<p>is it possible to appeal for the Regent's and Chancellor's scholarship?</p>
<p>that was beautiful sakky. if Berkeley changed from a public to a private school, i think all of those things would be easily done. the thing is, it's a large UC and therefore they cannot take care of every student. </p>
<p>your post reminded me of the reason why i wanted to get accepted to MIT :(. oh well, i'm over it now. Berkeley here i come. or maybe i'll get an acceptance letter from Princeton, haha. or maybe i'll get accepted from harvey mudd's waitlist. however, that place is way too small and crazy.</p>
<p>My friend got into there and got rejected from Berkeley. He had MIT quality stats but had a low class ranking (relatively) because our school was filled with so many gpa hogs and he didn't play the game. I'm pretty sure he would've made an HYPSM at any other high school.</p>
<p>Anyways he went to Harvey Mudd and had a great time and a lot of good work experience. He also scored a 80k a year engineering a job straight out of college because of his work experience which made him decide to forego graduate studies at MIT. </p>
<p>Anyways my point is ... don't go to Berkeley.</p>
<p>yeah, my friend Rob, down the hall, says that he got a "mediocre" job at Honeywell (working on air bearings) for $65k/yr</p>
<p>Ok, I admit it sakky, Berkeley isn't perfect. But, does that mean that the problems you point out are really that significant? No, they are far from it.</p>
<p>*Freedom to switch majors. - Few students ever need to do this. In L&S, where the vast majority of students (about 75%) are, it couldn't be easier to switch majors. Very very few majors in this college are capped. Of those that are, a 3.0 is typically all that is required. And I'm sorry but considering the opportunities ALL students in L&S have to pace their classes according to their schedules and abilities, getting less than a 3.0 while having the intention of getting into a capped major is worthy of ridicule. Other than that, only in the college of engineering is a student really in need of switching majors and being unable to. Since such students are few and far between (the COE has only 11% of the undergrads....) there is no need to get all worked up over this issue. These students weren't destined to fail. Sad, but true. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Student selectivity - I think you are overemphasizing the fratboys. They constitute a sad minority and in no way have my would-be employers ever frowned on me for going to a school with wild frats. In fact, they really couldn't care less. (I don't think they even know....) It's personal credentials that matter. If an employer truly shuns you for having gone to a school with fratboys, a lawsuit is in order. </p></li>
<li><p>Lack of help for the poorer-performing students. - I think your stress on this point is unacceptable. The reality of the situation is that there are VERY VERY few poor-permorming students at Berkeley. Take a look at this chart: </p></li>
</ul>
<p>It's simply not as bad as you claim it is. And I don't agree with this idea that there is a "lack of help" the SLC, GSI/prof office hours, and study groups are all there there so *** are you complaining about?</p>
<p>
[quote]
if Berkeley changed from a public to a private school, i think all of those things would be easily done. the thing is, it's a large UC and therefore they cannot take care of every student.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't even say that it's a simple matter of public vs. private.</p>
<p>Let me tell you a story. For those of you who have already heard this story, bear with me. </p>
<p>A bunch of my buddies and I once ran into a woman who was absolutely gushing about her Berkeley experience. She talked about how her classes were so small and intimate, how the administrators were always there to help here, how she always got excellent counseling, how she was on a first-name basis with lots of her profs, how supportive she felt the experience was, and so on and so forth. My friends and I looked at each other as if to ask 'What in God's name is she talking about? This isn't the Berkeley that we know.'</p>
<p>Then it dawned on me what was happening. She hadn't gone to Berkeley for undergrad. No - she had gone to Berkeley to get her MBA from the Haas School. Then it all made sense. Yes, the Haas MBA program really is small and intimate and highly supportive, where you really can find plenty of counseling and easily develop strong tight relationships with prof's. </p>
<p>In fact, that is one of the ways that Haas markets itself. Haas is actually one of the smaller MBA programs around, certainly smaller than some of the behemoths it competes with like Columbia or Kellogg or Wharton or HBS. It markets itself as offering a small, tight, intimate learning environment which the behemoths cannot offer</p>
<p>Yet last time I checked, Haas was a public program. It takes state funding. It offers an in-state tuition subsidy to California residents. </p>
<p>I could certainly say the same thing about other Berkeley graduate programs, especially the doctoral programs. These programs also take plenty of state money. They also offer tuition subsidies to California residents (which don't really matter because doctoral programs almost always pay for your tuition anyway). </p>
<p>So the point is, it's not really a simple matter of public vs. private. The Berkeley grad programs prove that you can have public programs that are nevertheless highly intimate with excellent support.</p>
<p>how many times have you posted that haas story? i think i've read it many times...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Few students ever need to do this. In L&S, where the vast majority of students (about 75%) are, it couldn't be easier to switch majors. Very very few majors in this college are capped.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But the ones that are capped tend to be quite popular. For example. Computer Science. Economics. A lot of people want to major in these fields, but are denied. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Since such students are few and far between (the COE has only 11% of the undergrads....)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Only" 11%? I happen to think that 11% is a quite large chunk of students.</p>
<p>Let's also talk about the students in the College of Chemistry. The problem with the CoC is easy - you can only major in 2 things, Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, both of which are highly related to each other. What if you want to major in something else? Then that means having to switch into some other college, which is far from assured. </p>
<p>Let's also talk about the students in the College of Environment Design What if they find out they'd rather not major in Architecture/LandScape Architecture/City Planning? Then they have to switch out. The same goes for the students in the CNR. </p>
<p>And then of course there are all those students who are trying to get into the Haas School, and who are denied. So they end up majoring in something they don't really want to do.</p>
<p>So let's say you are correct. Let's say that 75% of the L&S kids have no problems with getting the major they want. That still leaves 25% of kids that do have problems. Is this acceptable to you? So it's "OK" with you that 1/4 of the students may experience problems with getting the major they want? </p>
<p>
[quote]
If an employer truly shuns you for having gone to a school with fratboys, a lawsuit is in order.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? How is that? Employers have the right to employ or not employ anybody they want, as long as they are not doing so on the basis of discrimination of protected categories. Those protected categories are enumerated - including race, religion, sex, and perhaps age. But school is certainly not one of them. I can think of a number of private equity funds and hedge funds who recruit at only Harvard, and nowhere else. Nobody is suing them, as far as I've heard. After all, what would you sue them for? Companies have the right to decide where they want to recruit. Goldman Sachs and McKinsey don't recruit at San Francisco State, yet SF State students aren't suing them. </p>
<p>The point about the frat boys is that they hurt the reputation of Berkeley. It's just like if you go to a restaurant, and you get bad food, then you will probably decide not to ever go back. Similarly if a company hires one of these frat boys and finds out that he's a poor worker, then he may simply decide that he shouldn't hire anybody else from Berkeley, and that's better off restricting his hiring to some other school. The point is, it's all a matter of reputation and brand-name. Bad students make the whole school look bad. </p>
<p>The saddest part about the whole drunk lazy frat-boy problem is that they are taking away admissions slots that could have been used by somebody else who actually is serious about studying. Some otherwise-worthy students get turned down by Berkeley because these guys won't give up their spots. I would say that, if you're not serious about studying, then the fair and honorable thing to do is give up your spot so that somebody else can use it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Lack of help for the poorer-performing students. - I think your stress on this point is unacceptable. The reality of the situation is that there are VERY VERY few poor-permorming students at Berkeley. Take a look at this chart: </p>
<p>It's simply not as bad as you claim it is. And I don't agree with this idea that there is a "lack of help" the SLC, GSI/prof office hours, and study groups are all there there so *** are you complaining about?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, I never said that all, or even a majority of students are having problems. What I am saying is that, relative to the elite private schools, Berkeley is not as good, in this area. I agree that Berkeley is far better than most public schools. But that's not good enough. </p>
<p>In particular, simply having resources available is not enough. Students who are not doing well are not going to be in the proper frame of mind to aggressively access resources. That's the truth of the matter. That is why, for example, the MIT LFM program, aggressively attempts to ensure that students are surviving, including checking up on students. LFM students aren't kids - the average age is 28. And the program is no joke - you get an MS and an MBA from MIT in the same timeframe that it normally takes to get 1 of those degrees. Yet not a single person in the history of LFM has ever flunked out. Remember, this is no creampuff school we're talking about. This is MIT we're talking about here. Yet the fact is, the students don't flunk out, despite the difficulty of the program. That's because the program aggressively ensures that students are getting the help they need. Students are checking up on other students to report issues with keeping up. </p>
<p>I think this is the way that schools ought to run. I think it's simply asking too much to expect all Berkeley 18 year olds to aggressively ask for help, not when MIT doesn't even expect 28 year olds to do so. Berkeley simply has too many students fall through the cracks. It's extremely easy to feel alienated at Berkeley in a way that you do not in, say, LFM.</p>
<p>"Harvard is notorious for its horrible faculty. Yale, not as bad, but still not great. Princeton: very good. Stanford, inbetween Yale and Princeton. MIT, professors busy there too. Overall, there is not that great a difference in faculty interest in teaching undergrads at these schools vs. Berkeley."</p>
<p>Okay. Well, regardless of the faculty interest at the schools, I think you will agree that graduating from Harvard puts you a step of just about everyone. There is a reason people say that Harvard is the best university in the world. As a result, there is a certain amount of prestige accompanying people coming from "The best University in the World"</p>
<p>I see it as a rather pointless to try and compare berkeley to HYPSM and try to say it's better. For one, it's different, no doubt about it. Secondly, each college will have it's strengths and weaknesses, making it really hard for a direct comparison without taking into account which major you are specifically interested in. Princeton has a good Poli Sci from what I hear, but I would be very surprised if MIT did. On the other hand, I would give MIT the upper hand in engineering. You can't really say one school in general is better than the other because they are better in their own respective fields.</p>
<p>What really bugs me is the people who go to berkeley and then try to aggressively defend their choice. It is a very good school!! #1 public school by US News. It's graduate programs are amazing. </p>
<p>But jeez, reading through various threads in this board, people keep saying things like " Sadly, I was rejected by Harvard and Princeton and everything.....<em>sighs</em>......but w/e, I got into berkeley and it's better than all those terrible ivies" There's no need to say that those schools suck. It's just annoying -_-</p>
<p>Btw, I was accepted to berkeley and rejected from MIT/UPenn.</p>
<p>but aren't Berkeley's honors math courses more rigorous than MIT or HMC classes? i'm planning to try it out.</p>
<p>I don't think anyone has rationalized their top university rejections by stating that Berkeley was better than "those terrible ivies". </p>
<p>Anyway, this is getting ridiculus. There is no university reputation (on CC) more controversial than the one that may or may not belong to UC Berkeley. When I was first admitted, I felt the need to defend it, but at this point, I hardly care. I know how prestigious Berkeley is, but I also know that regardless of my own opinion and the A quality experiences I have had here so far, it's never going to match the household name of Harvard, Yale, or Princeton University. Boo Hoo. </p>
<p>Honestly people get over it. I'm so sick and tired of these factory flame wars. Let's choose another school to analyze.</p>
<p>hey how good is Berkeley's pre-med program. i was thinking Princeton but then i'm pretty sure that my grades aren't going to cut it</p>
<p>isn't it true that one year, there were so many students enrolled in the UCs that they had to send a portion of their class to community college for a year?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Princeton has a good Poli Sci from what I hear, but I would be very surprised if MIT did.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, come on now. You may indeed be surprised. I have written many a post defending the MIT political science program. It is in fact one of the top poli-sci programs in the country. Surprisingly so, but it is a fact.</p>
<p>Take a look at the USNews graduate poli-sci PhD rankings.</p>
<ol>
<li> Harvard University (MA) 5.0 </li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) 4.9 </li>
<li> University of MichiganAnn Arbor 4.8 </li>
<li> Princeton University (NJ) 4.7 </li>
<li> University of CaliforniaBerkeley 4.6
Yale University (CT) 4.6 </li>
<li> University of CaliforniaSan Diego 4.4 </li>
<li> Duke University (NC) 4.3
University of Chicago 4.3 </li>
<li> Columbia University (NY) 4.2
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4.2
University of CaliforniaLos Angeles 4.2 </li>
</ol>
<p>As you can see, MIT is ranked in the top 10 for graduate poli-sci, tied with such luminaries as Columbia, and beating out such places as Cornell (#18), NYU (#18), Northwestern (#21), UPenn (#29), Emory (#29), Virginia (#37), Georgetown (#41), Notre Dame (#41), and Brown (#46), and Vanderbilt (#48). </p>
<p>Now, if you think that maybe that's an anomaly of USNews, then fine, take a look at the NRC rankings of 1995. MIT Political Science was ranked #12, beating out such schools as Duke, Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern, Emory, Georgetown, Virginia, Penn, Notre Dame, and Brown. </p>
<p>The truth is, MIT has been pouring a lot of resources into beefing up its social sciences. For example, take Economics. There was a time not that long ago when the MIT Economics graduate program was of little consequence. Now, it is widely recognized as among the best in the country, maybe the best. It's tied for #1 in US News, and was #3 in the 1995 NRC report. MIT has been quietly beefing up its strength in Poli-Sci, and has especially been playing to its strengths. For example, the MIT political science department has been unusually strong when it comes to things like technology policy, national security/military policy, and business policy. This makes perfect sense as MIT hopes to leverage its strength in engineering, in national defense, and in the Sloan School into strength in political science. I fully expect the MIT poli-sci department to get better and better. But I would say that a #10 or #12 ranking is pretty darn good. There are a lot of political science doctoral students who would have liked to a program as highly regarded as MIT's but didn't get in.</p>
<p>Holy mother of God.</p>
<p>oh....I didn't know that. Sorry, I love MIT, lol. Early action XD</p>
<p>but I agree with what IzzieBear says. lets stop this thread =_=</p>
<p>
[quote]
isn't it true that one year, there were so many students enrolled in the UCs that they had to send a portion of their class to community college for a year?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, actually, this happens every year. But these students don't usually have to go to CC for an entire year. Berkeley has used the concept of the spring admit for a long time now, where students are directed to a CC for half a year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
hey how good is Berkeley's pre-med program.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>'Good' is a relative term. What are you comparing it to?</p>
<p>I think it is too time-consuming to get good grades and there are too many people competing for the lab positions necessary to get into a top medical school. But thats just me ...</p>
<p>Well, you can always take a bunch of creampuff classes that will supercharge your GPA. Believe me, there are quite a few of those classes around. After all, how do you think the football players stay academically eligible to play on Saturday?</p>
<p>As far as lab positions, I think their necessity is overblown for med-school. It's nice to have, but you don't really need to have it. What you really need is hospital/clinic volunteer time.</p>