For students attending UC Berkeley: Are you liking the Cal experience?

<p>I wrote a post, but it was deleted. Here is the bulk of it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is the second time that I've noticed you misconstruing my words. Please stop. What I posted was not a decision "decision."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You need to realize something- I in no way purposely try to manipulate, misrepresent, or misconstrue what you are saying. I really have no reason to do so. I do my best to understand you, but I am not perfect, and sometimes I don't, and often I think it's in part because what you are trying to say isn't clear to me. For instance, in this quotation, what does " 'decision 'decision'' even mean? Do not accuse me of purposely misrepresenting you again without some reason to believe so, it's quite rude.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why are you so angry today, greatestyen? There's no need to be mad at me. I know what the psych pre-reqs are, and I know you have to get above a 3.2 in the pre-reqs to major in psych. I talk to many people about classes and while I have no direct knoweldge of taking the courses, I feel like I know a lot about them and how difficult it is to get above a 3.2 in them. I know psych majors who are not geniuses or work-horses who think it is laughably easy. They can easily be completed in a year or so. The courses are weeders in the sense that many classes exist and so one must invest a large time commitment into taking them in order to go onto psych. They are NOT weeders in the sense that they are really difficult or grade harshly compared to other weeders.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is not enough to "know what the psych pre-recs are," you must know how to differentiate among them. There ARE "joke" classes that count towards the psych pre-recs. They would include Psychology 1, Anthropology 3, Sociology 3or 3AC, and Political Science 1 and 2. However, Anthropology 1, Bio 1A, Bio 1B, and Stats 20, must be recognized as the definite, engineering-style weeder classes that they are.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They are NOT weeders in the sense that they are really difficult or grade harshly compared to other weeders.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you honestly believe that Bio 1A isn't a weeder, huh?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Most psych students taking Bio 1A and 1B? Show me some stats and I'll believe you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My conclusion here is not based on stats, but rather on the schedule of classes and observational evidence. The other options for the Biological Science requirement are not frequently offered, leading many pre-psych students I happen to know, to choose Bio 1A and Bio 1B which count towards medschool and a surprisingly large number of psych majors seem to be premeds. It should also be noted that most of the other classes that can fulfill the Biological Science requirement are ALSO weeders. So, unless a prepsych student got a 4 or higher on the AP or takes the requirement at a CC, it's almost a given that he or she will have to take a weeder for the Biological Science requirement.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So you honestly believe that Bio 1A isn't a weeder, huh?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I think it is, but 1/7 (or 2/7 if you count Bio 1B) of the psych pre-reqs being weeders in the harsh grading sense does not mean much, especially if so many of the students don't take these courses. Now say you take those two, and stats is really a weeder, then it looks more convincing that the psych pre-reqs have many weeders, and if antrho 1 is (which I highly doubt), it's even more convincing, but we must remember something- one must get over a 3.2 in the pre-psych courses to major in psych (and not over a 2.0), anthro 1 is most likely not a weeder to the extent that bio 1A is, many students in psych can and do avoid the bio 1 series, and as far as I can tell by looking at the psych website, one needn't even pass all one's pre-reqs in order to get into the psych major, merely have a cummulative average of above a 3.2 (but perhaps one must pass all of one's pre-req courses).</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, Anthropology 1, Bio 1A, Bio 1B, and Stats 20, must be recognized as the definite, engineering-style weeder classes that they are.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wish you luck in convincing people, but only if it's true. I highly doubt anthro will get the recognition, and I also doubt stats will (to the extent that Bio 1A or some engineering courses do), but would believe it has harsher grading than many courses, but to a lesser extent than the harshest weeders.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You need to realize something- I in no way purposely try to manipulate, misrepresent, or misconstrue what you are saying. I really have no reason to do so. I do my best to understand you, but I am not perfect, and sometimes I don't, and often I think it's in part because what you are trying to say isn't clear to me. For instance, in this quotation, what does " 'decision 'decision'' even mean? Do not accuse me of purposely misrepresenting you again without some reason to believe so, it's quite rude.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I do believe it's within my every right to post whatever I please in whatever tone I may choose until I get kicked out. It it also within my rights to miscontrue my own logic by erroniously re-typing a word.</p>

<p>Good. I'm with eudean, let's not hijack the thread. Start another one if you want to talk about this very different subject.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Guys, this is about personal experiences. This is not a debate thread, unless one of you is contesting the personal experiences of another individual (which you'd be hard-pressed to do).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yup, if we let this thread devolve, we are letting that troll win :eek:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I highly doubt anthro will get the recognition

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If it doesn't, that will simply be another example of this forum's science-centric bias. The reality of the situation is that the material in Anthro 1 is identical to much of the material taught in Bio 1A and Bio 1B. For example, Anthropology 1 students, like their counterparts in Bio 1A, will go learn quite a bit about complex hereditary processes. The only significant difference in the subject matter itself is that Anthropology 1 students will not be mainly concerned with genotype as it exists now, but mainly with genotype as expressed in phenotype over changing environments. Likewise, Anthro 1 students will, like their counterparts in Bio 1B, study evolutionary theory in detail. There is not much difference there. Also, like their counterparts in MCB 32 (weeder!,) Anthro 1 students will have to learn the scientific names, location, and fuction of many body parts. But not only that, Anthro 1 usually comes with a very difficult lab portion. And apparently, Anthro 1, like Anthro 2 and unlike Anthro 3, has curved tests and many students do in fact fail. How is Anthro 1 not a weeder?</p>

<p>Create a new thread, greatestyen. There is no need to hijack this one further.</p>

<p>Yes, please don't hijack my thread. I really want some responses to my question.</p>

<p>what do you want? some like berkley, some hates it , a college is what you make of. But if i were u (assuming u will go to berkely), i would be grateful that you are given a chance of attending one of the greatest universities. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>hey buddy, it's "Berkeley." Three "e's."</p>

<p>:p</p>

<p>and its 'hate it' not hates it</p>

<p>lol sorry, i just felt like being a smart a** = )</p>

<p>hehehe iluvKal but ur grammar is not that tite either</p>

<p>u wrote "and its 'hate it' not hates it"</p>

<p>but it should be "and it's 'hate it' not hates it"</p>

<p>I hope ure not a berkley student :rolleyes:</p>

<p>How can you say such things when using "tite," have no commas, and repeatedly say "u," "ure," and "ur?!?!" You look like Stanford material.</p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

<p>DRab, you used the wrong smiley. It's not :rolleyes:, it's :cool:...</p>

<p>Your misuse of emoticons is atrocious. I hope you're not a Berkeley student.</p>

<p>:eek:</p>

<p><em>pounds head against wall</em></p>

<p>Roffles Roffles</p>

<p>Last year I was a new transfer student at Cal. I had a really hard first semester for personal reasons, nothing to do with the school. But despite that, I have learned to LOVE Cal. I thought I would be excited to be home for the summer, and I do enjoy my high school friends, but I have found myself missing Berkeley a ton. I've even made 3 separate trips up there (its a 5 hour drive one way). </p>

<p>Academically, I love the variety of interesting and unique classes to choose from. I have taken classes that were extremely difficult but so interesting that it made me thoroughly enjoy them. I have had an amazingly engaging and successful academic experience so far. </p>

<p>Socially, I think Cal is great once you find your niche. Like others have said, it can be hard to find your place, but once you do it is amazing. First semester I had a few close friends and I was happy. Second semester, however, I rushed a sorority (something I NEVER thought I would do) and now I find myself surrounded by women that I am thankful everyday to know. I still have my friends from first semester too. I have never found myself with a lack of social opportunities (and I definitely take advantage of them) but I maintain good grades. </p>

<p>Honestly, I think Cal was the ideal school for me. I love almost everything about the school. If you are independent, self-motivated person and you go into this experience with an open mind, I think you will definitely find your niche and love your experience at Cal.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What are you talking about? I though CoE students have access to evaluations from professors and what not? You might have to take a certain course in sequence, but you can know what to expect!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>EECS does. The resources for CoE in general are significantly worse. The resources outside of that are abysmal.</p>