<p>"The main criteria for admission to the College of Engineering is grade point average (GPA), completion of at least 80% of the lower division admission requirements"</p>
<p>"Applicants to Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences majors must complete
all required core UCB preparation courses in order to be eligible for admission.
Only applicants who have completed 100% of these required courses will be
considered for admission. "</p>
<p>That first quote is on their EECS page, so it should be relevant to EECS and not just their college of engineering. So what the hell?</p>
<p>It’s the competition. 99% of transfers to EECS have completed 100% of the offered prereqs. It’s just so competitive. Don’t try to do the minimal work.</p>
<p>^ yeah what he said. UCB and UCLA absolutely require all prereq courses completed or else u wont get in. If it means another year at CC just tough it out</p>
<p>but why, If u are talented and a good enough student, make the rest of ur life better by not settling for less. An extra year at CC wont be TOO bad would it? You’ll have to complete the prereqs anyway no matte where u go, might as well pay less at CC</p>
<p>On the other hand, if you aren’t really doing much ECs or really accessing the resources CC provides, maybe transferring to a UC rather than later is better. You’ll associate with more people your age and perhaps make more of an effort in pursuing your passions with likeminded individuals (it all depends on the individual).</p>
<p>And why the hell are people downplaying the mid-tier UC system? On the global and U.S. scale there is nothing wrong with UCSD vs UCLA or UCB overall. Sure prestiege is tempting but what you make of it is wayyyyyyyyy more important.</p>
<p>^^
Lol. You guys are making the mid-tier UC system seem like it’s all about partying. Your college is what you make of it. People can go to UCB or UCLA and still party all day (even whilst passing) and they won’t necessarily be building their prestige (though they may graduate from a prestigious school).</p>
<p>And there’s always more than one way to build status, graduating from a prestigious school is just one.</p>
<p>Oh and I didn’t see that he was an EECS major. My bad. So prestige of the school is even LESS IMPORTANT than you may think. For an EECS major JOB EXPERIENCE/internships is way more important than your undergrad school. Honestly, a UCSD graduate with even 1 year of experience is way more appealing than a UCB/LA graduate with no experience. Five years down the line they won’t care where you’re from, but what you’ve done. (This advice is more major exclusive though.)</p>
<p>Not that prestige matters that much, but UCSD can hardly be considered a “mid-tier” UC when it comes to science and engineering majors. They have numerous programs ranked in the top 15 and rising. They are viewed as one of the top schools in the country in undergraduate research. The school is ranked ahead of UCLA in almost every engineering category on just about every list. (Not meant to make this a UCLA vs UCSD debate. Both are equally impressive schools.)</p>
<p>If you just want to go to Berkeley because of the access to recruiters of huge technology companies, you’ll be impressed by the quality of recruiters at UCSD. There is an upcoming Science & Technology Fair and some of the bigger names include:</p>
<p>Amazon
Apple
Boeing
CIA
Cisco
GE
Google
HP
Intuit
Lockheed
Microsoft
Motorola
Sony
SpaceX
Texas Instruments
Yahoo!</p>
<p>Pretty much a who’s who of American technology leaders.</p>
<p>Let’s not get offtopic here though. We are talking about EECS (CSE in some other uni’s). UC Berkeley is very known for its EECS program. It is definitely top-tier. Prestige does matter because it gives you an extra boost for employers. If somebody with the exact same stats went to Cal with somebody at UCSD, I’m 99% sure the employer will choose the Cal person.</p>
<p>derp derp Berkeley is more prestigious derp derp it was higher on a list than UCSD derp. Education is about prestige derp derp.</p>
<p>If you think like this, you deserve to get hit in the head with a shovel.</p>
<p>The reason I considered Berkeley was the rigor of their EECS program. I wouldn’t mind settling for UCSD because 1) I’m done with every course relevant to my major (so spending an extra year to take course irrelevant to my interest such as organic chemistry is a waste of time) and 2) I don’t care about electrical engineering. I care about computer science.</p>
<p>and maybe 3) because UCLA’s program isn’t much better. </p>
<p>^This guy is an ass^ people r just trying to help u… and yeah prestige does matter unless u wanna go through an arduous 2 years to only end up working at pizza hut (exaggeration)</p>
<p>@goingmeta - I don’t know about you, but most people attend UC Berkeley for their prestige. What did you think the point of EDUCATION is?
According to Dictionary.com, education is “the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession.” Sure, socializing comes along with it as well. But it is called education for a reason.</p>
<p>If you don’t care about electrical engineering, there is Computer Science in the College of Letters and Sciences at UC Berkeley.</p>
<p>I’m going to be applying to EECS, with a 3.2GPA and all I don’t really care much. I built my program to my convenience (pre-reqs for certain classes and schedule making that worked best), and it will fill ALL of the EECS requirements (minus assembly which is an added recommendation), vs the comsci where I’d be in a worse position with prereqs. </p>
<p>Why not? I have some family dynamic problems that have made it a pain in the butt to keep my GPA up (I know, some people work 40 hours a week, are the president of 3 clubs, and take 21 units and have a 4.0, yeah… I drive a Rolls Royce, I get it).</p>
<p>It probably won’t help, and might very well prove to be a waste of $60 but I’ve already talked a bit to the admissions people about the whole thing and they said it’s possible, so whatever. ^^</p>