<br>
<br>
<p>“They can be a ton of fun”</p>
<p>nightmares are fun? I don’t know about you but I’m not a masochist. I don’t find pleasure in painful psychological experiences ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that doesn’t matter, does it? What matters is that you can get the interview. Like I said, Berkeley will force you to wade through a sea of other students in order to get the interviews you want. Some highly qualified students that I know couldn’t get a single interview because all of the spots were taken. That’s the problem. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m talking about both per-capita and absolute figures. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. According to the alumni database, over 1200 Harvard MBA’s did their undergrad at Stanford, but about 560 from Berkeley. Hence, Stanford has more than twice in absolute figures, not even talking about the per-capita figures. I also seem to remember people digging up how there are more Harvard and Yale undergrads at Stanford Law than there are Berkeley undergrads. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Goodness, Teach for America is clearly one of the most prestigious nonprofit jobs you can get right out of undergrad, and arguably one of the most prestigious of any industry. Are these weak students? Well, then it’s interesting that so many Berkeley grads apply to TFA and don’t get offers. I suppose that means that those students are really weak, right? </p>
<p>What’s wrong with being sent to a random place to teach? I think that’s noble. You do it for a couple of years and then head off to some other profession or go to grad school.</p>
<p>Middsmith, it’s bizarre to me that you simply can’t accept what I think we all know to be true: certain schools are better than Berkeley for undergrad. Why else do you think Berkeley has only a 40% yield, meaning that the majority of students admitted to Berkeley choose to go elsewhere? Why does Stanford have such a cross-admit advantage over the entire rest of the Pac-10 combined, including Berkeley?</p>
<p>I like Berkeley for many things, and I think it is a top school, but I think we have to agree that Berkeley is not as good as some of the other places. I don’t think there is anything wrong with admitting that. If anything, you gain credibility by admitting the truth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sakky, I honestly myself do not see the point to why anyone would want to make such a generalization. There are aspects to Berkeley that aren’t great, and there are aspects to it that are great. There are things the school lacks, and things it has that no other school does. </p>
<p>I think it’s nothing short of useless to “admit” that some schools are “better” than others, and it gains someone no credibility, because it’s such a broad thing to say. What do we define “better” as? “More opportunities” for “most undergrads”? Most undergrads probably want to know about themselves, not about “most undergrads.”</p>
<p>I think Stanford does some things right which Berkeley does not, but I think frankly, most students aren’t as knowledgeable as you (or even I) about the differences among these schools, and many choose Stanford because it is one of the hardest schools to get into, harder on average than Berkeley, and hence has a prestige factor.</p>
<p>This is coming from someone who generally supports many of your criticisms of Berkeley.</p>
<p>"If you were into math/science/engineering, I could even go into specifics, but my knowledge in the areas you’re interested in seems more limited. "</p>
<p>hi mathboy, im quite a hardcore science person trying to major in bio, just wondering if you know how strong the profs/ dept is? genius profs like your descriptions in the math depts? (im thinking of going to grad sch, so im definitely serious abt science and research.)</p>
<p>moreover, im thinking of foothill quad for housing. what is the configuration of the suite like? 2 double rooms? or 3+1 / 4 pple per rm?</p>
<p>im choosing between foothill (for the quietness) or unit 1 freeborn (for the substance-free policy). both are equally important priorities, is there any way for me to get both? im really the quiet (somewhat science-nerdy) type, and i want a private space for myself to study/ rest etc; at the same time, the substance-free policy is important too since i detest drugs/smoke etc.</p>
<p>of course, i definitely think the social aspects is impt, and im more inclined to academic/ intellectual side of things, will i get it in foothill/ freeborn? to me, social =/= partying/ drinking.</p>
<p>Hm, well OK to be honest, I should’ve been a bit more specific – I know more about the chemistry college + engineering + of course math than I do about biology. </p>
<p>I’m sure that, like most departments, it will at least be quite good, not sure how it compares to all the other good departments out there in the country. </p>
<p>Foothill – I was, for instance, in a suite-style thing that was cornered entirely away from any hallways, etc. Basically a living room + 1 single + 1 triple (pretty large actually). Probably one of the better living situations. </p>
<p>If you’re hardcore at biology though, I know our biology department is quite rigorous in general, and if you’re looking for a challenge, you’ll get it. I heard from a few posters around here that the one thing is you may have larger size, and this may make you have to be especially proactive to meet professors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It might be 4 classes + something less than a full class. I’m doing what might be the equivalent of research in math. The learning curve for math is probably higher than that in many other sciences, before the point where you get to do any research worthy of being called research. Hence, at this stage, it’s more learning special topics not covered in class than anything else.</p>
<p>^hmmm. that sounds so little…4/5 classes. But then I keep on forgetting that these classes are completed over the period of one semester, whereas the 7 ib/ap classes I’m taking are completely over the course of a year, and they are probably a lot easier. I did my online Orienteering stuff today and apparently, I will have to take quite a few math classes. I have to take 2 stats classes and 3 calculus classes: math 001 A & B, and math 016B. Since they are calculus and analytical geometry, are they going to be like Calc AB and BC? I really hope so…if not, then maybe I’ll have to ask you or GSI for help but you’ll probably get pi**ed off by my silly questions 
</p>
<p>And for foothill suites, what are the pros and cons of having doubles vs triples, in your opinion? I’m afraid that double might be too quiet and I have nowhere to vent my giddiness and bounciness. But I’m also afraid that a triple might be too messy, crowded, prone for dramas (which I hate), not enough personal space. </p>
<p>That sounds really difficult. Do you go to you GSI friends or the profs for this kind of research?</p>
<p>Yup. It’s really not research, it’s still called plain learning.</p>
<p>To be honest, out of the 4/5 classes, I will end up focusing on maybe 1-2 in a truly hardcore fashion, treating the others as light additions. Heavy math classes can be such that you could do NOTHING but that class and still not master the material in the least bit. There are definitely 1 or 2 math classes I can think of, when taught by a certain professor, which warrant your spending 100% of your time on them if you want a hope of getting through. </p>
<p>Foothill doubles are better than triples, unless you get a nice suite-style area (not every suite is really a suite), with a triple that is nice and spacious, rather than one with a bunk bed. </p>
<p>The sort of “self-created seminar” is with a professor, though it can be with a grad student too. I’ve done one with a grad student, this one is with a professor. The idea seems somewhat foreign to many majors, though. </p>
<p>I don’t get easily irritated by math questions =] actually, it’s usually a question of whether I remember the material or not.</p>
<p>Yes, that does seem foreign. I guess that’s what people meant by having to take initiative if one were to chose berkeley over a smaller and prestigious private school… But I think that would be really fun…I mean you are free to learn what you want to learn and I have yet to take a class (besides art) in which that is the case. </p>
<p>hahah again, I’m glad I’m not doing a math major. I lose patience really easily and I get frustrated if I don’t get the material after a certain amount of time. </p>
<p>That’s a relief. Even a math major at berkeley forgets math stuff :)</p>
<p><em>Especially</em> math majors at Berkeley forget math they did earlier, actually! </p>
<p>Because engineers, for instance, have to use things like standard calculus more often than math majors do.</p>
<p>I find that baffling. Why? don’t you use math all the time? I’d hate to see what your problems are like…are they just equations? Or do you have word problems…maybe I’m thinking about applied mathematics.</p>
<p>I sent you a message, just so as to not flood this board with too much mathematics :)</p>
<p>But the short answer is, yes, you might be thinking more of applied mathematics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would define ‘better’ as being a more pleasant and safer experience for most undergraduates. As a specific case in point, Stanford allows you to change majors at anytime without incident, something that Berkeley continues to deny. I find this ability to be highly relevant to most incoming undergrads who don’t actually know what they want to major in. </p>
<p>Now, one might argue that that is a generalization, yet the fact is, we generalize all the time. For example, I think we can all agree that Berkeley is better than CalState East Bay, although I’m sure that there are probably some undergrads who are better served at CSEB than at Berkeley. The salient fact is that most undergrads probably are better off at Berkeley than at CSEB. </p>
<p>I agree with you that if people could know more about themselves, then the notion of comparing themselves to most undergrads would not be relevant. But the fact is, statistically speaking, as well as tautologically speaking, most undergrads will indeed be like most undergrads, and since you don’t know where you will fall within the distribution, it is safer to assume that any given person will probably be represented well by the average . As an example, most people who gamble in casinos will lose money. Now, maybe I might be one of the lucky few who will actually make money by gambling. But should I really take that chance? The giant profits of the gambling industry are predicated on the fact that each individual thinks he is special and therefore not bound to the rules of probability that describe us all. People think they are exceptions to the rule, therefore people gamble their money away, and the casinos generate profits by grinding away with the laws of probability on their side. </p>
<p>To wit: I know a bunch of people who flunked out of Berkeley who almost certainly would have graduated if they had gone to Stanford instead (which they probably could have been admitted to, because they were URM). Granted, they probably would have gotten only middling grades at Stanford. But at least they would have graduated. That cannot be seriously compared to the outcome of flunking out of Berkeley. But the converse isn’t true, simply because practically nobody ever flunks out of Stanford. Hence, Stanford is clearly the safer choice. </p>
<p>Nor do I believe it is a simple matter of Stanford simply being harder to get into than Berkeley. After all, Caltech is harder to get into than is Berkeley. Heck, Caltech may be even harder to get into than Stanford is. But I don’t see people champing at the bit to go to Caltech. Caltech’s yield is only 35%, which is even lower than Berkeley’s. {Compare that to the yield of MIT - which is the closest analogue of Caltech - of 67%). Hence, there is clearly no simple relationship between admissions difficulty and desirability. I think we just have to admit that, for most undergrads, Stanford is a better school than Berkeley is. Sad but true.</p>
<p>Look at it this way, mathboy98. I’m glad that you’re doing well at Berkeley. But surely you have seen some students who aren’t doing well. Heck, you probably know some who are on academic probation, or on the verge of it. I think you would agree with me that those students would have been better off if they had gone to some other school such as Stanford. To be fair, many of those students probably wouldn’t have gotten into such schools, but there are surely some who would have, and I think they are uncontroversial examples of students who would have been better served elsewhere.</p>
<p>…and it all comes down to fit.</p>
<p>Under your definition of “better,” I agree Stanford is a better school than Berkeley, and that many Ivy Leagues are better. I guess I just wanted that definition of “better” to be spelled out very clearly. With such a specific definition, I believe your characterization IS useful and accurate. </p>
<p>As much as I think almost anyone would accept Harvard is better than UC Merced, I don’t believe any such characterization is useful until we specify what we’re characterizing. Might as well be specific. </p>
<p>I guess under your definition, probably Stanford is better than most schools, including MIT – certainly the average undergrad, even the average engineer, is much <em>safer</em> at Stanford than at MIT (or Berkeley), even if Stanford engineering is supposed to be hard. More fallbacks, and less grade deflation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if this student were not so-to-speak going to waste his/her position at a school like Stanford, fine. Else, I’d think the student would be better off at neither Stanford nor Cal, but somewhere more appropriate to the student’s level. I definitely am very irritated at how some students are admitted to Cal and really aren’t doing very much at all with their position there when very qualified, motivated people I know weren’t accepted. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harsh as this may sound, I would also rather that a Berkeley engineering student who literally flunks out (for academic, not exceptional personal reasons) not be admitted either to Berkeley engineering or Stanford. Not everyone is an engineer, but seriously, if you start off frosh year taking Physics 7B, Math 53, etc, and <em>consistently</em> got less than B’s in all these classes, I know lots of smart guys who should be taking the student’s place in engineering. And certainly, lots of smart people could take this student’s place at Stanford and probably do engineering and do really well at it. Or, for that matter, do the humanities or something not as a backup because engineering is too hard, but because they’re actually into the humanities.</p>
<p>As another note, I think from interrogating a prospective student enough, I can probably tell if the student is mature enough to “know himself/herself” well enough to make an informed decision based on facts I give. Else, of course, I’d say “go to the safer options…and please, oh please, work hard and do something with your time at the university you go to, it’s a privilege…”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That means you agree with what has always been my most preferred option, which is for Berkeley to not have admitted those students in the first place. I have always said that a revamped and more selective admissions process that simply rejects students who are going to perform poorly anyway would go a long way towards making Berkeley a better school. </p>
<p>However, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for Berkeley to revamp its admissions policy. Given that, the next best thing is for students to take matters into their own hands and value schools on their academic safety.</p>
<p>Oh absolutely, there is absolutely no better option to me. I think Berkeley’s admissions style is appropriate, yet it should do the same thing but be much stricter on the academics. <em>Very</em> frankly, I think lots of schools admit students that I don’t think are particularly well-suited to take advantage of the given school, and Berkeley is certainly one of them. </p>
<p>I think it’s kind of interesting that these “lower-end” Berkeley students could even get accepted to decent private schools that could be safer. I believe you’re advocating that these students take advantage of this sort of pervasive flaw and go to the safest school possible. That’s definitely fine. I guess I tend to advise students only on an individual basis, basically finding out what they want from college.</p>
<p>Uh, so you’re both proposing that the quality of Berkeley students should be even higher? You actually are in support of MORE competition here? I guess you can almost say you would want that if you’re one of those geniuses at berkeley with a perfect 4.0</p>
<p>I think it’s an issue of practicality at this point–i don’t think a large public school like UCB CAN afford to nor does it want to have such stringent admissions standards. Berkeley does not NEED so many top engineers or whatever… the graduating classes are already many times over that of elite privates. It is doing fine the way it is. For the people who do flunk out, that’s very unfortunate for them, but that’s the way life works. Better find out this in college (if not before) than later in life.</p>
<p>No blueducky, Sakky and I would both say the same on this point, I think – neither of us wants there to be more <em>competition</em> – rather, we support the quality of students being high, and there being <em>less</em> competition. I.e., higher student quality, with less weeding out. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also am pretty sure I know what Sakky would respond to this (sorry, not trying to steal thunder!), which is to say that you don’t go to a school to get told that life is not unfair. You go to a school to work hard and succeed. Frankly, it’s kind of ludicrous to me that people who flunk out of engineering are accepted, given I know smart guys who definitely could’ve made it through, who didn’t make it into Berkeley. I want the student body to be of as high quality as possible, and there to be collaboration over petty competition. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am interested in why you think so? Berkeley is one of the best places for engineering in the world, and highly sought after. The faculty and departments are nothing short of godly. I really don’t think mediocre students belong in that department. Perhaps you may change your opinions after actually entering Berkeley and seeing how it is from a student’s eyes!</p>
<p>See, Sakky and I share one major view. In terms of academics and resources, Berkeley is one of the best places in the world. For graduate school, Berkeley completely trumps most Ivy Leagues in many fundamental disciplines, like engineering and math. It’s not just a “top public school,” it’s more importantly one of the biggest intellectual powerhouses in the nation, internationally renowned in an extreme way. I see no reason why students who literally flunk out of certain departments should be admitted, and frankly, it can’t be that hard to screen them out in all seriousness. Lots of schools seem to do a better job of screening beforehand.</p>