Hardest colleges to stay in

College Search & Selection
41

<p>
[quote]
Engineering schools may tend to restrict the number of high grades given out, but in general I don't think that most schools mandate that a certain percentage of the class fails (since it's just utterly stupid for any institution to do such a thing, merely from a business perspective).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I don't know about "most", but I can tell you that many engineering programs do precisely that. When I say "fail", I actually mean to specifically assign grades less than a C, and you usually need a C average (a 2.0 GPA) to remain in good academic standing. For example, I know a bunch of people who ended with lots of C- grades, and that put them in bad standing because a C- = a 1.7 GPA which is clearly not good enough to remain eligible. </p>

<p>As for whether that's a stupid thing to do, I completely agree. But what can I say? Welcome to the world of engineering. Engineering programs do a lot of things that, at least in my opinion, are pretty stupid. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So you can't really argue that it's difficult to stay in at even places like Cornell and MIT. Everyone there is capable of staying in the college and graduating (otherwise they would not have accepted these students)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I don't think that's true. Let's not talk about Cornell or MIT specifically. There are indeed schools in which some students who are admitted are unable to do the work. As for why that is the case, I agree that it's stupid. It probably has to do with politics - that they have to admit a bunch of not-so-good students until to flunk them out as it is considered more politically palatable to just admit and then flunk rather than just not admit in the first place. </p>

<p>
[quote]
but perhaps not in the most challenging field, like pure math. And if that's the case for a certain student, that student should switch to something that they are good at, and if it need be Sociology, so be it. They certainly have that option, so it isn't as if it is actually difficult for them to stay in college.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You say that as if everybody has the choice to switch. But in fact, many do not. In fact, there is one particular school I can think of that specifically prevents its poor-performing engineers from leaving engineering because the other majors won't take them. In fact, I've coined a term for this: the "engineering major trap". You have to sign up for a certain engineering major right out of high school. Then when you do poorly in that major, you can't switch out because the other majors don't want to take you. Reminds me of the life from the song "Hotel California": You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave. Hence, these students are unsurprisingly the ones who tend to flunk out entirely. I've seen it happen to people, and it's just terribly sad. If they had been allowed, as you said, to just switch to an easier major, they probably would have graduated. But they were not allowed. They were forced to stay in the major in which they were doing poorly, and hence they ended up expelled and with no degree at all. </p>

<p>Hence, I think that school in fact bears much (probably most) of the blame for these flunkouts. Why does this school implement such a system? Why don't they just let people switch around, especially the ones who are doing poorly? Why not just wipe the grades of those who want to switch out, for after all, if a guy isn't going to major in engineering anyway, then what does it matter what his engineering grades are? Why not just let him switch to something else with a clean slate? But the fact remains, the school refuses to do any of these things. That's why I blame the school.</p>

42

<p>engineering schools may be difficult everywhere, but the humanities side of some of these colleges are not that difficult to stay in (ignoring Caltech amd MIT which are humanities-challenged relative to the others). Cornell, for example, has a B+ average; many classes have an A- average. Cal-Berkeley's bottom quartile probably would be better served going to a mid-tier UC campus bcos the preparation of those students is not as strong as the top quartiles. But, the well-prepared students can pull down Bs and better in humanities.</p>

43

<p>I seem to remember a story about a student from a California community college, or low-tier university lying his way into an Ivy League school. He had a 2.1 at his first college, but a 3.0 in the Ivy.</p>

<p>Anyone have a link?</p>

44

<p>Well now that we're mentioning politicians' children who went to Harvard, Al Gore was actually averaging C's when he went there.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>If the sources are telling the truth ( and I have little reason to doubt them ),
Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard".</p>

<p>"Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - isn't something to crow about. </p>

<p>In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard). </p>

<p>However, C students can win Nobel Prizes too. That's an accomplishment right there and the above "hard" schools to stay in can now claim him as someone who attended their prestigious universities.</p>

45

<p>While I have little desire to doubt the truth of Gore's chronic mediocrity in the classroom (remember, this is the candidate who could not win his home state ... they knowed him way too good, maybe?), he clearly is one of those bordering on genius. Have you forgotten his "creation" of the internet on which we're riding? And his nobel, if not noble laureate for promoting the potential myth of global warming?</p>

<p>Yes, it's not intellectual leadership we desire as we pursue heroic figures such as Gore, Rhodes Scholar "I Never Inhaled" Clinton, and another Hahvad boy, the Senator who would be king if only he could drive, Teddy "Killer" Kennedy.</p>

<p>I agree. I'm not sure what these have to do with colleges that are easy to be expunged from, but I feel a little bit better.Ya gotta admit, we're a pretty pathetic lot with dudes like these driving the Poseidon, who we picked! :eek:</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
In fact, there is one particular school I can think of that specifically prevents its poor-performing engineers from leaving engineering because the other majors won't take them. In fact, I've coined a term for this: the "engineering major trap". You have to sign up for a certain engineering major right out of high school. Then when you do poorly in that major, you can't switch out because the other majors don't want to take you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'd like to see a source for this (specifically for Berkeley) -- no anecdotal evidence, but cold, hard facts. I've heard you say this many, many times, and I still see nothing but contrary evidence. If you can produce something concrete, then I might start to take your argument seriously.</p>

47

<p>Kyledavid80, dude, why the heck is it always my job to be finding information for you? Can't you find some of this stuff for yourself? You're not paying me to do work for you. </p>

<p>As for what I'm talking about, I am specifically talking about requirements such as the following to switch to L&S from another college (like the CoE), that specifically states that switches are not automatically granted, but are highly contingent on your GPA, and a 3.0 GPA is more likely to merit approval. But note, it doesn't say that having a 3.0 will guarantee approval. You may have a 3.0, or perhaps even higher, and still not be allowed to switch in. Nevertheless, I think we can agree that plenty of engineering students have nowhere near a 3.0 and hence won't be able to switch.</p>

<p>"Please note: Grade Point Average is also a significant consideration for admission to the College. Students who meet all other criteria and have a 3.0 or higher GPA are more likely to be approved"</p>

<p><a href="http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/faq/chgclg.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/faq/chgclg.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The upshot, again, is that to get out of engineering, you have to get one of the other colleges at Berkeley to take you. What if none do, which is highly likely to happen if you have poor grades? Then that means that you're stuck in engineering. Forever. That is, unless you are willing to transfer to a different university entirely, but then if you've been getting poor grades in engineering, no decent university is going to want to take you as a transfer.</p>

<p>But next time, kyledavid80, put in the work to find the information yourself. It's not my job to find it for you.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
Then that means that you're stuck in engineering. Forever.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wow...sounds like a death sentence.</p>

<p>I agree the policy is flawed.</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
But next time, kyledavid80, put in the work to find the information yourself. It's not my job to find it for you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you aren't willing to source your arguments, then don't assert them. That's how debate works, I'm afraid. Why should I source your points? That's nonsensical.</p>

<p>Regarding your source, no, that doesn't prove your argument. What you need to show me is: how successful are CoE transfers to L&S? Yes, it says a 3.0 is generally successful; it does not go into specifics about your so-called "engineering trap."</p>

<p>Getting into L&S is generally easy; I don't think anyone would dispute that. If you're already at Cal and you want to transfer to L&S, it's not difficult to get in, even if L&S would like to make it seem that way. How do CoE students fare? That's the real question.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
Getting into L&S is generally easy; I don't think anyone would dispute that. If you're already at Cal and you want to transfer to L&S, it's not difficult to get in, even if L&S would like to make it seem that way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you have numbers for that--that L&S is easy to transfer into? sakky may not have the transfer success rate from the engineering school (I don't see why schools would have that sort of number) but he already provided a source for a 3.0 GPA requirement. Also sakky is an alum that apparently knows Berkeley quite well. Even UCBChemgrad, another alum that actually graduated from the engineering school, said he "agreed the policy is flawed".<br>
It seems to me you require others to provide absolutely indisputable evidence but when it comes to you making claims, you have a vastly different standard for yourself. </p>

<p>It's interesting for a person that claimed to have no tie with Berkeley take a seemingly strong stance to question the validity of anything that may be perceived as negative, even when it comes from actual Berkeley alums. No school is perfect. The inflexibility to switch may very well be one of Berkeley drawback compared to many other schools but that doesn't meant it isn't a great school! Other schools have their weaknesses too.</p>

<p>By the way, I am still waiting for that SAT study. Did you find it? I am losing my patience.</p>

51

<p>^Only study based on actual data from Berkeley admission is accepted. Otherwise, it's not considered "cold, hard facts". </p>

<p>On the other hand, the list of schools with largest NMS already came out. According to you, superscore would make Berkeley to have about the same SAT as Vanderbilt..etc. That would make its expected # of NMS at least twice as many (or 3-4 times as many as UChicago) due to its size. Yet, the actual numbers tell a different story. I have showed how SAT and ACT gaps are comparable even ACT doesn't superscore. The NMS numbers further support that either superscoring has little effect or that most privates don't superscore (may I see "hard, cold facts" that show privates actually superscore to <em>generate their published data</em>? note that it's not the same thing as considering superscore during the admission process). The numbers are just what you expect based on published SAT averages--looks like nobody's number is artificially inflated.<br>
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/454412-national-merit-scholars-2007-schools-have-most.html?highlight=NMS%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/454412-national-merit-scholars-2007-schools-have-most.html?highlight=NMS&lt;/a>

[quote]
I've heard you say this many, many times, and I still see nothing but contrary evidence. If you can produce something concrete, then I might start to take your argument seriously.

[/quote]

I really like how this sums up pretty well what I think about your theory--that Berkeley SAT being unfairly deflated by 60 points or something. </p>

<p>Berkeley is a great school with far greater number of Nobel professors than most other top schools. It got top ranked grad programs across just about any field. It can afford to lose out in some areas and it's okay. ;)</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
UCBChemgrad, another alum that actually graduated from the engineering school

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I graduated from the College of Chemistry. ChemE is part of the College of Chemistry, not the College of Engineering. But I still agree the policy is flawed...I mean why make people fail out?</p>

<p>Another policy of the College of Engineering that makes it tough, is that you're forced to graduate within 4 years.
<a href="http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/students/prospective-students/frequently-asked-questions.html#10%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/students/prospective-students/frequently-asked-questions.html#10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

53

<p>
[quote]
If you aren't willing to source your arguments, then don't assert them. That's how debate works, I'm afraid. Why should I source your points? That's nonsensical.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then I would suggest you use your own arguments against yourself. I've seen numerous posts of yours: how many times do you post data to support them? Pretty rarely, I would say. So then maybe we should go back and invalidate all of those posts for which you don't present data? Like you said, that's how debate works, right? Or, in other words, others are required to present data, but not you. Is that how it is? Otherwise, where's your data? Oh wait, you don't have any, do you? I see. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Regarding your source, no, that doesn't prove your argument. What you need to show me is: how successful are CoE transfers to L&S? Yes, it says a 3.0 is generally successful; it does not go into specifics about your so-called "engineering trap."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I think it's quite clear that there are quite a few engineering students who don't have a 3.0. Surely you are familiar with the grading curves at Berkeley. If you are not, you need do little but look at the grade sheets that are generally posted at the end of every semester somewhere in the department, where one's letter grades are posted next to your SID - the presumption obviously being that you know your SID but not anyone else's - along with (usually) the overall shape of the grade histogram. Or at least, they used to do that (maybe it's all online now). You may also note that certain departments, notably EECS, have instituted a specific policy that their grade curves for courses are centered at a point below 3.0 as a matter of policy.</p>

<p>"A typical GPA for courses in the lower division is 2.7. "</p>

<p>"A typical GPA for courses in the upper division is 2.9."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Policies/ugrad.grading.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Policies/ugrad.grading.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Hence, I think it is quite trivial to extrapolate that many engineering students will indeed wind up with GPA's below a 3.0 which, according to L&S rules means you will experience difficulty in switching colleges. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Getting into L&S is generally easy; I don't think anyone would dispute that. If you're already at Cal and you want to transfer to L&S, it's not difficult to get in, even if L&S would like to make it seem that way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I completely dispute it. As Sam Lee asked, do you have data to show that it is in fact easy? Furthermore, Why does that L&S rule exist, if it is so easy? Why doesn't L&S just expunge that rule?</p>

<p>
[quote]
but he already provided a source for a 3.0 GPA requirement.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As I said before, it's important to note that it is not a 'requirement'. In fact, that's actually what makes the situation worse. It is only a 'guideline'. What that means is that you can actually have a 3.0, and still not be allowed to switch in. The 3.0 only makes it more likely for you to be able to switch in, but doesn't actually guarantee anything.</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
But I still agree the policy is flawed...I mean why make people fail out?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The other part of the policy that is flawed, with respect to the CoE, is that it forces you to choose a particular engineering major right from the start, with only limited opportunities to change engineering majors later (because they're all impacted). Honestly, how many high school seniors really know that they want to major in ME as opposed to EECS, BioE, MatSci, etc.? I don't know about you, but I didn't attend a high school that taught any engineering classes, and certainly didn't provide much of a way to distinguish the various types of engineering. I suspect most people also did not attend such a high school. Hence, it's not easy to know exactly which engineering major you want. Other schools like Stanford, MIT, Caltech, etc. allow you to freely switch majors. If you try out a few EE courses and you find that you like it, you are free to switch to it. Nobody is going to stop you. </p>

<p>But Berkeley? Not so much. All of the CoE majors are impacted, and some (i.e. EECS, BioE) are more impacted than others. The upshot is that if you didn't choose it right from the very beginning, you may not be able to declare that major later. As I'm sure the CoE advisors will tell you (and if somebody like kyledavid80 wishes to dispute, we can write a joint email to the CoE advisors to confirm), not everybody who applies to switch to EECS is allowed to do so. Hence, many CoE students end up majoring in engineering disciplines that they don't really want. Furthermore, like I said above, many engineering students end up no longer wanting to major in engineering at all but can't switch out of engineering.</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
Also sakky is an alum that apparently knows Berkeley quite well. Even UCBChemgrad, another alum that actually graduated from the engineering school, said he "agreed the policy is flawed".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To be honest, it's obvious both sakky and UCBChemEGrad have not been at Berkeley in a while. Such policy isn't really true. (This isn't against them; I just see more current evidence to the contrary.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
strong stance to question the validity of anything that may be perceived as negative, even when it comes from actual Berkeley alums.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I take a "strong stance" (though I wouldn't say it's "strong" at all) because sakky goes around on these forums spouting the same points over and over again, and most of it patently isn't true. I tend to ignore his posts, but this time I genuinely wanted to see whether it was actually true.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I've seen numerous posts of yours: how many times do you post data to support them? Pretty rarely, I would say.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If I see it necessary, I do. If I think it's pretty well-known, I don't bother. If someone asks, I do.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Or, in other words, others are required to present data, but not you. Is that how it is?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, when those others 'require' me to do so, I will. (Though I source what I say very often, and I'd think I'd know my own posts better than you.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Otherwise, where's your data? Oh wait, you don't have any, do you? I see.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You really need to take posts less personally (and stop being so presumptuous).</p>

<p>And I notice you're trying to put the attention on me in this discussion, where I haven't made any far-fetched assertions. You have. Other discussions are issues for another day. If anyone wants me to source my points, I will do so promptly. I asked you for it; you attempted to source yours.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Uh, I think it's quite clear that there are quite a few engineering students who don't have a 3.0.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not denying that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Surely you are familiar with the grading curves at Berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hence, I think it is quite trivial to extrapolate that many engineering students will indeed wind up with GPA's below a 3.0 which, according to L&S rules means you will experience difficulty in switching colleges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think so at all. Yes, L&S has that "3.0 rule," and many in the CoE have below that. However, we need to see how L&S treats those from the CoE. And from what I've seen, they go easier on those in the CoE.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any statistics that show how CoE students fare in transferring to L&S, which is why I asked whether you might. Apparently not. So what other source of information is there? Current students perhaps? Let's see what they say:</p>

<p>"i have never heard of problems for switching from CoE to L&S. and i know a fair number of people who've done it, too. maybe if you're on academic probation or some comparably unpleasant situation..."</p>

<p>"I transferred into L&S from COE and it was really easy... The real challenge is getting from L&S to COE."</p>

<p>"as for the former situation, where L&S does not let people from CoE in --- i'm not sure that's entirely real. ... i sometimes feel that there are a lot of rumours about L&S which are false: for instance, requesting to stay the extra 9th semester has been rumoured to be hard, but amongst my friends and people who have done it, there hasn't really been any reported difficulties"</p>

<p>I'll let you know when other students respond. =)</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
To be honest, it's obvious both sakky and UCBChemEGrad have not been at Berkeley in a while. Such policy isn't really true. (This isn't against them; I just see more current evidence to the contrary.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then let's see the evidence. </p>

<p>Notice that the link that I posted of the rule of the College of Letters & Science was published in 2004. In other words, that post was after my time. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I take a "strong stance" (though I wouldn't say it's "strong" at all) because sakky goes around on these forums spouting the same points over and over again, and most of it patently isn't true. I tend to ignore his posts, but this time I genuinely wanted to see whether it was actually true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you have the evidence that it is true. Now I think it's time for you to present your evidence that it is not true. If you don't have it, then perhaps you shouldn't be asserting that it's not true, according to your own rules of debate. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If I see it necessary, I do. If I think it's pretty well-known, I don't bother. If someone asks, I do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, when those others 'require' me to do so, I will. (Though I source what I say very often, and I'd think I'd know my own posts better than you.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am requiring you to do so now. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And I notice you're trying to put the attention on me in this discussion, where I haven't made any far-fetched assertions

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh? Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to your proof that it is "easy" to switch into L&S. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think so at all. Yes, L&S has that "3.0 rule," and many in the CoE have below that. However, we need to see how L&S treats those from the CoE. And from what I've seen, they go easier on those in the CoE.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But evidently not easily enough, as evidenced by the people I know that tried to move from the CoE to L&S and were denied. Granted, they had nowhere near a 3.0, but that's the point. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any statistics that show how CoE students fare in transferring to L&S, which is why I asked whether you might.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because the statistics don't exist one way or another. After all, I don't think that Berkeley is too keen on publishing such statistics.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, it is a simple inference of the rules regarding engineering grading curves and the L&S switch rules that engineers who have bad grades may experience great difficulty in switching to L&S. I happen to know several such people myself.</p>

<p>But as it stands, I have actual documentation of official Berkeley websites that strongly hints at the difficulties that people with bad grades will experience. I also have evidence that engineering grading is harsh. You, on the other hand, have just hearsay anecdotes (and I have similar countervailing anecdotes). Hence, as it stands, I think it's pretty clear that I have the preponderance of the evidence.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
I don't think so at all. Yes, L&S has that "3.0 rule," and many in the CoE have below that. However, we need to see how L&S treats those from the CoE. And from what I've seen, they go easier on those in the CoE.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do they now? I think that's an unsupported assertion for which I think it's fair to ask for evidence. Do you have evidence to show that they actually go easier on CoE people? If you do not, then might I suggest that we write a joint email to L&S and ask them whether they do in fact go easier on CoE switchers and then we will post their reply here.</p>

58

<p>The fact is, sakky, many current students disagree with you, and based on their experiences and observations, what you've said is patently not true.</p>

<p>The requirements are easy for transferring into L&S, and such is apparent from what you linked to:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Have completed at least one semester of coursework at UC Berkeley

[/quote]
</p>

<p>After that semester, the student may be thinking of transferring.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Have completed fewer than 90 units at the end of your last term before admission to the College

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I doubt those who are transferring have amassed that many units. Lower-division courses, as the other link says, seem to be harder than upper-division ones, so the student would probably have figured out they want to transfer before then. But either way, 90 units is pretty standard and is equivalent to half of your time at Berkeley.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Are able to complete your degree within the College's unit limit

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not too difficult, either; students cam decide on their majors a few semesters into their time at Berkeley and then are able to complete all the unit/requirements.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Have completed Entry Level Writing and the first half of the Reading and Composition requirement (by the end of your freshman year)
Have also completed the second half of the Reading and Composition requirement (by the end of your sophomore year)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Standard courses at Berkeley. (And students can opt out of these by AP scores.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Are eligible to declare a major (if you have completed 60 units or more)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That makes sense.</p>

<p>The real focus, though, is on the GPA, as you implied in your discussion of it:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Please note: Grade Point Average is also a significant consideration for admission to the College. Students who meet all other criteria and have a 3.0 or higher GPA are more likely to be approved.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Notice that it says "more likely" -- it does not say that those below that are "unlikely" (in other words, they didn't specify with a "than" clause).</p>

<p>Lastly, the link you provided on engineering GPAs is for EECS only. The CoE has many more majors than EECS. (Not to mention EECS is widely known as one of the harshest majors on campus, though of course no engineering major is "fluff.")</p>

<p>Others who have current knowledge:</p>

<p>"not true. except for certain impacted majors like economics, L&S majors are not selective at all. they let in anyone who has the prereqs completed."</p>

<p>"i went from COE to L&S, it was very easy. i just filled out some paperwork."</p>

59

<p>


</p>

<p>If true, how can you make the claims that you do? "Inference" is not data. Anecdotes are not data. hmmmm</p>

60

<p>I've seen sakky make a claim in several threads that is being doubted in this thread. It may be that the "clash" observed here on what happens to UC Berkeley engineering majors if they get poor grades in engineering is simply a result of old information being compared to current information. If so, it should be easy to resolve the issue. I've just been reading David Hume's famous writing on what evidence is sufficient for believing a miracle, and this provides a basis for deciding which of the clashing positions has more face-value plausibility. Since the claim by sakky himself is that Berkeley's policy, as he describes it, doesn't make sense, there is more plausibility to kyledavid's statement that Berkeley doesn't operate as sakky says in current practice. Therefore I will ask sakky to back up his statement with the best available current evidence that we can all read and digest. Anything that happens on the campus of a public (that is, taxpayer-supported and government-operated) large research university with a vigorous campus newspaper surely must be written about by someone. There should be quite a few documents on the issue in dispute here posted on the World Wide Web for all of us to see. I'd like to see links, and I'd like to see as much evidence as possible about what actually happens to Berkeley students in impacted engineering majors if they decide to switch majors. A lot of us out-of-staters want to know more about Berkeley, and this seems like a fine thread in which to gain a better understanding of the situation there.</p>