<p>I guess all the undergrads at other schools have a profound respect for the material and don't care about their GPA's???? I think most Berkeley undergrads have to have some understanding of the material to get a 4.0, especially at Cal. Most undergrads who are competitive are so because admissions to Haas and med schools require them to be. I would be willing to bet at least 80% of the grad students at Berkeley would be as competitive if they went to Berkeley as undergrads. Its the structure of Berkeley that makes it competitive, it can be very unforgiving.</p>
<p>"As another broad, sweeping claim, I feel as though the majority undergrads here just want their 4.0s and have no fundamental respect for the material."</p>
<p>Yes. Undergraduate education is just a stepping stone for those who want advanced degrees. And since graduate schools put a heavy emphasis on undergraduate GPA, what do you expect of undergraduates?</p>
<p>With that in mind, you should realize that few undergraduates will be as enthusiastic about the courses that they take as the GSI's who instruct them. This is quite obvious since most classes are just major requirements that have little to do with the undergrads future aspirations.</p>
<p>Again, sorry, I forgot we are in the Berkeley forums, I did not mean to hurt any feelings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its the structure of Berkeley that makes it competitive
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What's the structure? The prerequisite requirements? The grade requirements? Major admission requirements? Grading curves? What is this 'structure' that engenders competitiveness? And what exactly does competitiveness entail?</p>
<p>I have to agree with Milton here to an extent: The Berkeley undergrads are obviously not of relative caliber to the Berkeley grad students, and that the undergrad education as a whole is slightly overrated because of the excellent grad program. When I say "relative caliber" I mean that a Berkeley grad student is similar to say an MIT grad student, while a Berkeley undergrad is
"likely" not up to par with the MIT undergrad student.</p>
<p>However, in the College of Engineering many of the Berkeley admits are of similar caliber to freshman at other top universities, and the undergrad program is very good--just not #3 or 4 in the world good. Though in Asia it is regarded as top 5 in the world for engineering...</p>
<p>Note: As a Berkeley undergrad we are happy that the grad students are so good because we get better quality instruction and the added prestige helps us gain admission to graduate schools.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
"As another broad, sweeping claim, I feel as though the majority undergrads here just want their 4.0s and have no fundamental respect for the material."</p>
<p>Yes. Undergraduate education is just a stepping stone for those who want advanced degrees. And since graduate schools put a heavy emphasis on undergraduate GPA, what do you expect of undergraduates?
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Just a little fyi: Last year, no one graduated from Cal with a 4.0 cumulative GPA; the would-be valedictorian got a B in a PE course, of all things. I read it in a newspaper a while back. So enough about the "they only want to get a 4.0" nonsense. If they wanted that, they'd go to these "elite" private schools <em>cough USC</em> where you just show up, pay your tuition (and alumni dues), and get an A. Honestly, if a 4.0 at a good school is what they were worried about, they certainly would not choose Cal, bc it's basically impossible (unless you consider it on a semester-basis, in which case it is upgraded to "rare").</p>
<p>Of course the caliber of graduate students is higher than that of undergraduate students. This is true of every single university in America. Graduate students pursuing PhDs actually care about their subject and graduate admissions is comparably more rigorous. Most undergraduates don't care because they just want a job, not to pursue a PhD.</p>
<p>Also in China, Berkeley is more famous than UCLA. (Stepmother is from China and studied at Beijing University.)</p>
<p>Berkeley undergrad engineering IS top 3 or 4 in the world good, especially is majors such as Civil and Mechanical. Engineers are definitely not "in it for their 4.0 Here's a section from the Wikipedia article on Grade Inflation:</p>
<p>"UC Berkeley has a reputation for rigorous grading policies in some science and engineering classes. Departmental guidelines state that no more than 17% of the students in any given class may be awarded A grades, and that the class GPA should be in the range of 2.7 to 2.9 out of a maximum of 4.0 grade points [4]. Other departments, however, are not adhering to such strict guidelines, as data from the University's Office of Student Research indicates that the average overall undergraduate GPA is about 3.25 (UC Berkeley Undergraduate Fact Sheet Fall 2004)."</p>
<p>Too be honest, most people think Berkeley grad students are stronger simply because rankings like US news and others say their programs are stronger. Grad students at Berkeley also have their grading curve set ungodly high compared to undergrads, which can also lead to perceptions of superiority. This is flawed reasoning. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I've had a few GSI's who couldn't teach their way out of a paper bag, much less be highly successful in industry. I guess that's why they're in academia, which is fine. Many GSIs are quite intelligent and can explain concepts well, but they are a mixed bag. You must realize that all students want to get good grades, grad or otherwise, and the grad students at Berkeley were once undergrads striving for their "4.0s"</p>
<p>Also wanted to add that most graduate students I have had here were great. Some did not speak English though and made it quite hard to learn the math/science material. Also while they were all talented in their field, some could not teach well at all.</p>
<p>Some ppl on this forum judge a school's international prestige solely based on Shanghai Jiao Tong University rank. Well, according to this rank, u of wisconsin(#16), UC San Diego (#13), and U of Washington - Seattle (#17) are ranked higher than Duke (#31), Northwestern(33), Carnegie Mellon (#56), and Brown (85). Trust me on this...Asians do know that Brown and Duke are much more prestigious than u of wisconsin, UC San Diego, or U of Washington. In fact, most people have never heard of these schools. And, what's the deal with Cornell(12) being ranked higher than UPenn and ranked close to Yale(11)? I lived in Korea and Japan for most of my life and most people view Yale much more prestigious than Cornell. This obviously does not help me bc I go to Cornell, but the reality that People in Asia know Yale is better than Cornell, or Berkeley for that matter. Now, given how poorly constructed this ranking system is, I would not attempt to judge how prestigious a school might be viewed in Asia solely based on this rank.</p>
<p>^ I didn't even know U Penn was an Ivy until my senior year of high school and my friend applied there. And I was born/raised/lived in America my entire life. U Penn is a great school but everyone thinks it is Penn State, which is a bad university. Cornell is more name-renowned than U Penn (in America), even if it may not be as good as it.</p>
<p>And furthermore I would argue that Cornell might even be viewed better than say Yale solely because of the strength of their engineering program, which is pretty much how the schools are judged to upper-middle class Asians.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Last year, no one graduated from Cal with a 4.0 cumulative GPA; the would-be valedictorian got a B in a PE course, of all things. I read it in a newspaper a while back. So enough about the "they only want to get a 4.0" nonsense. If they wanted that, they'd go to these "elite" private schools <em>cough USC</em> where you just show up, pay your tuition (and alumni dues), and get an A. Honestly, if a 4.0 at a good school is what they were worried about, they certainly would not choose Cal, bc it's basically impossible (unless you consider it on a semester-basis, in which case it is upgraded to "rare").
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The key word in my statement was "want" a 4.0. Anyhow, that makes it seem as though I'm critiziing baisedly. I was basically referring to the undergrad quality, experience and method of approach by most students. There is too much lacking in "academic honor" here. </p>
<p>For instance, just this last quarter, a student came up to me and "snitched" on another student for storing formulas in the calculator for an engineering class. I was thinking in my mind... "Uh, that's why we allow graphing calculators??""... The majority of the tests were derivations anyways, and I grade very easy. I mean was that really necessary? Little things like this makes me form my opinions. I'm not saying who's right or wrong. I'm saying the whole situation is wrong.</p>
<p>I came from another mid-tier UC for undergrad and literally, I have never witnessed this type of phenomena. I think the term "academic backstabbing" was derived at Cal. Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone. But if this academic dishonesty happens 10% of the time, that's already too much.</p>
<p>Again, I know I'm in the Berkeley forums and there are gonna be a lot of disagreeing students. But from a TA type view, that is that. Any other Cal grad students here btw?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Little things like this makes me form my opinions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...and then you make generalizations like:</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is too much lacking in "academic honor" here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Trust me on this...Asians do know that Brown and Duke are much more prestigious than u of wisconsin, UC San Diego, or U of Washington.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, because you can speak for every Asian, right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And furthermore I would argue that Cornell might even be viewed better than say Yale solely because of the strength of their engineering program, which is pretty much how the schools are judged to upper-middle class Asians.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley's prestige in Asia -- and its rankings in the Shanghai Jiao Tong University rankings -- tie very closely to its engineering and science programs. This poster hit that fact right on the head. And the other thing: those rankings place an emphasis on science and engineering accomplishments, just as other rankings place an emphasis on other factors.</p>
<p>The other thing, as regards general prestige and connection, Berkeley was the first major university to have an Asian as its head. It has many ties like that. </p>
<p>Chang-Lin</a> Tien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>Yale has other long-standing ties to Asia too, but it doesn't have the engineering moxey, even if it is held in greater esteem in other areas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course the caliber of graduate students is higher than that of undergraduate students. This is true of every single university in America.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I'm not sure about that. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'caliber'. If by caliber, you mean specific knowledge and experience within the field in question, then sure, I guess then by definition, the grad students at any school are of higher 'caliber'.</p>
<p>But if you mean 'caliber' in the sense of general intelligence or ability to learn, then we mean something else. Take Caltech. My brother went to Caltech. He tells me that it is the general feeling there that, on average, the undergrads are actually smarter than the grad students are. Now, granted, the grad students have more experience and knowledge about their specific research topic. But have a Caltech undergrad and Caltech grad student take a course on a subject that neither of them know before hand, and I would say that the undergrad is likely to do better. That's what happened to my brother: he took courses that had mixes of undergrads and grad students, and it was the undergrads that generally performed better. The same could be said of MIT: again, the general feeling around campus is that the undergrads actually have more raw intellectual talent. </p>
<p>{Of course one important exception are those MIT/Caltech grad students who were themselves former MIT/Caltech undergrads. While both schools are fairly 'incestuous' in terms of admitting many of their own undergrads, I doubt that it occurs in sufficient numbers to invalidate the general theme.}</p>
<p>But perhaps one can see the difference most starkly by noting that not every university has 'top' grad programs. For example, many of Dartmouth's PhD programs are not that strong, relatively speaking. For example, according to the NRC, the Dartmouth Psychology PhD program is ranked only #81 out of 185 surveyed programs. Hence, I suspect it may actually be easier - from a raw intellectual standpoint - to get into the Dartmouth Psych PhD program than it is to get in as an undergrad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Too be honest, most people think Berkeley grad students are stronger simply because rankings like US news and others say their programs are stronger.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I can't speak for why people might think the grad students are stronger. But I don't think it is seriously in dispute that the Berkeley grad students are in fact stronger than the undergrads. </p>
<p>I believe the best way to look at the situation is what milton and liquidmetal have already stated, which is through the use of a comparative standpoint. The Berkeley PhD students are entirely on par with the PhD students are other top programs such as MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc. Comparative desirability is also an indicator: many Berkeley PhD students got into other top programs but decided to choose Berkeley, and similarly, I know many PhD students at Harvard and MIT who have admitted that they probably would have preferred to get their PhD at Berkeley instead, but didn't get in. Now of course that data is anecdotal, but I doubt that anybody actually can present hard data that presents a different story. </p>
<p>On the other hand, some hard data is available regarding the desirability of undergrad: Berkeley's overall yield is only 40% (compared to the over 65% yield at HYPSM), and I believe posters in the Stanford forum have shown that Stanford rarely loses undergrad cross-admits to any other school in the Pac-10 (which obviously includes Berkeley). I also believe that the Fiske Guides state that Berkeley undergrad admits will "often times" prefer Stanford, but the reverse occurs only "sometimes" or "rarely", demonstrating the asymmetric nature of the rivalry. An undergrad comparison of Berkeley to Harvard would surely be worse if, for no other reason, because Harvard wins the cross-admit battles with all non-specialty schools (Juilliard, etc.) {For undergrad cross-admits, Harvard beats each of YPSM, so it is unsurprising that Harvard would beat Berkeley too.} </p>
<p>So the real question to me is why Berkeley is able to stand toe-to-toe with schools like HYPSM for PhD students - but can't do so for undergrad - if the Berkeley grad students and grad programs are not in fact better than undergrad?</p>
<p>Secondly, I don't see why people are so defensive about such a notion anyway. I don't see anything wrong or shameful with admitting the simple fact that, at any school, some programs are better than others. What's so bad about that?</p>
<p>^^Most of the students here are undergrads who believe that Berkeley is just as prestigious as Stanford due to some ranking. </p>
<p>I have said it before: at the end of the day Berkeley undergrads should be happy that the graduate program is so strong. It improves job prospects and graduate admissions for undergrads. It also lures stronger faculty, which motivated undergrads can take advantage of.</p>
<p>Anyhow the reality for Cal undergrads is that engineering job prospects are really the same as with other schools and even better than some of the more prestigious ones due to location of Cal. And for graduate school admissions? Hard work in Cal Engineering can get you to the most selective of schools.</p>
<p>If you are concerned about prestige then you should not try to delude yourself by overrating Berkeley undergrad, but should instead try to move up to a more prestigious grad program...</p>
<p>"Yes, because you can speak for every Asian, right?"</p>
<p>Kyledavid80 - are u asian? if so, are u Indian, malysian, indonesian, or vietnamese? If you belong to one of the nationalities metioned above, I see how you can argue that Berkeley could be as prestigious as HYPSM in these specific regions since I am not familiar with how Berkeley is viewed in those places. But, I was trying to point out the fact that the view that UCB is as good as Harvard or Yale is not always the case in ALL of Asia. Now, I say this with my observations formed by my experiences with the following samples of the population: Dozens and Dozens of my friends from korea and japan, dozens of teachers from korean/japanese middleschool and h.s. teachers, dozens of university professors from Korea and Japan who happen to be very close friends with my dad (my dad is a law professor at the top korean university), and dozens of my relatives. Besides, I would argue that I myself am quite well assimiliated into the mainstream cultures of both Korea and Japan due to the fact that I spent the most of my life in these two regions and continue to make frequent trips there during summer/winter breaks. </p>
<p>In conclusion, I am simply posting my honest opinion based on quite large samples of population in Korea and Japan that I happened to associate with thruout my life. But, I am not urging u to change ur belief that UCB is as good as Yale or Stanford, but I urge u not to make illogical judgments soley based on some poorly constructed and extremely subjective rankings and be aware of the fact that there are places in Asia, contrary to ur belief, in which the general and educated public regard Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and MIT in higher regard than UCB.</p>