<p>@ucbalumnus - to be fair, there are 2 predictable reason someone would prefer EECS. One is prestige. The second is that EECS has much nicer breadth reqs than does CS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course it would be difficult to change (as are many of your proposals/comments regarding undergrad at Cal). But I’m confident it will happen within a few years. A proposal has already been floated by some well-connected folks; it’ll just take time to gain traction (and time for the State to continue to starve UC).</p>
<p>The problem with the latest stats is that the SAT ranges haven’t moved a bit since last year. The 25th percentiles are shockingly low. Also, the class size is huge. 5600 total for both fall and spring, it appears (the admissions page says Fall 2011 only, but the website is so poorly maintained that there’s clearly a typo there).</p>
<p>I had hoped that with more out of staters, the class quality would improve.</p>
<p>I seriously wonder what the admissions office and administration are up to. No wonder Bob Patterson bolted for Stanford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have never disputed that many of my proposals are politically controversial. </p>
<p>Yet it is precisely because my proposals rarely if ever are enacted that has caused me to appreciate just how powerfully entrenched the political forces truly are at Berkeley. Which is why I view the move by the administration to admit their OOS students - and their extra funding - as perhaps the most politically palatable option. OOS students (usually) don’t commandeer school buildings whenever fees are increased. OOS students don’t decry the loss of ‘opportunity’ and ‘access’ whenever admissions requirements are increased. And, like I said, recent taxpayers are not exactly providing lavish financial support to Berkeley anyway. Far from it, in fact. Given that, as the administration, who would you rather admit?</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter if the 25th percetile SAT is shockingly low. The people who actually intellectually contribute to the university are within top 5 percent (or less) and I am absolutely confident that Berkeley is the best when it comes to top-tier brainiacs.</p>
<p>I don’t see why significantly higher tuition would help. Would that mean UCLA should do the same? Not like people significantly prefer Berkeley. Only the highly academically inclined (very high stat and academics oriented) may. And they frankly are not likely to find paying way more for Berkeley palatable, when they have (in the common eyes of CA) better options which suddenly don’t seem to cost outrageously more. </p>
<p>Also, how low do we want standards to go? I am not sure if we need to be any laxer on instate students than we are. One of Berkeley’s greatest assets, being that it attracts academic overachievers, is its price coupled with a world class education. Take that perception away, and I am not sure, but it sounds pretty unlikely to succeed, does it not?</p>
<p>Really, is there good evidence to suggest many current UCI and UCSD prospectives really should be at Berkeley due to the OOS admit rate? I doubt it, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously the most politically palatable solution is to convince the best in-state students to want to come to Berkeley. Berkeley would then be able to maintain and even upgrade its academic reputation without the attendant controversy - such as it is - of importing OOS talent who might then be accused of ‘stealing’ seats supposedly reserved for instaters. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, as it stands, the best Californians - just like the best students from any state - usually do not really prefer to attend their state flagship school, instead preferring one of the elite private schools. </p>
<p>The irony is that this occurs far less often with regard to the PhD programs. People do frequently turn down PhD programs at elite private schools for Berkeley (although that may change if competitive PhD funding is threatened as per warblers’ posts). So clearly the issue has nothing to do with Berkeley’s location, facilities, or brand, but rather with aspects specific to the undergrad program.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Supposed prestige does not appear to affect post-graduation outcomes of EECS versus L&S CS in the [career</a> survey](<a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm]career”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm). ABET accreditation may matter in some EE contexts, but it is not generally an issue in CS contexts.</p>
<p>For breadth, the requirements are different; which is more in line with the individual student’s preferences depends on the student (also, which is easier or harder also depends on the student). A student who is focused on CS and is not interested in EE, other engineering, or physics may prefer the L&S CS major, since the EECS major requires Physics 7A/7B, additional science, and non-EECS engineering. In humanities and social studies, L&S wants the student to get breadth in various subcategories (art and literature, history, etc.), while CoE wants the student to take some upper division H/SS breadth courses. L&S allows AP for R&C A and B, but not 7-course breadth, while CoE allows some AP to fulfill breadth or R&C A, but not R&C B.</p>
<p>You know, nearly all high schoolers who want to attend Berkeley are unaware of the different breath requirements between CS and EECS. I highly doubt anyone will choose CS over EECS (or vice versa) simply because of easier breadth requirement when they’re applying back in November. Unless, of course, you know someone who’s already in Berkeley or an alumni who told everything about L&S CS and EECS program. </p>
<p>But let’s get this straight: high-schoolers are ambitious. They may have taken some programming/CS courses, but they haven’t taken anything too difficult yet, so they are not afraid to try something new. It is only intuitive to think that EECS has more workload than CS, and most of them will have the confidence to tackle both.</p>
<p>Yes, yes, I know the L&S CS in the career survey is just as succesful as EECS (and I ask you again; do you think high schoolers will even know about that survey?), but you have to think from a high schooler’s perspective. Simply put, having that extra EE just sounds/feels better in addition to CS.</p>
<p>And I cannot believe how much we’re deviating away from the original post of 69.7%…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you’re right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, but as we both know, prestige clouds the minds of the youth who worked hard in HS and want to feel proud of themselves.</p>
<p>UpMagic, I’m not sure about only the top 5% or less contributing. Even if that conclusion is true, I can’t understand how you’d be happy about it. It means that 95% of the student body is wasting precious resources.</p>
<p>There’s something much more important than the intellectual contribution from those 95% of the people… and it has to with the original post of this thread.</p>
<p>It’s a tough dilemma for the leadership of the University of California system, and it is all too easy to throw bricks at them. Everyone thinks they can do better and their solution is superior.</p>
<p>Not so here. I actually think Mr. Yudof et all made the least offensive choice in a difficult situation.</p>
<p>Internationals and out-of-staters do add something valuable to the student body. Welcome! Especially if you compensate us at a (much) higher rate. Of all the solutions, this is closer to a win/win than the others.</p>
<p>The fact that our flagship is ever more selective may be frustrating, but it is a good mark for us, not a blemish.</p>
<p>We have a nine/ten university campus system to be proud of. Please don’t forget that if you did not get into UC Berkeley, the other UCs are well ranked, and well worth attending. Especially at the in-state price.</p>
<p>boquist 1,
I agree with most of what you are stating. I am sure your student got into and could have gone to other UC’s that would have been a better education then USC. My Daughter will graduate in December from UCSD early. My son passed up ucsd, ucsb and davis for out of state. He wants out of California for good. The UC system really gets “dummied down” when ELC goes from 4% to 9% admission this year. I have seen the elc students flunk out of ucsd because they were not prepared. Both of my kids are 31 act, 3.8 gpa from a top public orange county h.s. and that put them in the 28th %. They can also excel and graduate in 3 years at the next level where many of the elc students drop out or transfer. Welcome to “socialist” Kalifornia.</p>
<p>^^ You have facts to back all that data up? SD,SB, and Davis aren’t exactly your elite schools. Party schools on the other hand…</p>
<p>As an accepted and enrolled '15 OOS Mech E student that is not getting any need-based aid, I feel that I can objectively say that it was pretty difficult for us OOSers to get in. I had a 3.98 UW GPA w/ multiple APs, scores of 34/2280, 800 Math IIC, very good extra-curriculars (Eagle Scout, two all-state varsity sports, etc.), and the like, and yet I still know kids in my area (Twin Cities MN) with resum</p>
<p>On the contrary, I’m a 3.64 UW / 2310 student who got into Cal. o_ob</p>
<p>No sports, no big clubs, no band…</p>
<p>Speaking for the UC’s in general, I find it refreshing that they are admitting more OOS students. I think this will create a more attractive student body because giving Californians this in-state advantage allows less qualified applicants into the admitted pile. There are only so many qualified applicants in one state so adding on some OOS students is a great idea because it allows more deserving individuals into the UC system (the oos tuition is only a plus IMO). All of this crap about deserving to get in because your parents pay taxes in California is BS. You deserve to get in if you have achieved something in high school, your taxes mostly goes into other programs than the UC’s (for example, UCLA is only like 20% publicly funded).</p>
<p>The UC’s are going in the right direction.</p>