<p>Oh, this thread has totally ruined....tsk-tsk</p>
<p>Get used to it. Most Berkeley threads turn into something like this.</p>
<p>sakky said (#47)
[quote]
Hey, let's not use anecdotes. Let's look at the facts. We all have the right to our own opinions, but we don't have the right to our own facts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>sakky said (#60)
[quote]
But since you bring unhappiness into the equation, let me tell you, I know a LOT of very unhappy Berkeley students. For example, consider all those engineering students who flunk out. I know many. Believe me, they are VERY unhappy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>hmm, a bit inconsistent there, aren't we?</p>
<p>How about some real data, from the most comprehensive survey of Berkeley seniors (<a href="https://osr2.berkeley.edu/Public/surveys/ucues/2005/core2005.html)%5B/url%5D">https://osr2.berkeley.edu/Public/surveys/ucues/2005/core2005.html)</a>, when asked how satisfied they were with their overall experience at UCB, 85.7% were satisfied. </p>
<p>Sakky, what was your major at Berkeley, and how many years did you actually study there, I ask this because as a former engineering major, your anecdotal position about engineering majors seems a bit far fetched. Those who work like dogs and flunk out of the college of engineering just aren't bright enough. There aren't many of them thankfully, since about 87% of Brekeley undergraduates get their degrees.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Trust me, there are a LOT of Berkeley engineering students out there that are just barely making it, i.e. scraping by with a GPA of 2.5 or less.
[/quote]
Quite funny, because when I went to Cal, the average U/G GPA in the college of engineering was about 2.7, tops. The grading has gotten quite a bit easier since.</p>
<p>
[quote]
College prestige has rational utility in the job market, because it signals quality. A lot of recruiters will therefore only recruit at certain schools.
[/quote]
Berkeley is at worst #2 in terms of employer pull in the western half of the USA. There are very few employers who actually recruit undergrads at Stanford but not at Cal.</p>
<p>In my case, my Berkeley Engineering degree was probably the singlemost important factor in getting my first two jobs, with a small consulting company then a big six on the east coast for management consulting (I'm dating myself here, I think it's down to less than 6 now) . In the professional world, Berkeley is an "Armani" in terms of degree prestige, even though it might not be one on CC boards or in sakky's mind. (Just a total aside, but Armani is a bit outdated in terms of men's fashion.)</p>
<p>About the study, here is what the author specifically state: "Because we do not have a fully representative sample of college applicants, we rank only about a hundred undergraduate programs and our ranking is an example, not definitive." Once again, the object of this study is not to get a ranking, but to establish a ranking methodology. IT SAYS SO ON PAGE ONE. If they wanted to carry it a step further and actually get an accurate picture using their methodology, they would have gone about and build a more rigorous data set. As I've indicated above, one of the authors actually repudiated the use of that paper as an actual ranking, as opposed to a new ranking methodology.</p>
<p>sakky said:
[quote]
Berkeley MCB grads in 2005 earned...an average salary of 33.6k. In that same year, Princeton molecular biology grads earned an average of 38.75k.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So Princeton graduates paid tens of thousands of dollars in extra tuition for the privilege of earning $5,000 more after they graduate. You don't need to have an MBA to determine which group is in better shape financially...</p>
<p>Considering as well the fact that the average family income of students from Princeton is at least twice as bigger as that from Berkeley, Berkeley does a remarkable job of providing a professional launchpad for its graduates.</p>
<p>sakky said
[quote]
We can also talk about Stanford, which has made the fastest strides in modern history. Let's face it. 50 years ago, Stanford was still a rural backwater impoverished school located in the middle of farmland. Silicon Valley as a concept barely existed back then.
[/quote]
Actually, Stanford might have been ranked ahead of Cal in the early USNWR rankings. We're not talking about the 1940s, we're talking about the 1980s, where Berkeley undergrad was ranked #5. </p>
<p>The quality of the faculty at Berkeley relative to the schools ranked 6 to 20 in today's USNWR has been relatively unchanged. Class sizes have not changed much, despite the rise in enrollment. More emphasis was placed on things like undergraduate seminars, a there was a huge increase in dormitory space for undergraduates. When I went to Cal, only about 2/3 of freshmen got into the dorms, and most were kicked out the year after. Clark Kerr was a school for the blind and deaf, Foothill was a grassy knoll. The graduation rate was under 80%. The average U/G GPA at UCB was about a 2.8. It is about a 3.25 today.</p>
<p>In the 80s, the undergraduate experience was definitely worse, while at most private schools ranked 6 through 20 today were very unlikely to have imrpved to the same extent as things did at Cal, because they didn't have the same issues to start with. Most for example were already afflicted with high grade inflation, and the graduation rate have not changed much over the last decades.</p>
<p>So what has changed is the methodology of the USNWR rankings, and with it some of the perception and prestige of Berkeley vs the top 20, especially as reflected on these boards.</p>
<p>Clark Kerr now houses mostly athletes</p>
<p>Sakky: most Berkeley MCB grads go to med school/other professional schools, in which their earning is negative. rest of us go to graduate schools. i dont know if anybody is content with their bachelor degree and want to work as a tech for life. a better way to judge that is to compare grad school admission and med school admission. i know for 100 MIT bio grad school interviewees, 5 of us will come from berkeley, im not sure which school can say that. (and i select MIT because it is one of the most selective bio program there is. lots of rejections, and crying from people in different forums)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky: most Berkeley MCB grads go to med school/other professional schools, rest of us go to graduate schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No need to argue about it when we can just look at data.</p>
<p>According to the data, the percentage of reported MCB grads who go on to graduate school of any kind (medical school, PhD program, professional school etc.) from 2002-2005 was 37%. Keep in mind that that 37% includes all forms of post-undergrad education Hence, only a subset of that 37% is going to medical school or professional school specifically. </p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MCB.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MCB.stm</a></p>
<p>In fact, actually, the percentage of those employed or seeking employment totals 49% (and another 15% report doing 'other endeavors', whatever that means). </p>
<p>Now, granted, that's just reported data. However, I think we can conclude that of those that don't report, they're not exactly all going to med-school/professional school and just not reporting that fact. Let's face it. Plenty of those people who didn't report in are probably having trouble finding work or trouble getting into grad school. The ones that tend not to report are generally the ones who are not doing well. </p>
<p>The point is, the data strongly contradicts the contention that 'most' MCB grads are going to med school/other professioal, and the rest are going to grad school. I see a LOT of employers on that list. </p>
<p>
[quote]
i know for 100 MIT bio grad school interviewees, 5 of us will come from berkeley, im not sure which school can say that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I am almost certain that there are two other schools - MIT itself, as well as Harvard. How about this. We can ask molliebatmit, who herself just went through the MIT bio grad interview rounds last year (as a former MIT bio undergrad who applied and got admitted to the MIT bio grad program), which schools her interview competitors came from. I think she said that she saw a LOT of Harvard and MIT undergrads, although, granted, she didn't quantify what 'a lot' was. So we can ask her. </p>
<p>But again, no need to argue about it. Just look at the data. While obviously some of the MCB grads got into some of the very top bio grad programs or med-schools, others not so much. For example, there is a guy who went to the master's degree program in biology at Sacramento State. One guy is going to the master's degree program in genetics at Cal-State Northridge. One guy got into the master's degree Biological Sciences program at Cal-State Hayward (now Cal-State East Bay). </p>
<p>The point I'm making is that there are a LOT of MCB grads, and not all, or even most of them, go onto top graduate/professional programs. In fact, judging from the data, only a small minority does.</p>
<p>
[quote]
hmm, a bit inconsistent there, aren't we?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, what I meant was that we shouldn't have to rely on anecdotes when we have real data. Anecdotes are better than nothing at all. But data is better than anecdotes. </p>
<p>
[quote]
How about some real data, from the most comprehensive survey of Berkeley seniors (<a href="https://osr2.berkeley.edu/Public/sur...core2005.html)%5B/url%5D">https://osr2.berkeley.edu/Public/sur...core2005.html)</a>, when asked how satisfied they were with their overall experience at UCB, 85.7% were satisfied.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, and what of those people who didn't even make it to the senior level - i.e. those students who flunked out or transferred out? I am fairly certain that they are fairly dissatisfied with the experience. After all, nobody likes to flunk out. And as far as the transferees are concerned, if you were so satsified with the experience, why would you transfer out? </p>
<p>Hence, I think we can agree that the vast majority of those people who don't even graduate are probably 'dissatisfied'. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, what was your major at Berkeley, and how many years did you actually study there, I ask this because as a former engineering major, your anecdotal position about engineering majors seems a bit far fetched. Those who work like dogs and flunk out of the college of engineering just aren't bright enough. There aren't many of them thankfully, since about 87% of Brekeley undergraduates get their degrees.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If these students weren't bright enough, then why were they even admitted to Berkeley engineering? I think you have to agree that Berkeley made a mistake in admitting these people in the first place.</p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. MIT's student body is majority engineering, as opposed to Berkeley which is only about 20%. Yet, MIT manages to graduate 94% of its students, which is clearly superior to Berkeley's 87%. Seems to me that that means one of two things - that (A), MIT does a better job of admitting people who are actually going to graduate, and/or (B) MIT does a better job of supporting its students. Even Caltech, a school that I have criticized in the past for its harshness, still manages to graduate 90% of its students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In my case, my Berkeley Engineering degree was probably the singlemost important factor in getting my first two jobs, with a small consulting company then a big six on the east coast for management consulting (I'm dating myself here, I think it's down to less than 6 now) . In the professional world, Berkeley is an "Armani" in terms of degree prestige, even though it might not be one on CC boards or in sakky's mind. (Just a total aside, but Armani is a bit outdated in terms of men's fashion.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, nobody is arguing that Berkeley is a bad school. I have always said that Berkeley is well within the top 1% of schools in the country. </p>
<p>The real issue is, does Berkeley compete well at the undergraduate level to the top private schools? The answer is, frankly, probably not.</p>
<p>sakky, your argument show a great personal bias against Berkeley: you savage Berkeley's graduation rate then praise Caltech when the gap between the two schools is actually tiny (90% vs 87%.) I think Berkeley is doing a very solid job there, considering that it is a much, much bigger school than caltech with far smaller financial resources per student, yet its grad rate is quite similar!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think we can agree that the vast majority of those people who don't even graduate are probably 'dissatisfied'.
[/quote]
the people who "don't even graduate" are only 13% of the student body, so even with a recalibration to account for those, the % of satisfied is big. As well, a lot of those in the 13% might not be dissatisfied, some people find Berkeley's size or environment and culture shock too difficult to bear. Maybe they don't like telegraph, or the urban vibe. This is not an issue with UC Berkeley's policies or culture, but a matter of poor personal fit, which is a leading reason for transfers. Lack of funds is another. Maybe a lot of those loved it but couldn't afford it. Some of those students BTW end up working FT or PT then graduating longer term. The grad rate only counts 6 years or less.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, nobody is arguing that Berkeley is a bad school. I have always said that Berkeley is well within the top 1% of schools in the country.
[/quote]
At the beginning of the thread, you implied that Berkeley U/G was barely in the top 20.</p>
<p>Saying that it's barely in the top 20 doesn't necessarily mean that you think it's bad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the beginning of the thread, you implied that Berkeley U/G was barely in the top 20.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm...barely within the top 20 is still well within the top 1% of schools in the US. WELL within 1%. </p>
<p>
[quote]
you savage Berkeley's graduation rate then praise Caltech when the gap between the two schools is actually tiny (90% vs 87%.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You need to drop some of your adjectives there...they're muddling the story a bit. Sakky did not "savage" Berkeley. He suggested that Berkeley is underperforming. Similarly, he's repeatedly said that CalTech's graduation rate isn't much to be excited over.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, what was your major at Berkeley, and how many years did you actually study there, I ask this because as a former engineering major, your anecdotal position about engineering majors seems a bit far fetched. Those who work like dogs and flunk out of the college of engineering just aren't bright enough. There aren't many of them thankfully, since about 87% of Brekeley undergraduates get their degrees.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I dunno if that reflects the graduation rate for ENGINEERING majors well. True, 87% of the overall population graduates, but in 6 years or less. Only 58% graduate in 4 years or less. And consider the vast majority of engineers graduate in 4 years or less (since you are only allowed 8 semesters...9 if you petition for it), out of those 30% who graduate between 5-6 years, you're not going to find many engineers. So the rate at which engineers graduate is probably closer to the 4 year graduation rate rather than the 6 year graduation rate, since not many engineers take more than 4 years to graduate.</p>
<p>Is the 8-9 semester limit just for students who started their Cal careers within the CoEng? I would also guess that the petition for the 9th is usually granted since it is often difficult to fit all your classes and prereqs into your schedule, especially if you have to work PT.</p>
<p>Nope, it's for students who transfer into engineering too. In fact, as I understand it, the 9th is usually granted to such students because they have trouble finishing all their prereqs since they had to change from college to college.</p>
<p>In defense of the engineering program though, I believe that if we were to take the 4-year graduation rate of engineers, it wouldn't be nearly as low as 58%, since we don't have all these engineers lounging around for 5-6 years...but I'm also not quite sure if it would be as high as 87%. It's hard to say without actual data to look at.</p>
<p>yourzer, not in the top 20 is second tier. That is pretty bad by Berkeley standards, in fact it is downright insulting for almost any Cal almnus. </p>
<p>Ari, you criticize me for use of "muddling vocabulary", but framing Berkeley as a top 1% school is every bit as muddling when you know well that the argument is about Berkeley beig a top 5 U/G institution. You could say that a graduate of a US community college will have an income in the top 1% if you widen the scope to the entire humanity. Likewise, when you consider every college in the US the baseline is very weak and the framing quite misleading.</p>
<p>vicissitudes, if the grad % in the CoE is lower than 87%, then that of the rest of campus must be higher. Same argument as for campuswide GPAs. If you want to chastize Berkeley for graduating less than 87% of its engineering students, you need to praise it for graduating more than 87% of its other students. We're looking at the grad rate college-wide.</p>
<p>CalX,</p>
<p>I can think of plenty of schools that aren't top 5 for undergrad that are pretty damn good at what they do. You seem to believe that the arbitrary rankings that you hate so much all of a sudden become important when you don't like what they report.</p>
<p>For one, let me be clear that I think that USNews's methodology is not that great. But the idea that Cal is one of the top 5 places in the US to get an undergraduate education seems pretty counterintuitive to me.</p>
<p>Who does Cal replace? Harvard? Stanford? Yale? Princeton? MIT? </p>
<p>All the data suggests that these schools do a better job of getting their undergrads more money, better value/dollar, and more prestige in the US. And yes, the US is all that matters for the vast majority of graduates from universities.</p>
<p>What bugs me is that the argument is always turned around to be that it's the students' faults that they're not getting what peer institution grads are. But when students with similar scores from Cal are getting dinged, it's pretty hard to say that other institutions aren't given more value at the margin.</p>
<p>I know, I know, it's crass. It's bloody unacademic! It goes against the pursuit of knowledge qua knowledge.</p>
<p>But if I'm going to spend literally tens of thousands of MY dollars to get a degree, why shouldn't I get the one that will maximize MY return? You're silly not to!</p>
<p>Ari, I really doubt that Berkeley students aren't maximizing their returns. For middle class CA residents, I would say they are. If you compare the overall satisfaction levels of Berkeley students, the % aren't much different from those at other top schools.</p>
<p>I also think that you need to look at the bigger picture when you talk about "return", you should consider the quality of the overall college experience. For me personally, Berkeley does indeed replace MIT, Caltech or Stanford as a place to study engineering. The breadth and depth of my college experience could not be exceeded or duplicated at any of these schools. It could be duplicated financially (but not necessarily exceeded), but one needs to look at higher reward levels as well.</p>
<p>i think students need to look at personal fit, and they also need to consider the biases of the USNWR rankings. If you don't see Berkeley as a top 5, you can at least see that it's being synthetically dragged much lower than it should as things stand on that ranking. That is the core of this debate.</p>