<p>I was talking to an instructor at my CC and she told me that she graduated from Berkeley with three majors (poli sci, psyc and English) and two minors all in only 3 years; she was also on the tennis team. Do you really think this is possible of is she full of it. she seemed very smart and sincere but, it just sounds so unreal.</p>
<p>Three majors is crazy, and two majors + minor seems to be pushing it a little. But in three years? That's even worse. I think she might be lying, but hey, you never know ...</p>
<p>I don't know when your counselor graduated from Berkeley, and things might have been different back then, but by today's standards I would say it's impossible to claim such a thing.</p>
<p>unless u have no social life....and no fun....</p>
<p>And you never sleep ...</p>
<p>I don't think the scenario is at all unrealistic.</p>
<p>Let's face it, not of of those majors is very hard. Sure, some classes in those Berkeley department are hard, but a determined student can bypass them. For example, Psych 1 and Stats 2 are reasonably demanding class because the Psychology and Statistics departments goes to great lenghts to make sure most students get Bs in that class - thus hurting the students' chances of getting into the psychology major (3.2+ required.) For this exact reason, many students take the prerecs at a community college. In fact, I know non-transfer students in the psychology major who claim they will only take three Psychology classes at Berkeley and still graduate as psychology majors. Poli Sci prerecs can also be taken at community college. I'm not sure about English.</p>
<p>Nowdays, it's pretty damn easy to get good grades in psychology without much effort. Black Lightning notes is expanding to the point at which a student could simply read the notes, only show up for tests, and still get an A. For the truly determined, there's always webcasts of past semesters. Social Psychology does not change much from semester to semester. It seems to me like poli sci and english have largely resisted these innovations, even while arguably relaxing standards.</p>
<p>"Minors" are also relatively easy. They usually require 5 upper division classes. A savvy student will take these upper divs as breath requirements in the same department and thereby kill many birds with a few stones.</p>
<p>Come on dobby. To take the required courses for two majors would probably require nearly 20 units every semester, and to take three majors and two minors would probably meant 25+ units every semester. To do all that in three years means probably 35+ units every semester. No one can do 35+ units in a semester, let alone also play tennis. You can only do so much in a community college (maybe 2 courses every summer, tops). Keep in mind that this counselor probably didn't graduate in the past few years. Grading used to be tougher and technology wasn't so advanced. Even today I doubt it's feasible.</p>
<p>triple majors with 2 minors at berkeley in 3 years... i don't wish that on my worst enemy. my friend who majors in physics is taking over 25 units (and no, not 10 decal classes) this semester, i expect a funeral announcement any time.</p>
<p>HAHA....expecting a funeral announcement.....that is a good way to put the hell rape at berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was talking to an instructor at my CC and she told me that she graduated from Berkeley with three majors (poli sci, psyc and English) and two minors all in only 3 years; she was also on the tennis team. Do you really think this is possible of is she full of it. she seemed very smart and sincere but, it just sounds so unreal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if it makes you feel better, Robert Burns Woodward completed his PhD in chemistry at MIT in just 1 year. John Hauser, who is a current professor at the MIT Sloan School, managed to graduate from MIT in 1973 with 3 degrees - a bachelor's and master's degree in EECS as well as a master's degree in Civil Engineering. Two years later (in 1975), he earned a doctorate in EECS (specifically, in operations research) from MIT. Now he's, of all things, a professor of marketing. </p>
<p>Then of course you have the super-geniuses. For example, Erik Demaine was hired as an assistant professor of EECS at MIT at age 20 - the youngest professor in the history of MIT. Think about it - he was younger than many of the undergrads that he taught. Then you have somebody like Lawrence Bragg, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics at age 25. Consider that. At an age when most aspiring researcher are still in graduate school, Bragg had already won the Nobel Prize.</p>
<p>^aw snap</p>
<p>This lady is just my tennis instructor at my cc.</p>
<p>Those are just rare exceptional cases. Yes, graduating with 3 degrees from MIT or wherever is impressive....but is it worth it, hell no. The amount of work/time you'd have to put to obtain 3 degrees in engineering is bad enough....but that isn't necessarily going to get you a high paying job. Yes, it might open more options for a job....but they are not going to give you a high paying job just b/c you have multiple degrees. I myself am a double major in engineering.....my staff/faculty advisors also made it clear that by just double majoring won't put u ahead of single majors. I do regret choosing a double major b/c it is really not that worth it.....it is only worth it if u have an interest in the fields or it may open a few prospective jobs. </p>
<p>Also, my high school physics teacher went to MIT for his BS in Aeronautical Engin. Where did he end up....teaching at high school. Going to a top tier school doesn't mean that you are automatically successful in life. My JC Engineering professor did his PHD in MechE at MIT. He is out of all places working as an Assitant Professor at a JC. This got me to learn that a "tag name school" isn't everything. </p>
<p>Lastly, here at CAL, there is a 14 year old girl in my ChemE courses and she is graduating this semester. She is deciding to go to grad school and is also again choosing MIT (again, b/c of the name) and Stanford (b/c of name). She will most likely get in but again that doesn't necessarily automatically mean that she is successful in life? Every case is different.</p>
<p>maybe they don't care about being successful or making a lot of money.....maybe they just like to learn and work hard.......</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, my high school physics teacher went to MIT for his BS in Aeronautical Engin. Where did he end up....teaching at high school. Going to a top tier school doesn't mean that you are automatically successful in life. My JC Engineering professor did his PHD in MechE at MIT. He is out of all places working as an Assitant Professor at a JC. This got me to learn that a "tag name school" isn't everything.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you're saying that being a teacher or becoming a JC professor isn't "successful"? Ouch.</p>
<p>Don't knock being a teacher or a JC professor. They get a LOT of erks. For example, they got the whole summer off. They get winter break and spring break off. They can often times (depending on the district) get tenure which makes them virtually unfireable. They often times get benefits like health care plans that are superior to that available at a comparable private sector job. It's a pretty nice job. </p>
<p>But more importantly, look, every person has a different definition of what they call 'success'. For some people, success means making as much money as they possibly can, even if it means never seeing their loved ones and risking a heart attack at age 30. For other people, success is just having a lifestyle that lets them do something thye enjoy, and gives them lots of free time which they can spend with their families. I know a lot of people who have become teachers for just that reason. </p>
<p>Besides, think of it this way. Peruse the Berkeley career website and you will see that PLENTY of Berkeley grads don't even have jobs that are all that comparable to teachers. If you think being a teacher is 'unsuccessful', I shudder to think of what your opinion is of the guy who graduated in physics at Berkeley, and ended up being a waiter at Kells (on Shattuck). Or the guys who graduated in English or Theatre/Dance/Performance Studies and ended up being baristas (basically, one of the guys who makes your coffee) at Starbucks. I don't know about you, but I would say that compared to that, being a teacher is starting to look pretty darn good. </p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Math.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Math.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/English.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/English.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/TDPStud.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/TDPStud.stm</a></p>
<p>^ agreed completely. (Very odd, no?)</p>
<p>Two of my current teachers are Berkeley alumni, and one of them, I can reasonably say, could teach classes at Berkeley and seem as though she had a PhD and years of experience (which she has, but I believe she only has a master's). At any rate, to many teaching is success. It's pretty narrow minded to say that success lies in one place (presumably "money").</p>
<p>
[quote]
They get a LOT of erks
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I meant to say * perks*.</p>
<p>I agree Sakky....people have their own definition of success. I am not saying that "teaching" is not a success. Your gettingme wrong here. What I am saying is that teaching at a high school (where teachers make around $40,000/yr) or working as an Assitant Professor at a JC (where you can get fired for any reason), isn't comparable to getting a degree from a respected school. </p>
<p>Most graduates don't get the "dream" or "secure" job that they looked forwad to. Often, the graduates from respected schools settle for low tier jobs just because the job market is so damn competitive. With outsourcing becoming ever more popular, landing a technical job is harder than ever nowadays. </p>
<p>So what do the "unfortunate" graduates do? They settle for less jobs than what they had anticipated upon graduation. That is the example that I wanted to point out from my 2 teachers who were MIT graduates. In essence, if someone graduates with 3 degrees, that doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is going to land into a high paying job (my definition of success). </p>
<p>Lastly, I seriously feel sorry for some graduates who end up working at local shops upon graduation because they couldn't land into a "decent" job. Someone who majors in Engineering and graduates from a respectable school, irrespectable to GPA, should atleast work in a decent job where he/she is applying their technical background. If not, then I seriously believe that majoring in engineering, or any other technical field for that matter, was a waste of time (especially sleep), energy, money and your life as a whole.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So what do the "unfortunate" graduates do? They settle for less jobs than what they had anticipated upon graduation. That is the example that I wanted to point out from my 2 teachers who were MIT graduates. In essence, if someone graduates with 3 degrees, that doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is going to land into a high paying job (my definition of success).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but even here, you are continuing to assume that those MIT grads who became teachers didn't get what they really wanted. Perhaps they wanted to become teachers. If so, then that means that they are successful according to their own personal definitions of success. Nothing wrong with that. </p>
<p>Like I've said, not everybody is gunning for a high-paying job. If they were, then everybody would be gunning to become investment bankers (or related fields like hedge funds, private equity, etc.). The fact that plenty of people leave those fields for lower-paying (but far less stressful) jobs every year even though they are not forced to leave indicates that plenty of people don't view a high paying job as their sine que non. I know a number of people who are bankers who are completely sick of it and are looking to transition out of it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Lastly, I seriously feel sorry for some graduates who end up working at local shops upon graduation because they couldn't land into a "decent" job. Someone who majors in Engineering and graduates from a respectable school, irrespectable to GPA, should atleast work in a decent job where he/she is applying their technical background. If not, then I seriously believe that majoring in engineering, or any other technical field for that matter, was a waste of time (especially sleep), energy, money and your life as a whole.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, the problem is hardly specific to technical fields. The fact is, most people in any field will not get a job that has to do with the field they studied. For example, most history majors will not get a job that has to do with history. Most poli-sci majors will not get a job that has to do with political science. This extends even to graduate-level work. I know people who get master's or PhD degrees in the humanities or social sciences who can't find a job in their field. Getting a PhD in any field, including the humanities and social sciences, is a lot of work. You can do all that work, and still not get a job. </p>
<p>Majoring in a technical field, especially engineering, while being no guarantee of anything, provides you with a far higher likelihood that you will actually get a job working in that field, and for relatively good pay. It's a far safer bet than getting a bachelor's degree in, say, the humanities.</p>
<p>I agree. Engineering is the "safe" option in college that provides you with atleast some hope upon graduation. </p>
<p>Regarding humanities majors, most humanity graduates don't end up working in anything related to their major. They end up working in a totally different field and need to be trained to be accustomed to that particular field. </p>
<p>As for the MIT graduates, I don't know if they wanted to teach or not. If they did, I definetely think that teaching at a high school or JC is not worth graduating from the hardest technical school in the US. But, who knows what goes through the minds of MIT graduates.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for the MIT graduates, I don't know if they wanted to teach or not. If they did, I definetely think that teaching at a high school or JC is not worth graduating from the hardest technical school in the US. But, who knows what goes through the minds of MIT graduates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know about that. I can definitely see an element of pleasure of personal satisfaction there. It's similar to why people embark on climbing Mt. Everest, even though to this day, a significant percentage of people die trying to do so. Similarly, every day, people risk their lives skydiving, bungee jumping, surfing the highest waves, sailing in dangerous waters, and so forth. People do these things for the thrill and for the satisfaction afterwards of knowing that they did it. </p>
<p>In the case of MIT, people say that MIT is not a great school to * be at *, but is a great school to * come from *. Meaning that after you graduate, you can always look back on the experience and tell yourself that you accomplished something that you can feel proud about.</p>