<p>Lots of freshman admits skip Math 1A, or 1A and 1B, with AP credit, so it is not like this is not allowed. There are likely some who took Math 53 and/or 54, or Physics 7A and 7B, at community college during high school and place into more advanced courses due to that.</p>
<p>In practice, how many freshman admits would actually do that, if they did not take the courses while in high school? It would be less convenient, since the community college versions of CS 61B are often two courses, not one.</p>
<p>Then again, if a freshman admit takes most or all of his/her lower division courses elsewhere, what would be the point of entering Berkeley as a freshman, instead of going elsewhere for lower division and transferring?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The transfer students have already been “weeded” at their community college, and will still have to take “weeder” courses for which their community college has no equivalent (CS 61A, CS 61C, and EE 20N appear to be the most common in an EECS context).</p>
<p>But why are you not allowed to be simultaneously enrolled? Why do you need to take the drastic action of *withdrawing<a href=“or%20wait%20for%20the%20summer%20session”>/i</a> to take courses at a community college? Why does Berkeley care so much about what enrolled students are doing in their spare time? If they want to use that time to take courses at a community college, why is that not allowed? It’s their free time, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. </p>
<p>You may not enroll simultaneously in the College of Letters and Science at Berkeley and in another institution.</p>
<p>It seems rather odd that enrolled students are perfectly allowed to waste all of their spare time playing WoW or Call of Duty, as many Berkeley students do, and the administration doesn’t care. But if said student actually wants to use his spare time to enroll in another institution, somehow that’s a problem. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, again, if this is allowed before enrolling at Berkeley, why is it not allowed while enrolled at Berkeley? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In practice, I would argue that most of the freshman-admits would do so, for the specific purpose of dodging weeders. Or, at least, the ones who are doing poorly in the weeders are likely to do so. </p>
<p>Let keep in mind that the vast majority of students in the weeders will not perform well. Indeed, *that is the defining feature of weeder courses * - to assign poor grades to the bulk of the students. Sure, it may be inconvenient to take such courses at a community college, but that’s far less inconvenient than earning subpar grades that will mar your academic transcript forever. </p>
<p>As a stopgap measure, I had proposed in the past that Berkeley students who choose to leave engineering should be allowed to cancel their engineering weeder grades if they wish. They’re not going to be majoring in engineering anyway, so who cares what their engineering grades were? But Berkeley does not permit this. Hence, an alternative step is to simply allow freshman-admits to skip weeders in the same manner that the transfer students are allowed to do so. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To reiterate, I’ve never been talking about all/most of one’s lower division coursework. I am talking specifically about weeders. Weeders (usually) comprise only a minority of the lower-division coursework for even the harshest major. But they are also the courses that will determine whether you will be allowed, or even want, to continue to the upper division of the major. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And similarly, the freshman-admits have been “weeded” at their high school. Most high school students will not perform well enough to even be UC-eligible at all, let alone actually being admissible to an engineering program at Berkeley. The vast majority of high school students are therefore ‘weeded out’. Transfer admissions are therefore no more of a ‘weeder’ than are freshman admissions and therefore are a wash. </p>
<p>To be fair, I believe in second chances. I am not proposing that Berkeley bank its entire transfer admissions processes. Let’s be perfectly honest - many (probably most) community college students went there because they didn’t perform well in high school. If you did not perform well in high school, you should probably have another chance through the community colleges to be admitted to Berkeley. But you shouldn’t be accorded second chances with special privileges. If you are allowed to skip weeders through CC coursework, fine, then so should the freshman admits in the same manner. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said, I never claimed that the transfer students are allowed to skip all weeders (if CS 61AC are indeed weeders, which is debatable). </p>
<p>However, the inescapable truth is that they do get to skip over many. Hence, freshman-admits should be allowed to skip over the same ones as well. What’s fair is fair.</p>
<p>Sakky your main argument lies in the fact that freshman admits can not skip these supposed weeders. That is completely false. CS61B is the only class that freshman admits skip. All it takes is a 5 on the AP CS Ab exam. Also, many EECS freshman have already passed out of the equivalents of Math 1A/1B/53 either by community college classes or by AP credits. Same with Physics 7A. Now you say physics 7B is the weeder and not 7A, which may be true, i don’t know. But the argument I’m trying to make is that transfers to EE(CS) still have to take CS61A and CS61C. They can only skip B, which approximately 30% of freshman admits skip. (guessing based on the fact that there were 500 students in CS61A and only 230 students will be in CS61BL) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is a ridiculous proposal. You want transfers to study / prepare for Physics, Math, and CS exams that they learned for 1-2 years. If you told all EECS freshman that once they entered junior year they would have to study Physics 7B, CS61B, and Math 1b/53/54 material and then take a test to demonstrate that they’ve studied, the freshman would be outraged. It’s not so much that it’s hard and difficult as it is a waste of time. </p>
<p>Transfers prove that they know their basic circuitry in upper division EE classes. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that transfers have it easier or harder. I can’t tell as I haven’t been through the process myself, but what I am saying is that it’s unnecessary as well as unfair to have transfers take exams in all Berkeley weeders. </p>
<p>Also, what exactly is a weeder? How would you define it? Perhaps that would clear some stuff up as I’ve never heard of CS61B or Physics 7B or Math 53/54 being weeder courses. I have heard of Math 1B and Chem 3A being weeder courses to pre-meds, but not the other ones.</p>
<p>No, you’re missing the point, perhaps deliberately so. My main argument is that there is a lack of fairness. If transfer students are allowed to skip certain weeders through certain coursework, then freshman-admits should be allowed to skip those same weeders through taking the very same community college courses. </p>
<p>Nor should they be forced to take that community college coursework before attending Berkeley. If anything that only exacerbates the problem - if it is perfectly fine for those students to use community college courses that they took before attending Berkeley to skip weeders, then why not during? It’s the same course, after all. Why does it matter when you take it?</p>
<p>The issue of AP’s is an entirely different issue, but which I’ll entertain regardless. Yes, I agree that AP exams are yet another source of unfairness. Let’s face it - not every freshman-admit attended a high school that offered AP Computer Science. Heck, plenty don’t even offer AP Calculus. Since that is unfair to those particular students, I would agree that anybody who can pass the AP exams, not necessary while in high school, but at any time, should be allowed to skip the corresponding courses. I also have no problem with even inviting transfer students to do so. But, like I said, that is a separate issue. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh really? Seems to me that articulation agreements exist at, say, Laney College, which is in nearby Oakland, that allow students to skip 61A by taking the (supposedly) equivalent course (appropriately titled 61A). </p>
<p>CS 61C, on the other hand, is not a weeder. See below. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Outrageous? Ridiculous? Right now many freshmen are outraged that transfer students are allowed to skip weeders that they were forced to take. Most of those freshman-admits had to struggle through with mediocre grades, with some landing on academic probation and even expulsion because of the weeder courses, and it is entirely ridiculous to them that the transfers don’t have to suffer through the same process. </p>
<p>Nor does the notion that the transfer students were supposedly ‘weeded’ in the admissions process hold water. The freshman-admits also had to be weeded through an exacting admissions process of their own. They’re nevertheless weeded again through weeder coursework. They clearly survived a more grueling overall weeder process than the transfers did, and many of them surely find that fact to be ridiculous. </p>
<p>What I therefore “want” is not necessarily that transfer students should have to restudy material they’ve learned before, although I continue to fail to see why that is so outrageous. {After all, we have surely done so before and are likely to do so again: most students who weren’t inordinately gifted had to “restudy” their formerly learned topics to do well on the SAT’s and especially the SAT-Subject Tests; anybody thinking of attending graduate school will surely need to restudy past material for the GRE/LSAT/MCAT/GMAT/what-have-you; anybody taking the Fundamentals of Engineering exam will have to restudy former material.} What I really “want” is a fair process. If the transfer students are allowed to skip weeders, then freshman-admits should be allowed to skip weeders via the same manner. </p>
<p>But fine, have it your way. My proposals to have the transfer students retake exams regarding material that they should already know is ‘ridiculous’ and ‘outrageous’. But the fact that they are allowed to skip over weeders that the freshman-admits are forced to take - and where many of them damage to their academic records that will remain with them for life - is not at all ridiculous or outrageous. Is that how it is? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, some upper division courses are weeders as well. What you actually mean to say is ‘post-weeder coursework’.</p>
<p>But to your point, no they don’t. Otherwise, why even have weeders at all? I could say that all of the freshman-admits who were weeded out should have instead been allowed to remain, where they would ‘prove’ that they know circuitry in the post-weeder coursework. But that doesn’t happen. The weeders are designed to eliminate students before they hit the post-weeder coursework. Why is that necessary, if students will have to prove they understand the material in the post-weeder coursework anyway? </p>
<p>The answer is that the post-weeder coursework, for better or worse, does not require you to prove such knowledge. Once you’ve hit such coursework, you’re going to pass. Perhaps not with a top grade, but you will pass. The weeders have already supposedly eliminated the subpar students.</p>
<p>But - ay there’s the rub - that applies to only certain students. The transfers, like I said, are permitted to avoid many weeders. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough. Then it’s also equally unfair for freshman-admits to take Berkeley weeders. Like I said, either everybody has to take them, or nobody has to. What is untenable is that certain students have to take them, but not others. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Weeders are unfortunately a concept that is difficult to define a priori, and sometimes changes. However, all engineering students who have actually undergone the process will be able to identify certain courses that are commonly understood to be weeders when he underwent the process. What compounds the difficulty is that Berkeley utterly refuses, almost certainly intentionally, to publish the grade distributions for many such courses that are generally acknowledged as weeders. </p>
<p>But to give you a general idea, I’ll identify an infamous one: EECS 40. By virtue of explicit policy, the typical GPA assigned in that class is a 2.5. Hence, the “typical” student in that class is receiving something between a C+ or a B-, which is clearly not a very good grade. </p>
<p>*…A typical GPA for courses in the lower division is 2.7. This GPA would result, for example, from 17% A’s, 50% B’s, 20% C’s, 10% D’s, and 3% F’s. A class whose GPA falls outside the range 2.5 - 2.9 should be considered atypical. (A Typical GPA for basic prerequisite lower division CS courses (CS 40, CS 41) is 2.5, with GPA’s outside the range 2.3 - 2.7 considered atypical.) *</p>
<p>But what’s even more striking is the discussion of the grade distribution. For example, Berkeley specifically states that the typical lower division EECS course will assign grades that correspond to a 2.7, with a distribution such that nearly twice as many students will earn C’s or worse than will earn A’s. That’s right: nearly twice. Even more frightening, the percentage of A’s handed out only moderately exceeds the percentage of D’s and F’s handed out. </p>
<p>And remember, that is regarding the “typical” lower-division EECS course, with a GPA centered around 2.7 EECS 40 is specifically named as a course that is even harsher than the typical, with a GPA centered around 2.5, which means that an even higher percentage of terrible grades are assigned. </p>
<p>But community college students can skip EE40 by taking the appropriate coursework. For example, Chabot College in nearby Hayward offers EE43 which is articulated to be an equivalent course to Berkeley EECS 40. </p>
<p>But the catch is that such a course is only available to non-Berkeley enrolled students. Enrolled Berkeley students are required by way of administrative fiat to take Berkeley EECS 40, even though many of them would clearly prefer otherwise. A significant percentage of them will be stuck with D’s or F’s. </p>
<p>So the question remains open: if transfer students can take community college coursework to skip EECS 40, why can’t Berkeley students do the same? And if they can’t, then maybe the transfer students shouldn’t be allowed to do so either. What’s fair is fair.</p>
<p>Nothing in life will be perfectly fair. And in this case, with the inherent differences between freshman and transfer entry, no matter how it is handled, there will be someone complaining that something is not fair (or is a waste of everyone’s time).</p>
<p>From the point of view of a high school graduate, which route would you rather have taken, freshman entry or go to CC and then transfer? You seem to be arguing that the latter route is somehow much easier. But is it really? Once the freshman admit enters, even a 2.0 GPA (overall and technical) will keep him/her in the major if s/he wants to. On the other hand, a CC student intending to transfer to Berkeley EECS has to maintain a much higher GPA in order to be admitted. And then transfer students would be unable to take any upper division required courses until entering Berkeley, unlike freshman admits, who can take them as freshmen or sophomores. Indeed, in the first semester at Berkeley, a transfer student may need to take “weeder” courses CS 61A, CS 61C, and EE20N, which are only rarely available in articulated CC courses (Laney seems to be an extreme exception in offering a CS 61A articulated course). And then the transfer student must pack his/her upper division technical course work in three semesters, instead of four or more semesters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the courses CS 40 and CS 41 listed in the [grading</a> guidelines link](<a href=“http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Policies/ugrad.grading.shtml]grading”>http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Policies/ugrad.grading.shtml) you posted do not refer to EE 40. CS 40 was one of three(?) courses that were combined into a course that was eventually replaced by a course that eventually became CS 61A. CS 41 eventually became CS 61C after a few renamings. The document also lists some courses that no longer exist, such as EE 104A and CS 153. The document is dated 1976 with a revision in 1989, which likely explains the examples of old course numbers.</p>
<p>In any case, it appears that the main basis of your complaint is the apparent resistance to grade inflation at Berkeley, if policies like that described in this document are being followed. Even then, it appears that, in lower division courses, only 13% of students get D or F grades, less than the 17% who get A grades, and much less than the 67% who get A or B grades. In other words, the policy assumes that two thirds of the students are good students who achieve beyond the passing standard of C which is supposed to be about 20% of the students.</p>
<p>When I was at Berkeley, I never heard of any Berkeley engineering student who wanted to take a lower division major course like EE 40 or CS or math or physics at a CC during a regular fall or spring session.</p>
<p>Sorry, not entirely sure how to “quote”:
Sakky: So the question remains open: if transfer students can take community college coursework to skip EECS 40, why can’t Berkeley students do the same? And if they can’t, then maybe the transfer students shouldn’t be allowed to do so either. What’s fair is fair.</p>
<p>I see what you’re saying, and I think that this brings up the main point of contention regarding transfer students overstepping ‘weeder’ coursework. The way the system is at this point, in which a student can take a course at a community college (like Chabot) and have it translate directly across as an EECS “weeder” equivalent implies to the students and institution that, for all intents and purposes, Chabot’s version of that course is just as fine - challenging, thorough, what have you - as the Cal version. </p>
<p>I get the sense that this is where most people disagree. Through the discourse of this forum it has become implied that though the transfers may cover the curriculum of the ‘weeders’, the simple fact that the Cal weeders string you through a grade grater makes this ‘advantage’ on the transfer’s behalf unfair. My question is, are we uncomfortable with this aspect of the transfer process merely because, for whatever reason, grading is easier @ community colleges? Or does the frustration arise from other discrepancies in the Cal vs CC system? </p>
<p>For a hypothetical example, would you feel more comfortable if transfers could still apply and articulate courses from a CC but, on average, sported low GPAs in those courses (as low as typical Cal students?) Because perhaps in the AdCom’s eyes, if they truly articulate Engineering XX at Chabot as Engineering WeederX at Cal, then shouldn’t they view the Transfer’s A- in that class as a wildly exceptional mark? I wonder what the grade-understanding is between schools. Can anyone speak to the actual content, grading practice and rigor of a cc course that was articulated as a weeder?</p>
<p>Could we, for once and for all, slay the myth of these supposed weeders at Berkeley? Calling all upperclassmen out there: Which of your lower-division science/math classes handed out “poor grades” to a "vast majority of the students? The below paragraph is Sakky’s own.</p>
<p>“Let keep in mind that the vast majority of students in the weeders will not perform well. Indeed, that is the defining feature of weeder courses - to assign poor grades to the bulk of the students.”</p>
<p>So, upperclassmen, which of your lower-division classes handed out D or F grades to over 50% of the students? What about to over 30% of the students? At the risk of parodying an unnamed someone who relies on techniques used only by the cheesiest of ads to feign persuasive power: That’s right, none. Or at least, none that I am aware of. I cannot speak for CS classes as I have never taken any. By the above standards, MATH 1A/1B/53/54, CHEM 1A/3A/3B, PHYSICS 7A/7B/7C ARE NOT WEEDERS. A quick glance at Courserank will confirm that none of these classes have even 15% of students who do not pass.</p>
<p>(I cannot understand for the life of me why Sakky would call Physics 7B a harsh and notorious weeder. Courserank’s data show that only 5% of the class does not pass. Physics 7B has an average grade of B, which is typical of many upper-division classes and higher than some.)</p>
<p>I heard that Math 1B has the highest failure rate of any course at UC Berkeley. So if Math 1B isn’t a weeder, then I guess UC Berkeley doesn’t have any</p>
<p>However maybe “weeder” simply refers to a course that is ridiculously hard. So you would look at test score distributions and such. A course is probably a weeder if 30% on the test gives an A, regardless of the grade distribution or failure rate. I think there was a physics class like that.</p>
<p>I just read through some of the longest responses in this thread and I honestly don’t think people understand that Berkeley’s undergrad body isn’t really the main problem, it’s California’s disastrous, emergency budget situation. Yes, a smaller undergrad body would help make University fees less on the state, but that is really not as important or even a big deal compared to the state’s budge deficit. If you haven’t noticed, that’s why all UC’s are starting a slow drop from the rankings as USC overtook UCLA this year, it wasn’t because UCLA started admitting more kids or wasn’t as selective, it’s because California is on it’s last leg financially.</p>
<p>Yet what you (conveniently) missed is that the freshman-admit actually performed at a high level in high school. That is, after all, how he gained admission to a Berkeley engineering program as a freshman in the first place. The freshman-admits therefore suffered through the ‘weeder process’ of simply being admitted to Berkeley. In contrast, most community college students did not perform well in high school, and that’s why they’re at community college. </p>
<p>Now, to be clear, I believe in second chances. Just because you didn’t perform well in high school doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have a chance to study at Berkeley. Hence, I believe that Berkeley should admit some transfer students from the community college. </p>
<p>But what they shouldn’t do is admit transfer students with special privilieges - that being the opportunity to skip some weeders that the freshman-admits in the same major are forced to take. Transfer students are ‘weeded’ in community college and freshman-admits were ‘weeded’ in high school, and that’s a fair exchange. Now, unless you want to argue that the the transfer ‘weeding’ was somehow more intensive than the high school ‘weeding’, then it is unclear why transfer students should then enjoy special privileges of skipping weeders that the freshman-admits do not enjoy. </p>
<p>As a general rule, because transfer students are coming to Berkeley, they should be forced to abide by the same rules that the other Berkeley students are forced to live under, by the same principle that if I choose to come to your house, I should agree to live by the same rules that everybody else in the house lives under (for example, if nobody wears shoes in your house, then I should also agree not to wear shoes in your house). If I don’t like it, fine, then I shouldn’t come to your house. But, again, what is untenable is for me to refuse to abide by the rules of your house when others must. </p>
<p>So, like I said, if you don’t believe that transfer students should be forced to take weeders (or the equivalent placement exams), then fair enough. Join me in advocating that the freshman-admits should not be forced to take them either. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, trust me, they are being followed. The current working revision date of that document is 2007. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet conversely, I have never once in my life ever heard of a Berkeley student wanting to receive a poor grade. Yet the fact remains that plenty do, especially within the weeders. I would submit that Berkeley students are far more likely to want to take courses at a community college than to receive a poor grade in a Berkeley course. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, when I say “poor grades”, I don’t simply mean failing grades, although plenty of students receive exactly that. I generally mean anything from a B or worse. Your example of Physics 7B only highlights the point: if the average grade is a B, then that means that, depending on the exact distribution, well more than half of the students are receiving B’s or worse. </p>
<p>One may argue that a B is a perfectly acceptable grade. Yet, sadly, in this day and age of widespread grade inflation amongst other schools, an average B grade that corresponds to a 3.0 GPA renders you uncompetitive for the endeavors that most Berkeley students aspire to attain. For example, a recent thread discussed whether Berkeley premeds with 3.0-3.4 GPA’s are actually able to get into med-school, and the consensus answer seems to have been “probably not”. And keep in mind that that thread was discussing students with a range of grades up to 3.4. Clearly the chances of those students with merely a 3.0 are even worse. Nor are your chances of being admitted to a decent law school any better; students at a 4th tier law school such as Golden Gate Law sported a median GPA of 3.12. Nor will you be competitive for the vast majority of decent academic graduate schools. Nor will you be competitive for the consulting and finance positions that have stricken the fancy of undergraduates at most top schools. In fact, you may not even be able to apply for the bulk of jobs that most Berkeley students aim to attain, as they tend to enforce 3.0 GPA cutoffs, which your grades will only barely surpass. </p>
<p>In short, the point is, earning a 3.0 at Berkeley is not going to be highly conducive for an outstanding future. You’re probably just going to be an average person with an average job. Yet who amongst the Berkeley population came in dreaming to be merely average? Keep in mind that we’re not talking about some average university that admitted a bunch of average high school students. This is Berkeley we’re talking about - a school with one of the strongest brand names in the world, and that admitted freshman who had excelled in high school. </p>
<p>Yet the inescapable fact is that some of those students will sadly be consigned to be ‘average’ when they never wanted to be. Those students would probably have been better off at an easier school where they could have earned far higher grades. </p>
<p>To be clear, I agree that most of the problem stems from the fact that other schools inflate their grades, making Berkeley students look bad by comparison. A certain school in Palo Alto immediately comes to mind. But, however much we may decry grade inflation amongst those other schools, they’re not going to stop. And graduate schools and employers will then preferentially prefer graduates from those other schools because of their ostensibly higher grades.</p>
<p>But lest anybody think I am simply making a big deal about nothing, allow me this modest proposal. Let the freshman-admits decide. Open all of the (supposedly equivalent) community college articulated counterpart courses as alternatives for Berkeley weeder courses to all freshman-admits. If it is indeed true that nobody is really intimidated by Berkeley’s weeder grading, then freshman-admits will never choose to take the counterpart courses, so there will be no problem. But in any case, why not give students the freedom to choose? Is there a reasonable case to be made why students should not be given this choice?</p>
<p>Besides, again, this is not my opinion. This is an opinion surely shared by the bulk of the student body. After all, who comes into Berkeley dreaming of getting a 3.0 GPA (or worse)? Let’s face it, whether we like it or not, those sorts of grades are not going to take you to the destinations that most Berkeley students really want to go. You can’t get into any respectable graduate school with those sorts of grades. You probably can’t get a great job. I think it’s safe to say that nobody at Berkeley with those sorts of grades is happy with their record.</p>
<p>Now, you might argue that perhaps Berkeley students simply have an inflated sense of self-worth. Perhaps. But be that as it may, the point stands that those students would probably have been better off at an easier school where they would have excelled.</p>
<p>Oh, really? In my major, most upper-division classes required for the major are curved to a B, if not a B-! Why don’t we call all such classes “weeders” then? Because, realistically, that is what happens: certain inadequate students drop out of the major at all stages of school. This is just more likely to happen in the lower-division coursework where students are just beginning to learn that they do not enjoy or excel in their major coursework. Since many inadequate students drop out in the lower-division classes, there is a perceived ease of grading as students move into upper-division classes. The reality is that inadequate students in lower-division classes would receive the same poor grades in upper-division classes, which is why they do not want to continue in that major! Since there are fewer inadequate students in the upper-division classes, this would explain any possible higher average GPA in upper-division classes. I want to avoid using the term “weeder” because “weeding”, IF it exists, is NOT something that makes lower-division courses much more impossible to do well in compared to upper-division ones!</p>
<p>I can only speak for my major, so I can’t discuss the CS department or whatever other departments which might impose some arbitrary average departmental grade, but I will say this: Some of my professors have explicitly disregarded the departmental “recommended” GPA because realistically, there is no way to enforce it. </p>
<p>By the way, when I say inadequate, I mean unable to meet the standards of rigor for a certain major at Berkeley. I don’t mean to belittle these students who might excel in other, non-science majors.</p>
<p>Please do not speak for “the bulk of the student body” when there is no one in sight agreeing with those claims.</p>
<p>So Sakky, it seems like transfers still have to hit the weeders when they take upper div CS classes because the core upper div CS classes till have a B average</p>
<p>In other words, what you are really arguing for is grade inflation. Perhaps this thread should be renamed, or a new thread on the subject of grade inflation (advocacy) be started?</p>
<p>According to the [EECS</a> grading guidelines document](<a href=“http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Policies/ugrad.grading.shtml]EECS”>http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Policies/ugrad.grading.shtml) that you linked to earlier, the upper division EECS courses do not grade that much easier – average of 2.9 versus 2.7 for lower division courses and 2.5 for CS 40 and 41 (now CS 61A and CS 61C, which nearly all transfers to EECS have to take). So it is not just a question of lower division “weeder” courses, or whether courses at CCs are grade-inflated relative to courses at Berkeley. Transfer students will still face the non-inflated grading policy in their upper division courses (as well as any lower division courses that they may have to take, likely CS 61A, CS 61C, and EE 20N). Note that their Berkeley GPA will only include grades from courses taken at Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If one were to believe the grading guidelines document, that would mean that an freshman admit who is an “average” Berkeley EECS student would improve from a GPA of 2.8 (average of 2.7 lower division and 2.9 upper division) to a GPA of 2.9 (upper division) if they could take all of the “weeder” courses elsewhere (so that they will not be counted in the GPA). Of course, the effect would be even less, since they would not have that option for some courses like CS 61A (successor to CS 40), CS 61C (formerly CS 41), and EE 20N (where two of these courses are those that supposedly have a lower average GPA than other lower division courses).</p>
<p>Seems doubtful that even if your policy were implemented, that it would actually be used by very many students. Besides, what is the point of going to Berkeley as a freshman if you take all of your courses elsewhere?</p>
<p>That’s the thing, I’m pretty sure what sakky is saying applies to some majors, even if not others. I’m pretty sure there is no dispute at all that transfers have the *worse end of the deal * in mathematics. That is, unless they came from an equally rigorous school, they didn’t have the same preparation coming in. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Think about it. You’re missing sakky’s point here. Even if the upper division courses were harder, sakky would still want the lower division frosh to have the option of completing their requirements elsewhere. That includes AP-ing out of things, using CC credits. After all, a lot of these lower division weeders are required for many pursuits where the upper division courses are not necessarily graded as roughly. After all, physics is required for things like Civil Engineering - I have zero knowledge of the department, but even if the grading is as hard in the upper division EECS (if not harder), is the same true for all departments? Is it not true that a lot of biology students think their lower division coursework, especially as premeds, was very painfully graded, depending on what they took?</p>
<p>Further, the upper level coursework may be more interesting and motivating to study. Hence, someone may be able to (or inclined to) perform better in it simply by virtue of it being more specialized to his/her tastes, even if the grading is rough. Whereas the lower division can be hard, yet too general for one’s tastes. So conceivably, one may rather take an easy route through the lower division courses and then take the challenging upper division courses as desired. Community college students at less harshly graded community colleges may have this option. Perhaps sakky wants that open to the rest of the frosh.</p>
<p>I agree with what you’re saying fully, that in many majors, the upper division really does curve the grades just as scarily, and that the chance of success for a good student is much lower in them (for instance, mathematics, where professors seem to be allowed to be * just as harsh as they want, sometimes much harsher than a B average*). </p>
<p>Now, whether or not the community college and AP option are useful and would be exploited by frosh is another story.</p>
<p>Suggestion: maybe all of you are fixating on the EECS major too much, where everything is hard, and probably most serious core classes are grade deflated.</p>
<p>None of this matters much to me, because really my lower division stuff was much easier both to do well in and material-wise than the higher level stuff, at least for my major.</p>