Berkeley - Hardest University in the US to Get An 'A' In?

<p>You guys are KILLING me with this "is it hard to get an A at Berkeley?"</p>

<p>Just take the damn B+ and continue onwards with your college education. Obviously, grad school is a consideration here; just prove that your a smart, worthy candidate despite your GPA and you'll be fine. Again, I got into Berkeley with a B- average, probably over some straight A students; my theory is, they weren't able to prove to the admissions committee that they cared about their educations despite their flawless records. I would not be surprised if grad schools run into this too.</p>

<p>(Admittedly, there are generalizations in this post, not to mention a wee bit of egotism. But remember, grad schools are always looking for the best candidates; there is certainly more to "getting into grad school" than simple numbers and test scores.)</p>

<p>From what I have been told!</p>

<p>"It is difficult to maintain high GPA in EECS." When I probed, the answer was, "Mine was better. You know, the OOS and international students,mostly, do very well. But many in-state students do not cross the 3.0 level". </p>

<p>However, there could be an element of truth that grading is tougher in Berkeley, as against some of the top private universities.</p>

<p>Yea, that does seem to be right. From personal experience, international students in engineering don't spend so much time partying. Perhaps it has something to do with the 40,000 per year tuition+board that we have to pay =P. It's those darn English courses that get us, though.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, I got into Berkeley with a B- average

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, you got into Berkeley with a B- average?</p>

<p>Didn't you say elsewhere that your GPA was a 3.2? So wouldn't that be more like a B+ average?</p>

<p>
[quote]
From personal experience, international students in engineering don't spend so much time partying.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's because international students who get into UCBerkeley sure as heck didn't spend their high school years partying. Not only is it a lot tougher to get into Berkeley as an international applicant, but most foreign high schools tend to be more strict and difficult than the average Californian high school.</p>

<p>sakky- you are right, roughly a B+ average. Still, I wouldn't split a kidney over this detail. The point I'm trying to make, as I've tried to make in many other threads, is that it is a little short-sighted (sp?) to worry about having the flawless record. (Because you can easily acheive this at a less rigorous school.) Obviously, I am not a grad student, but my theory is, grad school professors probably care more about the research you might have done as an undergrad, and what your current professors might have to say about you / your work. High GPAs are really a dime a dozen.</p>

<p>Hopefully, this will help illustrate how I feel about a 4.0 at Berkeley:</p>

<p>Let's say you're a grad school professor, and you're field of research is the AIDS virus. One day, you're asked to review three applications from Ph.D. candidates, all from Berkeley.</p>

<p>Naturally, all three candidates major in similar fields (if not the same one) and thus, have taken many classes together. All want to conduct ground-breaking research with you.</p>

<p>The first two have, more or less, identical applications. Both have taken all the classes Berkeley offers in relation to the AIDS virus. Both have worked hard, and have done well. One may have a coveted 4.0 in his or her major.</p>

<p>Let's say the last applicant has a noticeably lower GPA than the others. However, this is due to the fact that he has already began conducting his own research on AIDS. He's managed to publish a few articles in scholarly journals regarding his progress. The other guys, by contrast, tend to have a bookish understanding of the AIDS virus despite their high scores, and might only have a senior thesis when it comes to individualized work. While the relevant undergraduate professors might like the first two (as they complete all their assignments and sometimes stop by during office hours) they fawn over the third.</p>

<p>Who do you select? To me, the answer is almost obvious.</p>

<p>Of course, the ideal would be to have a 4.0 AND an impressive list of accomplishments. That said, if Cal is truly rigorous, professors will take into account that this ideal is unlikely. If students take the same approach, they should really think twice about where their priorities lie.</p>

<p>kultur wolf, I think you make a valid point. but I would add a couple thigns to that. First of all, you are talking about grad school. I know at least for students who are trying for med school (which is like half of berkeley) gpa is incredibly important. so much so that your example probably wouldn't hold true if the applicants were applying to med school. even with great extracurriculars or research, without a solid gpa you'll have a tough time gettin in to any school. by good gpa i mean the 3.5 or higher that they say you need to be competitive. </p>

<p>secondly, if you are talking about grad school, i would add that it is hard to prove in research how succesful you are, especially as an ugrad. research is a very tedious and frustrating field, (i am talking mainly about the science fields), so it is possible you spend huge amounts of time doing research, to the point that your grades hurt, but you still do not have anything great to show for it. it is quite tough to get a publication, so you may not get that, therefore the best thing you would have is a good recommendation from ur research professor. although, this is a great thing to have, I don't think that the recommendation alone can do it for you. Unless, of course, there are times when your recommendation is absolutley phenomenal, and your professors wants to lick ur nuts, then maybe it would be enough :)</p>

<p>
[quote]
kultur wolf, I think you make a valid point. but I would add a couple thigns to that. First of all, you are talking about grad school. I know at least for students who are trying for med school (which is like half of berkeley) gpa is incredibly important. so much so that your example probably wouldn't hold true if the applicants were applying to med school. even with great extracurriculars or research, without a solid gpa you'll have a tough time gettin in to any school. by good gpa i mean the 3.5 or higher that they say you need to be competitive.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would actually say that a better example may be law school. Law schools are truly GPA-oriented. </p>

<p>But I think we shouldn't be fixating on grad school anyway, for after all, the vast majority of undergrads at any school (including many at Berkeley) will never go to grad school. Many undergrads just want to graduate and get a decent job. </p>

<p>The problem then becomes twofold. Some people can't even graduate from Berkeley at all. Like I've always been saying, not everybody who comes to Berkeley will graduate. Some students will flunk out. These people are almost certainly worse off than if they had never gone to Berkeley in the first place. After all, if they had never gone to Berkeley (and flunked out ) - for example, if they had just started working right out of high school - then they could just apply to other colleges with a clean slate. However, no reputable school wants to admit a student who flunked out of his previous college. Hence, going to Berkeley and flunking out actually makes you worse off than if you had never gone to college at all. Sad but true.</p>

<p>Like it or not, we live in a world where a bachelor's degree is a profoundly important thing to have. It doesn't really matter that much what you majored in. It doesn't even matter all that much where you got the degree from. What really matters is that you have a degree from * somewhere *. If you don't have a degree, employers aren't going to care why you don't have it. All they're going to see is that you don't have it. Most good employers nowadays require that you have a bachelor's degree before they will even interview you. If you don't have one, they won't care why. </p>

<p>And even if you do have a degree, that still doesn't mean that you can even get an interview with the employer that you really want. A lot of the more desirabe employers enforce GPA cutoffs as a condition for their interviews, usually around a 3.0, but sometimes a 3.5. If you don't meet that cutoff, you may experience great difficulty in even getting an interview. I can think of several Berkeley graduates to which this has happened - they couldn't even get a single interview with any of the employers they wanted, because their GPA's didn't meet the cutoffs. What made the situation truly galling is that those same employers than granted interviews to some students from San Jose State who did meet the GPA cutoffs. Hence, by enforcing harsh grading standards, Berkeley is effectively hurting the chances of some of its students in getting jobs, especially relative to the students at easier schools.</p>

<p>I've said it before, I'll say it again. Berkeley is indeed a fantastic school for those students who do well. If that describes you, then more power to you. But my question has always been - what about all those Berkeley students who don't do well? What happens to them?</p>

<p>Science classes are hard.</p>

<p>sakky: "what about all those Berkeley students who don't do well? What happens to them?"</p>

<p>Sucks for them! They deserve it. No, seriously now, from what I've seen (and I've talked to many students in the sciences and engineering with varying GPAs), those who don't do well tend to fit into a few categories:</p>

<p>1) Don't care. These believe that they can get a job based solely on prestige and not worry about GPA. These can also be women (mostly) here for a M.R.S. degree. There are also those who've given up on life/society.
2) Don't study. These students breezed through high school without touching textbooks. They are blown away by the fact that they actually need to study in uni to do as well as HS. Berkeley unfortunately admits many students in this category.
3) Have bad study habits. Some students from category 2 try to change things by studying. However, their studying takes them "12 hours," "into the night," etc. The "studying" consists usually of reading over notes with friends and being distracted half of the time. That is not effective studying. These students also tend to do poorly, just as we expect.
4) Easily distracted. Uni life has so many temptations. Clubbing, parties, friends, dating, games, and other events abound. Coupled with the fact that students are far away from parents (or other authority figures), some tend to go crazy and just pig out with partying. These students don't spend the time (or effective time for that matter) on their work.
5) Don't plan ahead. These students take classes without even satisfying prereqs. They don't know the relative difficulty of classes and professors or even what's required. Their schedules are a mess because they're so used to a clear track w/o selection in HS but now have so much flexibility in scheduling. Some of these students load up on 30 units (yup, I've seen that happen) or take EE140 before EE40.</p>

<p>From induction, I've found that if a student doesn't do well, it's his/her own fault. That student will then try to blame the system and say that "everyone's too smart" or "classes are just too hard." Nonsense. Hard work is worth far more in uni than innate talent (which I don't believe in btw).</p>

<p>Note that the converse is not true. Students who party all the time can do well by taking a powderpuff major.</p>

<p>There are some interesting anecdotal cases I've seen that I'd like to share.</p>

<p>One person I knew got top grades in high school. 4.0 uw gpa, robotics club, summer jobs, etc. Was admitted into Berkeley EECS and went crazy according to #4. He started joining social clubs and ended up doing quite poorly in his classes. Whenever I saw him, he was usually too tired from the previous night's social activity.</p>

<p>I've also seen a student who got a 3.7 uw in HS with no EC. He didn't care at all in HS, but his attitude completely changed in uni. He dedicated himself to his classes, studied hard and well, and is currently pulling off a >3.9 uw in EECS.</p>

<p>From the classes I've taken, it's so easy to scrape by with a B in everything. You almost don't have to study at all. Just do the homework, follow lectures, and take the exams. That shows the sheer number of students who fall into the above categories.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sucks for them! They deserve it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do they? The simple response is that many of them could have done well had they just gone to another (easier) school. </p>

<p>Furthermore, even if what you are saying is true, it seems that you support one of key proposals - that Berkeley should not be admitting these students in the first place.</p>

<p>Like I've always said, admissions is a 2-way partnership. If somebody is admitted and then flunks out, BOTH parties are to blame. You can't place all of the blame on the student. Sure, some of the blame should go to the student, but then some of the blame should also go to the school for having admitted him in the first place.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Maybe, maybe not. In any case, nobody is forcing them to go to Berkeley. It's their responsibility to know what they're getting themselves into when they send their SIR. I know a few (not many, admittedly) people who turned down hard schools like Berkeley for easier but less prestigious privates or other UCs. Some people might criticize their decision, but the way I see it they had the foresight to know they wouldn't have done well at a difficult school, even though they got in. And their reward is that they won't flunk or do poorly - they'll end up with a degree and a good GPA, which is obviously better than flunking out of even the best school in the world.</p>

<p>Ultimately, nobody knows you better than yourself. It's your responsibility to know, based on your research, whether you can take the difficultly level. Don't expect colleges to make that decision - they don't know whether you got that A by getting 90.001 in your class or by getting 99 - and though they can make an educated guess, they can't tell how you'll do in the future the way you can.</p>

<p>The way I see it, admitting "underqualified" people is really a blessing for students. They are giving you an opportunity that you might not have otherwise had. If you know that you had a rough time in high school but are able and willing to turn your life around, I think you should be glad the choice to go to a first-rate university is yours at all - and time and again, people have proven that given a second chance, they can go on to do great things.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you know you just got in because you did the absolute minimum required and you're not going to change to face up to the challenge, yet you still sign up for one of the hardest universities in the world - well that's your loss.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Maybe, maybe not. In any case, nobody is forcing them to go to Berkeley. It's their responsibility to know what they're getting themselves into when they send their SIR. I know a few (not many, admittedly) people who turned down hard schools like Berkeley for easier but less prestigious privates or other UCs. Some people might criticize their decision, but the way I see it they had the foresight to know they wouldn't have done well at a difficult school, even though they got in. And their reward is that they won't flunk or do poorly - they'll end up with a degree and a good GPA, which is obviously better than flunking out of even the best school in the world.</p>

<p>Ultimately, nobody knows you better than yourself. It's your responsibility to know, based on your research, whether you can take the difficultly level. Don't expect colleges to make that decision - they don't know whether you got that A by getting 90.001 in your class or by getting 99 - and though they can make an educated guess, they can't tell how you'll do in the future the way you can.</p>

<p>The way I see it, admitting "underqualified" people is really a blessing for students. They are giving you an opportunity that you might not have otherwise had. If you know that you had a rough time in high school but are able and willing to turn your life around, I think you should be glad the choice to go to a first-rate university is yours at all - and time and again, people have proven that given a second chance, they can go on to do great things.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you know you just got in because you did the absolute minimum required and you're not going to change to face up to the challenge, yet you still sign up for one of the hardest universities in the world - well that's your loss.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm afraid I definitely can't agree with that. Not at all. That's like saying that if you sign up for the Army, and then you got crippled on the battlefield, that's too bad for you, you shouldn't have enlisted, and so you don't deserve medical care because it's your fault that you got hurt. Just like the nation owes a responsibility to the troops who get hurt, even though they volunteered to serve, similarly, all schools, including Berkeley, owe a responsibility to help the students who they admit, even if those students are the ones who ultimately choose to matriculate. Like I said, if Berkeley doesn't want to take responsibility for certain students, then fair enough - just don't admit them. Once you've admitted them and they matriculate, it's your responsibility to do the best you can for them. Just like the Army, even today, won't allow somebody to enlist who clearly does not have the physical ability to do the job (i.e. has severe health problems) , but once they are enlisted, it's the responsibility of the Army to give them all the support possible and care for them if they get hurt. </p>

<p>Besides, let's consider another reform. Let's say somebody comes to Berkeley and flunks out. Fine - then why not just cancel that guy's transcript? Pretend as if he had never gone to Berkeley at all. Why not? After all, he's not going to get a degree from Berkeley anyway, so why should Berkeley care about what he does afterwards? Let him apply to transfer to another school with a clean slate. If that other school asks, Berkeley can simply say that while he was a matriculated student, he never registered for any classes, so he has a blank transcript. There's no need to haunt the guy with a Berkeley transcript full of poor grades if he's not even going to get a degree from Berkeley anyway. </p>

<p>Think this is outrageous? I don't think so. This is not significantly different from, as I see that you already know, the MIT policy of not reporting any failed freshman grades. If you go to MIT, fail all of your freshman classes, MIT is going to act as if you had never taken any classes at all. So if you want to transfer elsewhere, the fact that you failed all of your MIT classes will never be known. </p>

<p>Now, again, I personally don't entirely agree with the whole MIT policy, especially the notion of hiding even your A grades. (What I think MIT should do is give students the option of deciding whether to expose freshman grades or not - hence, if he gets straight A's, he should be able to expose that). But I think Berkeley can adopt a similar policy to at least help those students who do poorly. You should never be worse off by going to Berkeley than not going to college at all. But, right now, if you go to Berkeley and flunk out, you are indeed worse off than if you had never gone to college at all.</p>

<p>First of all, I don't think your army analogy is completely accurate. When you're in the army, there's only so much you can do to prevent an attack, or drive it off. Sometimes you just might be one of those unlucky people around when a suicide bomber detonates his explosive. You could be crippled, but it isn't necessarily your fault.</p>

<p>In college, however, it's a completely different story. Your experience at any university is what you make it, 99% of the time (let's disregard things like family emergencies, etc, for this discussion, because those are just extreme cases, not applicable for most people). You can party all day and all night and nobody is going to stop you like your parents would have for the previous 18 years. </p>

<p>As Uncle Ben said (I haven't seen Spiderman 3 btw): "With great power comes great responsibility". Well let's face it: some people don't do well with that new responsibility, and that's life. To say to students: "If you do well, you can show your grade but if you don't nobody will know about it" is putting an inaccurate and in a sense harmful point of view in students' minds. A university's job is to prepare students for "the real world", yet in the real world, nobody is going to give you money back that you lost in the stock market and say "let's pretend it never happened". Nobody is going to say: "It alright you haven't been showing up for work for the past month, let's forget about it".</p>

<p>There is a reason why colleges don't like transfer students with poor grades - it shows them that they've done poorly before, and no matter what they say on their essay, statistically speaking they are likely to do poorly again, no matter the school. And even if you disagree with that, it's indisputable that they're much riskier candidates than those who have maintained good grades.</p>

<p>The concept of setting a 2.7 average just does not make sense to me. I feel like grades should be given based on how well the subject matter is known. If everyone knows the subject matter to a certain standard ... then everyone should get the same grade. Why artifically differentiate people by marginal differences (1 or 2 points) just because a curve needs to be set?
This is what I like about Stanford... the curves aren't just done to create a uniform distribution , but instead based on how well the material is known. If everyone does horribly on a test that (in the instructors opinion) was not difficult everyone gets a bad grade since everyone didn't know the subject to a certain standard. Conversely if everyone does well then everyone gets a good grade. The purpose of a grade is to show how well a student knows the material, not to differentiate everyone into an even distribution.
At Stanford bell curves would be impossible because people would fail just because they got 5 points lower than the average... there is a very narrow distribution of scores on many test because everyone does very well. It would be insane to punish people this way just to make an A 'more valuable'</p>

<p>
[quote]
First of all, I don't think your army analogy is completely accurate. When you're in the army, there's only so much you can do to prevent an attack, or drive it off. Sometimes you just might be one of those unlucky people around when a suicide bomber detonates his explosive. You could be crippled, but it isn't necessarily your fault.</p>

<p>In college, however, it's a completely different story. Your experience at any university is what you make it, 99% of the time (let's disregard things like family emergencies, etc, for this discussion, because those are just extreme cases, not applicable for most people). You can party all day and all night and nobody is going to stop you like your parents would have for the previous 18 years

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not in the case of Berkeley - not in the case of the tough technical majors, i.e. engineering. Let's face it. Most high school seniors don't really know what engineering is all about, yet they are forced to sign up for it anyway if they want to secure a spot for themselves in the CoE. So what if they find out that they're not good at it? The rules at Berkeley are such that you may find it difficult to switch out of engineering. It is difficult to switch to Letters & Science if you don't have a 3.0, and trust me, PLENTY of Berkeley engineering students have nowhere near a 3.0. Nor can you easily switch from one engineering major to another, as all of them are impacted, and hence, none of them are easily switchable towards if you don't have a decent GPA.</p>

<p>The upshot is that plenty of engineering students who are doing poorly are * required to stay * in the major. I call this the 'engineering major trap', and other people have different terms to describe it. But the basic point is that students get screwed because of a simple lack of information. Like I said, most high school students have no engineering experience and so they don't really know what they're really signing up for, and by the time they find out, it's too late. They can't get out. It's quite a shame that this happens at Berkeley ,but that's the reality of the situation. I know a number of engineering students who would love to get out, but can't because nobody else wants to take them, and hence they are forced to stay in engineering (or else leave Berkeley entirely). </p>

<p>
[quote]
As Uncle Ben said (I haven't seen Spiderman 3 btw): "With great power comes great responsibility". Well let's face it: some people don't do well with that new responsibility, and that's life. To say to students: "If you do well, you can show your grade but if you don't nobody will know about it" is putting an inaccurate and in a sense harmful point of view in students' minds. A university's job is to prepare students for "the real world", yet in the real world, nobody is going to give you money back that you lost in the stock market and say "let's pretend it never happened". Nobody is going to say: "It alright you haven't been showing up for work for the past month, let's forget about it".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The real world analogy is not accurate, because the fact of the matter is, Berkeley is harder than the real world. Any decent undergrad program is. Let's be perfectly honest here. Most jobs really aren't that hard. You don't really need to have great expertise to do most jobs. Most jobs are simple common sense, combined with social skills and some basic technical knowledge. Rarely do you ever have to work on any projects that require true cutting-edge, high-level knowledge.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example. When I was an engineering summer intern, I was surrounded by people who had master's degrees and PhD's in engineering. * But I was the only one who still remember how to do complex engineering derivations. *. One guy with a PhD, who had a daughter who was taking high school calculus, actually came up to me and asked me to give him refreshers on basic calculus so that he could help his daughter. This is a guy who had a PhD in engineering from a top school, and I was just a lowly summer intern. Yet he was asking me for math help. What's wrong with this picture?</p>

<p>The sad truth of the matter is that all colleges teach you a lot of things that, frankly, you don't really need to know to do the job. Hence, the notion that college really prepares you for the real world is, frankly, a chimera. If that was really true, then how is it that college dropouts like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs do so well for themselves in the real world? Seems to me that those guys were very well prepared for the real world, despite not having college degrees. But put those guys aside. Ask anybody who's actually been in the workforce for awhile, in any job, and if they're honest, they will tell you that most of the things they learned in college, they never use. Not only that, but a lot of things they need to know were never taught to them in college. Frankly, the top colleges basically serve as market signals that you were good enough to at least get into that particular college and to survive it, and hence that's a mark of self-discipline and raw talent. But it's not like you really need to have the actual education itself in order to do most jobs. </p>

<p>So take it back to the case of Berkeley. Berkeley weeds people out for not knowing things that, frankly, they don't really need to know. To give you an example, I know a guy who majored in English at Berkeley, but also learned software programming on the side just as a hobby and as a way to make extra money. When he graduated, he was hired as a software engineer, and has enjoyed a highly successful career doing that. All this, despite the fact that not only did not he never major in CS, but he also never actually took a formal CS class. The employer doesn't care - as the guy basically knows what he needs to know to do the job well. The guy even said himself that he's thankful that he never actually tried to major in CS, as he suspects he probably would have been weeded out. Because he took the path he did, he wound up with a better job than a lot of Berkeley CS graduates got. </p>

<p>To elaborate more on the CS path, again, the CS path insists on teaching you things that, frankly, you don't really need to know to do the job. For example, a lot of the CS coursework is about theory. But you don't really need to know any theory in order to just get a computer job. Computational/complexity theory - who cares? Nor are there a lot of compiler jobs out there - but most CS programs require that you take a class on compiler implementation (hence, writing your own compiler). And what about digital logic? Again, for most real-world programmers, who cares? All of these things are topics that you don't really need to know in the real world. But Berkeley will weed you out if you don't know them. Don't get me wrong - these are nice things to know and will probably help you if you do know them. But the notion of weeding somebody out because he doesn't know it, even though the real world doesn't require that people know it? That's dubious to me. </p>

<p>
[quote]
There is a reason why colleges don't like transfer students with poor grades - it shows them that they've done poorly before, and no matter what they say on their essay, statistically speaking they are likely to do poorly again, no matter the school. And even if you disagree with that, it's indisputable that they're much riskier candidates than those who have maintained good grades.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But don't you see what you are saying? You are basically reinforcing the point that people shouldn't choose Berkeley, if they have a more palateable option (i.e. HYPS). Why take the chance in flunking out and greatly damaging your career, if you don't have to take that chance? Hence all this talk about how tough Berkeley is only deters people from selecting Berkeley ex-ante, and instead, choosing to go to, say, Stanford, where the program is less harsh, and yet the graduates still get excellent jobs. Why put your career at risk, if you don't have to?</p>

<p>I wholeheartedly agree with this which is why I'm going to transfer the **** out of Berkeley while I can and hope to god I don't **** up my first year. Finally some words of wisdom on this forum.</p>

<p>Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is a good idea to transfer out of Berkeley. It depends on where you can transfer to. For example, I don't think it is a particularly good idea to transfer from Berkeley to any of the other UC's.</p>

<p>^Why do you say that?</p>