An overview of Berkeley: First Year Experience from a current Undergrad

crumja · May 13, 2007, 1:33am

Sorry for not doing quotes. That feature doesn't seem to work in my browser (Konqueror).

OP: "I came in from an environment (TAMS) where I had lots of friends, who are smart, and I was really close to them since I lived with them. I expected it would be similar in Berkeley, but that is not so. I didn't really make a whole lot of friends here, the friends I did make were only so-so, apart from like one who I am quite close with. But still, overall I seriously did not make the friends I expected even though I am a very extraverted kind of guy. You could say this is because of Berkeley, but I think it is combo of Berkeley's "unfriendly" atmosphere coupled with not living in the dorms."

I know a few people from TAMS here. If it's any easier, you could hang out with them. Also, lab partners from CS and MCB classes are pretty easy to know. Really, this issue is something that everyone encounters at some point. Moving, making new friends, and adjusting to changes is just a part of maturing and growing up.

OP: "The second major hurdle was academics. The academics here are intense. I am majoring in MCB and minoring in CS. I took Ochem and CS61a, both of which were murder. The classes are literally insane. The class average for the second midterm for ochem was a 62/150, thats crazy!"

I like low averages =). They make the curve all that much sweeter. Higher averages usually means 1-2 points separating an A and A-.

OP: "I have studied more this year than I ever have in my entire life and still did not do that well because the school is just that hard and competitive. What kind of place makes you work ur nuts off, and then doesn't even give you anything in return."

Sure it gives you stuff in return. You get a prestigious brand. You get the satisfaction of having met and surpassed a challenge. You get to feel the exhilaration of relaxing after 2 straight days of studying (finals these past 2 days T_T). You also learn that much more stuff. I remember in high school and CC where the work was a piece of cake. That actually was a disadvantage for me here because I started off by playing games all day instead of actually studying the material. Berkeley will help you develop good study habits and teach you how to maximize your hours for maximum efficiency and how to handle stress.

OP: "Now granted, kids did do better than me, but having an avg of 62 is crazy. The avg for CS exams was like a 24 out of 40. There is no curve in the CS class either."

I've talked to profs and trends for courses aren't that bad. Usually around 20-25% get some sort of A in each class. Even uncurved classes tend to hover around that just by a pure normal distribution. If you're not doing well in your classes (and from your later comments you seem to be), maybe you should consider revising your study habits. For example, some things I find to be helpful are:

<ul>
<li>Prepping for courses in advance (either by webcasting, reading textbook, doing previous hmwk/exams, or by auditing in advance)</li>
<li>Obtaining previous semesters' course material (homework+exams) either by downloading them before they're taken down or by finding people in higher grades who've taken them before.</li>
<li>Rewriting notes 1 day after each lecture. Because lectures usually go MWF or TuTh, you have a day to refresh the material before you hit new stuff.</li>
<li>Be prepared heading into lecture. Don't let lecture be your first exposure to the material.</li>
<li>Make use of OHs and discussion sections. I attend all the discussion sections during the first week or two of classes and find the "best" TAs. Then I change my schedule to go to those sections if possible. I also try to hit up all sections if I have enough time each week.</li>
<li>When reviewing for a test or final, I like to study actively instead of passively reading notes. Each week, I think of 20 or so possible problems based off of previous exams. In the weeks leading up to an exam, I do those problems and redo previous homeworks. This reduces the amount of time I spend cramming uselessly at the end.</li>
<li>Another good way of solidifying the material is to find study buddies. I usually find someone I'm somewhat friendly but not super-close to in discussion or lab. Then, we make problems for each other and go over concepts together. Explaining stuff to someone else really stresses your understanding and challenges you to keep up so not to make a fool of yourself.</li>
</ul>

OP: "And you know what really burst my bubble, is that even after having such difficult academics, the school does almost NOTHING to help you. Berkeley doesn't even have a campus sponsored 24 hour library. I mean come on, with such rigorous studying you need a 24 hour library. University of North Texas, a mediocre university where TAMS was at had a 24 hour library. Seriously, they don't provide the faciliites, even though they provide the hellish work!"

As many people have mentioned throughout the convo, there are places (7th floor Eschelman, 61A labs, Dwinelle, etc.) where you can study through the night. I don't like to do that, though, because I find that sleeping is more helpful than cramming (diminishing marginal returns).

OP: "Right off campus there is no wireless internet. Advisors are scarce and you have to make appointments otherwise lines are long. I am still waiting for my credits from TMAS to get transferred after waiting a full year. Tuition is increasing."

Yea. We do get hosed by being OOS or international students. It's just a fact of life though. There's nothing we can do. I'm sure that tuition is going up everywhere. Berkeley still offers, for me, the best bang for the buck and greatest balance in all disciplines. I've never seen long lines for advisors though shrug.

OP: "My gf who goes to MIT, all the buildings are accessible with her ID, NONE OF OURS ARE! only if you are specialized to a dept can you get in to a specific building. Housing is far from campus, rather than ON CAMPUS like most universities."

EECS buildings are accessible with the EECS cardkey. You can apply on 3rd floor Soda or 2nd floor Cory. Since you're taking a CS class, you can get into those places. Aside from that, there are the places I mentioned above that are open 24/7.

OP: "Most students only do dorm housing for 1 year because its so expensive and there is such limited dorm housing, thus even further preventing a school bonding/friendly experience. The kids are extremely competitive, expecially in the science classes."

I disagree. Dorm life wasn't very good for me because the people there were from different majors and my floor wasn't very social. Now that I'm in an apt, though, things are a lot more fun. My mates and I study together, eat together, and work out together. You can't get better bonding than that.

Competition is good. After all, we don't want half-baked engineers graduating and blowing up our bridges now, do we? It also teaches you to deal with stress. You'll face lots of competition in the work force. Moreover, competition also makes school all that more fun. I don't think it's that much of a challenge to breeze through a course and not put any effort into it and not to beat out anyone else.

OP: "Just to make further comparison at MIT (i use this school because i know a lot about it through my gf) they have a full year of P/F pretty much . The first semester doesnt even count and the second one if you fail a course it doesnt count. Then there is things like FLP, which is basically a program before you come into MIT where you playa lot of ice breaker games and stuff to just get you knowing people in the school. There is also things like in winter break they have classes and stuff you can take. At Berkeley, even though it is considered a top school, it has NONE of this. I know it is state, but damn its supposed to be the best! You come to Berkeley and the effing begins. I mean no cushion, no ice breakers, no nothing. Its rough, its rough."

Yea, you're right about other schools being more lenient. But I guess it's not something that I'd want. I want to actually earn my grades and to be challenged by things. I don't feel that I'd get the same kind of motivation in a private school. I guess Berk isn't for everyone in that regard.

OP: "Now I'm not saying its all bad, I am paying 40k/year for something. TH professors are amazing and the quality of education is close to on par with HYMPS, which is saying a lot. I mean the professors are really quite good and the classes are interesting."

Yup!

Pulkit · May 13, 2007, 5:47am

crumja, thanks for the lengthy reply. I understand everything your saying, its just that we just view things diffently. Whereas you say competition is good, i say not to this extent. Whereas you say that there is eschlemann library, i say, yeah but i dont get airbears there. ok, im not trying to be negative, I have already stated there are good things. But these are the things that seem to be lacking to me. It just depends honestly, if these things that are lacking are a big deal to you or not. You know, I still think it is really interesting/wierd that out of all of the universities I have seen on CC, berkeley is the one that gets bashed the most. now, i understand that i was the one who just did a significant amount of bashing myself, but it seems like it can't just be that everyone is just looking at berkeley from the wrong perspective. Okay, time to get back to ochem. btw crumja, did you meet ur roommates in the dorms, or elsewhere. because you said you didnt really click with the dorms, so did you meet your mates outside of the dorms? just curious, cause most people that ive met room with people they met in the dorms their freshman year

Pulkit · May 13, 2007, 5:58am

oh, and one more thing that I find ridiculous about Berkeley, if you major in MCB, you get a bachelor of ARTS degree. You took some of the most difficult classes berkeley has to offer in the sciences and you get a BA rather than a BS. I think that is BS!

sakky · May 13, 2007, 10:25am

[quote]
Okay, I was really referring to students in technical subjects. I agree with what you say but I wasn't really talking about it.

[/quote]

I would say that it's still better to have a bunch of guys graduate from the creampuff majors than to not graduate at all. Sure as heck, none of the star athletes I mentioned majored in engineering.

[quote]
Do these people even exist in large numbers? From what I understand many classes in these "creampuff majors" are set up so that it's virtually impossible to get a bad grade. The way I see it these two problems need to be solved simultaneously, or else you'll end up with either better students who still get weeded out, or a lot of lackluster graduates.

[/quote]

Well, frankly, we have a bunch of lackluster graduates anyway. Again, you know and I know that there are plenty of quite large majors at Berkeley in which it's really not that hard to just pass. It may be hard to get a top grade, but if you just want to pass, it's not very hard at all. What boggles me is that * some people in those majors don't even manage to pass. *. Come on, seriously, why did Berkeley admit these people? Even the star athletes are doing better than them, and most of them don't care a whit about academics because they're just prepping for the pros.

Now, what you're talking about is reconciling the differing difficulty levels of the technical vs. nontechnical majors - a notion that I have always supported and in fact have provided mechanisms with which to accomplish this goal in my old posts. But like I said, if I can't solve all the problems, I'd still rather solve some problems than solve none of them. For example, I think Berkeley would benefit from just not admitting those people who can't even pass the creampuff majors, even if we don't solve the tech vs. non-tech difficulty discrepancy. It doesn't solve all of Berkeley's problems, but it's clearly better than nothing at all.

[quote]
I like low averages =). They make the curve all that much sweeter. Higher averages usually means 1-2 points separating an A and A-.

[/quote]

Personally, I would have to say that I support low numerical scale averages also. After all, what really matters is not the numerical scale itself, but rather how that scale is translated to grades. THAT's the key. A low numerical scale allows for sufficient differentiation at the top, and more importantly, prevents you from getting a sufficiently worse grade just because you make some stupid mistakes.

Let me give you an example. I know a guy who got something like an 85% on one of his old exams. Pretty good, right? He should be celebrating, right? Wrong. Why. [] Because the mean was a 95% *. Not only that, but the letter-grading curve was harsh, centered around a B-/C+. Since you obviously can't get anything above a 100%, what that meant was that the standard deviation of the test became constrained such that the guy's 85% was something like 1.5 S.D's below the mean, which translates into, at best a D, and probably an F. Think about that. He demonstrated that he understood the vast majority of the material on the exam. But that doesn't matter. All that matters is how he placed on the curve, and according to the curve, he did terrible even though he knew most of the stuff.

If the test was harder, then the mean would be lower, which means that you wouldn't have a hard right-hand-side score cutoff in the curve, which means that the standard deviation would certainly be a larger number, meaning that while this guy still wouldn't have done well, he wouldn't have done AS poorly. Maybe he would have ended up only 1 standard deviation below the mean (because the S.D would be larger), which would be around a C-, which is clearly better than a D or F. That's better than before.

Of course the BEST solution would be to simply raise the letter-grade curve, i.e. make the mean be equal to a B or B+. But that's another story for another time.

[quote]
Sure it gives you stuff in return. You get a prestigious brand. You get the satisfaction of having met and surpassed a challenge. You get to feel the exhilaration of relaxing after 2 straight days of studying (finals these past 2 days T_T). You also learn that much more stuff. I remember in high school and CC where the work was a piece of cake. That actually was a disadvantage for me here because I started off by playing games all day instead of actually studying the material. Berkeley will help you develop good study habits and teach you how to maximize your hours for maximum efficiency and how to handle stress.

[/quote]

[quote]
Competition is good. After all, we don't want half-baked engineers graduating and blowing up our bridges now, do we? It also teaches you to deal with stress. You'll face lots of competition in the work force. Moreover, competition also makes school all that more fun. I don't think it's that much of a challenge to breeze through a course and not put any effort into it and not to beat out anyone else

[/quote]

[quote]
Yea, you're right about other schools being more lenient. But I guess it's not something that I'd want. I want to actually earn my grades and to be challenged by things. I don't feel that I'd get the same kind of motivation in a private school. I guess Berk isn't for everyone in that regard.

[/quote]

Well, first off, let me interject that in the case of MIT, I hardly doubt that anybody would say that MIT is more lenient overall than Berkeley is. After all, in the worst case scenario at Berkeley, you can always just retreat to one of those creampuff majors that the athletes hang out in, and just cruise your way to a degree. You can't really do that at MIT - even the relatively easier majors are still darn hard.

Secondly, you can talk about how great it is to go to Berkeley and meet the challenge of finishing an engineering degree. and feel a sense of satisfaction at accomplishing something difficult. But that of course presumes one thing - that you actually managed to meet the challenge. What if you don't? What if you flunk out? As vicissitudes said above, there are plenty of people that get weeded out of engineering. Yeah, it's great if you're one of the guys who actually makes it. But what if you're one of the guys who doesn't make it? Let's face it. These guys would have been better off in completing their engineering degrees at another, easier school. That's clearly a lot better than getting weeded out of Berkeley engineering.

Which leads to my third point. You talk about how you don't want half-baked engineers graduating going around blowing up bridges. While I wouldn't characterize in such stark terms, I think what you mean to say is that you don't want less capable students graduating with engineering degrees. But like I said above, that's happening anyway. There are hundreds of no-name low-ranked engineering programs out there that every year are pumping out graduates who are not as good as Berkeley engineers are. Heck, some of those graduates may not even be as good as some people who FLUNK OUT of Berkeley enigneerig.

Hence, Berkeley isn't really preventing less capable people from graduating with engineering degrees. All it's really doing is preventing people from graduating with BERKELEY engineering degrees. Some dude who barely graduates with an engineering degree from Youngstown State University or Idaho State University can just as easily go out there and blow up a bunch of bridges. I am quite certain that some people who flunked out of Berkeley engineering would have graduated if they had gone to one of those schools.

The point is, Berkeley is weeding to an * arbitrary * level of quality. There is no inherent reason for why Berkeley needs to uphold the level of quality that it does. After all, engineering students from those no-name schools apparently get hired as engineers, even though the standards of quality are lower there. Nobody seems to fear that those students will blow anything up. Hence, the level of quality that Berkeley is attempting to enforce is * arbitrary *.

Yet even so, that doesn't mean that you necessarily have to weed. Take Stanford as an example. Stanford is universally acknowledged as an elite engineering school. But it is also a * relatively relaxed * engineering school. You don't have the extensive weeding there that happens at Berkeley or other engineering programs. Stanford engineers get excellent jobs and, frankly, deserve far more credit for building Silicon Valley (the technical/economic dynamo of the world) than engineers from any other school do, including Berkeley. I certainly don't see Stanford engineers blowing anything up. I give credit to Stanford for building the model that other engineering programs ought to follow. You don't need to weed harshly to run an elite engineering program. Stanford is living proof of that.

[quote]
oh, and one more thing that I find ridiculous about Berkeley, if you major in MCB, you get a bachelor of ARTS degree. You took some of the most difficult classes berkeley has to offer in the sciences and you get a BA rather than a BS. I think that is BS!

[/quote]

Well, actually, I don't think I can agree with that, as I don't find the MCB example to be particularly noteworthy. After all, I am still convinced that the most difficult major at Berkeley is physics. Not EECS, not ChemE, and certainly not MCB. It's physics. Yet the physics graduates only get a BA too. What about that? If anybody ought to be complaining, it's them.

I don't think that's particularly remarkable. After all, if you concentrate in any of the sciences at Harvard -biology, chemistry, physics, earth sciences, whatever - you still end up with only a BA (actually an AB, but it's the same thing), as the only program that actually awards an BS (actually an SB) at Harvard is the accredited engineering program in Engineering Sciences, which few Harvard students do. I don't find that to be remarkable. Similarly, the science majors at Princeton end up with AB degrees.

<a href="http://www.princeton.edu/main/academics/departments/%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/main/academics/departments/</a>
<a href="http://www.harvard.edu/siteguide/faqs/faq37.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.harvard.edu/siteguide/faqs/faq37.html</a>
<a href="http://webdocs.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/ugrad_handbook/current/chapter3/engineering_sciences.html%5B/url%5D">http://webdocs.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/ugrad_handbook/current/chapter3/engineering_sciences.html</a>

And of course perhaps the strangest degree designations of all are arguably at MIT or Caltech, where EVERY SINGLE bachelor's degree is an Bachelor's of Science (BS or SB) degree, no matter what the major is in. For example, if you're one of the rare people at one of the institutes who gets a degree in literature, philosophy, history or political science, you still end up with an Bachelor's of Science degree.

Pulkit · May 13, 2007, 10:37am

okay, so maybe physics deserves it more, i can't say because i dont actually know. but that doesnt mean that mcb should not. mcb is not at all an easy major, and i would argue is harder than econ, which gets a bs. i believe business also gets a bs? im not sure, but my point is that just because some other department also deserves it, doesnt mean you do not. also, harvard gives AB's, okay, fine. once again, I don't care what harvard gives, I still think that Berkeley should give BS's for Biology. It just makes sense, you major in a science course you desrve a science degree. It doesn't matter to me that other places have more arbitrary assignments, it doesn't change the fact bio = science, and science = bachelor of science. at least, that's the way it should be.

also, sakky, you say all of these specific things that could be enacted for change, but I am just curious, what are you doing about these things. I'm sure the extent of your activity is not limited to the boards on CC. I mean, there is only so much (rather, so little) you can accomplish by talking about what to do on online forums. Are you actually talking to Christina Maslach, the vice provost of undergraduate education, or something like that?

Pulkit · May 13, 2007, 10:40am

about the weeding thing. Is it not possible that one of the reasons that the weeding mentality is there in berkeley is because they don't actually have the resources to support so many students for a particular major. I mean, that is the point of the "weeder" in the first place. to remove kids, because there are too many of them. therefore, in order to change the weeding mentality, wouldnt you have to change the number of students who are applying for that major

sakky · May 13, 2007, 11:13am

[quote]
mcb is not at all an easy major, and i would argue is harder than econ, which gets a bs.

[/quote]

Uh, no, that's wrong.

<a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/catalog/undergrad/majors.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.berkeley.edu/catalog/undergrad/majors.html</a>

[quote]
but my point is that just because some other department also deserves it, doesnt mean you do not.

[/quote]

Well, see, right, there, I don't know that it's a matter of 'deserve' or not, simply because I don't see that the BS is necessarily any "better" than a BA. It's just a name. Trust me - in the working world, nobody is going to care.

[quote]
I still think that Berkeley should give BS's for Biology.

[/quote]

Well, Berkeley does, sort of. All of the degree programs in the CNR, including several biology programs, are BS programs.

<a href="http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/site/index.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/site/index.php</a>

[quote]
also, sakky, you say all of these specific things that could be enacted for change, but I am just curious, what are you doing about these things. I'm sure the extent of your activity is not limited to the boards on CC. I mean, there is only so much (rather, so little) you can accomplish by talking about what to do on online forums. Are you actually talking to Christina Maslach, the vice provost of undergraduate education, or something like that?

[/quote]

Well, I don't know that that's really my job, is it? Consider me to just be a visionary - an "idea guy", an 'inspirational muse', if you will. If people are inspired by my ideas and implement them, that would be excellent. But if not, oh well, at least I put my ideas out there. Whether that's an efficient route to take or not, hey, that's my problem.

[quote]
about the weeding thing. Is it not possible that one of the reasons that the weeding mentality is there in berkeley is because they don't actually have the resources to support so many students for a particular major. I mean, that is the point of the "weeder" in the first place. to remove kids, because there are too many of them. therefore, in order to change the weeding mentality, wouldnt you have to change the number of students who are applying for that major

[/quote]

There are actually several things you could do. #1 is to simply admit fewer students into those majors in the first place, or by extension, simply admit fewer students into Berkeley completely. This ties into what I've been saying before, which is that I question why Berkeley persists in admitting so many students who aren't going to graduate anyway. After all, if you really don't have the resources to support all these students, then why admit them in the first place?

However, I also question the basic premise in that logic - which is to ask why is it that these majors don't have the resources to support so many students? Why can't you just switch resources around? Is that really that hard? There are plenty of departments out there that seem to have an embarassment of riches. As a case in point, the math and physics departments have a LOT of professors and resources, relative to the number of students (as there are relatively few students who actually major in math or physics).

<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Math.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Math.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/AppMath.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/AppMath.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Physics.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Physics.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EngrSci.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EngrSci.stm</a>

Hence, it would seem to me that the math and physics department can switch some of their resources over to relieve some of the "strain" in the engineering departments. Let's be honest. At lot of what happens in, say, EECS is really just math and physics. For example, why can't EE 117 (electromagnetic fields and waves) be taught by the physics department? Let's face it - that's really a physics class. By having the physics department take on some of the load, you would be freeing up EE profs to do other things.

I'll give you a case in point. Political Science is one of the largest majors in the school, in fact #2 only to MCB. Yet poli-sci doesn't really weed anybody. While it's obviously not easy to get top grades, it's not that hard to just pass your poli-sci classes. Hence, the poli-sci department apparently doesn't have any problem with resources such that it feels it has to restrict the number of students it has. Why is it that poli-sci can support so many students without having to weed, whereas other departments, including many that have much fewer students than poli-sci, are apparently "resource-constrained" such that they have to weed?

Personally, I think it's all a chimera. I think that resource constraints have nothing to do with it. I am quite convinced that the engineering departments, for example, could expand the number of students they have, if they wanted to. Perhaps not to the point where they could take every single interested student, but certainly more than they take now. You look at the EECS classes, and only a handful of them are full. The vast majority have open spots. And of course the department could just run more classes to expand capacity even more (again, perhaps with the help of the math or physics departments).

The REAL issue is that they just don't WANT to bring in more students. They could, they just don't want to. Furthermore, they could reduce the weeding that occurs (i.e., follow the Stanford model). But again, they just don't want to.

Pulkit · May 13, 2007, 11:27am

okay, thats interesting, but then im wondering, sakky, why don't they want to? I mean clearly, they are not just unintelligent people. I'm sure they have thought about the same things you are thinking of. Do you think they are not letting in more people because they have sick twisted desire to make people cut each other throats for grades? That just doesn't seem likeley to me.

Sorry about the econ thing, someone told me that, but I guess its wrong. Is business not bs either? Meh, whatever, I still think that it would be nice to get a BS, just personally I think BS is on principle the right thing to give MCB.

Also, maybe for EECS you are right, but what about MCB, surely you would say that the number of students "packs the classes". Many of the classes require that students sit on the steps because there aren't enough seats. Also, about letting in less students.

Does Berkeley accept based upon percentage or a certain number? If it is number, then I think they should, in the ideal case, lower that number.

But, if its a percentage, maybe the switch to a specific number would help. Every year more students are coming into berkeley and almost every year berkeley is having to construct at least somewhat more housing for the growing number of freshman. More people are applying to college, so more people get into berkeley as well. That seems to be hurting berkeley. I really think that a lot of berkeley's problems would go away if it were a smaller school, or at least, if the size remained the same. This would mean that berkeley would know exactly how many kids are entering every year, plus the percent acceptance would most likely lower, not a bad thing to have either.

Pulkit · May 13, 2007, 11:31am

About the comment I said about whether you were doing anything about berkeley. I didn't mean to be probing, I just meant that you have a lot of great ideas, and it would be nice to actually see some of these happen. Of course, others of us can cuase change as well. Just, with your knowledge you seem like an ideal candidate to do something like that.

sakky · May 13, 2007, 12:36pm

[quote]
okay, thats interesting, but then im wondering, sakky, why don't they want to? I mean clearly, they are not just unintelligent people. I'm sure they have thought about the same things you are thinking of. Do you think they are not letting in more people because they have sick twisted desire to make people cut each other throats for grades? That just doesn't seem likeley to me

[/quote]

I can think of several reasons that are at least superficially reasonable.

<h1>1) Institutional inertia. It is very hard to get old and established institutions to change, as once an organization gets used to one way of doing things, it tends to stay that way. Most institutions only change in response to a crisis (i.e. pending bankruptcy, pressure from investors), but nonprofit, state-supported organizations like public universities rarely if ever go bankrupt and don't have to respond to market pressures.</h1>

<h1>2) Chronological "equity" - or, put another way, "academic hazing". A lot of profs, particularly in the technical disciplines, went through the weeder hell back when they were students. So now that they are profs, they want to make sure that their students have to endure the same hell that they endured. Whether it actually makes sense from an overall social welfare standpoint is irrelevant - they just want to make sure that everybody has to feel the same pain that they felt.</h1>

<h1>3) The status of Berkeley as a public school does mean that Berkeley has to APPEAR to serve the public. Note, it doesn't actually HAVE to serve the public, it just has to APPEAR to do so. Bringing in more students they can handle, and then weeding them out ultimately does in fact serve this need. It works. It shouldn't work. But it does work. After all, by admitting more students, Berkeley can say that they are providing wide access to education. It doesn't matter if Berkeley, by weeding those students out later, never actually intends to provide real access for those students to that education. By admitting those students, Berkeley can say that access has been provided. And then when those students later get weeded, Berkeley can then put all the blame on those students, basically by arguing that they provided access, and those students weren't good enough to handle it, so that's too bad for them. Never mind the fact that Berkeley never really intended to provide access to the education to those students in the first place. You can appear to provide wide access without actually providing it at all. When you think about it, it's an impressively cunning political trick on the part of Berkeley. I must give kudos to Berkeley for pulling this trick off. Well played.</h1>

Nevertheless, I still believe that this trick really shouldn't work. If you really don't intend to provide education to some students, then the most efficient thing to do is simply not admit them in the first place, the politics be damned.

[quote]
Sorry about the econ thing, someone told me that, but I guess its wrong. Is business not bs either? Meh, whatever, I still think that it would be nice to get a BS, just personally I think BS is on principle the right thing to give MCB.

[/quote]

Busad is a BS.

Basically, L&S and the CED give out BA degrees. All the other colleges give out BS's.

It's hard for me to get onboard with you on this one, simply because I still don't see what the problem really is. Whether you get a BA or a BS or some other form of bachelor's, trust me, * nobody * is going to care later in your career. People are just going to care that you have a bachelor's degree, and they won't care what kind it is.

[quote]
Also, maybe for EECS you are right, but what about MCB, surely you would say that the number of students "packs the classes". Many of the classes require that students sit on the steps because there aren't enough seats. Also, about letting in less students.

[/quote]

As far as MCB is concerned, I still think the problem is less serious than in EECS. MCB is the largest major on campus. But at least it's not impacted. EECS is impacted, and has been for many years. Impaction is a blunt tool that ought to be used as rarely as possible, and particularly in a major like EECS that actually has spare capacity (like I said, most EECS classes have open spots).

As far as MCB goes, again, I think that the major ought to be expanded to handle the extra capacity. For example, the chemistry department can help out. A lot of MCB classes are basically just chemistry courses. So why not have the chemistry department teach some of them? There aren't that many Chemistry or Chemical Biology students that they have to handle.

<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/ChemBio.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/ChemBio.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Chem.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Chem.stm</a>

[quote]
Does Berkeley accept based upon percentage or a certain number? If it is number, then I think they should, in the ideal case, lower that number.

But, if its a percentage, maybe the switch to a specific number would help. Every year more students are coming into berkeley and almost every year berkeley is having to construct at least somewhat more housing for the growing number of freshman. More people are applying to college, so more people get into berkeley as well. That seems to be hurting berkeley. I really think that a lot of berkeley's problems would go away if it were a smaller school, or at least, if the size remained the same. This would mean that berkeley would know exactly how many kids are entering every year, plus the percent acceptance would most likely lower, not a bad thing to have either.

[/quote]

Admitting fewer students (either on a numbers or percentage basis) is one way to accomplish the goal. But it's not the only way to get things done, and probably isn't politically feasible anyway. Another method is to simply bring in a higher quality student body. Let's face it. Most of the very best admits to Berkeley choose not to go, instead preferring schools like HYPSMC. I think Berkeley needs to sweeten the pot for these students. One way to do that is to offer more joint/combined programs, i.e. a BS/MD program, ideally with UCSF Medical School, or at least with UCDavis Medical School. Or how about a BA/JD program with Boalt? How about an MEng program to combine with some of the BS engineering programs that offers true home-field advantage (the way that the MIT MEng program offers very strong home-field advantage)? Any or all of these programs would stem the loss of the very best high school students from going to other universities.

Pulkit · May 13, 2007, 1:06pm

hmm, yeah, that would totally sweeten the deal. I think some students are in teh process right now of trying to make the BS/MS joint degree possible. Unfortunately, from what I have heard, not with much success. The problem is the vast difference between the quality of ugrad and graduate acceptance, it seems. If they were able to get the joint measurement passed, it is almost as if you are finding a loophole by getting a sweet degree from berkeley (the master
s degree) much easier than if you were to apply after a bs. I understand, that's the whole point of the deal, but it is almost too good of a deal. I know schools liek MIT have at least for their engineering program the possibility of doing this. however, with MIT the ugrad acceptance is just as low as the graduate acceptance.

I guess you could have some sort of "weeding" out process again, for the degree, requiring you to have a certain GPA, and an application process. I think if there is an entire application process though, it is not that great of a deal. If the program becomes just as difficult as it would have been after your bachelors to get the masters from berkeley, then I don't know how great that is. However, if you could specify like a gpa cutoff, like 3.7 and you are declared as one of these x majors (so that students can't just major in the "creampuff" ones) and say that if you able to meet that gpa, then you are (almost) guaranteed acceptance. That would be sweet, and feasible I think.

Definitely Berkeley needs to allow ugrads to take more advantage of their awesome graduate programs. It would be nice to see more research opportunities like urap also. Unfortunately, many profs don't even know about urap, so although it is a good system, it could be better. Seeing that research is one of the strongest points of berkeley, if students could take greater advantage of this during their ugrad, then that sweetens the deal too I think. Also, if Berkeley could somehow provide money for urap, that would be huge. Although it is not a lot of money (maybe 10 bux/hr), the point is that it makes a research experience so much more legitimate for everyone. The problem with ugrad research is that a lot of times the profs don't care enuf about their ugrads to give them anything decent EVEN if the ugrads are capable and have proven themselves. often times they arent even given the chance to prove themselves. so if there was money involved, it would be in the best interest of the profs to make the students do something worthwhile since they have to pay them anyways. also, from the student perspetive, the student will be much more motivated to do the work because they are gettting financial benefit from it.

from not a whole lot of money, the research experience becomes infinitely better. I know because I have worked for both pay and without pay, and there is a world of difference. The urap allows you to get credit, which is pretty good, but I really feel that pay is a very effectual means. Now, I don't know how much this would cost berkeley to do, but it would probably be a significant amount of money for the number of kids in berkeley who participate in research. you could start the program off with only a limited number of payment positions, and then see the response. if the response is positive, then maybe try other means of increasing funding for somethign like this. I think many research companies such as pfizer would be interested in funding for this kind of program. the money doesn't necessarily have to come from the state or out of the prof's pocket. Considering how much funding berkeley is already coming from private sector, it is amazing it is still considered a public school.

ihateucbtroll · May 13, 2007, 3:52pm

[quote]
Considering how much funding berkeley is already coming from private sector, it is amazing it is still considered a public school.

[/quote]

Do you know what the difference between a private and public school is?!

sakky · May 13, 2007, 8:33pm

[quote]
Do you know what the difference between a private and public school is?!

[/quote]

Actually, I think there is much less difference between private and public schools than most people think there is.

Think of it this way. People say that the major differentiating factor is that public schools are publicly funded. Well, not quite. because, frankly, private schools are also heavily publicly funded. For example, the major private research universities all get extensive research funding from the government, i.e. the NIH, the NSF, the DoD, etc. All of them operate tax-free, which should be considered a major taxpayer subsidy of private universities. Many of their students are on Federally subsidized and backed student loans.

As a case in point, I strongly suspect that Caltech, which is nominally a "private" school actually uses more public dollars to support the education of its undergrad students, on a per-capita basis, than most public schools do. That's because the school has very few undergrads, and a LOT of public research grant funding. Of course, one could argue that the education isn't really being directly supported by that research funding. True, not directly. But indirectly, it basically is. For example, one of the greatest perks of being a undergrad at Caltech is that you can immediately involve yourself in high-level research projects starting from year 1, such that it has been said that the school doesn't really even treat you as a student, but rather as a "junior research colleague" who is invited to take advantage of the extensive research facilities and projects that abound. Well, who do you think is paying for all of those research facilities and projects? For the most part, it's the taxpayer. In other words, the average Caltech undergrad has, effectively, access to more taxpayer funding than the average public school undergrad does.

Similarly, like pulkit said, a lot of research funding at Berkeley (a "public" school) comes from the private sector. Many private firms run extensive research partnerships with Berkeley. Case in point - the Intel Research Lab, which is a research joint partnership between Intel and Berkeley, and in which several prominent Berkeley professors hold affiliations.

<a href="http://www.intel-research.net/berkeley/%5B/url%5D">http://www.intel-research.net/berkeley/</a>
<a href="http://www.intel.com/research/network/m_franklin.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.intel.com/research/network/m_franklin.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.intel.com/research/network/j_malik.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.intel.com/research/network/j_malik.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.intel.com/research/network/s_shenkar.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.intel.com/research/network/s_shenkar.htm</a>

The point is, there's actually a quite fuzzy line between what is considered a 'public' school and a 'private school'. You have some "private" schools who garner extensive public funding. You have some "public" schools that engage in a great deal of private sector work.

sakky · May 14, 2007, 9:33am

[quote]
The problem is the vast difference between the quality of ugrad and graduate acceptance, it seems. If they were able to get the joint measurement passed, it is almost as if you are finding a loophole by getting a sweet degree from berkeley (the master
s degree) much easier than if you were to apply after a bs. I understand, that's the whole point of the deal, but it is almost too good of a deal.

[/quote]

Well, I don't really know if it's "too good of a deal". You have to remember, I wouldn't really be offering this deal to ALL students. Instead, I'd be offering it to those students who are almost certainly going to turn down Berkeley for some other school (i.e. HYPSM) instead. Those students are likely to get a quite good deal if they were to go to one of those other schools (i.e. the MIT MEng program, one of the Harvard AB/AM programs, the Stanford co-term MS program, etc.), so Berkeley has to match that if it wants to be competitive. Otherwise, you're going to continue to see the best admittees to Berkeley choosing other schools.

The other carrot you can offer is an opportunity to all students to save time, i.e. by offering an advanced accelerated program, such as getting a BA/MA or BS/MS in 4-4.5 years, which is less than the usual 5-6 years you would need to get both degrees normally. Yes, it would almost certainly have to be accompanied by some sort of GPA cutoff or some other mechanism. But the notion of saving time (and money) ought to be appealing to at least some students.

[quote]
It would be nice to see more research opportunities like urap also

[/quote]

As far as research goes, I'm not even sure that you need to push new initiatives through URAP, although that would work too. Keep in mind that most research out there is not true "lab" research in the sense that you need a lab bench and expensive specialized equipment, or lab time. Not really. That is true only in the natural sciences and in engineering. The research that you do in, say, most of the social science, humanities, business, and so forth is almost all archival - basically consisting of analyzing existing data or performing fieldwork, or in theorizing. For example, to give you an example of some social science/policy research that could be performed, one could analyze the economic performances and patent productivity of public firms in certain industries when subjected to differential state corporate tax treatments and R&D incentives. All of that is public information that can be gleaned from various investor and government databases.

Similarly, even in the technical fields, much of the work is purely theoretical. Most math 'research' for example, is purely pencil-and-paper work consisting of just proving some theorems, or modeling some phenomenom mathematically. Perhaps you might get into some computational algorithmic work hence requiring supercomputer time, but that's about the only specialized equipment you would need to do math research. Similarly, even a lot of natural science and engineering research is also purely theoretical - i.e. modeling something mathematically without ever needing access to lab equipment for empirical work.

Hence, I don't really see that you even really need that much money. After all, Berkeley, as a major research university, has access to a wide plethora of electronic databases and archives - i.e. government databases, LexisNexis, ProQuest, historical stock quotes, patent databases, etc. True, the undergrads usually don't know how to access this information, but the information is already there. Similarly, Berkeley has subscriptions to almost every single major academic journal in the world (either print or electronically). However, it's obviously usually only the PhD students and the professors who actually read them. But the journals are already there, so the undergrads can read them. Furthermore, you wouldn't even really need to have heavy professor involvement (although that would help). All you'd really need is perhaps some class that teaches undergrads how to engage in research - i.e. how to perform a literature review, how to attempt to publish, where the data archives are, etc.

Pulkit · May 14, 2007, 10:31am

That makes sense Sakky about the archival research things you can do. So, for those things, you still need some kind of program like urap at least. No one is going to just on their spirits come up with a research idea and start making it happen. You have to do it under a professor or through a professor who gives you guielines of what to do, how to do it, gives you credit for it, etc.

Maybe you didn't quite understand the cost I'm talking about. I am referring to the cost of paying the undergraduates, I don't mean what it would cost to allow the ugrads to work. simply the cost of paying the ugrads for the work that they do. Which, no matter what kind of research you are doing, requires money. But, as I explained earlier, I believe that this money is not unattainable

sakky · May 14, 2007, 11:34am

[quote]
You have to do it under a professor or through a professor who gives you guielines of what to do, how to do it, gives you credit for it, etc.

[/quote]

while I agree that guidelines are obviously extremely helpful, I don't know necessarily about the notion of necessarily 'giving you credit for it'. After all, it's a career boosting move. By doing research, you have a chance to get published (even if it's in a no-name journal, or even an unreviewed journal), and the opportunity to present your findings at various conferences (for example, I could see Berkeley setting up an undergraduate research presentation conference). All of that serves to boost your resume and that, by itself, ought to be enough reason to get people to do it. Why do you necessarily need to get credit for something that is going to boost your resume anyway? That sounds like double-dipping to me.

Note, that's not to say that I oppose the notion of getting credit. Hey, if you can double-dip, more power to you. But the point is, I don't think you NEED to double-dip to get students to want to do this.

[quote]
Maybe you didn't quite understand the cost I'm talking about. I am referring to the cost of paying the undergraduates, I don't mean what it would cost to allow the ugrads to work. simply the cost of paying the ugrads for the work that they do. Which, no matter what kind of research you are doing, requires money. But, as I explained earlier, I believe that this money is not unattainable

[/quote]

Again, this sounds like double-dipping to me. Why do you necessarily need the undergrads to get paid to do research that is going to boost their resumes anyway? That really sounds like you want your cake and eat it too.

Pulkit · May 14, 2007, 12:56pm

Okay, so yes, you're right that it boosts your resume just to have all of that stuff on there so it is to your benefit that you take advantage of these things. I have to things to add to add to that. One is that I think that like we have been talking about, there should be a greater number of opportunities in general for this kind of research. If nothing else, make it EASIER for people to get the research they are looking for. Like you said, have things like ugrad conferences and stuff. There is some of this already in place, but there could always be more.

The second point is that it is not just aobut having your cake and eating it too. It is about two things. One is that even though it is asking a lot to get paid for something like this, other universities do have this system in place. Not many, that is true, but several do, and if you want to keep the kids who were going to go to HYMPS, then like you said, you have to sweeten the deal. I think this is one way of doing that. You say it is double dipping, well, MIT has it, Cornell has it, U of Chicago has it. And that is just out of the schools I know for sure. Enough schools have it, its definitely possible.

Secondly, it is not just about sweetening the deal. If you read in my earlier post, it increases the legitimacy of your research a lot! I know, because I have been under both circumstance on several occasions where I get paid and where I don't. Many of my friends I know are doing research, and I can see a pretty clear correlation between the quality of work those who get paid recieve and the quality of those who don't get paid. Berkeley is first and foremost a research institution. Let the ugrads take full advantage of this. Trust me, it will do wonders if Berkeley provided paid research opportunities, it is a big deal in a lot of people's books.

crumja · May 14, 2007, 1:27pm

pulkit: I knew a bunch of people from before uni in my school district. I got three of them and we all live together in the apts now. It just happened that I knew them from before, clicked, and took a few courses together 1st year.

sakky: Mmm... By lenient, I meant that MIT is more forgiving with regards to grades for engineering and sciences. They offer pass/fail first sem and modified pass/fail 2nd semester as others have mentioned. Whereas at Berk you're thrown into the fire from the start.

The second point about meeting challenges was something personal. It's just something from which I derive personal satisfaction and motivation. I would expect it not to apply to everyone.

As for your point about the arbitrary level of quality, a half-baked engineer doesn't refer to quality of education. If a student flunks out of Berkeley, from what I've seen, it's usually because that person didn't do the assignments, didn't seek help, didn't apply him/herself, or didn't care. I want graduates who are meticulous and thorough, not talented and lazy.

Those who fail out of Berkeley probably wouldn't have passed had they gone to another school. They have far too poor study habits and most will still not bother studying. In fact, I'm willing to bet that many of them will do worse because they will underestimate the competition level. Overall, I'm quite confident that other less prestigious engineering schools are also producing students with a distribution like Berkeley's. That is, they are rewarding the students who apply themselves and who try hard. Losers who play all day wouldn't cut it there. All that differs between the schools is the initial talent of applicants and the research focus.

Another point is how much career opportunity the graduate of Idaho State has with an engineering degree. Graduates of top schools carry a brand name, and engineering firms spend more time and money recruiting there. Also, when competing for a job, experience (which should probably indicate that you haven't blown up bridges, even if you went to a lesser school) and brand name (how likely you are not to blow up a bridge based on what we can assemble from your undergraduate grades and degree) make the difference in being hired or not. All this is saying that a graduate of a lesser school might not even get a chance to blow up a bridge. That's the difference that prestige makes.

But then again, all of this is pure conjecture. It's difficult to find empirical evidence correlating mistakes with undergraduate matriculation. We shouldn't even be debating this.

I've worked around the Bay in various positions, and all of my employers have commented that Berkeley engineers are far more knowledgeable, dedicated, and talented than Stanford ones. Take that as you will, but I don't see Stanford's practice of not weeding its undergraduate program as the ideal model. Undergraduate engineering is meant to be tough. I don't think I'd be a better engineer if I went to Stanford. Most likely I'd slack off; Berkeley really trained me to be tough.

sakky · May 14, 2007, 3:09pm

[quote]
You say it is double dipping, well, MIT has it,

[/quote]

Actually, no, not quite. At least, not what you're thinking. MIT has 'volunteer' UROP also.

<a href="http://web.mit.edu/UROP/modes/vol/%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/UROP/modes/vol/</a>

The idea of course being that as a volunteer, you have maximum freedom to work on the project that YOU are interested in. Even at MIT, there isn't always a prof who wants to supervise the specific project that YOU want to do, although there are obviously plenty of opportunities to do work that the profs want done. Hence, if it's a project that YOU at Berkeley want to do, but no faculty wants to do, I think it's entirely fair that you do it yourself. Like I said, it can only be to your own benefit.

Now, of course, if you can actually convince a prof that your project is interesting to him, then that's an entirely different story.

[quote]
Secondly, it is not just about sweetening the deal. If you read in my earlier post, it increases the legitimacy of your research a lot! I know, because I have been under both circumstance on several occasions where I get paid and where I don't. Many of my friends I know are doing research, and I can see a pretty clear correlation between the quality of work those who get paid recieve and the quality of those who don't get paid. Berkeley is first and foremost a research institution. Let the ugrads take full advantage of this. Trust me, it will do wonders if Berkeley provided paid research opportunities, it is a big deal in a lot of people's books.

[/quote]

Well, I think the difference that you speak of is really a case of selection biases. If you get paid to do something, then your boss has the right to yell at you if you don't do the work on time. Knowing that, you tend to work harder on the project. However, if you're not getting paid, then nobody can really feel like they have the power to tell you what to do (because they're not paying you anyway), and hence, without that pressure, a lot of people will tend to slack off. Hence, it becomes a matter of self-drive.

The problem I have with this idea has to do with equity. The Berkeley graduate students don't get "paid" for their own research projects. They get paid either out of a fellowship (for which you have no obligation to do anything), or a TA/RA-ship, and in the case of an RA-ship, they have to spend X hours on the projects that the profs want them to do, and they're expected to work on their own projects on their own time for free. So why should undergrads be paid to work on their own projects when the grad students don't get that?

Now, of course, if you are proposing that the students get to work on projects that the profs want (as opposed to what the students themselves want), then that's similar to a RA position. However, I suspect that there wouldn't be that many such positions around. After all, undergrads are simply not as qualified to work on research as the grad students are. Grad student RA stipends are not particularly large anyway, and since the undergrads are less qualified, they ought to be paid less (for equity reasons), which means that they won't get paid much at all.

Basically, my main concern is that I don't want to tick off the graduate programs/graduate students, because right now, they really are the backbone strength of the school. Hence, the notion of giving undergrads something that the grad students don't get is deeply unsettling to me, particularly when the undergrads are just not as good as the grad students.

Pulkit · May 14, 2007, 3:33pm

Um, why are you only selecting the one page where it talks about volunteer opportunities. You do realize there are pay opportunities as well. And in fact, there are more pay opportunities than nonpaid ones.

Here are two such ways to get paid for research, in addition to the possibility of getting credit

<a href="http://web.mit.edu/UROP/modes/pay/sr.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/UROP/modes/pay/sr.html</a>

<a href="http://web.mit.edu/UROP/modes/pay/directfunds.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/UROP/modes/pay/directfunds.html</a>

A critical line in the volunteer page says "Volunteer UROP is by far the smallest category of UROP participation"

Okay, so I don't think you can take the volunteer page as the norm. I rest my case there, if MIT can do it, Berkeley should be able to do it. MIT grads are just as competent as Berkeley grads, if they aren't ****ed neither should the Berkeley grads. Also, I am aware that the ugrad at berkeley isnt as strong as mit, so you can have some sort of weeding process or something, like a gpa cutoff or a professor recommendation, but still, the opportunity should be there

Thread		Replies	Views
How do you like Berkeley? University of California - Berkeley	81	315	April 17, 2021
A warning to potential applicants (especially engineering/cs) University of California - Berkeley	19	67	April 17, 2021
Tell me your real first year experience University of California - Berkeley	2	42	April 18, 2021
So how did your first semester go?! University of California - Berkeley	6	54	April 17, 2021
A Few Words of Advice From a Current Berkeley Student to Prospective Students University of California - Berkeley	20	78	April 18, 2021

An overview of Berkeley: First Year Experience from a current Undergrad

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

An overview of Berkeley: First Year Experience from a current Undergrad

Related topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US