC to see URMs who are well-to-do (and have high scores, etc.) rejected or waitlisted at HYPSM. That’s also why it’s becoming more common to see underprivileged Asian students getting in even without the ‘stereotypical high-scoring Asian profile.’

terenc · June 15, 2012, 10:12pm

I am not guessing. To call my arguments merely a guess is simply untrue.
I bring up statistical data, and all you have to say is that thing might have changed. For something to have changed, either Stanford has gotten tougher in grading, or Berkeley has gotten easier (or both). I would say that it is more likely than not that nothing has changed (relative), and furthermore, it is just as likely that Berkeley has gotten tougher on grading as it is likely that Stanford has gotten tougher.

Though neither of us can be accurate about the assesment of how things of changed, in order for what you say (about how in 12 years things have changed) to have any validity, Stanford would have had to gotten tougher on grading by 0.3 points, which is a huge shift.

Between 1980 and 1992, and between 1990 and 2001 (12 and 11 year differences, respectively), GPAs at Stanford have risen 0.13.
There is no conceivable way the 0.31 GPA point gap could have closed in 11/12 years.
Just a few situations that are ridiculous: Stanford’s GPA stays flat while Berkeley’s avg GPA rises 0.3, Stanford’s avg GPA rises 0.1 while Berkeley’s avg GPA rises by 0.4 points. Stanford’s GPA drops 0.15 while Berkeley’s GPA rises 0.15, etc…

Yes, I am saying that scenarios 1/2 are the case.
The point is that it is absurd to think that Stanford students are so intelligent that their intelligence outstrips Berkeley students’ intelligence to the tune of 0.3 points in GPA on average.

You say I have no data, but that is not the case. I have some data - I would certainly agree that the data is not definitive (Stanford’s administration stopped sharing official GPA data in the mid 90s, as grade inflation took off - I wonder why - though this speculation is purely tangential). But you, on the other hand, have NO data - only skepticism and hypotheticals.

I do not claim that. I believe that the differences in student body exist, and matter. But I do not believe the difference between Stanford and Berkeley students is so great as to fully account for the difference in GPA (we are talking about two top-25 universities).

You’re analogy is unclear, so please clarify.
The way I take it, it is certainly true that in a normal CS61A class, the top 25% of students will get the top 25% of grades (let us assume the average for them is an A-). And if you have two identical classes with the top 25% in one class and a normal mixed class, if both classes are subject to the same curve, the class composed on top 25% students will occupy the upper portion of the overall distribution.

But my point is that if you only admit the top 25% of Berkeley admits, so that 75% of people who normally would have gotten in are rejected, the average grade in CS61A would still be a B- as dictated by grading guidelines. This is the key point, because you are claiming: Stanford students are overall, on average stronger –> explains why higher grade. Ignoring, of course, that if you kick out all Berkeley students today and filled Berkeley’s classes with Stanford students, the average for CS 61A would still be a B- because that is the rule.

No statistics were provided; for all we know such a correlation does not exist or is weak. Causation has not been established. Also, did you mean positive, or negative, correlation?

That post was not part of this argument.
This post was the first part of this argument: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14479031-post19.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14479031-post19.html</a>.

phantasmagoric · June 15, 2012, 10:56pm

And that’s the point - you really have nothing to support this. Sure, Berkeley has that guideline now. But if Berkeley miraculously reduced its undergraduate body size to 1/4 its size now, accepted only 2400 students with a 74% yield, approached a 5% acceptance rate, recruited broadly from across the country/world, etc., Berkeley may very well not keep the policy in such a time (very far off in the future). So your whole point is immaterial, since neither you nor anyone else can even guess.

Either way, Berkeley will likely never reduce its undergraduate student size, and even though it will get more selective as the general population grows, it will still be at least 25k undergrads.

I’ve repeated it in the clearest possible way at least three times by now.

You’re looking at one data point and deciding “such a gap could not be closed in that time.” Generalization much? Look at the GPAs on gradeinflation.com - you’ll find that many comparisons have one of many schools that have high growth in GPA over different lengths of time. We don’t have the data on Stanford in recent memoroy, so there’s no point in trying to guess. Perhaps if you’re concerned enough, you could pressure Stanford to release average GPAs. ;)

And you still haven’t shown why - even if you were correct on the current average GPA at Stanford - it would carry over to CS in particular. What do you have to support that? Anecdotal evidence.

When I said, “check out gradeinflation.com and you’ll find that many schools have grown in both selectivity and inflation,” I thought that was a rather easy task; the statistics are there, and you can see them for yourself. There are so many possible comparisons that prove this, it’s extremely easy to find.

If you couldn’t tell, we’ve reached the impasse that I’d hinted at before. There’s no agreement either way on the extent to which a smaller, more selective student body size can have on the average GPA. And none of this speaks to the difficulty of CS classes and grading within the department.

chroni · June 15, 2012, 11:26pm

Is this due to bad teachers at cal, lots of international students driving the curve up, huge class sizes, etc.? On a side note, is UCLA as hard as UCB?

Diivio · June 16, 2012, 12:35pm

Not another thread like this…Sheesh

seriously why do people SO BADLY need to justify their B’s.

You got a B. DEAL WITH IT either by transferring to some magic school where you think you’ll get your precious A’s or just study smarter and more efficiently to try to get A’s at Berkeley.

And if you’re in CS and your GPA is lower than a 3.5, you may not get a job at Google, Amazon, Facebook, or some other top CS company, but that doesn’t mean you won’t get a job, since where do you think all the smaller companies get their CS grads?

Study smart and live a balanced life and decide how much studying you want to do, be happy with your grade, and hope for the best job wise. Chances are if you’re CS and decent in efficiently building and testing software/webapps/mobile, you’ll be fine getting a regular CS job or a Quality Assurance Engineer job. If you want to work in more high tech spcecialized CS areas that pay more like Big Data/Analytics, Embedded Software, Distributed Sytems, AI, or other more specialized CS areas, then it may not be so easy but still not impossible. My current internship is in the Big data/Analytics & Metrics area and I think my GPA is only around a 3.3-3.4.

YOU’LL BE FINE. STOP CARING ABOUT HOW OTHERS ARE DOING AND JUST FOCUS ON IMPROVING YOURSELF. I GUARANTEE BY DOING THAT YOU’LL AUTOMATICALLY START DOING BETTER IN MOST CASES.

I’m sorry everyone but threads like this are so widespread here in Berkeley it’s sad. I know I don’t have to read these but I see their headings so frequently.

flutterfly_28 · June 16, 2012, 3:36pm

Diivio, you really should read the thread if you plan on posting a long angry rant. No one’s complaining about their Bs, I got a good amount of Bs and B+s here but I got into a lot of top grad schools and I’m going to Harvard in the fall. Another poster (Singh) has a 4.0 at Berkeley.

Diivio · June 16, 2012, 4:50pm

^lol yeah I’m really sorry. I just read a couple posts in this thread and obviously not all people in this thread were doing it but it seemed like a few really wanted to feel like their B’s here would count as A’s at some other prestigious school and such thinking is unhealthy to the individual imo.

If you don’t mind me asking what was your major and GPA? I only ask because I work under a PhD. Data Scientist from Carnegie Mellon for my current internship and he was saying how it is a good idea for me to go to grad school, but I fear I won’t get into a decent grad school.

Is it possible to get straight A’s in my upper div classes even if you didn’t get straight A’s in all of your classes in the first two years (I’ll be a junior this fall)? Also if I got my GPA up to at least a 3.5, is it still possible for me to get into a decent (at least top 15) grad school (at least for a Masters if not PhD), or do I really need a 3.7+?

It seems like grad school might not be an option for me because of my grades and thus I feel like I’m stuck with just going into industry with no other option.

terenc · June 17, 2012, 2:51am

The problem with your analysis is that it is pure speculation. Unlike my assertion that “if you only admit the top 25% of Berkeley admits, so that 75%… etc”, which is grounded on a real fact (the grading guidelines), this analysis is grounded in only speculation (speculation that “Berkeley may very well not keep the policy in such a time”).

Furthermore, the situation you propose is essentially a tought experiment, a hypothetical situation intended to prove a real point. The problem is that in your analysis, you are changing 2 variables at the same time (student intelligence AND grading policy), which would that hypothetical situation inapplicable.

To correct you, I looked at two data points, which is certainly preferable to the 0 data points you present.

Furthermore, the data shows an upward trend for both Stanford and Berkeley average GPAs. So for the gap to be closed, Berkeley’s GPA would have to rise 0.3 points more than Stanford’s rose. Looking at Berkeley’s released data, the average GPA in 2006 is 3.27 - Berkeley’s average GPA would have to have risen by roughly 0.23 points in 6 years, and this is already assuming Stanford’s GPA remained flat during the same period that Berkeley’s GPA rose (a big assumption).

This is a valid concern of yours. My argument rests on the assumption that there is a correlation between the overall Stanford GPA average and Stanford CS GPA average (the Stanford CS GPA follows the overall average), as does Berkeley CS. In other words, even if Stanford CS’s GPA lags the overall GPA by, say 0.3 points, it is a reasonable assumption that Berkeley CS’s GPA lags Berkeley’s overall GPA by a similar amount.
I believe this is a more “reasonable” assumption than the idea that there is NO relationship between Stanford’s overall average and Stanford CS’s average.

And seeing as how we are not debating over a scientific study or something with that caliber of empirical evidence, it is important to note that some (but not all) of our arguments are essentially arguments over whose assumptions are more reasonable.

I looked at the site. There is no correlation, at least from what I saw. Princeton is one school that comes to mind. How can someone conclude correlation if no statistical testing / number crunching was done? (linear regression, anyone?)

Furthermore, the reason that the greater selectivity of Stanford does not account for the GPA difference is because:

1) There isn’t much difference between the academic intelligence of Berkeley and Stanford students.
Both schools are picking from the top 10% of high schools. The deciding factor between someone who gets into Berkeley and someone who gets into Stanford does not usually lie in academics/how good you are at studying and getting As; at this point, it comes down to essays and extracurriculars (which have little bearing on what GPA you will get in college).

2) Even given that there are some academic differences between your average Stanford student vs. average Berkeley student (Stanford has an average SAT score about 135pts higher for enrolled freshmen), these differences play little predictive role in college GPA. Even differences in SAT score, which you would think would have the highest correlation with college GPA (aside from HS GPA, and more than extracurriculars/essays), has only a marginal effect:

From gradinflation.com:

sakky · June 17, 2012, 11:45pm

So now you’ve effectively stated that Stanford needs to continue to use race-based affirmative action as insurance when the admissions office fails to perform its job properly. But that only raises the question, why can’t the admissions office perform its job properly? Why continue to employ poor performers?

As I said before, admissions is not a game. The hardest step in graduating from most top private schools including Stanford is simply being admitted in the first place. It would therefore be entirely logical for Stanford to then devote a great bulk of its resources to the admissions process to ensure that it is being managed well. Given Stanford’s immense resources, it is difficult to understand why Stanford is unable to employ a highly competent admissions staff and therefore needs ‘insurance’.

Otherwise, like I said, the analogy between race-based AA and policework racial profiling continues to stand: if it is appropriate for Stanford to continue to use race as a standalone variable - apart from its covariates - as admissions ‘insurance’, then perhaps it is also appropriate for police departments to continue to use race as a standalone variable - again, apart from its covariates - as investigatory/arrest ‘insurance’.

I actually agree that characterizing race-based AA policies as ‘denigration’ is unfair - for it is actually far more serious. Internet verbal denigration, frankly, is par for the course: one need only peruse such notorious cybercommunities as 4Chan/b/ or the Something Awful forums to marvel at the depths of derision of which human beings are capable. But at the end of the, who really cares? It’s just words scrawled upon the wispy and evanescent tendrils of cyberspace.

But admissions policies are entirely different, for admissions is not a game. Admissions has profound real-world consequences. Admissions is not a game. When a school persists in using a politically controversial factor as race - while surely knowing full well how controversial it is - they are effectively playing games with the lives of both URM’s and non-URM’s alike.

It actually doesn’t matter which direction the statistical phenomena flows because we’re not attempting to establish a story of causality. What ultimately matters is whether Stanford is in fact attempting to build a politically uncontroversial coalition of admittees that would meet its goals for diversity. It seems that you (and more importantly, Stanford) would agree that admitting only URM’s who happen to be rich/privileged would also be undesirable.

If that is the case, then why must Stanford continue to insist on using race as a standalone variable, apart from the other covariates, particularly when they clearly have the resources to vastly upgrade their admissions process to account for those other desirable factors without having to resort to race. Heck, if UC - with its far more limited resources - can nevertheless offer holistic admissions without resorting to race, then why can’t Stanford? Maybe Stanford administrators ought to learn something from UC.

m3csl1994 · June 18, 2012, 4:19pm

I can pretty much vouch for this being true, though my experience is confined to Engineering. Maybe the difference isn’t as great in the humanities.

phantasmagoric · June 22, 2012, 1:13am

terenc, all the points we’ve made are still unchanged, and we don’t have any additional evidence to go on. You’re right that this has come down to a debate over whose assumptions are more reasonable - especially on the makeup of the student bodies. You think there isn’t much difference; I think there’s a large difference in the average natural ability/talent/work ethic, which IMO is a more reasonable assumption given that Berkeley has about 20,000 more students and draws mostly from California. But of course, to you that isn’t a reasonable assumption for the purposes of assessing relative grade inflation/deflation, so on that we will just have to agree to disagree.

sakky, as always, you pose more questions than solutions.

Perhaps these admissions officers are performing quite well - just that it may not be always be possible, even for the best officers, to a) completely end the AA policy, and b) still reach the goals of ethnic diversity every year.

I don’t think this is just a case of “mismanagement,” as you seem to imply.

Like many other opponents of AA, you see it as a fundamental denigration. I do not.

The direction does matter here, even though causality is irrelevant. It matters which one you’re emphasizing as a proxy to the other, because the quality of the proxy is not symmetric.

terenc · June 22, 2012, 11:21pm

Of course, this “concluding statement” ignores my points and haphazardly attempts to brush away my concrete, specific, and carefully analyzed points with vague and unsubstantiated ideas that put on a show of being based on reason. Whereas my points have been backed with reasoning and actual statistics on the difference in intellectual ability between the two universities, all this statement offers is a classic thought-terminating cliche: an “agreement to disagree” - a veiled way of saying that even though your arguments have little hard evidence, no amount of logic, data, and statistics would ever, in your mind, adequately refute your stubbornly set-in-stone arguments.

Thread		Replies	Views
UG Diffculty of Berkeley? (How heard is it to get As) University of California - Berkeley uc-berkeley	13	55	April 16, 2021
Berkeley Computer Science -- Cheating & Curve University of California - Berkeley	10	766	April 17, 2021
Is Berkeley a difficult school? University of California - Berkeley	11	99	April 18, 2021
Berkeley and grade whores University of California - Berkeley	23	104	April 17, 2021
I've heard that Berkeley is a school known for its grade deflation University of California - Berkeley	19	1193	April 17, 2021

A "B" in Berkeley is an "A" at Stanford

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

A "B" in Berkeley is an "A" at Stanford

Related topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US