<p>What is the DC atmosphere exactly? I mean, did you guys staple papers or wipe the noses of Senators? 15 weeks is an awfully long time...</p>
<p>I am staying in Europe all winter break. Is there anything that I can do there while vacationing that would be beneficial so I'm not merely laying about all day? (Are you currently working in Japan?)</p>
<p>(Oh yeah; I said I was going to go work right now; damn it...)</p>
<p>I work in Japan, yes. Best and worst decision I've ever made. Long story.</p>
<p>DC is a very vibrant, political town. You won't like it if you don't have an opinion that you're willing to fight for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I highly doubt having a failing semester (or even two) at Berkeley would result in a person not being admitted to a CSU or even to another UC. They tend to be forgiving with transfer students, especially ones from CCC's. If they see an upward grade trend, then that's the most important thing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Believe it. It happens ALL the time. See below.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I honestly don't have too much pity for a failing Cal student. I'm sorry, but people know their limitations. If you are failing every engineering class you take one semester, you probably shouldn't be trying to take more engineering classes the next semester expecting to do really well. That's just common sense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, but that's not the issue. The issue is that you get placed on academic probation and if you don't get yourself out of probation in 1 semester, you will get expelled. And as I explained before, it may be next to impossible to get yourself out of probation in just 1 semester. If you failed all of your classes in your first term, you have to get straight A's to get yourself out of probation, because you need to raise your cum GPA above a 2.0. Even getting one A- will mean that you didn't raise your cum GPA above a 2.0, and hence you will be expelled.</p>
<p>Hence, the question is not about grade-trends or anything like that. The issue is that every college asks prospective transfer students whether they are in good academic standing, and if you are on probation (and especially if you've been expelled), then you have to say "no". Again, take the guy who failed all his classes in his first term, and got excellent (but not 4.0) grades in his second term such that he was not able to avoid expulsion. Then that person has to admit that he was expelled from Berkeley, and very few schools want to take a student who was expelled from their previous school. Very few even want to take a student who was on probation at their previous school.</p>
<p>But again, fine, have it your way. Let's say that you are right and that the lower UC's and the CalStates really would take these Berkeley students despite their probationary/expulsion status. If that's really true, then why not codify it? Since these students are supposedly successfully transferring anyway, then why not make it an official rule that states that anybody who has problems at Berkeley gets an automatic transfer to a CalState, just the way that I proposed? If what you are saying is really true, then that means that my proposal would change nothing in practice, so then there should be no reason to oppose my proposal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And don't trust stats on the website. They tend not to show the whole picture, but try to get people to self-select to ratchet up their own stats.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm afraid that I find this to be doubtful. Why would this be the case? What does a person have to gain by self-selecting himself for the purpose of stats on a website? It's not like whether you choose to release your grades back to Berkeley or not has any effect on whether you will get into a particular law or med-school, so why would any self-selection occur. </p>
<p>If anything, I could argue that there may actually be De-selfselection, in the sense that those people who got into top law/med-schools with low GPA's would be unusually prone to report their stats back to Berkeley because they would want people to know that you can get into top schools with less-than-top grades. </p>
<p>However, my point is that I don't see any true self-selection occurring. </p>
<p>Nevertheless I do agree with the central point that relevant work experience can help you in getting into law/med-school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd be making probably in the mid 30K to early 40K stapling papers in a bank.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Honestly, most people would be lucky to make even that. Check out the average starting salaries on the Berkeley Career Office website.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>I do a pretty lame job, and I make well over 30K. It's not hard at all. Most of my offers were in the high-30s to low 40s range. Then again, maybe I'm just awesome like that. :p</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm afraid that I find this to be doubtful. Why would this be the case? What does a person have to gain by self-selecting himself for the purpose of stats on a website? It's not like whether you choose to release your grades back to Berkeley or not has any effect on whether you will get into a particular law or med-school, so why would any self-selection occur.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, I was unclear there. Look at what three months of not speaking English regularly does to you... My point is that they tend to show the 75th to 25th percentile range GPA of admits, or at the very least the median. That doesn't tell you about the lows nor does it tell you the highs. It's also usually tricky because they tend to who admits or matriculants, but not both.</p>
<p>I think they do play games with numbers, but you may feel free to disagree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do a pretty lame job, and I make well over 30K. It's not hard at all. Most of my offers were in the high-30s to low 40s range. Then again, maybe I'm just awesome like that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess maybe you are. Check out the salaries that your comrades got. As you can see, plenty of people would love to be making in the high 30's. In particular, I would point out the various humanities majors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry, I was unclear there. Look at what three months of not speaking English regularly does to you... My point is that they tend to show the 75th to 25th percentile range GPA of admits, or at the very least the median. That doesn't tell you about the lows nor does it tell you the highs. It's also usually tricky because they tend to who admits or matriculants, but not both.</p>
<p>I think they do play games with numbers, but you may feel free to disagree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well look. Here are the numbers again, for everybody's benefit. Take them however way you want to take them. I do think it is hard to dispute the fact that grades are pretty important if you want to get into a top law/med school. </p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm#school%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm#school</a></p>
<p>Oh woah, wait a sec. I'm not disputing that grades are important. I'm disputing whether or not the difference between a 3.7 and a 3.9 is all that reliable an indicator of admissions success. That's all. </p>
<p>I mean, someone applying to Harvard Law with a 3.1 is fooling himself.</p>
<p>And do you sleep? You're amazing.</p>
<p>Looking at <a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/...jors.stm#salary%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/...jors.stm#salary</a></p>
<p>Why would people go through the rigors of bioE only to earn 36k a year? Not to say that it's all for the money, but it's way lower than the other engineering counterparts.</p>
<p>Maybe because they love it and they have something other than making money in mind. It's hard to believe, but some people actually do that. I honestly can't imagine working in a lab for beans, but hey, if it's your thing...</p>
<p>Does the career center website say the percentage of applicants who reported? Was it at all self-selecting, or did the careers center go straight to the centralized law and med school application organizations? I can't find this information. Can anyone else?</p>
<p>Sakky, your friend flunked out here, went to cc, and was reaccepted here. Do you think that some other, relatively comparable schools, say, UCLA or UCSD, would not have taken him back after his performance at Berkeley and later cc? Did Berkeley feel some sort of obligation to him because they flunked him out earlier, or would he have been able to get into equal programs at other schools even though he flunked out of Berkeley? Do you understand what I'm asking? Perhaps people in his situation would have much trouble moving up the college ladder, but staying in a similar level or going down (after showing one's ability) might not be incredibly hard.</p>
<p>Who do you want to go to for your agreement between Berkeley and the CalStates? Perhaps you should call up the head of the UC system. Call the chancellor. Maybe get UCLA involved, too, perhaps even UCSD. Your calls to action won't really work here. As you've told me before, a critical mass of students is required to get anything done. What do you want us to do? The calstates will take the students they want if they apply after flunking out of Berkeley and doing well at CC. We aren't going to see some sort of formal arrangement like we're describing. Now, if we're talking about how things should be, yes, lets continue, but realistically, do you expect to see any policy change from our discussions?</p>
<p>Yea, Berkeley should help its students more, and Berkeley can do more for its students. The probation policy should have students on probation go to mandatory advising (I can't find any place that says advising is more than recommended), but they do make students attend a presentation which is supposed to help them. </p>
<p>Sakky, you want some people kicked out (we havent really discussed this in this thread), and some to be allowed to stay in. What kind of policy would allow for both? If a policy like one you describe were actualized, then those partying people, those frat boys who are American studies majors and never go to class would be allowed to go to the CalStates (maybe), or get the same help as the failing engineers. Are you okay with that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, your friend flunked out here, went to cc, and was reaccepted here. Do you think that some other, relatively comparable schools, say, UCLA or UCSD, would not have taken him back after his performance at Berkeley and later cc?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, they all do the same thing. But that's precisely the weakness of the system. Berkeley is just not right for some people. So by giving those people the choice to return to Berkeley or get no degree at all is really a false choice. There ought to be a 3rd choice, which is to get a degree elsewhere. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Who do you want to go to for your agreement between Berkeley and the CalStates? Perhaps you should call up the head of the UC system. Call the chancellor. Maybe get UCLA involved, too, perhaps even UCSD. Your calls to action won't really work here. As you've told me before, a critical mass of students is required to get anything done. What do you want us to do? The calstates will take the students they want if they apply after flunking out of Berkeley and doing well at CC. We aren't going to see some sort of formal arrangement like we're describing. Now, if we're talking about how things should be, yes, lets continue, but realistically, do you expect to see any policy change from our discussions?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Knowing how the administration works, I don't expect to be any change no matter what happens. Sure, talking about it here won't do much. But quite frankly, neither does trying to engage the administration. At least, not without any grassroots student support. </p>
<p>Hence, I would put the chances of making any change through here at probably about 0.1%. On the other hand, I would put the chances of making change by communicating directly to the administration at about 0.01%. Both chances are darn low, but I'm still going to go with the highest percentage play.</p>
<p>Besides, look at it this way. All across cc, you see posts of people making proposals advocating social change in a wide variety of contexts, from different ways to do AA, to different ways of calculating true financial "need", to different ways of delivering a curricula, and so forth. All of these proposals have basically a 0% chance of ever being enacted. But you don't see those people refraining from posting. So if they can do that, why can't I? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, you want some people kicked out (we havent really discussed this in this thread), and some to be allowed to stay in. What kind of policy would allow for both? If a policy like one you describe were actualized, then those partying people, those frat boys who are American studies majors and never go to class would be allowed to go to the CalStates (maybe), or get the same help as the failing engineers. Are you okay with that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have absolutely no problem with the lazy frat-boys heading to the CalStates. Quite frankly, that's where they should have been going all this time. </p>
<p>My real gripe about the specific issue is that certain majors are more difficult than others and in particular, it's a lot easier to flunk out if you are in one major than if you are in another. Hence, an even 'better' reform would be to give more slack to the people who are in harder majors. One way that could be accomplished is to expel people not just because they have a cum 2.0, but also because their grades are in the bottom X% of people who have taken the same classes as they did. In other words, I believe transcripts should not only contain the grades for your classes, but also the median grade given out in that class. So if you ended up getting a 'C' in a class, but the median grade of that class was a 'C', that 'C' should be held against you a lot less than if the median grade of that class was an 'A'. </p>
<p>I would also strongly advocate 'truth in units', which is basically to revise all true course units to reflect the actual amount of work required in that class, at least when it comes to determining who gets expelled. Let's face it. Some 4-unit classes are FAR FAR more time-consuming than others. </p>
<p>What would really be nice is if all the unusually difficult courses at Berkeley were internally red-flagged and rules were enacted such that you can't land on AP and/or expulsion just because of poor performance in red-flagged classes. Now, if you do poorly in regular classes, then sure, I agree you probably need to be expelled. But if the only reason that your GPA is below a 2 is because of red-flagged courses, then that to me is not a good enough of a reason to put you on probation. We would then be able to draw a distinction between those students who get bad grades just because they are bad students and those who get bad grades just because they take difficult classes.</p>
<p>"But again, fine, have it your way. Let's say that you are right and that the lower UC's and the CalStates really would take these Berkeley students despite their probationary/expulsion status. If that's really true, then why not codify it? Since these students are supposedly successfully transferring anyway, then why not make it an official rule that states that anybody who has problems at Berkeley gets an automatic transfer to a CalState, just the way that I proposed? If what you are saying is really true, then that means that my proposal would change nothing in practice, so then there should be no reason to oppose my proposal."</p>
<p>I'm sorry but that plan does not make sense. Why not just let anybody who is failing at a community college into calstate as well? Why is it that a Berkeley student should get automatic acceptance with a 0.0 GPA while a community college student with a 4.0 will have to wait until he/she has 60 units? If a community college student receives a 1.0 then he/she is in serious transfer trouble. UC students are not exempt from this rule. In fact, UC students have more options because at least they can fall back on the community college. I am a community college student planning to transfer to Cal next year, and I know that there are many students here that either dropped out of UCs or changed their minds. The CSU system is not nearly competitive enough to reject them as long as they have decent grades. If you don't believe me, try calling a CSU or community college counselor. It's likened to having terrible high school grades and redeeming yourself by showing growth and hard-work in community college. This is the reason why CSU applications ask, "Why?" regarding probation, so that they can gauge what went wrong at the school in question and whether or not you have improved.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that just because a student goes to Cal doesn't mean that they should get a special privilege backup plan. The proposal has an elitist presupposition that Cal students are better than students of the "lesser schools." This is inherent in the idea of allowing Cal students to bypass the transfer admissions requirements of the CSUs. Given the ability for Berkeley dropouts to attend community college and reapply with good chances to most CSUs, the plan seems trivial if not unfair to the rest of the colleges in the California system.</p>
<p>No, you're missing the fundamental point of my argument.</p>
<p>My argument is that I don't believe anybody should be made worse off by going to Berkeley. At worst, that person should be the same. But not worse off. </p>
<p>Look, the truth is, if you're good enough to get into Berkeley as a high school senior, then you are clearly good enough to have gotten into a Calstate. Hence, if you end up going to Berkeley and flunking out, I say you should get a do-over. Let's pretend that you never attended Berkeley at all, and let's just go back to your high school career and admit you into a CalState based simply on that. </p>
<p>You say that those who flunk out of Cal ought to go to a CC and prove themselves before getting into a Cal State. I have 2 objections to this. First of all, I ask why should they have to re-prove themselves? They had ALREADY proved themselves worthy by amassing a high school record that was good enough to have gotten into Berkeley and by extension, into CalState. Why should they have to prove themselves again? By saying that their bad Berkeley grades means that they have to prove themselves again is to basically say that they should be punished for choosing Berkeley, and that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Like I said, look, the guy already wasted his time and money in choosing the wrong school, so Berkeley tossed him out. That ought to be punishment enough. Why do you then want to continue punishing him by essentially invalidating his good high school record too? </p>
<p>Secondly, the way the present system works, it's not that simple for these Berkeley flunkies to even make it back to a CalState. He has to actually perform BETTER than a normal CC transfer because he will have to submit his poor Berkeley grades to whatever Cal State he wants to transfer to. In other words, a guy who flunked out of Berkeley, went to CC, and then wants to transfer to a CalState will probably need HIGHER CC grades than just a guy who had just gone to CC in the beginning and wants to transfer to a Cal State. But the question is, why? You said it yourself, if the guy proves himself in CC, then what should his bad Berkeley grades matter anymore? But they do. </p>
<p>And that gets down to the crux of the matter. The truth is, those who get into Berkeley and flunk out to a CC are not comparable to those who go to a CC right from the get-go. That's because the latter people never proved themselves academically in any stage of their life, so CC is the time for them to do so. Those people who got into Berkeley had already proved themselves in high school. Bad performance in Berkeley should not invalidate your good high school performance. But the way the system is set up currently, that's exactly what it does. </p>
<p>In effect, those who go to Berkeley and flunk out are made WORSE off than those who could have gone, but decided not to go. And I believe that is wrong. You should not be made worse off. At worst, things should be the same, but not worse. At worst, you should be given a clean slate as if you had never attended Berkeley at all, and then be allowed to apply to a Cal State simply on the strength of your high school record. This is not, as you call it, a "special privilege backup plan". This is something that they had already earned on the basis of their strong high school performance. Just because you do badly at Berkeley should not invalidate whatever you did in high school.</p>
<p>Wow, I had a whole reply typed out and then there was a forum error. I have a paper to write, maybe I'll type my response again later :/</p>
<p>Edit: Seriously that sucked :p</p>
<p>Good thread, TTT!</p>
<p>BTW, what is a good major that is hard enough to create a normal distribution but is not cut-throat?</p>
<p>What do you mean by your question? What do you mean by good, and what do you mean by normal distribution?</p>
<p>I mean its grading is fair but you don't have people killing each other.</p>