<p>Is it just me are those all for graduate programs?</p>
<p>And as for that intelligent design comment. You are basically taking 7 of our students, one Thomas Haider person and 6 of its rejects and comparing to other universities as an overall representation. You also claim that that website gives a perfect representation, even though there are only 7 people on it, all from varying years as well. </p>
<p>Simply put, there just is not enough data there to make a valuable comparison, and the data that is there is skewed to the lower portion of our biology student body. </p>
<p>Can you do this for me? Find a copy of a Cal biology final exam and we shall go from there, k?</p>
<p>can you find data on dental/pharm/physical therapy? The majority, or so it seems, are aiming for those three, not medicine, or even law</p>
<p>For what it's worth, I am of the opinion that the Thomas Haider program is perfectly respectable. But if you are not in that program, well...</p>
<p>well welll wellllllll............there is also the fact that UCR as a whole has less motivated students who do not aspire to be a doctor. Nor do the desire to apply to law school, business school, grad school etc. And those that do desire to go to a graduate level schools hardly know what it takes to get there. Overall these students are just getting by. However this doesnt show that they arent intellectual, but less prepared than students at better schools whose goals are more present at the beginning of their college career.</p>
<p>Care to explain your reasoning there bud?</p>
<p>My reasoning is from personal experience. Need i say more....it should be obvious my statement was just an opinion that i state due to the differences i have seen by students at the following three schools...UCR, UCLA and USC. From what i classified early as being an above average student.. i have found that although intelligent, they are for the most part attending college just for the sake of attending college. They have an interest that is apparent by their major, or maybe not, could be ease and workload. Would you not agree? Obviously every person will have a different experience, even within the same environment. You have met people i have not. These are my perceptions, take it or leave it. Students are smart...but unmotivated, unaware of opps present etc, which is the main downfall of this school outside how outsiders view its hazy brown location.</p>
<p>I can agree with you on some parts, although the phrase "attending college just for the sake of attending college" stick out to me, mostly because the people that I believe moreso fit that description go to party schools like ASU or CSU Chico. Riverside's generally boring atmosphere and surroundings seem to often pressure kids into studying since, well, otherwise they have nothing better to do. Although this does get students to study, ones that normally wouldnt study, I can see how that might lead to the unmotivated atmosphere you mention, seeing as how they are learning out of boredom rather than for the sake of learning.</p>
<p>Although it can be boring, you can easily find a party on any given night. You also have to realize, the size of UCR is rather small compared to the usual list of party schools. </p>
<p>When you are attending college with no specific goal...what else would you call it?</p>
<p>Undeclared?</p>
<p>The general crowd you mention of not exactly knowing what to do is not by any means limited to UCR, although as you mentioned is probably does exist less in those upper tier UCs. </p>
<p>ugh and as for those parties every single night. I really wouldnt exactly call them accessible to everyone. I havent been to a single one yet due to my lack of a frat membership or a vagina. The former is ~$500 and the latter is way more expensive. Instead I enjoy going out on occasion to Morongo to rape the masses out of money at hold'em.</p>
<p>will my gf as explained earlier lives in a house, and in that house resides the president of a certain dumb hot girl sorority, yet she has a great job coming up, so she is not a dumb hot girl, but rather her sorority is seen as so</p>
<p>As for jobs, it's been well documented that being attractive gives you the "beauty" bonus.</p>
<p>I think its also been well documented that women have a harder time getting jobs then men. Your point? Are you trying to say that the reason said girl got a good job was because she was attractive?</p>
<p>This is not a women to men comparision. It is about your relative attractiveness and how that correlates to you getting a job compared to someone with equal qualifications.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. Curves are set different from course to course and so you really cant assume our curving rate works so simply. Ill give you an example. Last quarters' Bio5A class consisted of 566 registered students; 7 got As
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you sure this class was curved and not just overly difficult. My gf got the exact grade that her total point count suggested</p>
<p>to pasa-
That could very well be. I was speaking more along the lines of a curriculum curve. Stronger students causes harder exams rather than tougher grading. Its all relative imo. </p>
<p>to mike-
and why bring this up? you have me curious.</p>
<p>5A is heavily curved...I have TAd that class before. So are all the 5 series biology classes. In terms of exam difficulty, I can assure you that the 5B exams (which I'm TAing now) are MORE difficult than the equivalent course I took as an undergrad at Cornell...</p>
<p>just my 2 cents worth...</p>
<p>cheers
CUgrad</p>
<p>Seiken- Can you read? This was in response to SouthPasadena's post above
[quote]
in that house resides the president of a certain dumb hot girl sorority, yet she has a great job coming up
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
5A is heavily curved...I have TAd that class before. So are all the 5 series biology classes. In terms of exam difficulty, I can assure you that the 5B exams (which I'm TAing now) are MORE difficult than the equivalent course I took as an undergrad at Cornell...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Personally, I believe exam difficulty varies greatly by professor. However, strength of competition in order to achieve top grades varies by university. You can look at the opencourseware at MIT and see the same course you took at your school, however, students at MIT would on average do better than students from another university if they were taking the same test. This results in higher averages and makes it harder to get an A at MIT than it would be at a lesser school.</p>
<p>I would tend to agree, but let me add that the curve at Cornell was similar to that at UCR...the point I'm trying to make is that most (read most) students will do the minimum amount of work required of them, whether this is at Cornell, MIT or UC Riverside...this is not something I'm tossing out there, this is from experience having taught these courses. I would bet my pinky finger that a C student at Cornell or MIT, would still get a C on a test in an equivalent course at UCR. Most students on this board--especially those still ini high school--won't understand that effort and brains are completely different. Most Ivy/Stanford/MIT caliber high school students don't have to work very hard in high school to get good grades--this changes when they get to college. Only after they reach college, do they find out if they have the true work ethic needed to suceed at a particular school. The converse is true at a place like UCR. There are plenty of students here who, for whatever reason (lack of motivation, problems at home whatever) don't do very well in high school, but figure out how to time manage once freed from many of these constraints when in college. I know, personally (granted, this is one instance but I assure you there are others) of a student with a sub 3.0 high school GPA and miserable SAT's who is now at UCSF medical school (from UCR). Though he is a california resident, he could have gone anywhere (and by anywhere, I mean Harvard, Stanford, Duke etc...).</p>
<p>again...speaking from experience.</p>
<p>CUgrad</p>