<p>does berkley offer a BS in physics? i couldnt find one.</p>
<p>Nope, L&S only offers a B.A. in Physics</p>
<p>Berkeley only offers BA's for other stuff like math, cs, and econ too.. What are the differences between BA and BS? I'm assuming that theres no big difference since Berkeley only has BA's for these majors.</p>
<p>BS >> BA</p>
<p>thats crap. what's the logic in not offering physics BS? or math!?! or econ either?!? what the...?</p>
<p>Engineering physics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BS >> BA</p>
<p>thats crap. what's the logic in not offering physics BS? or math!?! or econ either?!? what the...?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, to put things in perspective, Harvard doesn't offer a BS in those subjects either. Only an AB (which is equivalent to the BA). </p>
<p>I'm also not sure that I can agree that a BS>>BA. You tell me what is more valuable, an AB (or a BA) in physics from Harvard, or a BS in physics from a no-name 4th tier school?</p>
<p>Sakky...what about a BS from Harvard vs a BA from Berkeley =P</p>
<p>Bmbmasta, since, like I said, Harvard doesn't even offer a BS in physics, that's all a moot point, isn't it?</p>
<p>I dont think BS >> BA is true.</p>
<p>In fact, people have even proposed the opposite; that for the CS major, the BA is even more valuable than the EECS BS degree. Why? Because the biggest complaint from employers of EECS degree holders is that the employees lack communication skills.</p>
<p>Therefore, BA degrees are better for people destined to be in the software field. The students are encouraged and required to take more humanities classes as opposed to purely technical ones.</p>
<p>I personally think there is little, if no distinction between those degrees, at least from a CS standpoint. For example, EECS and CS take all the exact same CS/core classes. They will have the same exact capabilites/knowledge as far as computer science is concerned. Either degree from Berkeley is extremely prestigious in itself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I dont think BS >> BA is true.</p>
<p>In fact, people have even proposed the opposite; that for the CS major, the BA is even more valuable than the EECS BS degree. Why? Because the biggest complaint from employers of EECS degree holders is that the employees lack communication skills.</p>
<p>Therefore, BA degrees are better for people destined to be in the software field. The students are encouraged and required to take more humanities classes as opposed to purely technical ones.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know if I can agree with that either. The sad truth is that a lot of humanities classes are simply easy, in which you can pass your classes while doing very little work, or in some cases, while barely even showing up. </p>
<p>For example, I know one guy who took a humanities class who NEVER went to class and NEVER did any of the reading. Almost all of the grading was based on 2 papers based on assigned books, which he never read. Instead, all he did was just go to Amazon and read the user comments about those books, and then rephrased those comments into a paper. He ended up with a final grade of an A- for the class, and the only reason he didn't get a solid A was because part of the grading was based on class participation, in which he obviously got a zero because he never went to class. But the point is, he basically didn't do anything in the class. But he got a top grade anyway. How much did he really learn? How much did his communications skills really improve? I think it's a general problem with many humanities classes - in which you can learn and do very little, and still get a good grade anyway. I will always remember that guy laughing at how little work he did, and laughing about his final grade. </p>
<p>I believe that in reality, there is no effective difference between the BA and the BS.</p>
<p>Since Berkeley only gives out BA's in subjects like econ, then will they differentiate between a person who took a more math-based econ courseload or liberal arts based econ courseload... For example, any differences for someone who took 101A-B and 141, and someone who took 100A-B and 140.. or is it all the same degree regardless and you would have to just explain to employers yourself what kinda courses you took?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, to put things in perspective, Harvard doesn't offer a BS in those subjects either. Only an AB (which is equivalent to the BA).</p>
<p>I'm also not sure that I can agree that a BS>>BA. You tell me what is more valuable, an AB (or a BA) in physics from Harvard, or a BS in physics from a no-name 4th tier school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley gives out AB's in L&S too, that's at least what an advisor told me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since Berkeley only gives out BA's in subjects like econ, then will they differentiate between a person who took a more math-based econ courseload or liberal arts based econ courseload... For example, any differences for someone who took 101A-B and 141, and someone who took 100A-B and 140.. or is it all the same degree regardless and you would have to just explain to employers yourself what kinda courses you took?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The keyword is 'they'. Who is 'they'?</p>
<p>If they = regular employers, then they will almost certainly not distinguish between the two. Heck, most employers will probably not even notice the difference, much less try to figure out which one is better. The same thing is true of professional school admissions. </p>
<p>However, if they = PhD adcoms, then perhaps they will differentiate between the two. However, even then, the impact will be minor. PhD adcoms are looking mostly for research potential as evidenced by research experience and/or strong prof rec's attesting to your potential. The difference in impact between having taken a math and non-math focused economics course will be minimal.</p>
<p>The REAL reason to take 101 over 100 is twofold. Firstly, a mathematical approach to economics can be more intellectually satisfying, provided that you can handle the math. You can learn economics in a more comprehensive and encompassing manner through the proper use of mathematics rather than just learning a bunch of qualitative techniques. This can certainly prove to be highly useful if you want to join most Econ research projects which tend to be highly mathematical in nature, or if you want to understand Economics journal articles (and perhaps write your own). It is in this way that 101 will help you to get into a PhD program, if that's what you want. Secondly, at least in the past, the grading in 101 tended to be easier. I don't know about now, but that was certainly true in the past.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe that in reality, there is no effective difference between the BA and the BS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. I don't know why so many people think otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The sad truth is that a lot of humanities classes are simply easy, in which you can pass your classes while doing very little work, or in some cases, while barely even showing up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait, can't you not effectively do the same thing for many math/science/soc science courses? If you show up for tests and turn in major projects or labs if they are part of the class, do you really have to show up much at all? Nothing beyond labs and sitting through exams. The material is fairly standardized each year for many courses. If you happen to know the material in many math/science/social science courses, the same is often true for math/science/social sciences (and let us not forget, the humanities are not the social sciences, and vice versa).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wait, can't you not effectively do the same thing for many math/science/soc science courses? If you show up for tests and turn in major projects or labs if they are part of the class, do you really have to show up much at all? Nothing beyond labs and sitting through exams. The material is fairly standardized each year for many courses. If you happen to know the material in many math/science/social science courses, the same is often true for math/science/social sciences (and let us not forget, the humanities are not the social sciences, and vice versa).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Allright, the key difference is then not in just not showing up, but in also not knowing what is going on. The truth is, as my example illustrates above, some people who have no idea what is going on in their humanities classes nevertheless get good grades anyway. </p>
<p>What I was really getting at is the difference in effort that you have to put in and the level of knowledge you have to present just to pass your classes. In many math/science/eng classes, you have to put in serious effort and demonstrate a decent baseline of knowledge just to avoid failing. For many humanities classes, you really can get away with doing very little work and not knowing much of what is going on, and still pass. </p>
<p>In fact, this actually serves as the nucleation point for another one of my ideas. Let's have 'truth in credits'. We should find out how much time students are actually spending in studying for certain classes (normalized by grades), and then adjust the number of units that those classes carry accordingly. For example, I remember once having a semester of 1 engineering class and 4 humanities/soc-sci classes, and spending far more time on that 1 engineering class than on those 4 other classes combined, AND getting a lower grade in that 1 engineering class than in those 4 other classes. Nor was my experience particularly unusual, as other engineering students reported similar experiences. I would therefore propose that if class X generally takes 1/4 of the time for the average student than class Y takes for its average student to get the same grade, then class X should be worth only 1/4 of the number of units as class B. In other words, classes with the same number of units should have the same workloads.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm also not sure that I can agree that a BS>>BA. You tell me what is more valuable, an AB (or a BA) in physics from Harvard, or a BS in physics from a no-name 4th tier school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, a fair comparison would be a BS or a BA from the same school. It's not really fair to compare degrees from Harvard and a no-name 4th tier school. So, for example, you would compare a BS in Chemistry with a BA in Chemistry from Berkeley. Which one is more valuable? That's a much more fair comparison.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe that in reality, there is no effective difference between the BA and the BS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So why do we have them in the first place?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I was really getting at is the difference in effort that you have to put in and the level of knowledge you have to present just to pass your classes. In many math/science/eng classes, you have to put in serious effort and demonstrate a decent baseline of knowledge just to avoid failing. For many humanities classes, you really can get away with doing very little work and not knowing much of what is going on, and still pass.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is definitely true. You can skip lectures and discussions for a math class and only show up for the midterms and finals, but you have better have a really good knowledge of the material. Not true for some humanities classes. For example, in my English class, it's based on three papers, with assigned reading. Only one of the three papers actually requires that you have read assigned reading, and it's only one book. So, you can effectively not show up for the class at all, read one book, write three essays, and easily pass the semester with an A. I could probably do that in the span of a few days.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, this actually serves as the nucleation point for another one of my ideas. Let's have 'truth in credits'. We should find out how much time students are actually spending in studying for certain classes (normalized by grades), and then adjust the number of units that those classes carry accordingly. For example, I remember once having a semester of 1 engineering class and 4 humanities/soc-sci classes, and spending far more time on that 1 engineering class than on those 4 other classes combined, AND getting a lower grade in that 1 engineering class than in those 4 other classes. Nor was my experience particularly unusual, as other engineering students reported similar experiences. I would therefore propose that if class X generally takes 1/4 of the time for the average student than class Y takes for its average student to get the same grade, then class X should be worth only 1/4 of the number of units as class B. In other words, classes with the same number of units should have the same workloads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, this would vary from person to person, and would be difficult to measure. But we don't even have to go that far. The English class I was talking about meets 3 hours per week and counts for 4 units. Other classes like Physics 7A or Chemistry 1A meets for 7 hours per week (lecture + discussion + lab). The latter accounts for more than double the amount of the former, and that's just class time alone. Yet the students receive 4 units in either case. If we fix the units so they accurately reflect the number of hours spent in class per week (like it's supposed to), then it will be much more fair.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, you can effectively not show up for the class at all, read one book, write three essays, and easily pass the semester with an A. I could probably do that in the span of a few days.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please demonstrate.</p>
<p>As to changing unit counts, you'd have to deal with a lot of consequences, such as required number of units to graduate, unit caps, class standing. How do you propose to change all of those?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please demonstrate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What, do you want me to enroll in an English class this semester, go over to your room and write the essays for you to see, then show you my report card?</p>
<p>
[quote]
As to changing unit counts, you'd have to deal with a lot of consequences, such as required number of units to graduate, unit caps, class standing. How do you propose to change all of those?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well I don't mean let's automatically change Chem 1A to 7 units. I mean adjust so that the units reflect the hours. So, maybe we can make the lab 2 hours instead of 4. Then, it would be 4 units for 5 hours of class time per week. Not perfect, but the units are a lot more reflective of the amount of time spent in class than they are now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, a fair comparison would be a BS or a BA from the same school. It's not really fair to compare degrees from Harvard and a no-name 4th tier school. So, for example, you would compare a BS in Chemistry with a BA in Chemistry from Berkeley. Which one is more valuable? That's a much more fair comparison.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps one could say that in this case, the BS is slightly more valuable than the BA. Perhaps But the difference would be so small as to be negligible. </p>
<p>
[quote]
:
I believe that in reality, there is no effective difference between the BA and the BS. </p>
<p>So why do we have them in the first place?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's institutional politics. Certain colleges within Berkeley are authorized to confer certain degrees, and others are not. That is why you can end up with the rather weird system where people can get only BA degrees in physics from Berkeley (from L&S), but can get BS degrees in Society + Environment (from the CNR), even though physics is clearly a more scientific discipline than is 'Society + Environment'.</p>
<p>But just consider other schools. Look at Harvard. For example, the way to get a SB(what Harvard calls the Bachelor's of Science degree) is to concentrate in Engineering Sciences. Furthermore, doing so is optional - it is only for those particular Harvard students who also want an ABET accredited engineering degree. If you don't care about accreditation (and I think most Harvard engineering students don't care), then you can just get an AB in Engineering Sciences. </p>
<p>Or, take a gander at MIT. The only bachelor's degree you can get at MIT these days is the SB. MIT used to give out other bachelor's degrees like the B.Arch., but those programs are now defunct. So all MIT undergrad degees are SB degrees. Hence, you end up with the rather strange phenomenom of some people at MIT getting SB degrees in the Humanities, specializing in French or in Creative Writing.</p>
<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/fll/www/languages/Major.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/fll/www/languages/Major.shtml</a>
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/h/humanistic/www/requirements/requiredegmaj2.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/h/humanistic/www/requirements/requiredegmaj2.shtml</a> </p>
<p>But these are all just names. The truth is, very few people will care about whether you got a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science degree.</p>