<p>hey i was reading a post about bio engineering and about how bad a major it is to choose</p>
<p>unfortunately i already chose it on my app, and now im not so confident about it</p>
<p>if i get in, what do u think is an alternative science oriented major i should pick</p>
<p>im kinda strong in bio and chem, and i want a major that has promising career opportunities</p>
<p>How about try a few bioengineering classes first? See how much you like it and how difficult it is. And as a bioengineer, you have to take chem and bio any way, so you can always switch.</p>
<p>Just to let you know, Cal doesn't have a major in "biology" per se; instead, it's split up to Integrative Biology (L&S), Molecular Cell Biology (L&S), Microbial Biology (CNR), Genetics and Plant Biology (CNR), and Molecular Environmental Biology (CNR). </p>
<p>Try a few classes out before you write it off. People's opinions are just that: opinions. They can be helpful and can be a guide, but not a mandate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And as a bioengineer, you have to take chem and bio any way, so you can always switch.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Be careful. You can't always switch. If you don't get good grades (i.e. at least a 3.0) in your classes, you won't be able to switch into the College of Letters & Science. And because of the difficult science grading curves at Berkeley, it's very easy to end up with bad grades.</p>
<p>It's usually easier to switch from Engineering to L&S than the other way around though, but good grades are a must.</p>
<p>Oh come on, science grading isn't that harsh here. Why discouraging people???
I agree with eiffelguy, try it out first, then decide for yourself. Don't let people's opinions shadow your path.
Wish you best luck.</p>
<p>What do you mean, twitb? Please do elaborate. I've always wondered the difficulty level of Berkeley's science courses.</p>
<p>Maybe you can offer some insights?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh come on, science grading isn't that harsh here. Why discouraging people???
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not that harsh? Is that so? Maybe you'd care to talk to some of the people who got bad grades in the sciences? Just go take a look at the grade distributions of any weeder science class and you will see that plenty of people got bad grades.</p>
<p>Look, twitb, maybe you're a genius and it's easy for you. But that doesn't mean that everybody else is.</p>
<p>Well, I'm no genius, that's for sure.
Back to the science courses, curving is a relative game. It not important how hard or easy the tests are, it's how you do compared to others that matters. If you're awared of this and manage to stay on top, then it's not too hard to get good grades. As someone had said before, if you see your classmates spend 4hrs/week on studying the subject, then let out 5-6hrs/week to study. For Science, it's when you review the lessons that you really take in a lot. Reading the materials before hand is also extremely useful.
About the difficulty of Science courses at Berkeley, it all varies from class to class, professor to professor. For me, a just-above-average science student, in a scale of difficulty level from 1-10, I would give a 7.5 for general classes. The honor classes might range from 8-9.5. Sometimes, the materials might get abstract. That's when pre-reading, re-reading, visiting the professors come in. Actually, that's the opportunity for one to surpass others.
As long as you're better than most, then you're safe. </p>
<p>sakky:
Yes, many people get bad grades. But that's how things work out. When grading comes to play, someone has to be worse than someone else. Some people oppose the whole educational grading thing. I personally think that a bit of controled competition drives the world ahead.
It's Berkeley. It has its name to keep while taking in too many people compared to the private schools, you know.
I believe all the students are awared of this. So why should anyone complain too much? I don't when I get bad grades in Social Science classes!?! There's only myself to blame.</p>
<p>If you're really worried, just take it easy the first semester and decide what to do after a year. It's really hard to get a good feel for what's going on somewhere without actually being there for a while, and it's not like you'll drop dead if you end up being in the BioE department for a year longer than you'd like. </p>
<p>The minimum required courseload for engineers is at least 2 techs and at least 12 units per semester, so that means you can take as few as 8 tech units plus 4 fluffy units your first term. That should be manageable for anyone who is good enough to get into BioE, assuming you don't start doing drugs or something like that.</p>
<p>so lets say i do BioE first year (given i get in) and decide to change to pre-business, how far back would i be set regarding reqs and stuff</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, that's the opportunity for one to surpass others.
As long as you're better than most, then you're safe.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Famous last words - "as long as you are better than most". That's exactly the problem, isn't it? You have to be better than most. As if that's so easy to do. Perhaps you'd care to try taking an advanced Berkeley engineering class and trying to be better than most of the students there. </p>
<p>Look, the truth is, most Berkeley students are quite hard working and quite sharp. Being better than most of them is no walk in the park. Personal talent also plays a role, particularly in mathematics and computer science. These are classes in which you either get it or you don't. If you don't get it, then all the hard work in the world isn't going to pull you through.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky:
Yes, many people get bad grades. But that's how things work out. When grading comes to play, someone has to be worse than someone else. Some people oppose the whole educational grading thing. I personally think that a bit of controled competition drives the world ahead.
It's Berkeley. It has its name to keep while taking in too many people compared to the private schools, you know.
I believe all the students are awared of this. So why should anyone complain too much? I don't when I get bad grades in Social Science classes!?! There's only myself to blame.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It creates a host of institutional problems.</p>
<h1>1 - The problem with grading is that the scales are not even. Let's face it. There are certain classes and certain majors that just grade a lot easier than others do. For example, you might take one class, work extremely hard, know the materials quite well, and do better than most of your classmates., yet you only get a B- or even a C+. Then you look over and see somebody taking some other class in which he barely ever shows up to class, never studies, has no idea what is going on, even worse, doesn't WANT to know what is going on. Yet he gets an A. That's the problem - grades are not equivalent. Certain classes are far easier than others. Certain majors are far easier than others.</h1>
<p>Why is this bad? It's bad for many many reasons. #1, the determination of Latin honors (i.e. cum laude, magna cum laude) are determined by graduating with a GPA in the top X% of your college. You see the flaw with that? It's by college, not by major. As a case in point, the physics major is probably the most difficult major in all of Letters & Science, and perhaps in all of Berkeley. At the same time, L&S has a bunch of cheesepuff gut majors. I am not going to name them, but we all know what they are. Yet when it comes do determining who graduates with Latin honors, the physics students have to get the same GPA as everybody else. No consideration is given for the fact that physics is a difficult major that grades harshly. </p>
<p>What should be done is that the physics students should have their Latin honors determined by graduating in the top x% of all physics students, not all L&S students. But that's not how it is done today. Hence, some physics students who did quite well and should have graduated cum laude don't do so.</p>
<p>The same could be said for other honors like the Berkeley Dean's List, Phi Beta Kappa, Golden Key, etc. - which, again, are determined by a strict GPA cutoff, without regard for how difficult your major is or how difficult your classes are. High-prestige awards like the Rhodes Scholarship, Marshall Scholarship, etc. are generally closed off to people who don't hit a certain GPA cutoff. The same could be said for outside scholarships. I know a guy who got an outside scholarship (from his father's company) that basically gave him a full ride as long as he maintained a certain GPA (I think a GPA). He said he wanted to try to study engineering, but at the end of the day, he didn't dare, because he felt that he might not be able to get that GPA he needed to maintain his scholarship, which would mean that he would probably have to drop out. So he ended up choosing one of the easier majors, figuring that getting a free ride to complete an easy major is safer than trying to study what he really wanted, getting bad grades, losing his scholarship, and so ending up having to drop out with no degree at all (because his parents indicated that they wouldn't pay for his schooling). </p>
<p>And arguably the worst part about the whole thing is that certain graduate schools, notably law and med school, are absolutely fixated on GPA, with little regard for how difficult it is for you to get that GPA. For example, if you have less than a 3.0, you probably can kiss your chance at med-school goodbye. This is true even if you took extremely difficult classes in an extremely difficult major, and you could have gotten much better grades had you taken easier classes. Med-schools don't care about that. They just see that you have mediocre grades and reject you on that basis alone. </p>
<p>The point is, the inconsistent grading schemes provide students with institutionalized perverse incentives to cherry-pick easy classes and easy majors. It gives students a push to hunt for classes not to learn anything, but just to get easy A's.</p>
<p>Sakky, I totally agree with you about the inconsistency of grading for different majors. But I think that's how they attract people into certain majors. And when they have more people than needed, it will automatically heaten up. Picking major, it all depends on personal preferences.
About the scholarships, can you give me additional information about what the cut-off GPA's are??
For admission to med/law schools, it's not only the GPA that matters. People can always show how good they are with test scores. Grad school admission averagely receives less applications than undergrad, so I think the review would be more trustable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I think that's how they attract people into certain majors. And when they have more people than needed, it will automatically heaten up. Picking major, it all depends on personal preferences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, not exactly. Again, look at the physics major. I would argue that this may be the most difficult major at least in L&S, if not all of Berkeley. But it's not like there's an army of people trying to study physics. In fact, it's one of the least popular majors on campus. So what if you are saying is correct, then shouldn't physics classes be one of the easier-graded majors in order to attract more students? The same thing could be said about mathematics, another extremely difficult major that also has very few students majoring in it. </p>
<p>I would like to believe that picking majors all depends on personal preferences. Sadly, 'personal preferences' often times simply means something easy. Often times this is a perfectly rational thing to do. Again, I would point to the guy I talked about who had an outside scholarship that he had to maintain at all costs, and so deliberately chose an easy major that would allow him to maintain that scholarship. If he had chosen something difficult like engineering or physics, he might have lost his scholarship. I would also point to the scholarship football players. Many of them don't really care about what they study, they just want a major that will allow them to stay eligible to play while involving minimal studying. The NCAA has a rule that states that you have to maintain good academic standing (i.e. a 2.0) in order to stay eligible and keep your athletic scholarship. That GPA requirement is not adjusted if you choose a difficult major. Hence, a football player who majors in chemical engineering and ends up with a 1.9 will be prohibited from playing, whereas the guy who majored in a creampuff major and is getting a 2.1 will be able to play. How fair is that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
About the scholarships, can you give me additional information about what the cut-off GPA's are??
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Notice how certain scholarships, like the Marshall Scholarship, specifically say that you must have a certain GPA to apply. They don't care if you miss that GPA because you are taking a difficult major. </p>
<p>
[quote]
For admission to med/law schools, it's not only the GPA that matters. People can always show how good they are with test scores. Grad school admission averagely receives less applications than undergrad, so I think the review would be more trustable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Grad schools receive fewer admissions, but the available spots are also FAR fewer. This is particularly true for law and medical school, for which you have lots of applicants from many different majors, but few spots. Hence, the review is probably actually LESS trustable than the undergrad admissions review. </p>
<p>Again, simply put, if you have terrible grades, you're going to have very serious difficulty in getting into medical school. This is true even if the reason why you have terrible grades is because you go to an extremely difficult school and study an extremely difficult major. For example, if you major in Chemical Engineering at MIT, you can work extremely hard and still get quite mediocre grades that will knock you out of contention for medical school, whereas if you chose an easy major at an easy school, then you might be able to get in. Where's the fairness in that?</p>
<p>The person who graduates from MIT is going to be well compensated for his degree if he or she chooses some job which pays well. Also, this person got into MIT, which shows some level of ability and acomplishment.</p>
<p>Are these scholarship guidelines for Berkeley students only, or are other schools saying the exact same thing? Maybe slightly different? What are the chances of students with poor GPAs gaining presitigious scholarships?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The person who graduates from MIT is going to be well compensated for his degree if he or she chooses some job which pays well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you want to see the MIT salary figures? Not everybody who graduates from MIT is well compensated. It's not always because those who aren't well compensated don't try to be. Some MIT students end up with very little.</p>
<p>The #1 factor that determines your compensation is what you majored in. The fact is, a person who graduated with a degree in computer science from a no-name school will probably make more, on average, than a guy who graduated with a degree in architecture from MIT. The #2 factor is your geography. People in New York and San Francisco tend to make more money than those who are out in the boonies. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, this person got into MIT, which shows some level of ability and acomplishment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's exactly the point - he has some ability and accomplishment, but his MIT grades will tend to mask that fact. Like I said, there are quite a few things that are highly grade-oriented. </p>
<p>The same thing is true regarding difficult or easy majors at Berkeley. We all know that certain majors are easier than others, and hence you really can get higher grades in those majors while doing less work. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Are these scholarship guidelines for Berkeley students only, or are other schools saying the exact same thing? Maybe slightly different?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Those guidelines that I printed are for Berkeley students only, but other schools often times have similar GPA cutoffs. For example, many schools will not sponsor your Rhodes Scholarship candidacy if you don't have a certain minimum GPA cutoff. It doesn't matter if you missed the cutoff because you majored in something difficult, the only thing that matters is that you missed the cutoff.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What are the chances of students with poor GPAs gaining presitigious scholarships?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't have figures, but I would suspect the chances are not good. MIT, for example, has had difficulty in competing for the Rhodes Scholarship relative to peer schools like HYPS. </p>
<p>One might say that this is perhaps because MIT students have difficulty in presenting the top grades that the Rhodes Scholarship committee prefers. Or perhaps it's because MIT students participate in fewer EC's or other activities that the committee likes. However, I would argue that a lack of EC's could also be traced back to a difficult curriculum. After all, if you have to spend more time studying to keep your grades up, then you will have less time to do EC's. But the commitee doesn't care about that, they only see that you don't have enough EC's.</p>
<p>Sakky,
It's how many Physics/Maths majors there are compared to the expectation of the university that matters, not to the number of people of other majors. The demand for different majors are totally different.
Nevertheless, you made your point that the Science majors MIGHT be at disadvantage when it comes to grading and later admission to grad schools(Still, I want to stress on test scores, and to question the validity of your claim that grad schools reviewers are totally untrustable).
What can we do then to change this, Sakky?
I have another question for you. As experienced as you are, how would you compare MIT's physics difficulty to Berkeley's?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's how many Physics/Maths majors there are compared to the expectation of the university that matters, not to the number of people of other majors. The demand for different majors are totally different.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I fail to see how that is relevant. I am not aware of any evidence that physics and math are becoming unusually and unexpectedly popular lately, thereby necessitating lower grades in order to deter that increase. Hence, Berkeley ought to know how many students are going to be majoring in math/physics and should staff accordingly. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Nevertheless, you made your point that the Science majors MIGHT be at disadvantage when it comes to grading and later admission to grad schools(Still, I want to stress on test scores, and to question the validity of your claim that grad schools reviewers are totally untrustable).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I'll put it to you this way. What looks better - a 3.0 and a 170 on the LSAT, or a 3.5 and a 170 on the LSAT? I think we can agree that the latter looks better, despite the fact that the former guy got his lower grades only because he majored in something difficult and the latter guy didn't. In fact, you may want to come to the law school and premed section of CC where significant evidence has been posted that indicate that law and med schools care very little about how difficult your coursework was. They just want to see that you got high grades and don't care very much about how you got them, as long as you got them. It is therefore the opinion of quite a few people, myself included, that if you want to maximize your chances of law/med-school, you should try to avoid difficult classes whenever you can. Sad but true. I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What can we do then to change this, Sakky?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Simple. Transcript reform. The first thing Berkeley should do is, next to each course grade on your transcript, print the median grade given out in that course. For example, if you get a B, but the median grade in that class is a 'C', then that fact should be clearly shown that you did better than the average student in that class. On the other hand, if you get a 'B' in a class where the median grade given out was an A-, then that fact should also be clearly shown. Also, next to your final cumulative GPA will be printed the cumulative GPA of the theoretical student who took the SAME EXACT classes you took and got the median grade each time. So everybody will be able to clearly see whether you were better or worse than the average, given your particular course selection. </p>
<p>Furthermore, all honors and scholarship calculations should be performed based on your performance compared to all other students in the classes you took. No more cherry-picking easy classes just to get a bunch of easy A's to put you over the honors threshold. From now on, if you want to graduate summa cum laude (which is the top 3% of your college), then you have to get grades that put you in the top 3% percentile of students who took the same exact classes that you took. The same would hold true for all other kinds of honors and scholarships. </p>
<p>Finally, I would identify certain classes that are unusually difficult, as evidenced by average grades given out in that class and the workload of that class. I don't know exactly which classes they would be, but they would certainly include all of the weeders. For these majors, I would probably offer the concept of the 'pseudo-transcript', or basically, 2 transcripts. One would be the "real" transcript that had all of your grades on them. The other would be a "pseudo-transcript" that basically deleted all of your bad weeder grades. This pseudo-transcript could be used for submission to LSDAS (for law school) or AMCAS (for med-school). Why these 2? Because like I said, it is law school and med-school admissions that are the most problematic and whose adcoms have proven themselves to be the least trustworthy when it comes to misusing grades. These adcoms have shown to me that they simply don't WANT to understand that certain courses at Berkeley are weeders that are designed to give lots of students bad grades. From what I have seen, they simply choose to not understand it. Hence, since they have proven so irresponsible with using this information, I would simply deny them the ability to see the weeders.</p>
<p>Now let me deal with some objections. I know somebody will read this and wonder about the ethicality of hiding weeder grading information. To that, let me say this. This idea is no different from the concept of 'shadow freshman grades' at Caltech or 'hidden freshman grades' at MIT. At both schools, your freshman letter grades are given to you as a student, but they are not actually recorded on your official transcript. Rather, they are recorded on another, secret, student record of yours. When you apply to graduate school later, your secret student record remains secret. Hence, MIT and Caltech students therefore basically have 2 transcripts, their official one and their secret one. So my idea of giving Berkeley students with 2 different transcripts that show 2 different records is not a radical idea.</p>
<p>The other objection I anticipate is that somebody is going to say that it's "unfair" for students to use the concept of the pseudotranscript to hide their bad weeder grades such that they can now get into law and medical school more easily. But let's think about that. Let's say that that's really true. That would mean that the law and med-schools really never properly corrected for the difference in grading schemes in the first place. </p>
<p>Let me trace that logic out for you. I am proposing that law/med school adcoms are not properly accounting for the different grading schemes used by the various schools and various majors. My detractors would say that this is not true and the adcoms are properly accounting for them (via use of standardized tests or whatnot). Ok, fine, let's say that my detractors are correct. Then if my pseudo-transcript idea is implemented, then the adcoms ought to be able to instantly compensate for this fact and this instant compensation would mean that nobody would get admitted who wouldn't have gotten admitted under the old system. If more or different people get admitted after my proposal is implemented, then that simply means that the proper compensation is not taking place, and that therefore means that the present system is flawed and therefore needs to be fixed anyway.</p>
<p>Bottom line - if adcoms are really properly compensating candidates for different grading schemes, then my proposals will change nothing. However, if they are not properly compensating candidates (which is what I think), then my proposals will improve the situation. So either things get better or things remain the same. Sounds like a good idea to me. </p>
<p>
[quote]
how would you compare MIT's physics difficulty to Berkeley's?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Both quite difficult, but anecdotally, MIT's is probably a bit more difficult.</p>
<p>sakky, whats your opinion on the name of the university and GPA for getting into a grad school</p>
<p>say you take molecular bio at the University of Arizona and end up with a 3.5
and another guy gets a 3.0 at Berkeley, which is going to look better for med school, same for say MIS at University of Arizona's Business school compared to Haas</p>
<p>It doesn' take a whole lot to get into Arizona but when it comes down to it, the program is going to be more in depth at Berkeley</p>
<p>
[quote]
say you take molecular bio at the University of Arizona and end up with a 3.5
and another guy gets a 3.0 at Berkeley, which is going to look better for med school, same for say MIS at University of Arizona's Business school compared to Haas
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For med school? The 3.5 from Arizona. Heck, for the purposes of med school the 3.5 from a terrible school (which Arizona is not) will look better than a 3.0 from MIT.</p>