Haas School of Business

<p>DFD:</p>

<p>
[quote]

You have taken Haas classes. Can you elaborate on the lectures, courseload, etc. How are the discussions (dynamic, case-study based, current issues) and the homework????

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The lectures are pretty much the same as other lectures at Cal, except the material is Business. The only real differences are what I already mentioned with the professors and the newer, customized classrooms. By customized I mean that many classrooms are arranged in a "board room" style. There's probably a picture of this on the Haas website.</p>

<p>The course load, again, is similar to other Cal classes (i.e. math, Econ...but not really science). It really depends on your professor. Besides finance-related courses, most business classes are not technically complex, but what some classes lack in complexity they make up for in the volume of knowledge you must know for the tests. </p>

<p>Most people do very well in the classes, but you don't really get the feeling that people are "trying too hard." I also feel that the lecture attendance rate is quite poor considering that these students are supposed to be the top-end of Cal's non-science majors.</p>

<p>Oh and for assignments, there are a few more group projects here than in other departments. Most of these projects center around analyzing a company or a set of a companies, writing a group paper on your conclusions about the company positions and possibly making a presentation. These types of projects are usually only limited to the smaller classes though.</p>

<p>Unsurprisingly, the discussions are not too different from other discussions either :). Just standard go over the problem sets, understand the concepts. Because business is a sort of practical study, you will of course discuss current business events and problems from time to time.</p>

<p>I have to say again that I'm not in Haas, so I'm sure there is more that you can learn from actual Haas students. As you can see, Haas classes themselves are not very mysterious compared to other classes. It's mostly the content and attitudes that are different.</p>

<p>And Vicissitudes:</p>

<p>
[quote]

Yes, but I think your generalization is bigger than mine.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This really doesn't matter, and I'm sure you realize this. You say that your generalization is smaller, but the degree of its smallness is subjective to you. The point is that you can't refute what I've said because it generalizes and then propose a "better argument" that still contains generalizations (and you do, see below).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Let's assume that this is true: does this mean that Boalt's quality suddenly shoots up? Of course not. Does it mean Berkeley now values Boalt more than Haas since it has newer facilities? Again the answer is no.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Regarding the first statement, I never implied changes in quality. Regarding the second statement, I will admit that I made a stretch in assuming campus value, because I have no concrete proof of this at the moment. I still have reason to believe, but since I do not parade my beliefs as facts I will release this point. However, it is still a perk to be mentioned for "What makes Haas special?"</p>

<p>
[quote]
One, it seems like you arbitrarily picked a few departments and picked them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Arbitrarily...It's called a random sample. More stratified, because I did make sure that I didn't pick all social sciences or all hard sciences. Though not truly random or completely representative in the theoretical sense, it's good enough for our purposes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Another problem is the other departments listed tend to focus more on research so it's more likely that the teaching will suffer a little.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Generalize much? Haas professors conduct research and write papers too, and probably just as much. The Haas website has lots of info on research. The burden is on you to prove that they don't. You obviously are making assumptions in territory that you are not familiar with. </p>

<p>As an aside...I must say that as firax mentioned, you do this very much, whether it be about the research habits of Haas or the intelligence of people who are not engineering majors. And you seem to do this with a high level of seriousness, contrasted with my much more casual writing. Misinformation kills. All I can do is respectfully ask you to stop presenting what you do not know in a factual manner :o.</p>

<p>(editing the statistical points)</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think that's a big problem since if you're not in Haas then you probably don't want to get into Haas classes in the first place.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is easily refuted by Berkeley's schedule of classes. As I've already mentioned, almost every Haas class is in double-digit waitlists. Haas students don't get put on the waitlist, but students in every other major do. These are not pre-Haas students, because the only Haas classes that accept sophomores are 101A and 101B. People outside of Haas are clearly interested in Haas classes and this is clearly more than a little problem.</p>

<p>Using the statements in the way you did is a contortion of the OP's real meaning.-ucbi</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is very clear from the first sentence that he has heard enough about admissions and all of the pre-Haas information. In his second sentence he calls Haas "mysterious," then follows up by insinuating that people must know things beyond the pre-haas crap.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In actuality, the OP's first sentence is

[quote]
I just want to know as much as I can about it.

[/quote]

which gave me the obvious initial impression that the OP wanted know everything related to Haas. I suppose when one thinks the second sentence is the first sentence, one can get all sorts of different interpretations when reading all sorts of stuff.</p>

<p>I followed the OP's first post with:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I've been on this forum for 2 years and I can assure that questions come up about Haas very often, and using search does bring up a lot of information. In many ways search is in many ways better than starting a new topic if you want to learn about something because there is so much information available, and faster than waiting for someone to respond.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're right that searching through old threads may not bring up all the information one might want to know, and you went a long way to prove your point. I commend you for seemingly using time to prove me wrong instead of studying for you finals :)</p>

<p>However, I hold strong to the notion that if someone wants to know as much information about a subject (which the OP expressed in his first true sentence which you omitted in your argument), using the search function is the best way to begin. You misinterpreted the whole point of my response because of the way you quoted me by truncating my paragraph took away the point I was getting to. I say that in many times it is better than creating a new topic because one can find answers to one's question faster than waiting for someone to reply. This is coming from personal experience. </p>

<p>Now, while the OP did comment that what you said is the "heart" of what the he wanted to know, I suggested the method (via search function) that could be the "veins" leading up to the "heart" of his overall intention of his post.</p>

<p>BTW, if my intention was to insult the OP, I'd be blunt about it.</p>

<p>I started out on CC by asking questions, I certainly received a lot of answers. And soon after, I was putting myself in the position to help other members by answering their questions to the best of my knowledge. I wouldn't be an avid member on this board if I didn't enjoy helping others.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I suppose when one thinks the second sentence is the first sentence, one can get all sorts of different interpretations when reading all sorts of stuff.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Except I never said that this was the very first sentence of the OP's post, rather it meant the first sentence of the quoted section. But like you said, I guess you can get very different meanings from these misinterpretations :)</p>

<p>And no, I don't feel that omitting the first sentence is a misinterpretation of his post, because that first sentence is very generic, can be interpreted in many ways, and is arguably unimportant to his entire post.</p>

<p>Also, I have no class tomorrow so it's cool :)</p>

<p>edit: I know that you do not go out and attack users. My statements are not an attack on you. I just wanted to lay out the OP's real question so that it didn't get written off as "another Haas question," because it certainly is a little different. And as you can see I'm trying to explain what I know in order to help him and other people that want to know what Haas is like from "the inside."</p>

<p>But clearly, using the statements in the way you did is a contortion of the OP's real meaning :)</p>

<p>And you're right, there are many interpretations, and yours is just one of many, many of them :) Likewise, my interpretation is that the OP wanted to know <em>all</em> that he could. But being the good lab rat, you proved that the search function is not the bearer of all questions. Thank you for telling me ;)</p>

<p>Ok now I really have to go....for now. Good luck on finals everyone!</p>

<p>I almost forgot this :)</p>

<p>unlimited: No need to be bitter... A lab-rat would go with the "let established CCers say what they want without being challenged" flow :p</p>

<p>Also, I should say that I'm not wanting to attack vicissitudes either. Please don't be too offended by my rhetoric. I'm sure we're all aware of CC's overall ultra-serious, super-debate culture. I'm more light-hearted, and I am only increasing my seriousness and sternness in order to not be written off by those who do participate in the culture. Otherwise he would call everything a generalization without having to work for it :p </p>

<p>
[quote]
The third thing that is wrong with this analysis is that, if you'll notice, Haas is a significantly smaller department than the others listed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This statement is erroneous, which I will discuss below. It requires knowledge of basic statistics terms though, so I hope that you have this...</p>

<p>The main error of your argument is that you assume that the number of teachers rated matters in this scenario. However, ratemyprofessor’s sample is not the number of professors; it is the number of students responding. The corresponding population is all students taught by respective professors. The professors listed on the site are very likely close to complete on the undergraduate level (because as students take classes, they go online and rate) and thus represent a population of departmental professors. Since we are probably looking at nearly all of the relevant professors in each department, the number of professors in each department makes no difference.</p>

<p>In other words, you can’t ask to see 81 Japanese professor ratings if there are only 12 Japanese professors (though I think the actual number is 15). If all 12 professors are rated highly, then it just means that students like all 12 professors. If the percentages are correct then this isn't debatable. If 70% of political science professors have good ratings and 100% of Japanese professors have a good rating, that’s just a fact. The debate comes in on how far off the actual percentages really are (due to the number of students sampled), not on the number of professors in the department.</p>

<p>The n-value that’s actually relevant in terms of falsifying these conclusions from the ratings is the number of students responding. If one student responds, then he represents the only opinion on the professor. If 100 respond, it’s much more accurate. On this level I would not argue with you, because I already said that these ratings were crude. However, if the level of response is the same across all departments, then this should not matter so much anyway.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But of course, I'm not going to start saying that Japanese is a significantly better department than Haas, Poly Sci, Engineering, Economics, Physics, and History.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The conclusion of your anti-analysis hooks on a very different idea than my analysis did. You use the term, “better department,” which is a little open-ended. This could mean prestige, research power, raw teaching ability, etc. On the other hand, I specifically said:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I feel that the Haas professors are more interesting and engaging than most. They're in a prestigious department in a very nice setting, so they just seem happier and more upbeat.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The ratings are based on easiness, helpfulness, clarity and quality (I’m not sure if reader interest is calculated in the actual rating). Easiness aside, I think that these qualities are a good proxy to what I described: nice, interesting, engaging professors. Thus, the fact that all 12 Japanese professors have smiley faces does not prove them to be a “better department,” but it does provide evidence that those professors can connect well with their students. The ratings similarly provide evidence that a higher proportion of Haas professors can do the same thing relative to many other departments.</p>

<p>Reflecting on all of that, there may be problems with the data I used (which I disclaimed initially), but you were looking in the wrong place and pushed a conclusion that was different from my description. Still, using the data as a rough proxy does not seem out of the question. Let me know if you need clarification on things I specifically said and I'll be happy to explain (before finals crunching starts :p).</p>

<p>
[quote]
This really doesn't matter, and I'm sure you realize this. You say that your generalization is smaller, but the degree of its smallness is subjective to you. The point is that you can't refute what I've said because it generalizes and then propose a "better argument" that still contains generalizations (and you do, see below).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wasn't trying to refute your argument, I'm just saying it should be taken with a grain of salt, and my statement with probably a little more than a grain of salt. Since I'm more familiar with engineering professors I think it's somewhat reasonable to guess that Haas professors might be better on the whole, but I'm certainly not familiar with all departments at Berkeley, and I don't think you are either, so it's a much bigger stretch to say that Haas professors are more interesting than most other professors (in every department).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Generalize much? Haas professors conduct research and write papers too, and probably just as much. The Haas website has lots of info on research. The burden is on you to prove that they don't. You obviously are making assumptions in territory that you are not familiar with.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? A lot of Haas professors do consulting on the side, set up instructional programs with nearby school districts, or even visit other universities and teach there (and getting 6-digit incomes too). Haas's CED (Center of Executive Development) especially participates in a lot of these programs and have been expanding as of late. I've seen hundreds of contracts on this stuff although I don't have access to these records anymore and can't exactly scan them and show them to you, but don't start making assumptions that this is unfamiliar territory for me.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As an aside...I must say that as firax mentioned, you do this very much, whether it be about the research habits of Haas or the intelligence of people who are not engineering majors. And you seem to do this with a high level of seriousness, contrasted with my much more casual writing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, this is the first time I've mentioned the research habits of Haas on CC.</p>

<p>As for the intelligence of Berkeley students and Berkeley engineers, all I can say is that I've seen/talked to/know plenty of engineers, non-engineers, and mediocre students. Every student I can think of who's struggling in what I consider to be rather easy classes is not an engineer, and if you were to ask me to name the smartest undergrads I know at Berkeley, they all happen to be engineers. The ones who take the most courses, have the highest GPAs, understand the most difficult material easily. </p>

<p>Now I'm sure there are non-engineers who could come into an engineering class and kick the engineers' asses, but sadly I haven't seen or heard anything like that. In fact, non-engineers don't even take engineering classes because they're afraid of the difficulty level. Out of my Physics 7A discussion, 16 out of 20 students are engineers, and 2 are majoring in physics, and this isn't even an engineering class!</p>

<p>Now getting back to the point, I didn't write all this just to praise engineers and denounce all other students. My point is that I actually hate generalizing about this stuff as much as you do. I try to tell it as I see it, and unfortunately I haven't seen anything that's making me change me mind on the topic. I really wish I would, something other than "well there's GOTTA be a lot of really smart, high-achieving non-engineer students" but until I do, I'll keep making my generalization and hope that you'll see it for what it is and not take it too seriously or factually, because after all, it's only one person's opinion.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is easily refuted by Berkeley's schedule of classes. As I've already mentioned, almost every Haas class is in double-digit waitlists. Haas students don't get put on the waitlist, but students in every other major do. These are not pre-Haas students, because the only Haas classes that accept sophomores are 101A and 101B. People outside of Haas are clearly interested in Haas classes and this is clearly more than a little problem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alright, I did what you said and went on Berkeley's Schedule of Classes. This is what I keep seeing from Haas classes:</p>

<p>Limit:130 Enrolled:22 Waitlist:27 Avail Seats:108</p>

<p>Now obviously, they're only waitlisting students to let the Haas students in first, and there's plenty of space in the class for Haas and non-Haas students. I realize that students are still nowhere near done with enrolling in classes, but the way you wrote it made it sound like the classes are all entirely full AND there's a double-digit waitlist, which clearly isn't the case.</p>

<p>Besides, these waitlists tend to be what...20-50 people long? And how many Haas classes are offered this semester? Maybe around 20? So at most you have a few hundred of students on these waitlists, out of about 20,000 undergrads at Berkeley. So about 98-99% of Berkeley's undergrads aren't even trying to get into them. Thus, I stand by what I said. If you're not in Haas, it's very likely that you won't try to get into Haas classes anyway.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This statement is erroneous, which I will discuss below. It requires knowledge of basic statistics terms though, so I hope that you have this...</p>

<p>The main error of your argument is that you assume that the number of teachers rated matters in this scenario. However, ratemyprofessor’s sample is not the number of professors; it is the number of students responding. The corresponding population is all students taught by respective professors. The professors listed on the site are very likely close to complete on the undergraduate level (because as students take classes, they go online and rate) and thus represent a population of departmental professors. Since we are probably looking at nearly all of the relevant professors in each department, the number of professors in each department makes no difference.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is where I disagree with you. I think the number of professors does matter in this scenario. The thing is, if you're a large department, bad professors are pretty much unavoidable. It's much much harder to have 100% smiley face professors if your department has ~80 professors versus 13 (okay I recounted and there are 13). Thus, I see this as an inherent disadvantage to larger departments, and I don't think it's fair to put the blame entirely on the departments themselves.</p>

<p>Now you're probably going to say "but what does it matter? If you're in a smaller department with good professors, you'll still end up with better teaching, which is what matters in the end." Okay, I agree with that, but with larger departments, you can always just pick and choose the good professors and avoid the bad ones. Thus, I think you're making the situation sound worse than it really is.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The n-value that’s actually relevant in terms of falsifying these conclusions from the ratings is the number of students responding. If one student responds, then he represents the only opinion on the professor. If 100 respond, it’s much more accurate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah I'm well aware of this error although it's not really what I was talking about. I could go into the obvious problems with using ratemyprofessors.com as objective data (highly uneven number of students responding, incomplete data, students being retarded and giving all 5's to an obviously bad professor) but I think you're well aware of these as well so I won't go into it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, I should say that I'm not wanting to attack vicissitudes either. Please don't be too offended by my rhetoric. I'm sure we're all aware of CC's overall ultra-serious, super-debate culture. I'm more light-hearted, and I am only increasing my seriousness and sternness in order to not be written off by those who do participate in the culture. Otherwise he would call everything a generalization without having to work for it

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think you're attacking me, and I think you realize that I don't mean to offend you either. I think most of the time I come off more seriously than I mean to, but that is the nature of emotionless black-on-white text. I'm not writing a thesis on any of this, nor have I done extensive research for any of it. At least 50% of what I say is very subjective and open to debate, so don't get the wrong impression that I'm trying to present what I write as factual. I think most of it is based on pretty good reasoning/logic with fairly sufficient personal experience / statistics to back it up, but certainly not what I would call facts.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I almost forgot this </p>

<p>unlimited: No need to be bitter... A lab-rat would go with the "let established CCers say what they want without being challenged" flow

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A lab rat with its own mind. You will serve me well in future experiments ;)</p>

<p>Vicissitudes, I am generally satisfied with your responses so I don't feel the need to go into much more depth. It looks like you understand how other people may see your posts and accept what may be suspect with them, which is all I was really looking for on the whole, since I can't force you to change your actual views.</p>

<p>Regarding intelligence and using the ratings: I disagree with your reasoning on both counts, but as long as you realize that your views are not necessarily <em>the</em> correct view then I am fine with that. Without some absolute standard, I don't think it would be helpful to continue debating.</p>

<p>My strongest disagreement is with your assumptions about Haas classes, summarized with:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I realize that students are still nowhere near done with enrolling in classes, but the way you wrote it made it sound like the classes are all entirely full AND there's a double-digit waitlist, which clearly isn't the case.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Unfortunately, from experience, what I said really is the case. This is the reason why Haas recommends non-Haas students that want Haas classes to enroll in the first phase. Once phase two hits and Haas majors add the rest of their classes, the number of available seats dwindles. Unless you added yourself to the waitlist in phase 1, the chance of getting added into the class is quite small. I have more experience in this department, so I don't see how you can argue against it when you have no (you are lower div, not interested in Haas classes, correct?) experience with Haas enrollment. Really, just wait until Phase II and see how many seats are available to the waitlist.</p>

<p>But even currently...The waitlist numbers you cited are for 101A, which is crosslisted with a bunch of classes and so isn't really reflective of Haas exclusiveness. Here are other classes:</p>

<p>102A - Limit:200 Enrolled:34 Waitlist:86 Avail Seats:166
102A2 - Limit:200 Enrolled:119 Waitlist:98 Avail Seats:81
103 - Limit:300 Enrolled:93 Waitlist:159 Avail Seats:207
105 - Limit:300 Enrolled:35 Waitlist:69 Avail Seats:265
106 - Limit:175 Enrolled:85 Waitlist:68 Avail Seats:90
106 2 - Limit:175 Enrolled:167 Waitlist:54 Avail Seats:8
107 - Limit:62 Enrolled:13 Waitlist:43 Avail Seats:49</p>

<p>I'm not going to go further up, because in order to take the higher classes, you need the introductory courses first. The point is that your statement, "Besides, these waitlists tend to be what...20-50 people long?" reflects your lack of knowledge of Haas enrollment in light of the waitlist numbers above. In addition, even with waitlists of those numbers, there is significance. Take for example UGBA 120A:</p>

<p>120A - Limit:60 Enrolled:16 Waitlist:37 Avail Seats:44</p>

<p>37 people on a waitlist for a 60 person class is huge.</p>

<p>...Again, wait until this all pans out later before you make assumptions.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Vicissitudes, I am generally satisfied with your responses so I don't feel the need to go into much more depth. It looks like you understand how other people may see your posts and accept what may be suspect with them, which is all I was really looking for on the whole, since I can't force you to change your actual views.</p>

<p>Regarding intelligence and using the ratings: I disagree with your reasoning on both counts, but as long as you realize that your views are not necessarily <em>the</em> correct view then I am fine with that. Without some absolute standard, I don't think it would be helpful to continue debating.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While it may be hard to argue over personal experience, reasoning is another story. If you feel like there are serious flaws in my logic, feel free to point them out. Otherwise I think we've reached what can be loosely called a consensus.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, from experience, what I said really is the case. This is the reason why Haas recommends non-Haas students that want Haas classes to enroll in the first phase. Once phase two hits and Haas majors add the rest of their classes, the number of available seats dwindles. Unless you added yourself to the waitlist in phase 1, the chance of getting added into the class is quite small. I have more experience in this department, so I don't see how you can argue against it when you have no (you are lower div, not interested in Haas classes, correct?) experience with Haas enrollment. Really, just wait until Phase II and see how many seats are available to the waitlist.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I fully realize the pitfall of looking at numbers as they are now as I mentioned in my post that it's hard to say anything without even going into Phase II. However, you were the one who told me to go look up Berkeley's Schedule of Classes, so I did and I commented based on the numbers I saw. Without better info I can't give better commentary.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not going to go further up, because in order to take the higher classes, you need the introductory courses first. The point is that your statement, "Besides, these waitlists tend to be what...20-50 people long?" reflects your lack of knowledge of Haas enrollment in light of the waitlist numbers above. In addition, even with waitlists of those numbers, there is significance. Take for example UGBA 120A:</p>

<p>120A - Limit:60 Enrolled:16 Waitlist:37 Avail Seats:44</p>

<p>37 people on a waitlist for a 60 person class is huge.</p>

<p>...Again, wait until this all pans out later before you make assumptions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, I went on Berkeley's Schedule of Classes and saw that for many Haas classes the waitlists are around 20 - 50 people. Besides, how off the mark is that range? Would most of the waitlists really go above 60, 80? Into the hundreds? Maybe a few, but a bit incredulous to suggest that is the norm. Besides, it was you who said that the waitlists tend to be in double-digits, not triple digits, something with which I agreed.</p>

<p>Also, just because a waitlist is in double-digits doesn't mean that many people won't get into the class. You know as well as I do that due to the shifting of class schedules in the first few weeks, many people tend to get off the waitlists. Since I am concerned with how difficult it is to actually get into the class and less so with waitlist numbers, it seems relatively difficult for either of us at this point to provide substantial claims regarding this topic.</p>

<p>I think waiting until phase II or perhaps when fall semester starts is an excellent idea, but I felt like I should at least address your points based on what we have instead of leaving them out.</p>

<p>Business classes vary a lot on waitlist acceptance. UGBA 100 is almost impossible to get into. 107 was very easy (everyone on waitlist accepted) when I took those classes.</p>

<p>Very interesting information. I can certainly make good use of it if I do not get accepted into Haas (hopefully, I will though 8] ).</p>

<p>Take UGBA 100 over the Summer if you want to take it and you're not in Haas. There are usually 7 different UGBA 100 sections in the Summer that are open enrollment.</p>

<p>For the OP:</p>

<p>Personally, I think Haas undergrad is overrated in terms of difficulty, etc., except it probably will give you a median salary at the end of it while some other majors can't even get you a job. The acceptance is 50% with average of 3.6 GPA for the prerequisites. I mean, why fret so much? It's really not THAT hard as people say it is, and the students aren't "over the roof" smart like some engineering students are. (I'm not an engineer, just to clarify.)</p>

<p>It's basically all grades too, not as much extracurriculars. I know someone who did loads of impressive business-related ECs but didn't have the grades to make the cut. However there are people with high GPAs who do nothing and get in. Just do well on your prereqs and you'd probably get in for sure.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Personally, I think Haas undergrad is overrated in terms of difficulty, etc., except it probably will give you a median salary at the end of it while some other majors can't even get you a job. The acceptance is 50% with average of 3.6 GPA for the prerequisites. I mean, why fret so much? It's really not THAT hard as people say it is, and the students aren't "over the roof" smart like some engineering students are. (I'm not an engineer, just to clarify.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think you have to clarify something: difficulty in getting into Haas, or difficulty of Haas itself? From what I understand, it's not easy to get into Haas, but once you get in it's pretty easy.
The acceptance is 60%, but many are discouraged from even applying after taking the pre-reqs and doing poorly in them. An average of 3.6 in Haas pre-reqs is definitely not easy. That means you need virtually all A- and A in your courses, which is nooot easy at Berkeley.
One thing I'll agree though is, from my limited experience, I also don't think Haas students are as smart as engineering students. Then again, I think Haas students may excel in other aspects, like being more socially apt than engineering students.</p>

<p>I wouldn't say it's ALL grades. Grades is obviously most important, but supposedly there are students with 4.0s who were rejected because they had no ECs and their essays sucked. A lot of it is grades, though.</p>

<p>Hey Vicissitudes, I meant it's relatively easy getting INTO Haas compared to what people say. I know people say it's hard, and yes I agree it's competitive, but it's not AS HARD as people say. It's greatly exaggerated and the prestige of the graduate program trickled down into the undergrad. A 3.6 is relatively easy to get with the prerequisites. (This comes from personal experience since I took the prerequisites in pursuit of my major and I know quite a few people who got into Haas who basically chilled their first 2 years.) my most difficult classes at cal--the ones that screwed up my GPA--have been upper divs, not prerequisites. anyways that sounded cocky as hell, but this is just my opinion, plus 90% people i know who applied got into Haas. I also know someone who was rejected at first because the GPA was a 3.2 , but then appealed and got in</p>

<p>For continuing students, it's not that bad. Getting into CoE for any major is probably more difficult than getting into Haas. It's easy to plan a powderpuff schedule balancing easy breadth and the more difficult prereqs like UGBA 10 and Econ/Math.</p>

<p>My previous comment about UGBA classes was for those classes during the regular school year. I don't know much about summer classes. I think they're a bit of a waste of time esp since you could get a good internship elsewhere. Plus, you have to study a lot more and pay additional.</p>

<p>NeedAdvice:</p>

<p>Could you elaborate on the student with the 3.2 GPA who appealed and got in??? What was his basis for the appeal???</p>

<p>well he switched majors late in his career and took a bunch of MCB classes earlier, (his prereq GPA was a little bit higher). also i think they give weight to people who appeal</p>