<p>Yes, you are intelligent Apathetic, but it doesn't mean just because someone majors in a non-hard science that they are morons. People have different interests and that should be respected. </p>
<p>On a different note, what I've found out at Berkeley is that people who tend to "look" smart (hence, nerdy) actually may not do well, whereas people that don't "look" smart may do extremely well. Appearances can definitely be deceiving.</p>
<p>As somoene who moved from a "hard" major to a "soft" one, I can respect that, but from my perspective sometimes grading can be arbritary, not saying it always is. I feel that way when the professor just outsources all the work to the gsi (which has happened more than a few times).</p>
<p>Well, perhaps. However, I'm in the Econ department and I can't say that its grading is that arbitrary, especially if all of the GSIs each grade one question on the midterm. Plus, it's quantitative so it's hard to be arbitrary about numbers.</p>
<p>In the liberal arts though, and other classes that require essays, yes grading may be a bit arbitrary, which is why you should make sure that you have a fair GSI. </p>
<p>It's just I get the impression that you feel that 1) test scores are everything 2) non-science majors are unrespectable. Regarding the first, I'll say that hard work pays off. It's 90% perspiration; 10% inspiration in life. So test scores don't define how one's life flows. Regarding the second, well, it's obvious what I say. If I had the option of hanging out with a non-science major who didn't boast or act condescending all the time or had the option of hanging out with a science major who talks about how smart they are 24-7 and how science is so respectable, I'd choose the first. The second reminds me far too much of my own father and his extremely biased mentality. I respect people like that for their intelligence, but it doesn't mean I like them nor desire their company.</p>
<p>Sorry, but some are just easier. East asian studies, whatever. Maybe you have to do your work, but that being said, these majors usually have little or no grade inflation.</p>
<p>And yes, I took econ because it was a little more fair and objective. But when you have a few bad profs who say "write an essay about what you learned" or spome other idiotic crap, I draw the line. I don't like a lack of structure, and I prefer to have a lot of problems to get into practice. I don't really know how profs expect you to do well with 3 problem sets and then 1 midterm. Sometimes it works out and the prof asks fair questions, sometimes it doesn't especially for very mathematical disciplines. It just seems that everything is just based on the gsi as I spend more time here. </p>
<p>FOr example, a "good" gsi to me will have structure, come in prepared, and provide a clear set of criteria. A "Bad" gsi will come in, ask people for questions, and go over random crap. This is just my experience and all my "good" gsis happened early in my erkeley career and happen less frequently now.</p>
<p>Apathetic,</p>
<p>You'd do really well in Japan. Structure is everything here. </p>
<p>You'd also enjoy language study. </p>
<p>I received some annoying grades in college, but I'd say that by-and-large my grades were directly correlated to the amount of work I put in. Sure, one person's idea of an A was another's idea of an A-, but I never received a C on something that was clearly B or A quality. </p>
<p>And as for everything being based on the GSI...I just have to say one thing:</p>
<p>TOUGH COOKIES. You think that job interviews are "fair?" You think that statements of purpose are looked at "fairly?" You think that judgement of resumes is "fair?" Sorry, but in the real world there are so many ridiculously unfair things that seem so much more "unfair" than how a TA/GSI grades.</p>
<p>Oh, and East Asian Studies actually had some pretty challenging classes at UCLA. YOU try reading Japanese traditional literature in Japanese, and tell me that it's easy.</p>
<p>Jerk. :p</p>
<p>(UCLA+UCB+UCSD+UCSB) 290 > (HYPS) 259 (at most)</p>
<p>UC Breakdown(wild guess)</p>
<p>UCLA 90
UCB 85
UCSD 75
UCSB 40</p>
<p>UCI 25
UCD 25
UCR 10
UCSC 5
UCSF 84</p>
<p>Stanford 85
Harvard(less than 58)
Yale(less than 58)
Princeton(less than (58) </p>
<p>From Caltech </p>
<p>According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. For 2003, Caltech was awarded 139 patents, which was slightly ahead of MIT's 127 patents but behind the University of California System with its 439 patents. </p>
<p>According to the patent office, the University of Texas System was fourth on the 2003 list, with 96 patents, followed by Stanford University with 85. Others in the top 10 were the University of Wisconsin System (84), Johns Hopkins University (70), the University of Michigan (63), Columbia University (61), Cornell University (59), and the University of Florida (59).</p>
<p>Since when is "wild guessing" trustworthy "research"?</p>
<p>You think UCI, UCR, UCSR have more patents than Berk.
Don't be so pessimistic.</p>
<p>Right, so being realistic and rational is equivalent to being pessimistic. </p>
<p>I already linked THES to you. I see you've substituted your own "wild guessing" for legitimate rankings based primarily on research and its circulation. </p>
<p>I'm just curious. Why do you keep starting threads like this again? What's your ulterior motive?</p>
<p>Motive</p>
<p>Intellectual stimulation from smart people like you prevents me
from getting senile.</p>
<p>Since when do "wild guessing" and unremitting critique equate to
intellectual stimulation?</p>
<p>Hey, don't tease an old man. I am not as smart as you are.</p>
<p>^ Santa Cruz had the highest SAT scores in the 60s (from some article I vaguely remember).</p>
<p>Coto...You're an old man? Then what are you doing on a college forum?</p>
<p>business major. ucla or berkeley? anderson vs. haas</p>
<p>Undergrad Haas admissions is not a walk in the park, I can tell you that. There is a formal process in getting admitted which rejects 40% of the applicants (not counting the numerous students who give up halfway and do not apply).</p>
<p>Unlimitedx...don't scare prettyprettyday! haha</p>
<p>It's not THAT difficult. (Well, I'm not a business major, but I took 7 of the 9 prerequisites unknowingly. You only have to take 7 to apply.) However, Haas business school I believe is 3 or 4 in the nation for undergrad? So yes, Haas is better than Anderson I reckon.</p>
<p>Not quite. According to Forbs, Anderson ranked 14th while
Haas ranked 21th ( I trust Forbs more than US News as far as
Business goes.) </p>
<p>1.Harvard </p>
<p>2.Columbia </p>
<p>3.Chicago </p>
<p>4.Dartmouth (Tuck) </p>
<p>5.Yale </p>
<p>6.Pennsylvania (Wharton) </p>
<p>7.Stanford </p>
<p>8.UNC (Kenan-Flagler) </p>
<p>9.Northwestern (Kellogg) </p>
<p>10.Virginia (Darden) </p>
<p>11.Cornell (Johnson) </p>
<p>12.Washington U-St. Louis(Olin) </p>
<p>13.NYU (Stern) </p>
<p>14.UCLA (Anderson) </p>
<p>15.MIT (Sloan) </p>
<p>16.Texas-Austin (McCombs) </p>
<p>17.Brigham Young (Marriott) </p>
<p>18.Emory (Goizueta) </p>
<p>19.Carnegie Mellon </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Michigan </p></li>
<li><p>UC Berkeley (Haas) </p></li>
</ol>
<p>22.Duke (Fuqua)</p>
<p>And this is from Business Week
(Forbs & BW are much more trustworthy than us news for employment
and so forth)</p>
<p>1 Northwestern
2 Chicago
3 Pennsylvania
4 Stanford
5 Harvard
6 Michigan
7 Cornell
8 Columbia
9 MIT
10 Dartmouth
11 Duke<br>
12 Virginia
13 NYU
14 UCLA
15 Carnegie Mellon
16 UNC Chapel-Hill
17 UC Berkeley<br>
18 Indiana
19 Texas - Austin
20 Emory
21 Purdue
22 Yale
23 Washington U.
24 Notre Dame
25 Georgetown
26 Babson<br>
27 Southern California<br>
28 Maryland
29 Rochester
30 Vanderbilt</p>