<p>How do you like the school? Student life, academics, etc.? How does it compare to your HS or CC life?</p>
<p>I feel that it's too big a question. Please be more specific. ^_^
Anyway, the biggest impression so far has been academic intensity. Although I'm only taking 15 units in my first semester (with 2 technical classes), I feel it's much more challenging than my 8-AP-class high school senior year. You're expected to absorb course material at a much faster pace, and the instructors don't teach you everything - you have to figure out some by yourself.
It's just my personal feeling as a first-year EECS major. Others may feel different.</p>
<p>That's exactly what my bro said his frosh year as an English/poli sci major. they don't slow down, and you have to work your butt off just to get a c in some cases.</p>
<p>Lower division math and science classes are academically intense.</p>
<p>Student life for me was great. I was a transfer student and lived in the transfer dorm for a year. I met a lot of friends in the dorm and thru my major. </p>
<p>Finding off-campus housing can be stressful.</p>
<p>There are tons of cafes, libraries, and stores close to campus. I did not have a car or bike, and actually lost weight walking all the hills. BART is so convenient...access to the airport and San Fran is just a short train ride away. </p>
<p>Sporting events (including football games) are right on campus, easily accessible, and reasonably priced.</p>
<p>in my opinion, there's no place like Berkeley. i am absolutely loving it. classes are intense, the whole academic atmosphere is. the social scene is totally what you want to make of it. cal students are very open and accepting and it's easy to make friends. the campus and environment has a lot of intensity, the off-campus area is like no other (in my opinion) and i can't imagine being any where else.</p>
<p>I am really enjoying my stay at Berkeley even though for some reasons, I really didn't think Cal was all that great when I was in high school. I am doing MCB and I am working at a lab right now. I absolutely am amazed by all the grad students, post docs, and staff scientists at the lab and I just can't think of any better place to go for a molecular bio student other than Cal. I think the quality and varieties of research at Berkeley is only comparable by Harvard, and even Harvard doesn't have as complete programs as Cal. To be honest, I was pretty unhappy about the fact that the undergrad part of Cal isn't ranked very high and I came to Cal just for the scholarship it offers. However, I found out how lucky I am to make this decision very soon. Don't take it when people tell you that Berkeley is only good for grad school but not undergrad. The truth is, nobody is going to stop you if you decide to use the resources of the grad schools here at Cal. It's really up to you what resources you want to utilize here and I don't think they ever shut the door at you. Basically, I believe Cal really has it all (any subject you can think of basically) and it depends on you if you want to take the time to explore them.</p>
<p>Regard the intensity of classes, I actually think the lower div science and math classes aren't too hard. I have 17 units right now for my first semester here at Cal and I really feel relaxed comparing to high school. The chem 1a (general chem), and math 1b (2nd semester calc) are really easy and I spend like an hour or two each week doing homework for each classes. However, I went to a pretty intense high school in US and also in Taiwan, and I learned a lot of science/math there. I guess that's why I feel relaxed right now. Anyhow, don't believe people when they tell you all the classes are "really" competitive. I don't think it's that hard or anything. It's quite doable to get solid A's on the midterms if you just manage your time well. </p>
<p>Last advise, don't come to Cal if you are not a very independent person who needs people to inform you on things. At Cal, you are really on your own and you need to spend time to search on all the opportunities. Definitely go to a smaller private college if you think you are not that independent and not able to manage everything well just by yourself. It's quite sad but I think people who come to Cal but not being mature enough will eventually be those who fail to have a successful time here and be bitter about the experience...</p>
<p>
[quote]
am really enjoying my stay at Berkeley even though for some reasons, I really didn't think Cal was all that great when I was in high school. I am doing MCB and I am working at a lab right now. I absolutely am amazed by all the grad students, post docs, and staff scientists at the lab and I just can't think of any better place to go for a molecular bio student other than Cal. I think the quality and varieties of research at Berkeley is only comparable by Harvard, and even Harvard doesn't have as complete programs as Cal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's leave aside the question of whether there really isn't any other school that is comparable in terms of quality/variety of research (for example, a certain school in Palo Alto immediately comes to mind).</p>
<p>I think the real question is does that research really matter? Let's be perfectly honest with ourselves. How many people would have still chosen Cal if they had been admitted to Harvard out of high school? Sure, there are obviously some such people, but honestly, how many, compared to how many would have done the opposite? Let's keep in mind that Harvard wins something like 2/3 to 3/4 of the cross-admit battles with even schools like Yale, MIT, and Stanford, so how do you think Cal would match up? </p>
<p>Let me also ask a slightly different question. If every current Cal student had the choice to transfer to Harvard right now, how many of them would take it, vs. how many would choose to stay? Again, be honest. </p>
<p>I know these are uncomfortable questions, but I ask them to illustrate a basic point: whatever research strengths a school may possess, that's not really what most undergrads are looking for. Let's face it. The vast majority of the nation's undergrads don't care about research for the simple reason that they don't intend to have a research career. Heck, even many of the students who do engage in extensive undergrad research often times don't care about having a research career if they can find something better. For example, I know plenty of people who completed years of undergrad science research, and then upon graduation immediately took jobs as Wall Street investment bankers or strategy consultants. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The truth is, nobody is going to stop you if you decide to use the resources of the grad schools here at Cal. It's really up to you what resources you want to utilize here and I don't think they ever shut the door at you. Basically, I believe Cal really has it all (any subject you can think of basically) and it depends on you if you want to take the time to explore them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I happen to know a number of former Berkeley undergrads who were 'stopped' from taking advantage of research resources. Usually, it boiled down labs that were doing cool research being oversubscribed from an undergraduate standpoint, leaving the undergrads who weren't picked to be stuck either having to work in one of the less desirable labs that were doing less interesting work, or simply not getting a research position at all. </p>
<p>The other aspect is precisely what you mentioned: the basic lack of information regarding opportunities. Of the former students I know who did have excellent opportunities, many of them obtained those opportunities simply because nobody else knew about them. But of course if everybody did know about them, then lots of people would have applied and as a consequence, those opportunities might have gone to somebody else. Simply put, there are not enough good research opportunities for every undergrad who wants one, and so information becomes a competitive weapon. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Last advise, don't come to Cal if you are not a very independent person who needs people to inform you on things. At Cal, you are really on your own and you need to spend time to search on all the opportunities. Definitely go to a smaller private college if you think you are not that independent and not able to manage everything well just by yourself. It's quite sad but I think people who come to Cal but not being mature enough will eventually be those who fail to have a successful time here and be bitter about the experience...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This last paragraph, I agree with completely, and I hope serves to disavow the notion that I am some how "anti-Cal". I have always believed, and still do believe, that Cal is a fantastic school for those undergrads who do well, and specifically, for those whose personality aligns with the structure of the school. For those students, Cal is indeed a fount of opportunities.</p>
<p>The problem is, what about those undergrads who don't do well? What about those people whose personalities do not mesh with Cal? I don't think it's necessarily a matter of maturity or independence. I think it's more of a matter of stylistic differences. Some people are more comfortable in smaller, more intimate settings. That doesn't make them less mature. I don't see why we have to characterize the situation pejoratively. It just means that their personalities are different. {It's similar to how some people like living in cities, and other people like living in small towns. It doesn't mean that those who like living in small towns are somehow "less mature" than cityfolk.}</p>
<p>Haha Sakky's reply makes me think of how I was like in high school. I am pretty certain that schools like Harvard and MIT are generally more desired by students, but why do you think how popular a school correlates to the true quality of education this school provides? I am sure most people would gladly go to Harvard/MIT/whatnot instead of Berkeley, but sadly..I think most people don't really understand what college is all about before they actually go. I am not sure if many people would accept the offer to transfer to Harvard from Cal though..I myself honestly wouldn't. </p>
<p>I don't think research is something that's important for every undergrad. However, I do think it's a great indicator of the quality of the professors at a college. It is also not true that students are denied access to do research in competitive labs. It is true that you will not be accepted by every single lab you apply to, but really, college students shouldn't be babies anymore and if you are motivated enough, nobody can stop you from doing anything. I came to US three years ago and then Cal without any connection. My father is a high school teacher in Taiwan and my mother a housewife. However, I still managed to get into a very competitive lab that publishes almost exclusively in Nature, Science, PNAS and such as a first semester freshmen. I don't know why people complain about not being able to get research positions. I guess it's just that they spend too much time complaining about it instead of taking some realistic actions. </p>
<p>Besides, if you are not interested in research but to get a decent job right after graduation, Haas is a great choice for you. A distanced cousin of mine graduated from Haas a couple years ago and his starting salary after graduation was 70K. Berkeley has more than research to offer, and the only reason why I am taking research as an example is simply because I have experience in that. </p>
<p>In general, I think Berkeley is a great but really really huge place. If you, as Sakky said, have the personality that prefers a more intimate place, then it is not going to be a good choice. However, I think everyone should also be aware that after college, we all have to face the real world which is huge rude and competitive for those who are without connections like me. Berkeley is quite a similar model to that and I think by the time I graduate, I will know very well how to take care of myself and make myself stand out from others. </p>
<p>: ) In general, I am having a really good time at Cal and I would certainly recommend this place to people applying for colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Haha Sakky's reply makes me think of how I was like in high school. I am pretty certain that schools like Harvard and MIT are generally more desired by students, but why do you think how popular a school correlates to the true quality of education this school provides?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One simple word: networking.</p>
<p>Simply put, one of the most important, and arguably THE most important reason to choose a particular college is the value of the networking. Surely we've all heard the phrase: "It's not what you know, it's who you know." Whether we like it or not, a lot of hiring, a lot of promotion, and a lot of success is determined via social networks. You are far more likely to get what you want in life if you know the right people. </p>
<p>As a simple case in point, take Steve Ballmer. Let's face it. The reason why he's the CEO of Microsoft (and therefore a billionaire) is that he was Bill Gates's old poker-playing pal in Currier House at Harvard. Simply put, if Ballmer had never gone to Harvard, he never would have met Gates, and hence, he would never have been offered the job. </p>
<p>Now, certainly, I agree that in some sense, the 'networking value' of any particular school is somewhat arbitrary. The reason why Harvard and other such schools are such valuable networking opportunities is because society, for whatever reason, has deemed them to be schools that the top people ought to shoot for. Society could have made a different choice. Just like there is no inherent reason for Ebay to be the premier destination website for online auctions. Buyers go to Ebay because they know they can find lots of other sellers, and sellers likewise flock to Ebay because they know they can find lots of buyers. But that's arbitrary. We as a society could have instead chosen Yahoo Auctions or one of the other online auction sites. </p>
<p>But that's irrelevent. Once Ebay became known as the destination of choice, then the network effects compels others to make the same choice. Similarly, it may be arbitrary for Harvard to have become the destination of choice. But it doesn't matter that it's arbitrary. At the end of the day, if I want to auction my Beanie Baby away, I should go to the place that has the most buyers. Similarly, if I want to maximize my networking opportunities, I should go to the school that has the best such opportunities. To me, it doesn't matter why those opportunities exist where they do. All that matters is that they exist where they do, and so I then make my choice accordingly. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I am sure most people would gladly go to Harvard/MIT/whatnot instead of Berkeley, but sadly..I think most people don't really understand what college is all about before they actually go. I am not sure if many people would accept the offer to transfer to Harvard from Cal though..I myself honestly wouldn't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am quite sure that many many would. Especially the ones who are doing poorly at Cal (and there are a LOT of these people). They, more than anybody else, would surely LOVE to go to Harvard. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think research is something that's important for every undergrad. However, I do think it's a great indicator of the quality of the professors at a college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody disputes that Berkeley's professors are top-notch researchers. But again, I ask, how much does that really matter to the average undergrad? Again, the average undergrad has no intention of entering academia. The average undergrad just wants somebody who can teach them well, and as I'm sure we would all agree, just because somebody is a great researcher doesn't necessarily make him a great teacher. I remember sitting in my math courses that were taught by world-famous math professors, and wishing that I had been instead taught by my old high school math teacher. Sure, he was no famous math researcher, not by a long shot. But at least he had a way of conveying math in a way that was fun and interesting, something that these world-famous math professors sadly lacked. </p>
<p>
[quote]
but really, college students shouldn't be babies anymore and if you are motivated enough, nobody can stop you from doing anything. I came to US three years ago and then Cal without any connection. My father is a high school teacher in Taiwan and my mother a housewife. However, I still managed to get into a very competitive lab that publishes almost exclusively in Nature, Science, PNAS and such as a first semester freshmen. I don't know why people complain about not being able to get research positions. I guess it's just that they spend too much time complaining about it instead of taking some realistic actions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, people complain because there is in fact something to complain about. The desirable labs get filled up quickly. I am glad that you got into a good lab, but as I'm sure you know, not everybody does. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides, if you are not interested in research but to get a decent job right after graduation, Haas is a great choice for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You whip out the Haas example so glibly, as if that option is available to everybody. Yet the fact is, only 53% of continuing Berkeley students who apply to Haas will get in. That doesn't even include those students who wanted to get in but don't even apply because they know they'll get rejected. Let's face it. If you have a 2.3 GPA, you know you're not going to get into Haas, so why even apply? </p>
<p>Undergraduate</a> Program - Admissions - Haas School of Business</p>
<p>
[quote]
A distanced cousin of mine graduated from Haas a couple years ago and his starting salary after graduation was 70K. Berkeley has more than research to offer, and the only reason why I am taking research as an example is simply because I have experience in that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's then fair to point out just how unusually lucky or skilled your cousin was. When you say "a couple of years ago", I will take you to mean 2005. The average salary for the BS Haas grads in 2005 was 53k. Heck, the 75th percentile for the BS Haas grads was 55k. Hence, your cousin was far far far above the average. Probably within the top 5% of all Haas grads in terms of salary. </p>
<p>Career</a> Center - What Can I Do With a Major In...?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In general, I think Berkeley is a great but really really huge place. If you, as Sakky said, have the personality that prefers a more intimate place, then it is not going to be a good choice. However, I think everyone should also be aware that after college, we all have to face the real world which is huge rude and competitive for those who are without connections like me. Berkeley is quite a similar model to that and I think by the time I graduate, I will know very well how to take care of myself and make myself stand out from others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, I'm very glad that you are doing well at Cal. And like I've said, Cal is indeed a great school for those who do well, meaning those who fit into the Berkeley style of education.</p>
<p>However, my perennial question is, what about those Cal students who *don't * do well? What about them? Not everybody finds Berkeley's academic pressure to be easily handleable, as it seems so with you. Not everybody will get into a competitive lab that publishes in top journals, as you seem to have. Not everybody will, like apparently your cousin did, get a 70k starting salary right out of Haas. {Again, heck, nearly half of the applicants won't even get into Haas in the first place and even the 75th percentile of Haas grads were making only 55k.} In short, not everybody has an enjoyable experience at Cal. Plenty don't. These people would probably have been better off going to another school. </p>
<p>Nor is it a simple matter of 'unwillingness' to face a rude and competitive world. Last time I checked, graduates from schools like HYPSM, as well as the elite LAC's, were doing quite well, in fact, just as well as the grads from Cal, if not better. Seems to me that those grads had little problem adjusting to the real world. </p>
<p>
[quote]
: ) In general, I am having a really good time at Cal and I would certainly recommend this place to people applying for colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I would say that my mediating factors are what sort of personality does a particular person have. I can certainly think of a number of people for which I don't think Cal would be a good school. Again, it has nothing to do with 'immaturity' or the fear of dealing with the real world. Simply put, their learning style is not well suited for the Berkeley environment.</p>
<p>sakky, i've read a lot of your posts from football to academics, and just out of curiosity, how do YOU like cal? you always seem to present the opposite viewpoint, which is fine don't get me wrong, but are you happy there, or do you really wish you could transfer lol?</p>
<p>
[quote]
which is fine don't get me wrong, but are you happy there, or do you really wish you could transfer lol?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, first off, very simply, I am not a current Berkeley student, so this question is no longer relevant to me anyway.</p>
<p>Secondly, let me paraphrase for you a snippet from the following conversation I had over drinks with a Berkeley alumni. I will call that alumni "X". Obviously I can't remember the exact quotes that we used, but the following captures the spirit of the conversation:</p>
<p>X: I LOVED Berkeley. I loved the environment, I loved the education, I loved the city, I loved everything about the school. It taught me everything I know, and set me up with a great job upon graduation, and now I will be attending the MBA program at the business school of my dreams.
Me: And which business school is that?
X: Harvard Business School
Me: I see </p>
<p>Naturally, that conversation begs the question of: if that person really liked Berkeley so much, why didn't that person just go back there for the MBA? But of course that presumes that this is an either/or choice, when it is not necessarily so. Why can't somebody be happy AND still want to improve their station in life? I don't see that as oxymoronic. After all, it is a simple truism in life that everybody wants to move up. Everybody always wants a better job, a better house, a better car, a better everything. Who doesn't want these things? Similarly, I don't see why otherwise happy people at Berkeley wouldn't want to attend a better school if given the chance. After all, I think we have to admit that there are better schools out there. {And similarly, Berkeley is better than many other schools; I would not be surprised at all to find that most students at the lower UC's and the CalStates would want to transfer to Berkeley if given the chance.} I also don't see why it should be embarrassing to admit this to be so. Nobody should feel embarrassed by the fact that they want to improve their station in life. Ambition is a good trait. </p>
<p>I also think of a guy I know who has spent decades working for one company and whose job consists of devising business strategies to defeat his company's rivals. Yet he once privately admitted to me that if one of those other rivals offered him a better job for more pay, he would take it. His primary overarching loyalty is to himself and his family. Not his current employer. His real goal is to provide for his family, and if working for a rival firm allows him to accomplish that goal more efficiently, he'll happily do so. Furthermore, he is also well aware that his current employer can lay him off at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all. Hence, he's learned to never fall in love with a company, because you never know if that company will fall out of love with you. {Similarly, I would counsel against anybody falling in love with any school, because you never know if that school will fall out of love with you. I know people who loved Berkeley when they matriculated, and later ended up flunking out. They loved Berkeley, but Berkeley didn't "love" them back.} </p>
<p>But now, getting down to what I think is the more interesting question, what do I personally think of Berkeley? I would say that I am fundamentally neutral to the school. I don't love it, but I don't hate it either. I simply see it for what it is - a school that has both good and bad qualities, and I mention both such qualities. </p>
<p>For example, I have always stated, and will continue to say, that Berkeley's PhD programs and research capabilities are undoubtedly world-class. If you're an undergrad who is interested in research and can get into a top-notch lab as cawaiigirl apparently did, then you can do very well for yourself. Good for her. Furthermore, to generalize, Berkeley is indeed a good school for those students that do well, as they will emerge from Berkeley with all of the opportunities in the world. </p>
<p>But the dark side of Berkeley is encapsulated by the question I asked before: "What about those undergrads who don't do well?" Let's be perfectly honest. There are a lot of undergrads who don't do well. Not well at all. Berkeley treats these students rather coldly, and in some instances seems to actively screw these students over. For example, consider the engineering 'major trap' in which those engineering students who are doing poorly in an engineering major are forced to stay in that major because no other major wants to take them. What's up with that? Or consider all those students who came into Berkeley intending to major in one of those impacted disciplines (i.e. economics) but don't do well enough in their prereqs to get into the major and are hence forced to major in something they don't want. What about them? {What makes the situation so curious is that MCB, which is the largest major by far, will take any and every student who wants in, but econ, which is a significantly smaller major, refuses to do so. Why?} </p>
<p>The bottom line is this. If you do well at Berkeley, you will have numerous opportunities available to you. Berkeley will then indeed be a very good school for you. But there is also the chance that you won't do well, in which case Berkeley will not be a good place to be. And of course, there is no way to know ex-ante whether you will do well or do poorly.</p>
<p>^ I agree with most of what you're saying. </p>
<p>I have a cousin that went to Berkeley freshman year and flunked out. I don't think I would criticize the school in his case, because I think my cousin did it to himself. He lived a very sheltered life (over protective mother) and once put in all the throws of college life, with all the distractions, he couldn't cut it.</p>
<p>Another cousin of mine, from the same sheltered family, flunked out of UCSB for the same reasons.</p>
<p>My other cousin (I have lots of cousins, since both my parents have 5 siblings), went to Cal Poly SLO for engineering. He got caught up in playing too many video games (also from another sheltered family) and was failing his engineering courses...he couldn't transfer to another major because he needed a 3.0 average, so in the end he had to leave the school, and enroll at another CSU.</p>
<p>So, in my experience, if you do well, Cal is great. And if you do poorly, Cal can be hell. But, a lot of other schools are very similar - it's not just a Cal thing.</p>
<p>That was an interesting perspective sakky, thanks for sharing :)</p>
<p>UCB: definitely agree, bigger public schools probably create more independence, but at the same time that can be destructive if you are not up to the task.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^ I agree with most of what you're saying. </p>
<p>I have a cousin that went to Berkeley freshman year and flunked out. I don't think I would criticize the school in his case, because I think my cousin did it to himself. He lived a very sheltered life (over protective mother) and once put in all the throws of college life, with all the distractions, he couldn't cut it.</p>
<p>Another cousin of mine, from the same sheltered family, flunked out of UCSB for the same reasons.</p>
<p>My other cousin (I have lots of cousins, since both my parents have 5 siblings), went to Cal Poly SLO for engineering. He got caught up in playing too many video games (also from another sheltered family) and was failing his engineering courses...he couldn't transfer to another major because he needed a 3.0 average, so in the end he had to leave the school, and enroll at another CSU.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To this, I would say that these are examples of people, particularly in the case of the cousin you mentioned first, who would have probably done quite well (or at least, done better) if they had gone to a smaller, more nurturing school. Like an elite LAC. Or one of the smaller (that is, less populous) Ivies like Princeton. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So, in my experience, if you do well, Cal is great. And if you do poorly, Cal can be hell. But, a lot of other schools are very similar - it's not just a Cal thing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought somebody might come back with that. I agree that it's not fun to do poorly at any school. </p>
<p>However, I see 2 major differences between Berkeley and those elite private schools. First off, Berkeley enacts specific policies that don't exactly help matters. Berkeley enacts policies that effectively and punitively push down further those students who are already down, especially when compared to other elite private schools like HYPSM or the elite LAC's. For example, why exactly are Berkeley engineering students who are doing poorly forced to stay in engineering? Particularly when there are other students in other colleges at Berkeley who are actually doing well and want to switch into engineering, yet are denied. Why can't you just let these people swap places? Is that really so hard? Who gains from preventing them from swapping? The end result is that two people are forced to be in majors that they don't want. That's a lose-lose situation any way you cut it.</p>
<p>The second major difference is that, for whatever reason, Berkeley seems to admit a significantly higher percentage of people who will not graduate on time, or even at all, relative to the elite private schools. Something like 10-15% of Berkeley undergrads will not graduate in 6 years, compared to about 2-6% at the top private schools. Hence, by choosing Berkeley over one of those private schools, you run the significantly increased risk that you won't graduate on time, or even at all. Much of the supposed advantage of choosing Berkeley over the private schools is its low cost (if you're in-state), but if you don't graduate on time, or at all, then the low-cost rationale is attenuated. {Note, it has been asserted by others that the reason why Berkeley has problems in graduating more students is that Berkeley admits more people from poorer backgrounds who have difficulty in paying for school. But that just begs the question of why doesn't Berkeley just provide better financial aid for these people so they can graduate on time? After all, Berkeley has a $2.5 billion endowment, so it's not like it is going bankrupt.} </p>
<p>But the bottom line is this. If we were just content to view Berkeley as just a relatively good public school, but nothing more, then I agree that Berkeley has done accomplished that job magnificently. But Berkeley doesn't view itself that way. Berkeley views itself as being comparable to any school in the country, public or private. So if that is the comparison at hand, then it is entirely fair to compare Berkeley to the elite private schools and note the deficiencies. </p>
<p>
[quote]
definitely agree, bigger public schools probably create more independence, but at the same time that can be destructive if you are not up to the task.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I think everyone should also be aware that after college, we all have to face the real world which is huge rude and competitive for those who are without connections like me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
don't come to Cal if you are not a very independent person who needs people to inform you on things. At Cal, you are really on your own and you need to spend time to search on all the opportunities. Definitely go to a smaller private college if you think you are not that independent and not able to manage everything well just by yourself. It's quite sad but I think people who come to Cal but not being mature enough will eventually be those who fail to have a successful time here and be bitter about the experience...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Comments like these have actually reminded me of another story. I was talking to a girl who identified herself as a Berkeley graduate, and who was gushing at how much individual attention she had received, and how many of her profs knew her and the other students on first-name bases, and raved about the tiny classes and small, tight-knit, highly intimate and supportive student environment, etc. etc.</p>
<p>I and the others around her were completely confused for a very long time. Intimate environment? Close personal support? Small, tight-knit student body? Huh? At Berkeley? When did that happen? </p>
<p>Later on, it all dawned on us what was really going on. She had gone to Berkeley for graduate school. Then it all made sense. Yes indeed, Berkeley does in fact offer a highly intimate environment with close personal support and a tight-knit student body for its graduate students. </p>
<p>Hence, that calls into question the notion that Berkeley's coldness and impersonality with regards to its undergraduate program is a useful learning experience because it supposedly teaches you how to deal with the harsh and cruel real world. If that was really true, then why doesn't Berkeley treat its graduate students in the same cold manner? After all, don't graduate students also need to learn how to deal with the harsh and cruel real world? So why not deliver graduate and undergraduate education in the same manner?</p>
<p>So, Berkeley's graduate programs are run quite differently from the undergrad program. Yet at the same time, the Berkeley graduate programs are ranked higher than is the Berkeley undergrad program. Coincidence? You be the judge.</p>
<p>my brother is an undergrad there and he has great relationships with several of his profs. many students are simply too lazy to put the time in to visit them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am really enjoying my stay at Berkeley even though for some reasons,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
This last paragraph, I agree with completely,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sakky, you crack me up -- but also irritate me, all at once. The question was a question of subjective substance -- i.e., "how do you like Berkeley?" -- and you are arguing with someone for a really enthusiastic position they take.</p>
<p>Why don't you let the person's opinion stand and retort with a "in my experience, I felt that...." kind of response rather than trying to assert that the person must objectively be wrong and must either be deluded or be having an experience that doesn't rate as highly as it would if they were at another school? Do you realize how amazingly pedantic and sophomoric your tone usually is? If people disagree with your view, that doesn't mean they are wrong. They have had different experiences and different views.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, you crack me up -- but also irritate me, all at once. The question was a question of subjective substance -- i.e., "how do you like Berkeley?" -- and you are arguing with someone for a really enthusiastic position they take.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And, pray tell, aren't you doing exactly the same thing that you accuse me of? In other words, aren't you now arguing with me for a position I am taking? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why don't you let the person's opinion stand and retort with a "in my experience, I felt that...." kind of response rather than trying to assert that the person must objectively be wrong and must either be deluded or be having an experience that doesn't rate as highly as it would if they were at another school? If people disagree with your view, that doesn't mean they are wrong. They have had different experiences and different views.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And when did I ever assert that cawaiigirl's experiences are somehow "wrong" or deluded or having an experience that would not rate as highly if she had gone to another school? Please point to the quote where I specifically said any such thing.</p>
<p>In fact, cawaiigirl's statements are obviously not wrong. Nobody's opinions can be "wrong". Opinions are opinions. She is perfectly free and encouraged to state her opinions. I have absolutely no problem with her expressing her opinions. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I am also perfectly allowed to state my opinions. And I am also allowed to marshal facts to bolster my opinions. That is exactly what I have done, nothing more, nothing less. The whole point of having a discussion forum is to be able to read and discuss a wide range of opinions, including opinions that differ. Why even have a forum at all if people are not allowed to express different opinions? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you realize how amazingly pedantic and sophomoric your tone usually is?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, if you think MY posts are pedantic and sophomoric, what about the tone of this question you just posed to me? If nothing else, at least I have adhered to the terms of service on CC by not attacking anybody personally. You, on the other hand, just violated the terms of service by personally attacking me.</p>
<p>"engineering students who are doing poorly in an engineering major are forced to stay in that major because no other major wants to take them."</p>
<p>@sakky, I'm confused. I thought that one has to get good grades in engineering classes to get into Cal's engineering program. Are you referring to what happens after they get admitted to a engineering major?(i.e beginning of junior year)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
@sakky, I'm confused. I thought that one has to get good grades in engineering classes to get into Cal's engineering program. Are you referring to what happens after they get admitted to a engineering major?(i.e beginning of junior year)
[/QUOTE]
For most Engineering majors you don't get admitted junior year but you have to declare your major from the beginning, that's why it's hard to get out of engineering again. People in the College of L&S for example get admitted into their major junior year, and yes, for some majors they need good grades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For most Engineering majors you don't get admitted junior year but you have to declare your major from the beginning, that's why it's hard to get out of engineering again. People in the College of L&S for example get admitted into their major junior year, and yes, for some majors they need good grades.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, actually, there's actually more than that going on. It's not just that 'some' majors need good grades. It's that the *entire College of Letters and Sciences<a href="and%20other%20colleges">/i</a> require good grades before they will even allow you to switch into them in the first place. In order to switch from one college to another, you have to file a 'Change of College' petition and have it approved. That approval is far from automatic but rather is predicated on your grades. If you have poor grades, your approval will probably be denied, which will then force you to stay where you currently are. Believe me, there are a LOT of engineering students who have bad grades and therefore can't switch out. </p>
<p>*"Please note: Grade Point Average is also a significant consideration for admission [for switching] 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>Change</a> of College</p>
<p>This is a sad and stupid rule that shouldn't exist. But it does exist. Think about its consequences. It means that a guy who is in L&S, but performs at a mediocre level (i.e. has a 2.0 GPA) can freely switch to any non-impacted major in L&S. But a guy who is in the College of Engineering who has a 2.9 GPA probably won't be allowed into L&S and hence will be forced to stay in an engineering major that he doesn't really want. </p>
<p>Furthermore, even if you have a 3.0 or above, that doesn't mean that you are guaranteed of being allowed to switch to L&S. The rule just says that you are more likely to be approved. But no guarantees. What that means is that there probably are some guys with a 3.1 or 3.2 GPA who try to switch to L&S and are denied and hence forced to stay in majors that they don't want.</p>