<p>90% of Harvard kids get into med school, so yes.</p>
<p>Hmmm. That's amazing, considering that much less than your so called 90% apply to med school.</p>
<p>Do you mean, instead, that about 90% of the medical school applicants from Harvard get into a medical school? That's another story.</p>
<p>Drab, obviously the latter is correct.</p>
<p>I put up the GPA data so that students at Berkeley know what they have to do if they want to be competitive for the top med-schools.</p>
<p>However, if you want to get into comparing Berkeley against other schools, I agree that some perspective needs to be kept. It's tough for any premed from any school to get into a top med-school. No premed should think that they are guaranteed to get into anywhere.</p>
<p>Having said that, I do believe that premeds from certain schools have more placement success than others. HYP, for example, boast 90% placement rates (close to 93-95% for graduating seniors, compared to in the 60's for Berkeley). Of course, one might say that part of the reason for that is because HYP have better average students. However if you consider the kinds of stats that those premeds need to get into the top med-schools, you will notice that in many if not most cases, those premeds are actually getting in with LOWER GPA's and basically the same or lower MCAT scores than the Berkeley premeds who are getting in.</p>
<p>For example, the Princeton premeds who get into UCSF Medical School in the last few years had average MCAT's of about 34, and average GPA's of 3.7. The Berkeley premeds who got into UCSF Medical School in the last few years also had average MCAT's of about 34, and average GPA's of 3.87. The fact that the MCAT scores are about the same indicate that the raw talent level is about the same. Remember that this is UCSF here, which by law must give admissions preference to California state residents. I think it's safe to assume that more of the Berkeley premed applicants than Princeton premed applicants who apply to UCSF are California state residents. </p>
<p>You can do the same with the other UC medical schools and see that for the most part, you will see, Princeton premeds are getting in with lower grades (and comparable MCAT scores). </p>
<p>There are really only 2 logical conclusions to this. #1 - Berkeley is actually grade inflated relative to Princeton, which I find extremely difficult to believe considering Princeton's notorious grade inflation. Or #2, Princeton does a better job of helping its premeds compile better applications. I think this is closer to the truth. After talking to several Princeton premeds about their experience, I believe that Princeton does a better job in advising its premeds and preparing strong premed committee recommendation letters that aids its students in getting in. For example, at Princeton, premeds individually meet with advisors who review their entire application packet and prepare a summarized rec letter that puts the student in the best possible light. </p>
<p>I believe Berkeley could and should do the same. If cost is the issue, then why not charge, say, $250 on CARS to each Berkeley premed? If you really want to be a doctor, then I don' think having to pay that fee for a program to increase your chances of getting into med-school is a lot to pay for, in the grand scheme of things. </p>
<p>Bottom line is this. Getting into med-school is difficult for everybody at every school. However, that's not to say that Berkeley couldn't do more to make its premeds more attractive. A lot of the med-school application process is really about marketing and promotion. I believe that Berkeley could do more to market and promote its students to the med-schools.</p>
<p>i think you might have missed out one crucial factor- the student-faulty ratio. the low ratio at a private like princeton may help facilitate greater intimacy between the professors and the students, thereby increasing the chances for better letters of rec. </p>
<p>You also might have missed out on the possibility of research experience. i'm guessing that in your example, princeton (and generally other private schools) applicants may have had relatively better research experience compared to berkeley applicants. The size of the school may have been a factor in this case, imo. The GPA and MCAT do not fill up the whole admission criterias, even if they do carry the majority of weight. </p>
<p>These are just other possibilities that could explain the comparatively lower admission rates, which I'm only just hypothesizing.</p>
<p>"Princeton does a better job of helping its premeds compile better applications. I think this is closer to the truth. After talking to several Princeton premeds about their experience, I believe that Princeton does a better job in advising its premeds and preparing strong premed committee recommendation letters that aids its students in getting in. For example, at Princeton, premeds individually meet with advisors who review their entire application packet and prepare a summarized rec letter that puts the student in the best possible light. "</p>
<p>Indeed. You do get what you pay for, I guess.</p>
<p>ccmadforever, I agree. There could be many factors involved. </p>
<p>However, the bottom line is that, for whatever reason, it seems to be more difficult to get into med-school coming out of Berkeley than out of a school like Princeton. Note - I've seen the data of Harvard and Yale too (which is available only in hardcopy), and it's basically the same as Princeton's. Stanford should be publishing its premed data online any day now, and I suspect that Stanford's data will resemble Princeton's. </p>
<p>I'm not saying that people shouldn't still choose Berkeley. Berkeley has its strength and weaknesses just like any other school. However, what i am saying is that people should understand what those strengths and weaknesses are before they decide to come, and if they do come, should know that they may have a handicap (relative to some other schools) that they may need to overcome.</p>
<p>Indeed. And I really appreciate how you're posting this often and in different forums -- I think prospective students need to know.</p>
<p>No offense, but were you one of those who got "screwed over" by Cal, sakky?</p>
<p>I did not personally get screwed over by Cal. While I'm not going to get into my biography, trust me, I'm perfectly fine. </p>
<p>However, I know several people who did get screwed - to the point where they either graduating with GPA's that are so atrociously low that they basically have zero chance of ever getting into graduate school, or even worse, not even graduating. In each situation, I agree that those guys had some culpability. Sure, they weren't as mature as they should have been. They weren't as hard-working as they should have been. They didn't take the kind of initiative to access resources as they should have been doing.</p>
<p>Having said that, it's still a shame that what happened to them should have happened to them. Especially of the guys who didn't even graduate at all, because they got put on academic probation for poor grades, found that they were unable to raise their cumulative GPA's above a 2.0 in one semester (which is what you're supposed to do if you land on probation), and thus found themselves expelled. Those guys would have been better off never going to Berkeley at all. Hence, Berkeley not only didn't help them, it actually severely hurt them.</p>
<p>I think of one guy in particular who this happened to who studied EECS, which is arguably the most difficult major on campus. Believe me, it is EXTREMELY easy to end up with less than a 2.0 in EECS, even if you work extremely hard, particularly if you're taking the weeder classes. And that's what happened - the weeders pulled him substantially below a 2.0, and he unwisely chose another difficult courseload the following semester and was not able to pull his cum GPA above 2.0, so he got expelled. </p>
<p>And my question is, why? Allright, so he's not cut out for Berkeley EECS. Fine. I can see him getting expelled from EECS. Fair enough. But why not let him transfer to another major at Berkeley with a clean slate? Or just let him transfer to some other school completely? The Berkeley EECS department proved its point - he's not good enough for EECS. So why continue hassling the guy ? Why not expunge all of his bad engineering grades from his academic record, along with a notation that says that he's no longer welcome in engineering, but still allow him to transfer over to L&S? Or give him a 'scrubbed' transcipt that doesn't contain his failing engineering grades if he wants to transfer to another school? As it stands now, he can't get a degree from Berkeley, and he can't transfer to another decent school because no half-decent school wants to take a transfer student that flunked out of his previous school. </p>
<p>Again, I can understand that Berkeley doesn't want to grant him an EECS degree, or any other kind of engineering degree. I can understand that. But I don't know what the purpose is of continually hounding the guy forever. What's so bad about letting the guy do something else with a clean slate? As it stands now, it's more than a decade later, he's in his 30's now, and he's still getting haunted by things that happened when he was 17 and 18. Why? That stuff happened over a decade ago. Leave the guy alone. </p>
<p>And the guy always says that instead of going to Berkeley, he would have been better off not gotten into Berkeley at all, but instead gone to UCDavis. Or San Jose State. Or Cal-Stat Hayward (now Cal-State East Bay). If he had gone down that path, I'm fairly certain he would have graduated. Maybe not with top grades (as I imagine he still would have been immature when he was 17 no matter where he went), but hey, at least he would have graduated. It's far far better to graduate from San Jose State than to flunk out of Berkeley. </p>
<p>Some ideas I have to ameliorate some of these effects are as follows:</p>
<p>*The 'clean slate' option. I think that every flunked-out Berkeley student should have the option of completely expunging their entire Berkeley academic record after a reasonable length of time, say 3-5 years. For example, if a guy comes into Berkeley at age 18 and flunks out, I don't think it's unreasonable to let that guy come back and be given a completely blank transcript and try again when he's 21 or 23. He's had his graduation delayed, isn't that punishment enough? The way it stands now, somebody who gets bad grades and flunks out will always have to deal with those bad grades no matter what. </p>
<p>*The invalidation of bad weeder grades.
Weeder courses exist in numerous majors at Berkeley (and other schools) basically in order to prevent unworthy people from completing those majors. They act as a quality-control check. I disagree with the need for weeders, for I think that a school would be better off simply not admitting people into a particular major who aren't going to be able to pass the weeders anyway, but I do understand their premise. </p>
<p>However, having said that, what I would ask is if a person gets weeded out of a certain major, why not let him switch to another major with a clean slate? For example, if you start out in EECS and get grades in the EECS weeders that are so bad that you can't or don't want to continue in EECS, and so you switch majors to something else, why should those bad EECS grades continue to matter? You already got weeded out of EECS. What more is there to prove? If you end up majoring in Film Studies, who cares what your old EECS weeder grades were? Look, you made a mistake in that you tried out a major that was not for you, and so you ended up wasting a lot of your time and pain in those weeder courses. Shouldn't that be enough? Why does your permanent academic record have to be forever marred just because you tried out a major that wasn't for you? What purpose does that serve? </p>
<p>*Finally, I would say why give out grades below a certain threshold, say, a C-?</p>
<p>I would say that if a student gets a really low grade, just don't even give that student any grade at all or any academic units at all. It would be as if the student never even took the class. Again, I think that if a student does poorly in a class, then just not granting him the units (and thus delaying his graduation) is punishment enough. I don't think any student out there wants to take a class and wind up with no units. So that should be the threat of bad performance. I don't think there's any need to damage a guy's permanent record. </p>
<p>I would extend this to all of the premed courses. The profs know that many of the students in there are premeds. Hence, I think that the students should all get final grades, but it's up to them whether they want to have that final grade recorded on their transcript. If the grade isn't good enough, then I think the student should just be given the option of taking no grade at all (and thus earning no units), and having to take the class again. What's so bad about that?</p>
<p>Well, do the Ivies (or any other colleges, for that matter) allow what you mentioned (clean slate, invalidation of bad grades, etc.)?</p>
<p>Sakky, think about what you're saying. That idea would be a disaster. So if I got a bad grade, or several bad grades, because I was lazy and didn't want to work, I could just say, "hey, I think I'll try another department with a clean slate." You don't see how ugly that could get? And again, Cal doesn't keep anyone from transfering to another school. If your friend or anyone else does poorly at Cal they can feel free to apply somewhere else and the only way Cal will even know or care is if you request a transcript from them. Its the other school that wants to know how you did at Cal and its the other school that will deny you admission when they see how poor of a student you are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"hey, I think I'll try another department with a clean slate." You don't see how ugly that could get?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why would that get ugly? </p>
<p>I'm not saying that this policy would apply universally. I am saying that Berkeley ought to identify the weeder courses publicly. The students know what the weeder courses are, so why not publish it? It would be for those particular weeder courses that you would be free to invalidate your grades if you switch majors.</p>
<p>Take Chemical Engineering. ChemE 140 is the big weeder of ChemE (along with 141, maybe 150A, and some of the Chem courses). Lots of people take 140, do poorly, and then leave the major, usually leaving engineering entirely. I would say that if you leave your major and wind up in humanities or something, who cares what your grade in ChemE 140 was? It has nothing to do with the humanities. </p>
<p>Look, the guy made a mistake. He tried out a major that was not right for him. Why do you want to perpetually hound the guy about it? </p>
<p>
[quote]
again, Cal doesn't keep anyone from transfering to another school. If your friend or anyone else does poorly at Cal they can feel free to apply somewhere else and the only way Cal will even know or care is if you request a transcript from them. Its the other school that wants to know how you did at Cal and its the other school that will deny you admission when they see how poor of a student you are
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's EXACTLY my point - Cal is actually PREVENTING people from leaving because of the poor transfer grades. I would say that if somebody wants to leave Berkeley, then they should be allowed to leave clearly with a clean slate. Give the guy a pure pass/not-pass transcript if that's what it takes. After all, what does it matter? He's not going to get a Berkeley degree anyway, so what does it matter if Berkeley helps him to transfer out? </p>
<p>I would also ask - is it that you're a poor student, or just that you got crushed by the weeders? There's a big difference there. For example, I would say that a guy who flunked out of the Berkeley EECS weeders is still better than many of the students at a CalState. Let's face it. A lot of the CalState students aren't all that great either. </p>
<p>Hence, I would say that if you really do badly at Cal, fine, maybe you shouldn't get a degree from Cal. But at least let the guy get a degree at a CalState. Why not? What does Cal have to gain by stopping that from happening? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, do the Ivies (or any other colleges, for that matter) allow what you mentioned (clean slate, invalidation of bad grades, etc.)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sort of. The best example that I know of is MIT. MIT students actually have TWO transcripts. One is called the internal transcript, and it contains all kinds of information about your grades. This transcript can only be seen within MIT. The other is your external transcript, and it only contains partial information about your grades. In particular, the external transcript converts all of your grades in your first term from letters to P/NP, and all of your grades in your second term from letters to ABC/NP. </p>
<p>So think about that. Some people come to MIT, do badly in their freshman year, and so look to transfer out. When they apply to transfer out, they present their external transcript to the transferree school. The transferree school therefore does not get to see any freshman failed courses. Only MIT (and the student) will know about any failed freshman courses. External parties won't know, and MIT won't tell them.</p>
<p>The idea is that MIT is trying to protect its students by helping them adjust to the infamously difficult MIT curriculum. If you screw up in freshman year, MIT treats that as an internal matter between you and MIT. Nobody else needs to know about it. </p>
<p>But look, we can all quibble about the details. I am not saying that I have all the right answers. But the real point is that I believe some safety nets need to be put in place for the students at Berkeley who don't do well, particularly the ones who don't do well just because of the weeders. If a guy tries out a difficult major and gets weeded out, I think he should be allowed to go to another major with a clean slate. Weeders exist to eliminate unworthy people from a particular major. Once they've done that, then their purpose has been accomplished. I don't see what more is to be gained from tagging people with permanent bad weeder grades that follow them for the rest of their life. Furthermore, if a guy flunks out, I don't think it's entirely unfair to either let the guy come back and try again after a few years, or to help him transfer to another school completely. What's so bad about that? </p>
<p>The point is, I don't see what Berkeley has to gain by constantly hounding those students who do poorly. The least you can do is help those students freely transfer to a CalState.</p>
<p>Sakky, does the school really keep the MIT grades private, or does the other school actually demand to know what they are? What about grad school, med school, law school, and other professional schools? Should they see the grades for Berkeley students who switched out of your oh so tough engineering? Didn't you say that the MIT people actually end up presenting it to the other admissions committee? Should I be able to take some intro chem, bio, or physics class off of my transcript if I later decide I want to not be pre-med, pre-vet, pre-dental, or that I actually want a major in the Humanities or social sciences? Should I be able to switch from any of the general areas, as in, if I do poorly in the humanities, and then decide to go to sciences, should I be able to wipe my humanities slate clean? Is the same true with social sciences? Or from any of the four (hum, soc sci, sci, eng) to any other? Or is this only for your beloved engineers? Perhaps just those going from the "tougher" to the "easier" (engineering -> sciences -> social sciences -> humanities). I can go down this list, but not up it? Are the English weeder courses to be identified as much as the physics, bio, chem, engineering, and math weeder courses? Pre-med?</p>
<p>A lot of weeder courses aren't taken in the first term, though. So, if an MIT student flunks a weeder in his second, third, or fourth year, he'd still get the bad mark on his external transcript, thus making no difference. Having one term that you're free to screw up in isn't that big of an advantage; in fact, if I got good grades I would be upset about the conversion to P/NP.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, does the school really keep the MIT grades private, or does the other school actually demand to know what they are?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, the MIT internal grades are really private, almost without exception. I have heard of only a few extremely rare med-schools (conspiciously Johns Hopkins) that demand to see those grades. For example, I know a couple of people who graduated from MIT who later went to grad-school at Harvard in several disciplines (Harvard Business School, Harvard Law, Harvard science grad school, etc.), and none of them presented their internal transcripts, nor were they asked to do so.</p>
<p>If you don't believe me, I'll tell you what. There's a girl on CC who's an MIT senior who, right now, is applying to grad school in biology, at various schools, including Harvard. Her name is molliebatmit. She's freely talking about her experiences in the app process, and you can meet her on the MIT forum, or the Graduate School forum. Why don't we ask her which of her MIT transcripts she is submitting to those outside schools? Would that satisfy you? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Should they see the grades for Berkeley students who switched out of your oh so tough engineering?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If it has nothing to do with the major they land in, why? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Didn't you say that the MIT people actually end up presenting it to the other admissions committee?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, this is an extremely rare event. Again, why don't we ask molliebatmit? Let's go to the MIT forum and make a post directed specifically to her. Or, even better, why don't you write her an email or a PM? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Should I be able to take some intro chem, bio, or physics class off of my transcript if I later decide I want to not be pre-med, pre-vet, pre-dental, or that I actually want a major in the Humanities or social sciences
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That depends. I would say that if it is an identified weeder course, then yeah, I think you should be able to remove it. Or at least convert it to pass/not-pass after the fact. Why not? Those courses have nothing to do with what you end up in. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Should I be able to switch from any of the general areas, as in, if I do poorly in the humanities, and then decide to go to sciences, should I be able to wipe my humanities slate clean? Is the same true with social sciences? Or from any of the four (hum, soc sci, sci, eng) to any other? Or is this only for your beloved engineers? Perhaps just those going from the "tougher" to the "easier" (engineering -> sciences -> social sciences -> humanities). I can go down this list, but not up it? Are the English weeder courses to be identified as much as the physics, bio, chem, engineering, and math weeder courses? Pre-med?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not just for engineers. I agree with you - there are weeders in humanities and social sciences. ALL weeders should be identified as such and therefore be eligible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A lot of weeder courses aren't taken in the first term, though. So, if an MIT student flunks a weeder in his second, third, or fourth year, he'd still get the bad mark on his external transcript, thus making no difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, I didn't say that MIT system was perfect. I was just using it as one example. Somebody asked whether there was any school that had 2 transcript systems out there, and the answer is 'yes'. I don't think that the MIT system is perfect, but I do think it has some good features in it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Having one term that you're free to screw up in isn't that big of an advantage; in fact, if I got good grades I would be upset about the conversion to P/NP.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not saying that it's the greatest advantage in the world. However, it does eliminate a major pitfall of freshman year. The fact is, freshman year is the most likely year when you're going to run into problems, because some people are simply not used to having to live alone, adapting to the college environment. Hence, if there was any single year where people need a safety net, I would say that it would be freshman year. </p>
<p>But in any case, you guys seem to be just quibbling. I am not saying that my proposals are perfect. What I am saying is that there are people at Berkeley who don't do well and I am proposing some examples of some solutions that I think could make things better. I never said that my solutions would make things perfect. My goal is simply to start a dialogue about what sorts of things could be done. But it seems to me that a lot of you guys don't really want to do anything about it. It seems to me that you guys aren't really interested in helping people who do poorly at Berkeley. </p>
<p>So, look, if you have some ideas that you think would help these people better than my ideas would, then by all means, let's hear them. Or if you're not interested in helping these people, then just say that you don't want to help them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1 - Berkeley is actually grade inflated relative to Princeton, which I find extremely difficult to believe considering Princeton's notorious grade inflation. Or #2, Princeton does a better job of helping its premeds compile better applications.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought I'd weigh in on this...</p>
<p>sakky, do you honestly believe that the level of coursework isn't at least nominally harder at Princeton? I'd say that a 3.7 at Princeton, while inflated, is probably pretty equivalent to a 3.8 at Cal. I don't think that it's really a case of med schools being unfair to publics, but the fact that med schools are aware of the fact that there are just on average (again, the median) better students at Princeton.</p>
<p>And before someone gets in my face for this, think about it: There is no doubt that the best Cal student is equivalent to the best Princeton student. But what about the worst Cal student?</p>
<p>I doubt there are many schools that are more academically competitive than Cal. Out of three technical courses I'm taking, two are graded on a curve, and no matter how difficult the midterms are at least one person ends up with a perfect paper (usually more than that) on each. If there's a major problem you don't know how to do entirely, you pretty much know you're screwed for that exam. In each lower-div weeder course you compete with 200-1,500 other students -- this upper boundary is just slightly under Princeton's entire freshman class size.</p>
<p>Due to Princeton's smaller class sizes, there is less cutthroat competition. There is no question about this. You can say that the quality of the "average" Princeton student exceeds that of the "average" student at Cal, and I definitely agree with this. However, that does not mean there are not students here who are not of Princeton's academic caliber. This place is filled with international students (particularly Asians), and you can't help but admire how smart some of them are. And the top students are the ones who determine the curve, thus making how bad the "bottom" are irrelevant.</p>
<p>With regards to the level of coursework being more difficult at Princeton, I really doubt that. There are only so many ways you can teach the same set of material. I've heard people say that the math and English courses at Cal are about the same quality as those at a good community college, but the students aren't -- and that makes the main difference in a school's reputation.</p>
<p>Student,</p>
<p>I'm not disparaging Cal. If I did that, I'd also be disparaging my own alma mater. However, what I think is fairly obvious is the fact that there is a difference between Cal and Harvard students on the average. If the average student at Princeton is better, then wouldn't a C in a curved class require more work?</p>
<p>Sakky, I was just making sure that your system would be helpful for people in all the disciplines. Sure, I would like people to do well and graduate, but here is a question. How do you think a system like yours would affect grade inflation? Could you talk about a system like yours and the concept grade inflation? </p>
<p>
[quote]
That depends. I would say that if it is an identified weeder course, then yeah, I think you should be able to remove it. Or at least convert it to pass/not-pass after the fact. Why not? Those courses have nothing to do with what you end up in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What about med school and law school (in particular), who care a lot about GPA and ability. Wouldn't they want to see these courses? Do they not have at least something to do with ability?</p>
<p>UCLAri, I'm not following your logic. Could you explain that again?</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>If your point is that the average admitted Princeton student is a more accomplished student than the average CAL admit, then you're right. If your point is that getting good grades in Princeton is harder than getting good grades at CAL, then you're wrong.</p>
<p>--Cheers,</p>
<p>I'm just going to rant about this for a little.</p>
<p>Firstly, I'd like to note that I am NOT a first year. Out of the midterms that have been returned to me this year thus far, I've made B+ and B's on them. THAT IS NOT GETTING ME INTO A GRADUATE SCHOOL OKAY! That is basically ruining my entire future, not to mention those were worth about 20% of my grade. If I end up working at McDonald's, I'm going to blame it on Berkeley.</p>
<p>My results are also ruining my current GPA, which is relatively high since I've only received A's and A-'s in the past. </p>
<p>Anyway, before I end this rant, I want to note that Berkeley is a ***** to help you to get into a decent graduate school because nobody cares about you. There are no advisors that give a crap, and you're on your own to fend for yourself, not to mention the students do not like to help each other out. It's a university based on anonymity and competition, which ultimately does NOT benefit the student who wants to go to graduate school.</p>