Hardest colleges to stay in

College Search & Selection
61

<p>
[quote]
Therefore I will ask sakky to back up his statement with the best available current evidence that we can all read and digest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>He's done that already; <a href="http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/faq/chgclg.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/faq/chgclg.html&lt;/a> which is last updated in April 2006, not long ago. Since it's on Berkeley website, that likely means it's still relevant currently.</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>Now, does it mean engineering major with 2.9 GPA would be rejected? Absolutely not but maybe. What about 2.7, 2.4, or 2.2 even? To believe "no" without evidence is like saying Engineering is somehow exempted from their published guideline without any evidence even the policy clearly says it's a <em>significant</em> factor. That to me has less face-value plausibility. </p>

<p>There may be examples of Berkeley students saying it's not hard to transfer from their experience but how many of them have low GPAs? We always say CC crowd is self-selecting and that needs to be taken into consideration.</p>

<p>Even if this policy doesn't apply to engineering, the potential trap still exists for others to get out of their specialty/preprofessional schools--there could be "chemE/chem trap" and there could be "architecture trap". In many other schools, people can switch to their arts and sciences college easily. I believe this is what people should be aware of if people consider Berkeley. Of course, someone can say that GPA requirement is never practiced in reality. But again, this position has less face-value plausibility if no evidence is provided. :)</p>

62

<p>


</p>

<p>What about DNR? Their application to transfer does not reference a gpa, does it?</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
We always say CC crowd is self-selecting and that needs to be taken into consideration.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I did not pose this question to Berkeley's CC board, but rather on another site with Berkeley students.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That to me has less face-value plausibility.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It depends on how you interpret it. I see it as more plausible that they'd go easier on engineerings -- not quite "exempted," though (as that would mean that there is a definite requirement, and the "3.0" is just a general rule). Why? Because the CoE is known to be extremely rigorous. Thus, when considering whether to accept students to L&S, they would take that into account; they can tell that X student is not doing well in EECS, which is why he wants to switch out. They can see that his getting a 2.7 (or whatever) is not a reason to reject him, but to accept him (as that's why he's trying to get out). At least, that's how it seems to me.</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind that L&S is the largest college, and is not as selective as others in many cases. For example, when you apply for freshman admission, putting a major in L&S has no effect on your admission; if you put down an engineering major, it will. Transferring into L&S once in the university may be a little different, but just looking at the requirements, I don't see it as difficult at all. And again, the "3.0" thing is just a general guideline.</p>

<p>As was said, the only times I can see it being considered "difficult" is if the student is on academic probation (i.e. their GPA dropping near or below 2.0), or if the student wants to get into an impacted major like psychology or econ.</p>

<p>Getting in is largely based on getting the prereqs done and doing okay in those. As some of the students say:</p>

<p>"I am not aware of any college-based priority enrollment for lower division L&S classes. COE majors sign up for the courses on telebears like everyone else. In fact, COE majors have major requirements that require them to take L&S classes like Physics 7A. Only in the upper division do we see major-specific enrollment policies."</p>

<p>"Everyone in COE has to take a certain number of humanities classes, both upper division and lower division, and we have to fulfill the R1A and R1B requirement. Also, depending on your major in COE, you may end up taking a lot of lower division classes that overlap and may count towards prereqs, like Chem 1A, Chem 3A, Chem 3B, Math 1A and 1B etc."</p>

<p>So even that doesn't seem difficult.</p>

64

<p>Hi, Sam, but that's just the point. The link you kindly reposted doesn't describe as stark a situation as the one sakky claims, but supports a description such as the one kyledavid has written. One CAN change majors at Berkeley, even if it means changing colleges, and there is an established procedure for doing that. As an alumnus of a huge state university myself, and knowing that Berkeley has a faculty of economics on campus, I would be most surprised if the university locked a lot of students into inefficient choices. I expect better of Berkeley, which is why I find kyledavid's account more plausible--still, after you have helpfully pointed out the link in a new post.</p>

65

<p>The 4-yr rule that UCBchemgrad mentioned is another interesting one. The implication is double-majoring in the engineering school is very difficult, if not nearly impossible; am I correct? What if I found myself not really that into chemE but biomedical engg instead? Am I gonna run out of time if I switch (though according to sakky, it's difficult to switch)? What about having two majors in two different schools (e.g. industrial engg + econ)? Is that out of the question?</p>

66

<p>tokenadult,</p>

<p>the irony is berkeley's inflexibility may be due to its prestige and their most renowned majors are "impacted". it's like a victim of its own success. do other state schools have such thing as "impacted" majors? i never heard of that term until people talk about berkeley. </p>

<p>i understand your position and i agree that the idea of locking a lot of students into inefficient choices does sound less plausible. it'll be interesting to find out what the reality is which is important for perspective students to know.</p>

67

<p>Well, notice the full text:</p>

<p>"Yes, our program is one that we feel our students should be able to complete in 8 semesters. Advising is designed to help the student stay on track. If necessary, with approval from the dean, an additional semester may be granted. Students who need additional time due to illness, work or learning disabilities need to meet with the dean about additional time."</p>

<p>So, you can stay a bit longer than 4 years. In fact, I know some who stay even longer than an extra semester.</p>

<p>But generally, engineering isn't difficult to complete in 4 years. I know many who complete it in less than that. Double-majoring is a bit more difficult, but that's why you work with academic advisers to plan out your years. And the unit cap for double majors is higher than those who are single majors (which is 120).</p>

<p>
[quote]
do other state schools have such thing as "impacted" majors? i never heard of that term until people talk about berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Er, yeah. Tons of schools have impacted majors. Even Cal States like Cal Poly SLO have impacted majors. Other publics have impacted majors (though they call it other things, and the procedures are varied). It's very common.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.tamu.edu/president/documents/taskforce/Appendix_2b.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.tamu.edu/president/documents/taskforce/Appendix_2b.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

68

<p>Good source. Privates win on this one. ;)</p>

69

<p>Think of it like this: Berkeley will admit more students than Stanford, and then it will limit about 10% of them as to which majors they get into. Stanford, on the other hand, doesn't admit them at all. =p</p>

<p>Seriously, though, I'm not sure whether certain private schools have similar problems; it's possible, I suppose, though probably not top-20 privates. Even UVA, which is very private-like, has a policy like that. And it depends on the public as to how many are actually affected by it; comparatively few students in L&S at Berkeley are.</p>

70

<p>i heard MIT was hard, but i dont know</p>

71

<p>UCLA also has impacted majors, as do many of the Cal states. </p>

<p>Finaid also affects grad rates.</p>

<p>For example, Berkeley tries to get you out in four years, but will not force the issue if you have other family circumstances (gotta work to pay the tuition?), or you can make a solid case to double major which might take an extra quarter or two or three. And, if you have to stay longer, finaid will continue, albeit UC finaid is not great. [btw: don't forget, the UCs are extremely generous with AP credit, awarding full credit for a 3, so many can an do graduate in less than four years.] </p>

<p>OTOH, private colleges will typically only provide finaid for four full years. Thus, finaid students had better plan their major and complete it on time.</p>

72

<p>survey on superscoring?</p>

<p>token: I think you mentioned that you are trying to obtain real data regarding the advantage (if any) of superscoring the SAT. While awaiting response from CB, perhaps Roger could post an (unscientific) poll on cc?</p>

73

<p>Hi, bluebayou, thanks for the kind thread-drifting suggestion. I guess any participant in CC can ask, but I wouldn't believe the results for the reasons stated in my FAQ about voluntary response polls: </p>

<p>VOLUNTARY RESPONSE POLLS </p>

<p>One professor of statistics, who is a co-author of a highly regarded AP statistics textbook, has tried to popularize the phrase that "voluntary response data are worthless" to go along with the phrase "correlation does not imply causation." Other statistics teachers are gradually picking up this phrase.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p><a href="http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=194473&tstart=36420%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=194473&tstart=36420&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

74

<p>bluebayou,</p>

<p>the problem is there's actually no evidence the published stats for privates have been superscored. just because some privates say they superscore to evaluate applicants doesn't mean they superscore to generate their published stats on their common data set. usually privates don't even mention it anywhere on their websites and the info only got out when prospies called and asked if they superscored. a lot time, prospies got contradictory answers even for the same university, depending on whom they asked. but in any case, none of their websites said "our published data have been superscored" in their stats/class profile page. until one can establish privates' published stats are actually superscored, it's rather pointless to go the next step. the fact that the published SAT correlates so well with ACT (which doesn't superscore) AND #NMS (normalized by school size) suggests that nobody's score is artificially deflated/inflated (superscored). </p>

<p>seriously, if schools like berkeley and michigan know others are superscoring, they would sit around and do nothing? or don't say anything on their website such as "our scores aren't superscored while many schools like doing that"..etc. after all, this isn't some complicated technology if they really want to do that.</p>

75

<p>
[quote]
The 4-yr rule that UCBchemgrad mentioned is another interesting one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's UCBChem*E*grad.</p>

<p>Geez...:rolleyes:</p>

<p>:D</p>

76

<p>Perhaps some Berkeley students who have attended one of these workshops needs to weigh in:
<a href="http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/faq/chgclgsession.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/faq/chgclgsession.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>...if not, the world may never know.</p>

77

<p>Sam Lee: while you're right that it says nowhere that the published data is superscored, it makes sense to assume that it is: the university says it takes the highest single sections. In addition, many ask that you put only the highest single sittings, so they will get only the superscore. As for those that don't superscore, it's obvious that the published data is unsuperscored: other than the fact that they actually say they only consider the best sitting, many schools--the UCs, for example--just ask for the best sitting (you don't even put any other sittings down).</p>

<p>As for the ACT data, we don't know whether they superscore that or not.</p>

<p>The NMS figures don't work so easily. For one, some schools don't participate in the program. I think Berkeley used to enroll the third highest # of NMS students until it discontinued the program in 2002. For another, you can't just jump to the conclusion that NMS and SAT figures are perfectly related, that those who do well on the NMS and the SAT become finalists (they might not even qualify for semifinalist, despite having a high score, and of course it varies from state to state; and they might not even make it to finalist status, though most do), that they are choosing to attend schools without regard to where they can get the NMS money, etc. You simply don't have that data. Not to mention the NMS is for the PSAT, not the SAT. The logic here is really shaky.</p>

<p>Lastly, I think there's published data on the average increases in each section of the SAT after the second sitting, though I'm not sure where it is -- it's been posted before on CC. I daresay students who are accepted to schools such as Berkeley would tend to increase their SAT a bit more than the national average.</p>

<p>Most importantly, why is this even still being argued? My god, it's just a few incremental differences in the SAT scores. It's like saying that Stanford students are on average more capable (or that the Stanford student body is of higher quality) than NU students because the SAT is on average 30 points higher. Or that Chicago's students aren't as smart as Duke's students, or that NU isn't as selective as Duke because of a difference in SAT scores. Honestly, the differences are so incremental it's really inconsequential.</p>

78

<p>The Common Data Set Initiative provides definitions for how the data should be reported. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.commondataset.org/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.commondataset.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

79

<p>Private universities and liberal arts colleges aren't institutions to graduate from, especially the most competitive ones. Highly competitive colleges and universities not only enroll highly capable students and offer smaller class sizes, but they also provide an array of supplementary services to students that struggle academically. Most even offer programs to ease the college transition socially -- sometimes even for transfers.</p>

<p>And high-ranked private schools have an interest in making sure that their students graduate. Graduation rate it affects their ranking and overall image. No one wants to attend a school where students are less likely to graduate, whether the reason is academic rigor or campus atmosphere (unless that school's named "Reed"). Furthermore, students pay tuition (though some top universities hardly depend on students tuition dollars). Failing a student is turning away money. </p>

<p>Most public universities can't afford to cherry-pick their student bodies as much as their private counterparts. They have a duty as secondary public institutions to offer an education the citizens of their respective states that supersedes rankings and prestige. A public cannot, for example, decide to reduce their overall enrollment by half for anything other than fiscal reasons. Enrollment can only get bigger. Because that means more instate students -- and larger classes and less selectivity. Consequently, publics are more likely to admit students that will not graduate.</p>

80

<p>
[quote]
A public cannot, for example, decide to reduce their overall enrollment by half for anything other than fiscal reasons. Enrollment can only get bigger.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, no, many publics have decided to cut enrollment in the past. UCLA, for example, over-enrolled this past year, so they are going to limit the next year's class. Other publics (and I can't seem to remember which) had decided to bring their class sizes down. Perhaps not by half, but they can certainly downsize.</p>