<p>Alright, so I've heard some pretty good things about Berk, but I want to hear some negatives.
Current students/recent admits, what would you guys change about Berkeley if you had the choice?</p>
<p>The grade curve.</p>
<p>Admit some more OOS students, better financial aid, limit admissions to boost USNWR ranking to where it deserves, get alumni to donate more money.</p>
<p>Reduce entering freshmen class size to 1600-2000 students. (as a result, this would do well for the lower tier UCs whose selectivity and prestige will increase as well)</p>
<p>so basically u guys wanna privatize it... hhhmmm</p>
<p>Same as above:
Reduce enrollment and hence reduce class sizes. This would also probably reduce rent in Berkeley area.
Have more professor-taught lectures.
Better funding, increase financial aid.
Get better and more counselors for each college, esp. L&S.
Instead of peer advising, have real advisers who can offer advice on grad applications, etc. Get more help on graduate applications/admissions. (it's pretty much you figure it out for yourself here.)
Admit more OOS to maintain competitiveness.
Make Berkeley undergrads be equally competitive to its own graduate programs as other applicants. (Right now Berkeley grad programs dislike admitting Berkeley undergrads. Check the statistics.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Right now Berkeley grad programs dislike admitting Berkeley undergrads. Check the statistics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What statistics? From what I've seen, it's not so much that Berkeley dislikes its undergrads. It's that Berkeley grad is substantially more selective than Berkeley undergrad. In addition, Berkeley has no commitment to admitting Californians for grad. As a result, it appears that Berkeley "dislikes" its undergrads, when in reality, they're no different from non-Berkeley students in Berkeley grad admissions.</p>
<p>^ For law school, the average GPA for a Berkeley undergrad going to Boalt is 3.9+. The average GPA for Boalt's entering class is 3.8.</p>
<p>A Berkeley degree holds less water than the Ivy degree when it comes to applying to the top grad programs. A Berkeley undergrad needs a higher GPA. I'll pull these statistics up in a few days post-midterm, but take my word for it.</p>
<p>location .</p>
<p>Reducing class size doesn't mean privatizing...</p>
<p>By reducing class sizes, the resources available at Cal would be available to students much more easily (unless they decide to also reduce the resources as well..)</p>
<p>Stop admitting so many students, both freshman and transfer students.</p>
<p>To be more specific, stop admitting freshman applicants who come from low performing high school with straight A's but below 1900 on the SAT's. Most of these students don't do well in the classes here. This will make Berkeley more selective and more prestigious.</p>
<p>The same goes for transfer students-- apply more stringent admission requirements. Some of the science majors admit such a large percentage of transfer students that it's ridiculous. For example, MCB and IB admits about 50% of the transfer students. Most bio majors intended freshman don't even get to make it into either of the majors because they get weeded out by the hard courses. It's a well known fact that CC math and science courses are easy in comparison to their counterparts at Berkeley. So, transfer admission needs to treat them as such and make it more difficult for CC science majors to transfer.</p>
<p>And of course, stop raising the tuition.</p>
<p>tuitions only rising because of the nasty California budget cuts though..</p>
<p>
[quote]
To be more specific, stop admitting freshman applicants who come from low performing high school with straight A's but below 1900 on the SAT's. Most of these students don't do well in the classes here. This will make Berkeley more selective and more prestigious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some students had no choice but to grow up in an area where the schools are not good, but they are excellent students.</p>
<p>Hasn't this thread been done already?...</p>
<p>Excise that portion of the student body which believes that Berkeley owes it more than it can reasonably be expected to give. Every place needs constructive suggestions to improve. Having attended private and public both, I can say that this type of student exists in all places. In the privates, one example of the attitude these people carry around is that, like a picky customer at a restaurant, they should be able to get exactly what they want and, in the worst cases, they contend that the school failed them if they don't do well (even if they didn't try or weren't up to the material they were studying). At Berkeley, it often revolves around not being the "high-end, luxury" experience that people perceive is being offered at the privates. In fact, the experience is very high-end, perhaps just not as luxury, IMO.</p>
<p>Other suggestions: 1) Limit student body growth 2) Have the state chip in for an endowment that ensures continuing access at all levels 3) Establish a cohort system of some sort to make the school more manageable for people. 4) Establish "Berkeley South" someplace in the tropics where students can spend a semester getting their general ed requirements out of the way, partying and getting tan, and wrestling gators.</p>
<p>I have a little problem with the "low performing" restriction too. This is a public institution and it should at least make an attempt to balance the school. Education depends on a dialog between students and the educators. Populating a campus with all the same type of students would be at best boring. Some kids don't do well on the standarized SAT type of tests. To use the SAT as a primary means of determining whether somebody will preform well at a school like Berkeley is unfair.</p>
<p>I definitely agree that the SAT alone should not be grounds alone for admission. However, as a student at Berkeley you meet people who had below 3.7 GPAs and lows SAT scores who were accepted here. Regardless of back story, these people generally stuggle here. On the flip side, when I was accepted into Berkeley I knew several people denied with 3.9 or above GPAs and 1400+ SAT scores (which I beleive now equals 2100 or so) who were denied. That should not be the case IMO</p>
<p>
[quote]
To be more specific, stop admitting freshman applicants who come from low performing high school with straight A's but below 1900 on the SAT's. Most of these students don't do well in the classes here. This will make Berkeley more selective and more prestigious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. I know several students who had 780M 4ishV, did better than almost everyone who had over 1500 in the old scale. The total might be low, but dont be fooled.<br>
That's another thing about Berkeley, they're willing to overlook and take lopsided kids. If you come in to do engineering, I dont see how getting 700+ on the verbal section help you with anything except better comments for programming code.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I definitely agree that the SAT alone should not be grounds alone for admission. However, as a student at Berkeley you meet people who had below 3.7 GPAs and lows SAT scores who were accepted here. Regardless of back story, these people generally stuggle here. On the flip side, when I was accepted into Berkeley I knew several people denied with 3.9 or above GPAs and 1400+ SAT scores (which I beleive now equals 2100 or so) who were denied. That should not be the case IMO
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. I think the admissions are sometimes funky. My friend was rejected with a 1500+ on the old scale and a 3.9+. He is going to an even more competitive Ivy though, so it's all good.</p>