<ol>
<li>Replace Berkeley City Council members with university and business-friendly moderates.</li>
<li>University needs to implement a zero tolerance policy on squatters (protest occupiers and bums) on campus.</li>
<li>University needs to clear Peoples Park and develop some much needed student housing (preferably mixed use with chain stores and restaurants).</li>
<li>Renovate Memorial stadium and make it as bright and loud for our friends living in the Panaromic Hill association.</li>
</ol>
<p>Those would be a good start but will never happen.</p>
<p>Sakky is not trying to bring anybody down but simply providing the facts that every premed should consider. This is a very very helpful website.</p>
<p>I guess my role is to point out the hypocrisy of the student body and faculty and encourage people to push for reform while exorcising my various demons as well. I think a lot could be done by reforming the school and a lot of it does have to do with the city of Berkeley, but also the people we elect to state government. Cal is getting looted from the inside out and its really affecting student quality of life. I mean, we consistently get rated as dorms like dungeons and “Is it Food?” by the princeton review. These are two essentials to living that are already in the tank, and compound that with weak on-campus student entertainment and such, no wonder students are happy and feeling isolated. Furthermore, Cal really has no right to be as brutal or harsh as it is anymore. The school simply is not that great anymore. It’s pretty much a glorified state school that is riding on its fading reputation. Most of the professors who were considered great in the 50s, 60s, and 70s and even into the 80s are getting senile and out of touch. (Litwack is a favorite of mine, he was supposed to be great, but since his stroke I’ve heard he’s becoming a doddering loon.) Or, the professors are young but indoctrinated into the “system” so to speak. Cal really is not what it could be or was anymore.</p>
<p>Also, enforcing a more mature student body rather than a bunch of cutthroat drones from the top of the classes of California high schools (and unless its a well regarded private, that’s not saying much anymore either…) who are so insecure and cocky they alienate everyone they come across whether passively or aggressively – would be awesome as well. I’m very much in favor of having non-violent communication (Basically get over this non-confrontational bullcrap and get some real socializing done with affirmative dialogue rather than brow beating people and calling them losers, creepers, etc.) and “how to deal with people who are struggling socially/physically/mentally/etc.” type seminars and come down VERY hard on kids who act like bullies in the dorms. And I hate to say this, but many of us are, including myself. If you mistreat someone because they are different, even if you don’t actively harass them or make them feel bad, but you contribute to their isolation, alienation, and lonliness or treat them differently because they are different or others do so, then yes, you are a bully. Though that’s more a pipe dream than any realistic expectation. Though I really encourage people to read the book “Non-violent Communication: A language of life” by Marshall Rosenberg. It’s really quite good and gives you a different perspective. Empathy rather than shame, I suppose is the basic tenet.</p>
<p>Well, first off, I never said it was a horrible place for premed. After all, Berkeley premeds do seem to be admitted to med-school at a rate higher than the national average, even after correcting for the bias in reporting standards (Berkeley figures are for graduating seniors, vs. national figures are for all applicants). </p>
<p>However, one ‘quick-win’ strategy that Cal premeds could do is, don’t take certain premed courses at Berkeley, but do them elsewhere (i.e. at a community college). Naturally that might entail not majoring in certain disciplines such as MCB that require that you take certain coursework at Berkeley (but that might be desirable anyways, as, frankly, Berkeley probably has too many MCB majors, being by far the most popular major on campus). To be sure, if you can take the premed coursework at Berkeley and do well, then obviously you should do so. The problem is, due to the harshness of the premed curves, many students won’t do well. For the purposes of med-school admissions, it’s far better to receive an A from a community college than a C (or worse) from Berkeley.</p>
<p>Sakky’s posts are absolutely appropriate- I find the objective, sourced data he is providing much more credible the empirical, subjective data others are providing. If facts are a buzzkill then the buzz should be killed.</p>
<p>That said, I think an often-overlooked argument is how much better the high-performance students at Berkeley do with grad school admissions than high-performance students at other schools. A student with a 3.9+ GPA and good test scores at Berkeley has a substantially better shot at the top grad schools than a graduate of a less selective undergrad program with a comparable GPA and test scores.</p>
<p>Students with lower GPAs at Berkeley, however, do not receive this benefit. I believe if someone knows they would be the type of student who would receive a GPA <3.5 at Berkeley, then they would probably best maximize their chances at getting into the most prestigous grad programs if they made the intentional choice to attend a less selective college and tried to be a GPA standout. The median student at Berkeley is smart- but at Berkeley they are average, and this may cause them problems when classes are curved around 2.7. Speaking totally from completely discountable personal experience, the unhappiest and most discouraged kids (and the heaviest drinkers, incidentally) at Berkeley seem to me to be the ones that got strong GPAs/SATs in high school but either aren’t disciplined enough or smart enough to really excel in Berkeley premed or science programs.</p>
<p>The option of taking premed courses at CC and taking easy clases in a high-average-GPA major at Berkeley seems like an excellent and underrated one to me.</p>
<p>This is all just my personal opinion, all figures were subjectively estimated, feel free to disagree with any of it or provide statistical evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>I thought med schools don’t like to see that you took your pre-reqs at a local CC. I know an A from a CC looks better than a C from Berkeley, but wouldn’t the med schools be suspicious if the student has taken half of their pre-reqs at CC instead?</p>
<p>In my previous post, I meant isolated and unhappy in regards to the lack of quality on campus activities and meeting places. Sorry if this caused any confusion.</p>
<p>blueducky-
I’m not really sure that’s the case. This could totally be different now (I’m not a premed so honestly what do I know) but in the 80s my Dad took more than half of his premeds at a CUNY after graduating from an Ivy with a social science degree. He got into a bunch of the top Med schools. He did, however, take his premed >5 years after his undergrad so his choice of where he took these courses wasn’t necessarily strategic.</p>
<p>This is both personal experience and unverifiable (for everyone but me) so whatever. Only bringing this up because it’s pertinent to this discussion and not to brag or be a d*** or something.</p>
<p>I think you answered your own question. Sure, med schools may not like your having taken half (or even all) of your courses at a community college. On the other hand, what they really don’t like is your having taken your premed courses at a regular school…and receiving terrible grades. Again, for the purposes of med-school admissions, an A at a community college is far better than a C (or worse) at Berkeley. There are a lot of students at Berkeley receiving C’s or worse. </p>
<p>To be clear, personally, I think the real problem is with the med-school admissions process itself. Med-schools should not be using grades as a criteria for admission due to the differing grading standards amongst the various schools. An A at one school is does not require the same effort and knowledge as does an A at another school, or between different courses at the same school, or even between the same course at the same school but just taught by different professors. Rather, med-schools should rely on standardized tests on the MCAT, and if the problem is that the current MCAT does not provide sufficient information about a particular candidate, then the real answer is to design a better MCAT. For example, if I perform well on the OChem section of the MCAT, who cares what my OChem grades were? I proved on the MCAT that I know OChem, and that’s what should matter. </p>
<p>But sadly I know that this reform won’t happen, so we’re stuck with a system that utilizes grades. Hence, premeds are well advised to obtain top grades, or, put more directly, avoid bad grades. If taking your coursework at a community college is what it takes to avoid bad grades, then so be it. </p>
<p>To be clear, if you can take your premed coursework at Berkeley and obtain top grades, then obviously that is the optimal solution. But most students are unable to do that.</p>
<p>For graduate school, I am in favor of letters of recommendation and research experience speaking to the individual’s potential most, and for things like medical school where one is in some ways going through undergrad to prove oneself worthy of the “real schooling” ahead, I’d say some well-constructed, long, challenging standardized testing on fundamentals useful to take to med school would be a good measure. I don’t know how good the MCAT is, and I don’t know how much it’s taken into account, but this is my feeling. Courses and grades can be looked at, but I think using them as hugely significant factors when they vary hugely based on school, the given professor teaching courses, etc, really invalidate them as being anywhere close to end-all measures.</p>
<p>Oh wow, Sakky actually was proposing the same point about MCATS and “better MCATS”, my mistake for the repetition :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why are you certain out of curiosity? I’d hope the reform would happen some day in the future, and frankly, I’m also a believer that stronger standardized tests requiring analytical skill more comparable to what is required in college would be healthy to include for undergrad.</p>
<p>Won’t happen just like SATs won’t change is the way I see it. </p>
<p>I think standardized testing should be weighted more as well and supposedly the MCAT is, but if there’s a discrepancy, something like a C and a high score, I don’t think you’ll get the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>I would actually argue that that’s better than the situation that exists today. After all, right now, students who are focused on grades are already focused on tests, just the tests of that particular course. Let’s face it: most premeds in Chem3A/B don’t really care about learning OChem. They just want to know enough to do well on the exams. </p>
<p>The key advantage of standardized tests is that they’re fair. You don’t have to deal with the inequity of differing grading standards used by differing schools, or even by differing profs within the same school. No matter whether you completed your premed coursework at Berkeley or at a community college, everybody has to take the same MCAT. You also eliminate the silly gaming of students seeking out and cherry-picking courses where they can earn easier A’s. </p>
<p>But like I said, I’m not optimistic that any change is going to happen anytime soon, and so it is indeed a valid strategy to seek out easier A’s, including taking courses at a community college if necessary. Sad but true. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it’s not going to happen anytime soon to be sure. The entire med-school admissions system relies on grades, and systemic change would require that all (or at least most) of the med-schools to change their admissions systems. The core of the problem is that they have no incentive to change. Med-schools aren’t really hurt by their suboptimal admissions systems. They don’t really care if they’re rejecting certain candidates that they should be admitting in favor of less qualified candidates that they admit. It’s not really hurting their ranking or their reputation.</p>
<p>I believe MCAT reform will happen, but in the direction of less domain knowledge and analytical skill and more creative thinking and language skill. The intent is to smooth out the score discrepancies among different ethnic groups.</p>
<p>If the exams test real material, and aren’t “games” like SATs and such, then realistically studying for the exam = mastering important fundamentals with a good broad picture view. This lets students have the flexibility of learning using the style that works for them for courses, and not worrying about the results immediately, instead worrying about eventual mastery. </p>
<p>I don’t like exams as a measure in general, but when there has to be one, I prefer it be comprehensive and about competing with the larger population, not with those around you whom you could learn from instead.</p>
<p>^I realize nobody at this point even cares, but wouldn’t such a great test require hours and hours worth of time to thoroughly test every “important fundamental” in depth? </p>
<p>Every exam is a game… some just take more time to master than others. Midterms/finals for semester classes would therefore be better, though yes, for the above reasons you guys have mentioned, the system is flawed. If all the GPA’s across the entire nation is given based on the student’s rank within their major and the amount of A’s, B’s, etc is standardized across the board (school-wise and major-wise), the system would then be ideal.</p>
I think a lot could be done by reforming the school and a lot of it does have to do with the city of Berkeley, but also the people we elect to state government. Cal is getting looted from the inside out and its really affecting student quality of life. I mean, we consistently get rated as dorms like dungeons and “Is it Food?” by the princeton review. These are two essentials to living that are already in the tank, and compound that with weak on-campus student entertainment and such, no wonder students are happy and feeling isolated. Furthermore, Cal really has no right to be as brutal or harsh as it is anymore. The school simply is not that great anymore. It’s pretty much a glorified state school that is riding on its fading reputation. Most of the professors who were considered great in the 50s, 60s, and 70s and even into the 80s are getting senile and out of touch. (Litwack is a favorite of mine, he was supposed to be great, but since his stroke I’ve heard he’s becoming a doddering loon.) Or, the professors are young but indoctrinated into the “system” so to speak. Cal really is not what it could be or was anymore.</p>