<p>Who applauds college students? Like, when they enter a room?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If they are so close to each other, why people go to Stanford receive a louder applause than the one go to Cal?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The reason is fewer people get into Stanford, thus it is seen as more prestigious, program strength regardless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who applauds college students? Like, when they enter a room?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I must say, I rather like GentlemanandScholar's sardonic wit in his posts.</p>
<p>Fewer got in b/c fewer applied. So, could we conclude that people are ignorant?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fewer got in b/c fewer applied. So, could we conclude that people are ignorant?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One should be careful with this statement, since it is undisputably true (unless you want to go into dishonest/misleading reporting, which opens a whole 'nother can of worms which I won't get into) that Stanford's acceptance rate is lower than Berkeley's, even if it gets less applicants.</p>
<p>However, people are generally ignorant when declaring blanket statements that all Stanford departments are better and that Berkeley cannot come close to matching Stanford's undergraduate in various areas.</p>
<p>Both schools have their strong points, though it is acknowledged that Stanford has more resources and less students it needs to work with.</p>
<p>What seems to have been missed in this discussion is something that I have brought up several times on other threads, particularly as it has to do with undergrad engineering, which is that at Stanford, you are free to choose whatever major you want and you can switch at any time. At Berkeley, not so, particularly in engineering. Many Berkeley undergrads want to major in engineering but cannot switch into the major. And, sadly, some engineering students find themselves stuck in an engineering major that they don't want and can't get out because they're getting poor enough engineering grades that L&S won't take them and no other engineering major will taken them. </p>
<p>I think this is an especially important point when it comes to engineering because the simple fact is, very few incoming freshmen really know what engineering is all about. So how can they be expected to declare that they want to be engineers? How many high school seniors really know that they want to major in,say, EECS and not physics or math? In other words, I think this is a case of forcing students to commit before they have the information that they need to commit. It's like marrying somebody before you've even dated them. I agree that high school seniors can know the general aspects of what they are interested in - i.e. tech vs. humanities. But to have them commit to a specific major right from the start? That's problematic to say the least. </p>
<p>This is why I think that Berkeley needs to fix this problem immediately, and as long as Berkeley does not, then I have a hard time in recommending Berkeley undergrad over Stanford undergrad, unless money is the issue. You don't want to be the guy who gets stuck majoring in something that you don't really want to major in. </p>
<p>The least that Berkeley ought to do is allow 2 people to swap. For example, if there is one guy in a Berkeley engineering major who is doing badly and wants out, and another guy in L&S who has done fairly well in engineering pre-reqs and wants in (but can't get in through the normal declaration procedure), then these 2 people should be allowed to swap places. That way, everybody wins. In the current situation, the poorly performing engineering student has to stay in engineering, and that L&S guy wants to get into engineering but cannot. Hence, everybody loses. That includes the departments too as they now have to deal with students who don't really want to be there.</p>
<p>Fair enough sakky, but you need to specifically identify relative lack of flexibility in terms of switching majors as the issue as opposed to making blanket statements about Cal being an inferior choice. You need to be specific, and place this issue in its proper context, lest you be impartial and ultimately unhelpful. That's all I ask of you, and I think it's very reasonable. </p>
<p>FWIW, I agree with you about more flexibility being a positive. It wasn't an issue in my case though, I switched majors two times within the college of engineering, it was not a problem in my case (CE>ME>IEOR), and that was back when the grading was significantly harder.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's like marrying somebody before you've even dated them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It works for Indians.</p>
<p>But I agree, something should be changed. I think CalX has a point, though. When you say things meanig is difficult to change majors at Berkeley, or "You don't want to be the guy who gets stuck majoring in something that you don't really want to major in," you aren't showing the situation as it really is, that most people seem to have an easy time swtiching from what they're interested in to similar fields. If you just describe the situation with a bit more nuance, it will be far more accurate.</p>
<p>Look at this grade</a> distribution from a Stanford differential equations class. No sane student would decline Stanford for a school that uses rigid grading curves that allot only 25% "A" range grades per class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's like marrying somebody before you've even dated them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The quote of the day.</p>
<p>Maybe Berkeley could create a 1/3 A+ breakdown minimum for each and every class?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fair enough sakky, but you need to specifically identify relative lack of flexibility in terms of switching majors as the issue as opposed to making blanket statements about Cal being an inferior choice. You need to be specific, and place this issue in its proper context, lest you be impartial and ultimately unhelpful. That's all I ask of you, and I think it's very reasonable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
When you say things meanig is difficult to change majors at Berkeley, or "You don't want to be the guy who gets stuck majoring in something that you don't really want to major in," you aren't showing the situation as it really is, that most people seem to have an easy time swtiching from what they're interested in to similar fields. If you just describe the situation with a bit more nuance, it will be far more accurate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I don't mind being specific, I would ask why is it that I the one that is asked to do this? I've seen plenty of people posting generic positive comments about Berkeley without challenge, and certainly without challenge from any of you guys. So why is it that when somebody has something critical to say about Berkeley, only now do you demand specificity? This amounts to different standards of proof. </p>
<p>I said it before, I'll say it again. I have the right to say whatever I want about Berkeley. Nobody is going to censor me. Don't tell me <em>how</em> I should write my posts, unless you are prepared to do the same to everybody else. </p>
<p>I don't particularly see why it is "OK" that "most" people at Berkeley don't have problems with switching majors. By the same token, most people in the inner cities are not victimized by crime, but that doesn't mean that crime is not a problem in the inner cities that should be solved. Most people in the world do not suffer from hunger, but that does not mean that hunger is not a problem that should be solved. I think even having one student who can't get into a major that he really wants is one student too many. And there are far more than just one student who has problems getting into the major that they want. Bus-ad, Economics, and Computer Science turn away many interested students every year, and that doesn't even include the engineering majors or all of those students who don't even bother trying to get into an impacted major because they know they don't have the grades to get in.</p>
<p>hey, I think those others should be more specific, too. But the list of maors which turn away lots of people is pretty short.</p>
<p>It's a short list, but they obviously have lots of interested students. That is, after all, part of why they are turning away students. Obviously there are lots of very small majors that don't have to turn anybody away. </p>
<p>But look at it this way. About 200 continuing students are turned away from Haas every year. About 100 continuing students are turned away from Economics every year. Several hundred are turned away from CS every year. And that doesn't even include all those students who don't even apply to those majors because they know they won't get in. While I obviously can't prove this, I would guesstimate that for every one student who applies to an impacted major and is denied, there is maybe another 1-2 students who also wanted to get into that major but didn't even apply because they know they won't get in. Hence, just from those 3 majors alone (Econ, CS, Busad), that means there are about 1000 continuing students who are being denied entry to those 3 majors that they really want (either because they apply and are not admitted, or they don't even apply). And I haven't even begun talking about engineering or psychology or the other impacted majors.</p>
<p>Contrast this with the fact that there are about 6000 undergrads at Berkeley for every particular year (fresh,soph, jun,senior), and the fact that you can usually apply to a particular major only once in your entire time at Berkeley (hence, you can't just apply over and over again until you finally get in), and I would say that this is a fairly significant percentage of students who are not being allowed to major in what they really want.</p>
<p>I really wonder how many people are turned away from psychology because they couldn't get above a 3.2 in the prereqs. How many are deterred because they want to double major in something that isn't easily intergrated with psych or those who want to spend their course work on other subjects, yes, probably a lot are deterred that way, but how many are deterred from psych because of grades? Do you have any numbers there? </p>
<p>Also, you structure your post in such a way as to seem like name after name is going to come. "the other impacted majors." You don't even sound like you named almost all of them (which you did)!</p>
<p>
[quote]
You don't even sound like you named almost all of them (which you did)!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't name almost all of them. Engineering comprises a whole slew of majors all by itself, including some of the biggest ones on campus (i.e. EECS). All of them are impacted. Let's face it. If you're getting trying to get into the College of Engineering from some other college and you're pulling a 2.5 in the engineering prereqs (which many people do as those prereqs tend to be weeders), you know you're not going to get into the CoE for any of the majors. I just said "engineering". If I really wanted to be strict, I would have broken down engineering into all of the constituent engineering disciplines.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I really wonder how many people are turned away from psychology because they couldn't get above a 3.2 in the prereqs. How many are deterred because they want to double major in something that isn't easily intergrated with psych or those who want to spend their course work on other subjects, yes, probably a lot are deterred that way, but how many are deterred from psych because of grades? Do you have any numbers there?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't have any numbers and I strongly suspect that these people are highly lazy or are just not particularly talented students. But that just points to another problem - that there are students at Berkeley who aren't particularly strong students yet somehow get admitted anyway. I suspect that all of those drunk lazy frat boys/sorority girls who don't go to class for weeks at a time have something to do with it. </p>
<p>And besides, we still haven't talked about those engineering students who are doing poorly and so want out of engineering but are forced to stay. For those students, every major is effectively "impacted" in the sense that he can't declare those majors. Hence, that adds a whole bunch of students who end up not majoring in what they want.</p>
<p>The point is, any way you cut it, there is a significant percentage of Berkeley students who do not get their first choice of major. True, not the majority. I would estimate it's about 20-30% of the students. But, come on, that's a pretty steep figure.</p>
<p>I just want to reinforce what sakky said about weeder engineering prereqs.</p>
<p>The mean grade for CS 61A for the spring semester was announced to be a 2.73 (B-). The number of 4.0's totalled <18%. The instructor claims that the class is not a "weeder." Yeah, right.</p>
<p>From a point of view of a Japanese:</p>
<p>Which one is better in general? Why?
* They're about the same both is prestige and academic standard.
No one between the two can claim is beter than the other.</p>
<p>Which one is better in Engineering? Why?
* They're about the same both is prestige and academic standard. </p>
<p>Which one is better in Political Science? Why?
* I think Berkeley has an edge in this field.</p>
<p>Which one is better in Science(Biology, Physics, Chem)? Why?
* They're about the same both is prestige and academic standard. </p>
<p>In Asia, particularly in Japan, the real deal in Engineering education is MIT (US) and the University of Cambridge, UK. </p>
<p>2nd-tier:
Imperial College, UK
Oxford, UK
CAL-Berkeley
Stanford
CalTech
Carnigie Melon (US)</p>
<p>Berkeley is the place if you want to study Chemistry or engineering.</p>
<p>For Chemistry, maybe. For engineering, Stanford also has a very strong engineering department, but you don't have to deal with, as sakky pointed out many times, the possibility of doing poorly and not being able to transfer out, and the fact that there are so many engineering weeders at Berkeley, makes me think Stanford has a slight edge when it comes to where to study engineering.</p>
<p>yah true the engineering program in stanford is easier as far as the "weeding" issue.</p>