<p>
[quote]
regardless, my point is one can't say one is better than another based on salary numbers alone.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But the point is, L&S CS is far from 'useless.' And obviously it's useful to the point that it can get the Berkeley grad more money on average than if he/she had majored in EECS. I know the career choice is different, but that's the point: that each will major will be applied differently (though similarly).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know -- but I don't think there are enough of said mediocre students to change the average starting salary that much, even with other factors considered.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When you're talking about 'mediocre' EECS students, keep in mind that this is a relative comparison. What we are talking about are those 'mediocre' students with 2.x's in EECS, compared to those students who have historically been in L&S CS. I would argue that even somebody with a 2.x in EECS is still a better student than many students in many other majors at Cal. Furthermore, and probably more importantly, those with 3.5's in L&S CS are basically superstars. Like I said before, if you didn't have high grades, you wouldn't have even been admitted into L&S CS. </p>
<p>So whether you want to say that EECS salaries are dragged down by the presence of (relatively) mediocre students, or that L&S CS salaries are artificially boosted because only superstars had historically gotten into the major, the effect is the same: that the salaries between the 2 are not entirely comparable.</p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I agree with you (in fact, I have never disagreed with you) on your 2 basic points, which are:</p>
<p>1) Software jobs in Silicon Valley (where most Berkeley CS/EECS grads tend to go) tend to pay more than do hardware jobs. That would explain the discrepancy in the Stanford salaries you mentioned.</p>
<p>2) Then by corollary to point #1, that L&S CS is far from a useless major, and is in fact, is probably the most useFUL major in all of L&S. In fact, I seem to recall making this specific point myself in a previous thread. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, while I am not disputing that L&S CS is indeed highly useful, I want to be sure that people understand that L&S CS is not really 'better' than EECS, particularly EECS Option IV (the CS option). In fact, if anything is 'better', it would probably be the latter. I believe employers would know (or at least they will come to know) that admission to EECS is harder than admission to L&S, and now that L&S CS is unimpacted, the average quality of future L&S CS grads is not going to be as high as it was in the past when the major was impacted. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I know -- but I don't think there are enough of said mediocre students to change the average starting salary that much,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See above. Again, note, we are talking about a relative comparison, and in particular, are comparing all of EECS (including the relatively 'mediocre' grads) vs. past grads of L&S CS, who were basically all superstars (for otherwise, they would never have even gotten into the major in the first place). </p>
<p>
[quote]
even with other factors considered. It's roughly the same at Stanford (and I surmise at other schools, too).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stanford, sure. But other schools? Not true. As you can see, EE (and CompE, which is basically a specific type of EE) actually gets higher starting salaries than CS does nationwide. </p>
<p>The reason why Berkeley and Stanford (and I suspect other local schools like SJ State) exhibit higher CS salaries than EE salaries is, again, due to the Silicon Valley effect. SV software jobs seem to pay more than do SV hardware jobs. But this seems to be a atypical regional effect. Software jobs nationwide do not seem to pay more than hardware jobs do.</p>
<p>While I agree with you, sakky, on your last few points, I don't think you have enough data to conclude that EECS is going to have enough mediocre students to bring its average salary down at all. It's logical, yes, that mediocre students will affect the average salary, and that EECS probably does have some of them (as does CS, I surmise), but there simply isn't data present to judge whether that's in accordance with reality. Unless there is, and I'm simply not aware of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While I agree with you, sakky, on your last few points, I don't think you have enough data to conclude that EECS is going to have enough mediocre students to bring its average salary down at all. It's logical, yes, that mediocre students will affect the average salary, and that EECS probably does have some of them (as does CS, I surmise), but there simply isn't data present to judge whether that's in accordance with reality. Unless there is, and I'm simply not aware of it
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, whether you want to call those lower-performing EECS students 'mediocre' is just a matter of semantics. Again, I would reiterate that even somebody with a low 2.x GPA in EECS is still probably a better student than many who are in other easier majors. </p>
<p>But the point is, whether you want to say that EECS salaries are brought down by the 'mediocre' students, or that the historical L&S CS salaries had been brought up by the lack of 'mediocre' students, the effect is still the same: that those historical L&S CS salaries are inflated, relative to the EECS salaries, due to the difference in admissions schemes. Like I and vicissitudes have been saying, CS has had relatively fewer 'mediocre' graduates simply because such students wouldn't have even gotten into the major in the first place. You can be admitted to EECS and get mediocre grades in your first few years and still stay in the major. Not so with CS when it was still impacted: if you had not done quite well, you would not have been allowed into the major. </p>
<p>{Now of course, one might argue that somebody might do well in their first few years of CS, get into the CS major, and then do poorly afterwards. But this is rather unlikely. The first few years are the toughest, because that's when the weeders occur. If you do well in those years, you are highly likely to do well in the remainder of the program. On the other hand, there are PLENTY of EECS students who get 2.x GPA's in their first few years and continue onto the upper division anyway, if for no other reason, because they're now caught in the major trap and can't get out.} </p>
<p>As a case in point, plenty of computer industry employers, i.e. Microsoft, Oracle, and especially Google, wouldn't even bother to interview you unless you had a certain minimum GPA. Almost every L&S CS grad would have met that minimum (again, because if they didn't, they probably would have never even gotten into the major in the first place), but plenty of EECS grads would not. </p>
<p>But, now that L&S CS is unimpacted, I think it is entirely logical to predict that plenty of not-so-good students who would never have gotten into the CS major in the past will now get in. These students will inevitably drag down the CS salary averages.</p>