<p>Keep in mind that the IQ for an average college student is about 110 and at UC Berkeley it is probably more like 120+. Since “average” IQ = 100 with a SD of ±15 for the general population, their are no “stupid” people at UC Berkeley and probably few if any people of even “average” intelligence. The typical UC Berkeley student most likely has an IQ that is one to two full standard deviations above the mean of the general population.</p>
<p>^^ hmmm…
I am curious if you are using measurable data to come to this conclusion, or if this is a projection based on personal knowledge. Either way, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that what you say is more or less accurate, though you should realize that 2 SD’s above average is quite outstanding. I’m not sure that I’d say the AVERAGE Cal student is at that level. Either way, that is beside the point. </p>
<p>First, I am guessing that the OP is underestimating his (I assume it’s a male, since he is majoring in EECS) intellect, perhaps intentionally. That’s probably a good idea when you’re starting out in something like EECS. Better to underestimate yourself than overestimate. </p>
<p>Second, I would agree that there are probably very few “stupid” people in Berkeley, and very few of those people are majoring in technical disciplines, assuming that “stupid” is defined by someone with a low IQ score. Since IQ tests tend to not measure things like artistic ability, I would guess that these very few “stupid” people are in the less quantitative fields. Furthermore, I would argue that these people aren’t actually stupid. Their strengths just lie in areas which are not generally included in IQ tests, since they are not easily determined by filling in the proper bubbles on an answer sheet.</p>
<p>Finally, I’d say that the admissions officers at Cal probably know better than you do whether or not you can succeed there. I would argue that nearly everybody who is accepted into the program has the potential to succeed in it; whether or not you actually rise to this potential is up to you.</p>
<p>There will certainly be outliers who will perform exceptionally, and I don’t look forward to having to compete with them. Initially, I felt the same way as the OP. I still feel somewhat inadequate, but I think that the admissions officers knew what they were looking for in applicants, and they must have picked us for a reason. They know more about the program than we do. Good luck.</p>
<p>I don’t consider myself a genius, but I definitely believe I am at least average when it comes to learning and being able to comprehending material. What I am really good at though is figuring out the most effective way to study for a given test. I just finished my freshman year of EECS… in the fall i got a 3.5 while rushing a social fraternity (my gpa would have been even higher had I not taken english r1b, which ended up being the worst class ever and I got a B in it, but w/e it’s just one class). In the spring, while still attending all the events my fraternity had, I managed a 3.9 GPA.</p>
<p>Here are the classes Ive taken so far:</p>
<p>CS 61a,bl
Physics 7b
Math 53,54
Econ 100b (took p/np)
EE 20n
English R1b</p>
<p>I have definitely noticed that there are some really smart people… but there are just as many stupid people that honestly make me wonder just how they got accepted. I feel that you just need to learn the best way to study and it should be fine. It’s honestly all about time management.</p>
<p>They got accepted because Berkeley emphasizes GPA in admissions, not SAT Scores, SAT II Subject tests, or AP scores. GPA is highly variable across high schools- some high schools may be very easy, where others may be incredibly tough. (I’ve heard many people at Cal state their their high school was a joke where I actually thought my frosh year of Cal was easier than my junior year of high school!!). However, Berkeley doesn’t take this into account, and accepts anyone with a high GPA regardless of high school, given that their SAT score isn’t crap. (In all honesty, the 2050, or Berkeley’s SAT average, isn’t that impressive)</p>
<p>I believe SAT, SAT IIs, and AP scores are superior methods of admissions because they are standardized. SAT II tests and AP scores would be the best indicators. I’ll bet you the best students in engineering, or any other major for that matter, received mostly 5s and 700+ on their SAT II tests.</p>
<p>post #21 sure makes me feel good (better) about myself :)</p>
<p>never thought of things that way before…</p>
<p>@gobears10:
OP & I are both transfers. I think that they get a better (though still far from perfect) sense of the applicant when they can see their college performance.
Also, I think that the admissions people have detailed data telling them which applicants are statistically most likely to succeed. Cal has a very high retention rate, and this is not because the school is easy. High retention rates don’t happen by dumb luck. They happen because of strategic admissions, along with a myriad of other factors, all of which are closely scrutinized and balanced. Class rank may indicate work ethic, while test scores may indicate raw intelligence, as well as quality of previous education, etc…
I would agree, however, that the highest performers would most likely tend to be the ones who perform well in all respects: test scores, gpa, class rank, etc…
I highly doubt that his is accurate, though if you can supply statistics (not just “well, a lot of people I talk to said…”) which support your argument, I will humbly concede.</p>
<p>And by the way, nice job, haydare! That’s very impressive.</p>
<p>I have a similar story as Haydare. I don’t consider myself very smart, especially when talking to people who are truly smart in the EECS department, but I am very motivated, love what I study, and work hard and I have a 4.0. However, I still don’t think ANYONE can get a 3.7+ in EECS courses just by hard work / correct study habits. Some people just aren’t smart enough. Maybe a 3.3 but you do need some intellectual capability to get a 3.7+</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, what ARE some good studying habits you guys employ? What’s your daily routine like?</p>
<p>This is what I do</p>
<p>Attend lectures / discussion / lab.
Read the textbook before going to lecture (I failed on this in CS61B)
Not procrastinate (once a PSet comes out I usually try to do it asap)
Work in the libraries and treat school as a job. In other words, work from 9-5 and then go back home and enjoy myself.<br>
Do all practice exams.
Make friends in classes to ask for help when necessary and to compare homework answers and to study together.</p>
<p>I would argue that being interested by your classes is the most important. When it comes to my humanities courses I do none of the above. I rarely go to class, always wait till the last minute on an essay, never do the readings, etc. I simply don’t have the motivation to do it so I just P/NP the class and sort of ignore it. However, I’m actually excited by some of the PSets I’ve received, which makes it easy and natural to not procrastinate on them.</p>
<p>^just wondering how much time you get to chill, go out, join up with some activities/clubs? Damn you’re awesome though 4.0 in EECS haha</p>
<p>I’m a CS major (possibly doubling in Applied Math gna see how upper divs go next year) so I didn’t take Physics 7a/7b 
(although I think I would’ve done better in physics than in humanities courses). And I only just finished my first year so I definitely don’t intend on maintaining a 4.0.</p>
<p>How did I have time to go chill and hang out with friends and do activities? Just time management =D</p>
<p>JBeak - just your typical walks-on-water Cal student. </p>
<p>Seriously, the point above, time management and effective studying in general, is the way to survive and thrive.</p>