Engineering at berkeley

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>hi everyone. Does anyone have any information about how engineering is at berkeley? I know that it is very hard to succeed due to the amount of materials you have to know. However, is there a trust between classmates? I have heard that many Berkeley students will steal their classmates notes or ruin their experiments so that they can have an edge in the class. I applied as a transfer student as a double major applicant. My double major is Chemical and Nuclear Engineering. </p>

<p>I would basically like to know if I can trust my fellow classmates and actually succeed at Berkeley if I get accepted. Also, if anyone can comment about the weeding courses and how the curve works will be helpful. Any comments or opinions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!</p>

2

<p>Those are some pretty farfetched rumors (I don't know if those can even be considered rumors since rumors must spring out of some sort of basis).</p>

3

<p>thank jyancy. anyone else have any comments</p>

4

<p>I wouldn't say it's that bad - that whole notion of stealing other people's notes is more of a premed thing than anything else. </p>

<p>{And to be fair, while premed at Berkeley is indeed a nasty cutthroat affair, it's not specific to Berkeley. Premed anywhere is pretty nasty. Consider the following quote from Michael Crichton [yes, THAT Michael Crichton] recalling his days as a premed at Harvard. Note, he eventually went to Harvard Medical School, and then decided that he wanted to be a writer.}</p>

<p>"...to take a premed course was to step into a different world -- nasty and competitive. The most critical course was organic chemistry, Chem 20, and it was widely known as a "screw your buddy" course. In lectures, if you didn't hear what the instructor had said and asked the person next to you, he'd give you the wrong information; thus you were better off leaning over to look at his notes, but in that case he was likely to cover his notes so you couldn't see. In the labs, if you asked the person at the next bench a question, he'd tell you the wrong answer in the hope that you would make a mistake or, even better, start a fire. We were marked down for starting fires. In my year, I had the dubious distinction of starting more lab fires than anyone else, including a spectacular ether fire that set the ceiling aflame and left large scorch marks, a stigmata of ineptitude hanging over my head for the rest of the year. I was uncomfortable with the hostile and paranoid attitude this course demanded for success. I thought that a humane profession like medicine ought to encourage other values in its candidates. But nobody was asking my opinion. I got through it as best I could. "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060509058&tc=cx%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060509058&tc=cx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>What I would say about ChemE at Berkeley is that there are some sharks, but in general, you can find the right group of people and you can establish camaraderie with them. Competition between engineering students is far less intense than it is for premeds, because much less is at stake. Getting a B rather than an A in engineering is not as big of a deal as getting a B rather than an A in premed. </p>

<p>The thing you have to worry about is simply passing your classes, which is no automatic feat by any means. Anecdotally speaking, about half to 2/3 of freshman who start out intending to be engineers do not actually make it to the end. I see that you are a transfer student, so that stat is not directly applicable to you, but it is still an indication of what you should prepare yourself for.</p>

5

<p>im in my second semester. last semester, my technical classes included physics 7a and math 53. this semester, i am taking</p>

6

<p>im in my second semester. last semester, my technical classes included physics 7a and math 53. this semester, i am taking cs61a, math 54, and physics 7b</p>

<p>i have <em>not</em> noticed this purposeful competition. ive always gotten help when ive needed it. the real competition arises from the fact that everybody is smart, and will do well on the tests, and its your job to make sure that you can score over a certain percentage of your peers</p>

7

<p>I'll second what Sakky said. In engineering at Berkeley, the mentality is not so much every man for himself the way it is for premeds. C engineering students from Berkeley (particularly ChemEs and EEs) have a very good shot at lucrative jobs (although it's also true that the top firms, say, Microsoft, would try to get A students in many cases); the only reason you'd want to get As is to go to grad school (even in this case, your rec letters and experience are more important) or medical school (in which case you revert to the "premed" creature). </p>

<p>The mentality is, then, everybody against the teacher. If you are an A student, great - everyone will want you in their study group. If not, you are definately not alone...just try not to be on the failing end of the curve. </p>

<p>In Berkeley premed courses with labs, very little of your grade comes from the lab - presumably to prevent people from screwing up each others' experiments.</p>

8

<p>thanks you guys! Basically, what I have been hearing about Berkeley engineering programs are just rumors. There actually is a "collaboration" between students so that everyone can pass the class.
calkidd, seeing that you are right now at berkeley, can you explain to me how the weeder class work and how the curve works as well? Can you also tell me your major and your experiences at cal? Thanks!</p>

9

<p>I'm not at Cal anymore. I graduated in 2003 (BioE). Engineering weeder classes are the same now as they always were; they are designed to be a filter to eliminate students who are 1) (less likely) never going to get the material no matter how hard they try or 2) (much more likely) unwilling to kill themselves to do well in their classes (engineering classes, except for CS, really aren't designed per say to prevent people from getting into grad school the way premed courses often eliminate potential premeds).</p>

10

<p>try to understand how a bell curve works, then apply it and know that the mean in lower div requirement classes is around c+/b-</p>

11

<p>Competition is fierce when a standard Berkeley curve is used. That would be courses like Physics 7A/B/C, Math 53/54/55 etc. Because the margins between a C/B and B/A can be so slim, everybody has to fight for those precious points. </p>

<p>CS 61A/B/C is a lot more relaxed as far as competition goes because it's on the wonderful absolute scale. Whatever you get is whatever you get. This still ends up netting a C+/B- average because the courses are hard for many, but at least you don't have to worry about helping something else, risking lowering your grade at the same time.</p>

<p>For those who aren't familiar with Berkeley's grading scheme, there is a quota on the number of A's, B's, etc.</p>

<p>The teacher sets this curve, but it's typically like this.</p>

<p>A - 25%
B - 40%
C - 20%
Below C - 15%</p>

<p>In EECS (and probably other engineering) courses, the curve is worse at around - 15-20% A's instead of 25%</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
There actually is a "collaboration" between students so that everyone can pass the class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>On this particular point, I would have to say that that is a bit of an overstatement. There is some collaboration, but certainly nowhere near to the point that everybody can pass the class. Plenty of people don't pass. Furthermore, collaboration tends to exist only among the stronger students - those students that are likely to have passed anyway (although by collaborating, they probably end up with a better grade). Collaboration is far less prevalent among the weaker engineering students, because there is a sense that if you're a weaker student, then all you'll be doing is taking from the pie, without giving much in return. </p>

<p>The difference between premed and engineering, not just at Berkeley, but at most schools is that, as Calkidd alluded to, premed grading is designed to prevent the weaker people from getting to graduate school, but not really to prevent them from getting a degree. Engineering grading is designed to prevent the weaker people from even getting a degree. In other words, if you're one of the weaker students, you're more likely to eventually graduate with a degree if you're a premed student than if you're an engineering student. You may not graduate with grades that are good enough to get you into medical school, but at least you'll graduate. </p>

<p>To illuminate this point, since we're on a Berkeley forum, let's talk about Berkeley. It used to be the case that Letters and Science would basically 'vacuum up' the poor-performing students from the College of Engineering or from chemical engineering in the College of Chemistry. L&S hence became the engineering students' 'safety valve'. People would start off in, say, EECS, get annihilated in the weeder sequence, and then switch over to some cheesy do-nothing, 'never-have-to-study-for' major in L&S just to be able to graduate. They're not really interested in their new major, the major is not particularly valuable, but hey, it's easy to do, and that's why they do it. This switch to L&S is no longer the automatic process that it used to be. L&S recently tightened up its rules regarding transfers from the other colleges of Berkeley. Now, only transfers from other Berkeley colleges whose GPA's are above a certain threshold (I believe it is 3.0 or greater) are automatically approved, and anybody whose GPAs are lower than that have to go through a review process, and sometimes they are denied. That eliminates the whole crux of the engineering safety-valve. If you're doing decently in engineering, then you probably don't need to transfer. Those students who are doing poorly in engineering are precisely the ones who need to transfer the most. So there is now the strong possibility that a person will come in as an engineer, do poorly, find that he can't leave engineering, and then simply flunk out and never get a degree. Scary, but such is the risk of studying engineering.</p>

13

<p>sakky, i would like to have your opinion on my question. Since you know a lot about engineering at berkeley, do you think a transfer student who has attained mainly A's, few B's and a one C would be capable of handling engineering? I don't know how the courses are compared from berkeley and a CC. CC courses are not graded on curves that berkeley does so that could be a huge factor to consider. However, sakky, do you think that someone who has those type of pre-engineering grades is capable of succeeding? The question might be vague, but your repsonse will be of great help!</p>

<p>Also, does anyone know if doing engineering at another UC is the same as doing engineering at UCB? I mean to say if the grading curve are similar, the course rigor are the same and etc.</p>

14

<p>Ok, sakky. Do you, therefore, liken this scenario to Caltech's low graduation rate? Do you really think there's a "strong possibility" of flunking out of an engineering program after Berkeley's careful screening of their admits to engineering? If so, how is this any different than Caltech? Not trying to troll here but I just want to be clear on your position. I have alot of the same concerns you brought up in the Caltech vs MIT for Engineering thread in the caltech forum but it looks like same issue might be at Cal as well.</p>

15

<p>Coloradokid - As a matter of fact, I do draw a direct parallel between Cal and Caltech, in terms of graduation rate. Indeed, there is a strong possibility of flunking out of both.</p>

<p>However, the difference is in degree (no pun intended). Caltech and Berkeley both have the same features as regards to lower graduation rates, relative to their peer schools. However, Caltech is far far better on this regard. After all, think about what we're talking about here. Caltech is a far far more specialized school than Berkeley, with few if any 'fluff' majors (whereas even the biggest Berkeley fanatic would have to concede that there are quite a few Berkeley students are in majors where they barely have to lift a finger), and yet despite that, Caltech still manages to graduate a higher percentage of its students than Berkeley does. Hence, it is clear that Berkeley is also not carefully screening out its students, and in fact, is doing a worse job than Caltech is. Both schools have a problem, but Berkeley's is worse. </p>

<p>Now don't get me wrong. I know that's painful for some Berkeley people to hear. And believe me, I derive no joy from saying it. But sometimes the truth hurts. The fact is, a significant percentage of the incoming students at Berkeley, especially those who enter difficult majors like engineering, will not graduate. That's a fact that cannot be ignored.</p>

<p>However, allow me to be perfectly fair. A key factor here is to determine what sort of frame of reference to us. In other words, we have to ask who am I comparing Caltech or Berkeley to. It is indeed true that both schools actually do a very good job compared to the vast majority of other schools out there, in terms of graduating its students. Berkeley is actually one of the best public schools in the country in this regard, and is certainly one of the best public schools in the state of California (although, interestingly, UCLA graduates a higher percentage of its students than Berkeley does). However, being better than most schools shouldn't be good enough for either school. These schools are supposed to be the best in the world. For example, Berkeley always tries to claim that it is a peer to HYPSM. Well, if that's true, then Berkeley should be able to graduate its students at the rate that HYPSM do. </p>

<p>Besides, look at it this way. The key question which I have asked over and over again, and have never gotten a satisfactory answer from anybody is - if you know that a significant portion of your incoming class is not going to graduate, then why admit them in the first place? What's the point of that? I understand that Berkeley wants to maintain high academic standards. But maintaining high academic standards does not necessitate bringing in lower-quality students and then flunking them out. Just don't admit them in the first place. Why expend precious academic resources on students who aren't going to graduate anyway? It also saves the time and psychological well-being of those students. You might say it's cruel and coldhearted to reject those students. Yet look at what's going on now - you admit those students, only to flunk them out later. Which is worse? Those students would have been better off going to a school where they will be able to graduate. </p>

<p>Of course, it is obviously true that no school has a 100% graduation rate. I am not asking for perfection. But just because you can never get a 100% graduation rate doesn't mean that you don't try. At the very least, you ought to maintain the same pace that your supposed peer-institutions are maintaining. If the Berkeley undergrad program ever truly wants to be as good as that of Harvard or Stanford, then one thing that Berkeley will have to do is boost its graduation rate to that of Harvard or Stanford. {Don't get me wrong - graduation rate is not the only factor, but it is a factor}</p>

<p>Furthermore, look at the situation from the graduate-school standpoint. The Haas MBA program doesn't have a conspicuously large percentage of its students just lolly-gagging around, taking a conspicuously long time to graduate, nor does it have lots of students who flunk out. The percentage of Haas MBA students who flunk out is infinitesimal. The same is true for Boalt Law. You don't have a significant percentage of Boalt Law students flunking out or otherwise loafing around, taking years and years to graduate. The same is true for the Berkeley PhD programs. I analyzed Berkeley's PhD programs relative to those at peer schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT on the previous CC site (you can find it there if you want) - and I demonstrated that they are all comparable. The flunkout/dropout rate and time-to-completion for Berkeley PhD students is equivalent to, and sometimes better than, that of HYPSM. The point is that the Berkeley grad programs manage to graduate a percentage of their students that is entirely comparable to that of its peer schools, yet nobody goes around accusing the Berkeley grad programs of lack of rigor. If anything, the Berkeley grad programs are far far more rigorous than the matching undergrad major. So if the Berkeley grad programs manage to graduate a high percentage of their students, why can't the undergrad program do that?</p>

<p>Now to mosharma134, I'm not going to lie to you. The transition from CC to Berkeley, especially Berkeley engineering, is jarring. All engineering transfer students will tell you that. While I can say that you are capable of succeeding, there certainly is no guarantee. Plenty of students who did great at CC come to Berkeley for engineering and simply get annihilated. I'm not saying that that's going to happen to you (because there are also many transfer students who come to Berkeley engineering and do fine), but I'm just warning you what to expect. It's no 'gimme' by any stretch of the imagination. </p>

<p>The point I've been making here is that just because you've been admitted to Berkeley (whether as a freshman or as a transfer), do not assume that you are actually going to graduate, particularly in something like engineering. A significant portion of the incoming student body does not make it. </p>

<p>The other UC engineering programs are also highly rigorous, but probably not as intense as Berkeley's is. In general, the lower the UC, the easier it becomes.</p>

16

<p>sakky: Berkeley and UCLA will NEVER graduate undergraduate admits at the same rate as HYPSM for the obvious reason that a state school can NEVER be as selective in it's admissions policy. This simple fact relegates any debate on the subject to nonsense and conjecture. </p>

<p>For grad school, where Berkeley can be, and is, more selective, the success rate, as you said yourself, is higher.</p>

<p>My guess, and this is pure conjecture on my part, is that the top 25% of admits to Berkeley will graduate at a rate similar to the elite private schools...because it is only the top 25% at Berkeley who are as qualified as the normal admits to HYPSM.</p>

<p>I'm happy to hear other opinions on this. Tell me where my reasoning has gone wrong.</p>

17

<p>Well, joemama, your assertion in your first paragraph is probably correct, but it doesn't really answer the question, it just elicits another question. You say that a state school can never be as selective in its admission policy as HYPSM - and to that I ask, why the heck not? </p>

<p>You said it yourself - Berkeley can be and is highly selective in its graduate school, and in many cases (particularly in its PhD programs) is just as selective, if not more so, than HYPSM. So why can't it do the same thing with its undergraduate program? UCSF Medical is a public medical school, and yet it is arguably more selective than Stanford Medical or Yale Medical. If we are to expand our scope to public schools around the world, it is often the case that public universities in a particular nation are the most selective, and the private schools are the ones picking up the laggards who couldn't get into the public schools. The University of Paris/Sorbonne and the Grandes Ecoles are far and away the most highly selective univerisities in France, and they are all public. Oxford and Cambridge are basically de-facto UK public schools because a gigantic chunk of their funding, including large tuition subsidies for each student of British citizenship, comes from London. {Think about it - by British law, all British undergraduates, whether they go to a no-name British college or they go to Ox-bridge, pay tuition of only 1125 pounds per year, with the rest made up by government subsidies. So really, what's the difference between that and an American public university system like the UC's?}. The majority of the highly prestigious German universities are public. The point is that there is ample precedence for public universities being highly selective, both in undergraduate and graduate programs. Just because you are public does not automatically mean you have to be less selective. </p>

<p>Yeah, I know what you're going to say - that it's simple politics. The problem with that is that's just a deux-ex-machina. All you have to do is just say 'politics', as if it's just a black box that explains everything and anything. What I find most interesting is why is it that politics has such an impact on undergraduate admissions, but doesn't seem to have much influence on graduate admissions. Take med-school admissions as a counterexample. What benefits society more - graduating one more Film Studies major, or graduating one more doctor? When was the last time you said to yourself that the country is just producing too many doctors? I find it interesting indeed that if politics really is the explanatory factor, and political pressure dictates that public schools produce more bachelor's degree holders (including in areas of study that, to be honest, aren't particularly useful), yet that same political pressure always seem to make itself conspicuously absent in things like medical school admissions. Why is that?</p>

18

<p>Hmmm, aren't 99% of Cal's students in the top 10% of their HS classes? That's pretty selective. I would think that Cal gets alot of the top in-state students whose parents (for whatever reason) can't/won't do the high price tags for Caltech, Stanford, USC, et al.</p>

19

<p>coloradokid: </p>

<p>approx. 25% of all berkeley admits are between 1440 and 1600 on the SAT 1.</p>

<p>Approx. 75% of HYPSM score at that level.</p>

<p>These admittedly are gross indicators of the quality of the admits but they give you an idea of the disadvantage Cal has against elite schools.</p>

20

<p>Yes, they are at a disadvantage but I don't believe as much as the numbers you posted would really reflect. For one thing, students at HYPSM & C are much more likely to have taken SAT I multiple times and had opportunities for intense tutoring. For another, I believe the character of students at publics is forced to develop rather quickly giving them an advantage in more ways than just academics. A big reason they are at SOME disadvantage is ninety-some percent of their students are from California where as the others draw more from outside. That's not implying California kids are lesser students but that the prestige privates are more apt to attract top applicants from all over...they draw on a bigger pool. Since the difference in price tags is somewhat insignificant to out-of-staters, guess where they end up?</p>