why stanford when you have BERKELEY?

Applying to College
21

<p>Which begs the question:</p>

<p>If you survive Berkeley's every-little-something-that-makes-it-challenging's, how would that compete with the more supportive environment of Stanford? Personally, if I made it through Berkeley with an equal GPA to that of Stanford's, would I be wrong to believe that I got more out of both my academic and life education at Berkeley? A lot of people have contested this as a major "if" for anybody, but still, it's gotta be one hell of a feeling to make it out of Berkeley alive as opposed to just making it through ho-hum Stanford. </p>

<p>I don't know, just wondering, so don't eat my statements alive, pleeeeassse! =)</p>

<p>TTG</p>

22

<p>Mikemac, are you dating sakky or somthing? And no, I didn't mischaracterize sakky's comments. She basically said that she had a friend that went to Cal and flunked out and that at stanfurd he or she probably would not have. So sakky is saying that stanfurd is easier. You can say all you want about "oh, if he just had more people to hold his hand he would have been fine!" Bullshat! If you flunk out of Cal but could do well at stanfurd then that means that stanfurd is easier. Simple as that. I mean c'mon, are these people that cant hack it at Cal but would do fine at stanfurd retarded? If they are then I'll cut them some slack, but if not then stop complaining and making excuses. If you can only succeed when you are being pampered and constantaly looked after than you are an idiot. And sakky, where in my post did I condem these people that choose stanfurd over Cal? Please point that out to me before you make an assumption about what I was trying to say. As a matter of fact, I have no problem with people choosing the farm over berkeley. Like I said, it would be very hard to turn down that golden key. Same goes for someone that got into Cal and UCLA. Both are great schools but Cal has more prestige.</p>

23

<p>in the video "frosh," students who are in or close to academic probation at stanford are brought in to have a talk with the counselor to try to fix things, and they give a lot of personal attention. perhaps this might happen at cal too, but i doubt the counselor can spend as much quality time as the stanford counselors, which basically turned the poor performing student's academics around.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
And sakky, where in my post did I condem these people that choose stanfurd over Cal? Please point that out to me before you make an assumption about what I was trying to say.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Dude, quit trying to put words in my mouth. Did I say that you condemned people who chose Stanford over Berkeley? Why don't you point out to me where I said that you did that? </p>

<p>What you said is that people only choose to go to Stanford rather than Berkeley just because of prestige. You did say that. After all, here is your quote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
...people go to stanfurd instead of Cal because they can. Simple as that. Its like being invited to a private club and that's hard to turn down. Stanfurd has more prestige and you'll impress more people if you go there.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And my response to that is, even if that were true, what's wrong with that? Some people choose to go to Berkeley rather than, say, UCDavis, because of prestige, and you're not criticizing them for doing that. The fact of the matter is that Berkeley has plenty of students who chose to go there just because Berkeley was the most prestigious school that they got into. Not all Berkeley students are like that, but a lot of them are like that. So if it's OK for Berkeley to take students from the other UC's solely because of prestige, then it should be OK for Stanford to take students from Berkeley solely because of prestige. [And it's OK for Harvard to take students from Stanford solely because of prestige]. If you live by the sword, you have to be prepared to die by it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
She basically said that she had a friend that went to Cal and flunked out and that at stanfurd he or she probably would not have. So sakky is saying that stanfurd is easier. You can say all you want about "oh, if he just had more people to hold his hand he would have been fine!" Bullshat! If you flunk out of Cal but could do well at stanfurd then that means that stanfurd is easier. Simple as that. I mean c'mon, are these people that cant hack it at Cal but would do fine at stanfurd retarded?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, it's a 'he'. I'm a man. Make that mistake again, and I will report you to the moderators. </p>

<p>And finally, you can say all you want about Berkeley being harder or Stanford going around pampering its students. However, from the point of view of the guy I'm talking about who flunked out, that's neither here nor there. It's better to be a Stanford graduate than to be a Berkeley flunkie. Heck, it's better to be a San Jose State graduate than to be a Berkeley flunkie. Almost anything is better than what actually happened to him. You can talk about how proud you are that Berkeley is difficult and doesn't pamper its students and so on and so forth, but that doesn't exactly do that guy any favors. You act as if Berkeley bears no responsibility for what happened to that guy. Hey, if that guy really isn't a good student, then Berkeley should never have admitted him. If you admit a student, then you should see that student through.</p>

25

<p>How could he have been Chancellor-level but flunked out? It baffles me...</p>

<p>I thought that award was meant for people who the adcom was 100% sure could cut it.</p>

26

<p>Chancellor's List means you have 3.5 or higher at most schools.. i think..</p>

27

<p>Dude!! Easy dude!! Everyone on this site thinks you're a girl, so take it up with them, not me. And by the way, I'm absolutely shaking with fear! And yes, Berkeley bears no responsibility for your friend. If he can't hack it then that is his fault, not the schools. Being good in highschool is not the same as being good at college. Jeez, if this guy can't make it through Cal, which graduates thousands of people every year (some of them are <em>gasp</em> community college transfers) then how is he ever going to make it in the word? And no, Cal has no obligation to walk your friend through college, thats his job and there are plenty of places that would have been more than willing to help had he sought them out. If he didn't seek them that's his problem, not the schools. And I stick by what I said. I believe that people go to stanfurd over berkeley not because they think stanfurd has better academics, but because it is more well known and harder to get into. And as I've said time and time again, there is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with going to Cal over UCSD or UCLA because Cal has the better name.</p>

28

<p>yourturnsir,
I think sakky would be referring to a Chancellors' <em>Scholarship</em>. Those are granted to people of exceptional qualifications, which 3.5 would not be at "most schools" (as you say). That would be different, of course, from the Dean's <em>List</em> once you matriculate -- based on college GPA, not h.s. At least, I think that's what sakky meant in his post.</p>

29

<p>sakky, providing information to the kids out there is useful but arguing with posters like "gentlemanandscholar" is a waste of time; he demonstrates, of course, neither attribute of his screen name. </p>

<p>There is a saying to keep in mind before you reply to posters like him. "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get muddy, and only the pig enjoys it".</p>

30

<p>Here is an old saying to keep in mind: never give yourself the handle mikemac. Its dumb. Of course I'm kidding, but why even comment? Don't you think that Sakky can fight his own fights? And if you're goingto make grand statements about me, please point them out for others to see. And the information that Sakky has provided for the kids is basically, "I had a friend who flunked out of Cal even though is was an awesome student, so don't go there." Great advise! Very sage indeed.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
I thought that award was meant for people who the adcom was 100% sure could cut it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, he wouldn't be the first Chancellor Scholar to have ever flunked out of UC. Of course the URM thing probably didn't hurt in his getting the scholarship, as this was pre-Prop209, but I digress...</p>

<p>
[quote]
And yes, Berkeley bears no responsibility for your friend. If he can't hack it then that is his fault, not the schools. Being good in highschool is not the same as being good at college. Jeez, if this guy can't make it through Cal, which graduates thousands of people every year (some of them are <em>gasp</em> community college transfers) then how is he ever going to make it in the word? And no, Cal has no obligation to walk your friend through college, thats his job and there are plenty of places that would have been more than willing to help had he sought them out. If he didn't seek them that's his problem, not the schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So basically, your attitude is that if you're having problems at Berkeley, it's your own damn fault. In other words, blaming the victim. And they say that I am the harsh one here. </p>

<p>Look, the guy has had his academic record ruined. By going around publicly declaring that it's his own damn fault, you're just adding insult to injury. Hasn't the guy been punished enough? </p>

<p>Consider this. Berkeley graduates about 83% of its undergrad students in 6 years, and about ~85% eventually. Hence, ~15% of its admitted undergrads never graduate. That's right - they never graduate. Is some of that due to simple laziness and foolishness? Sure. On the other hand, look at what we're talking about here. We're talking about bringing in young and (in many cases) not entirely mature 17-18 year olds, taking them away from their families for (most of them) the first time in their lives, throwing them into the modern world full of temptation, and with not all of them having the mental tools necessary to cope. Some students inevitably feel extremely homesick (happened to several people I know). Some people have problems with social adjustment. Some people end up in serious romantic relationships that end extremely badly at just the wrong time - i.e. during finals. In fact, that happened to my friend who got booted - he wound up in love with a girl and found out during finals that she was cheating on him during exam time. Yes, true, he wasn't exactly the hardest studying student in the world, but hey, you try taking an exam when you can't shake the image of your girlfriend cavorting with another guy, see what kind of exam score you get. New college students experience life problems. </p>

<p>But I see, gentlemenandscholar, I see. I see that your attitude is that you don't care. Looks like your view is that if you have life problems and end up flunking out, that's too bad for you. </p>

<p>You say that there are places at Berkeley that are more than willing to help. I beg to differ. In fact, the Dean's Office basically adopts the attitude that you have - if you get enough bad grades, then you will be expelled almost without exception. Yes, there are appeals processes where you can try to explain your problems, but the fact of the matter is that their attitude is exactly what it seems that you tout - you're either getting passing grades, or you're not, and if you're not, they don't really care about why you're not. If you're having life problems, their attitude is "that's too bad for you". However, I suppose that that is an attitude that you, gentlemenandscholar, would support. </p>

<p>Hey, if you believe that, fine. My take is that that's pretty darn harsh and cold. But if that's what you believe in, then that's what you believe in. My take is different. I believe that both sides - the student and the university - bear some responsibility. I'm not going to let Berkeley off the hook so easily. Berkeley admitted this 15% who never graduate, so Berkeley bear some responsibility for that. The students bear some responsibility too. Berkeley should not be allowed to just wash its hands of this problem and put the entire onus on the student. Again, that's just blaming the victim. </p>

<p>At the very least, Berkeley should have done a better job in admitting its students and should simply not admit those students who aren't going to make it. After all, what's the point of admitting students who will flunk out? You're just wasting everybody's time. </p>

<p>Having said all that, that is again why Stanford offers a better experience than Berkeley does, because it offers a safer experience. Stanford students aren't immune to life problems like love affairs and homesickness. All college students experience these kinds of problems. The difference is that Stanford is far more forgiving than Berkeley is. Stanford isn't going to go around threatening you with expulsion because you got cuckolded by your girl during finals week. Stanford isn't going to threaten you with expulsion because you're suffering from a severe bout of emotional homesickness.</p>

32

<p>Sakky, the trick is to seek out the help BEFORE you've flunked all of your classes. Maybe stanfurd works differently, maybe at stanfurd you're allowed to flunk all of your classes and then say, "hey, I'm homesick and my girlfriend screwed a frat guy, do you mind if I flunk five classes this quarter?" Sounds like a good plan. Sounds like the real world. I know once we graduate and move on to gainful employment our bosses wont mind if we blow off work for a month or two because we just got dumped by our girlfriend or we really miss our grandma back home. Boss-man will say, "Sure, these things happen. We didn't need that account anyway, buddy. You just get back to work when your life is 100 percent on the right track and not a day sooner!" Yeah, that's how I suspect life works.</p>

33

<p>First off, that's presuming that the help exists in the first place. And that is in fact one of the major reasons that Stanford does in fact offer a better education than Berkeley does. The resources per capita, including for consulting and aid, are more readily available at Stanford than Berkeley. You show up for help at Berkeley, and you're liable to run into a huge long line or confront limited office hours or so forth. </p>

<p>Besides, your "life" analogy doesn't work, for one simple reason. You screw up a job, yeah, you'll get fired. Sure. On the other hand, you can still go get another job. Maybe not with the same company, and maybe even not in the same geographic area (i.e. if your really get a bad reputation), but you can still get another job somewhere. Not so if you flunk out of college. You flunk out of college, not only does your original college not want you around, but neither does any other decent college. Simply put, no college of any repute wants to bring in a student who flunked out of his last college. In other words, failing grades PERMANENTLY trashes your academic record FOREVER. That's pretty harsh. A company might fire you for doing a poor job. On the other hand, that company doesn't then go around hounding you for the rest of your life, trying to convince every other company out there to not hire you (and if that company did, you could sue that company for impairing your ability to pursue a living). </p>

<p>A proper analogy would be for a guy who flunks out of Berkeley to be allowed to go elsewhere with a clean slate. A guy has problems and/or is lazy and so Berkeley flunks him out. Fine. Berkeley proved its point. He wasn't good enough to get a degree from Berkeley. Fair enough. But why then prevent him from trying to get into and earn a degree from some other school? What purpose does that serve? Berkeley already proved its point in flunking him out, so after that, leave the guy alone. Let the guy go to a school in which he will be able to succeed. </p>

<p>Besides, I'll put it to you this way. I think all of us have done stupid things when we were young. Just think of all the stupid and immature things that 17 or 18 year-olds do. Does that stuff really matter when you're older? Who really cares about the foolish things you did when you were that age? People shouldn't be holding that against you for the rest of your life. But that's exactly what Berkeley does when it trashes its student's permanent academic records. </p>

<p>Think of it this way. Let's talk about that guy I was referring to. He didn't commit a crime. He didn't do anything illegal. He was just lazy and immature (and had some bad things happen to him) when he was 17. But now he's almost 30, and he's a fully mature adult now. Should his foolishness of more than a decade ago matter now? Apparently it does. He still can't get into an undergraduate program of any note, because of his bad academic record. Even if he does somehow manage to get his bachelor's degree, he will never get into any graduate school of any repute because, again, of what happened more than a decade ago. </p>

<p>Do you think that's right? Do you think that's justice? In my opinion, Berkeley should just expunge his academic record. Look, he didn't do anything criminal or illegal. He didn't try to cheat. He was just immature. And that happened more than a decade ago. Why does that have to continue to haunt him now? He's a different man now. I think he learned his lesson. Let him either come back to Berkeley with a clean slate. Or at the very least, let him go to some other school with a clean slate. To do otherwise is to basically say that he has to suffer for the rest of his life for some immaturity (not illegality or immorality, just immaturity) of his when he was 17.</p>

34

<p>berkeley has better athletic teams for sure.
well, at least, they got better football team, and thats what most ppl across the country watch anyway...
nobody watches girls' tennis, in which stanford is dominant.</p>

35

<p>Sakky, first off, your friend DID get a second chance. Even if he failed most or all of his classes in a semester, its my understanding that he would then be put on academic probation, not expulsion. If then, after another semester, he hasn't kept his GPA at 2.0 (not unreasonable, if you ask me) then he would be required to leave. And its not Berkeley that is keeping him from moving on to another school, its the other school keeping him out. Even if Berkeley completely expunged his school record and let him go, would he just lie to the next school that he applied to? They ask if you've ever attended another school, and if so they want to see records. And who could blame them? Why would they take a chance on someone who even after being put on probation can't keep a C average? Don't hate Berkeley, hate the game.</p>

36

<p>Does anyone know if it is reasonable to maintain a C average in an engineering major? I am entering Berkeley this Fall as a Chemical Engineering/ Nuclear Engineering (Double Major). Of course I will study harder than I have ever done before, but I would just like to know, by past experiences, how hard is it to maintain decent grades in the engineering fields.</p>

37

<p>Of course its reasonable. If it weren't then there wouldn't even be an engineering major because no one would be passing the classes. I'm sure its extremely difficult to do well in those classes (most classes, really) but most people do make it out with at least a C average.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, first off, your friend DID get a second chance. Even if he failed most or all of his classes in a semester, its my understanding that he would then be put on academic probation, not expulsion. If then, after another semester, he hasn't kept his GPA at 2.0 (not unreasonable, if you ask me) then he would be required to leave.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not exactly. You have to raise your OVERALL gpa to above 2.0 by your next semester to avoid dismissal. </p>

<p>Let me give you an example. This is not what happened to my friend, but let's talk about this example anyway. Let's say you have a really really bad first semester and you get 4 F's. So you're put on academic probation. Then in your next semester, you have to raise your overall GPA to a 2.0 or above. What that means is that YOU HAVE TO GET 4 A's. Not B's, not even A-'s, but A's. Otherwise, you will still have lower than a 2.0 overall gpa, which means that you are subject to dismissal. </p>

<p>Now the situation in real-life wasn't that extreme. But it still wasn't good. For example, if you end up with 4 D's in your first semester, you have to balance that with a 3.0 in your second semester to raise your overall GPA above a 2. Depending on the major, getting a 3.0 is not a walk in the park even for the good students. </p>

<p>So you might say that it's a second chance. But is it REALLY a second chance? I wouldn't say so. To get your head above water, you have to have a strong second semester in order to counteract your bad first semester. That, to me, is not a second chance. A true second chance would be to completely ignore and expunge those grades in that bad first semester. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And its not Berkeley that is keeping him from moving on to another school, its the other school keeping him out. Even if Berkeley completely expunged his school record and let him go, would he just lie to the next school that he applied to? They ask if you've ever attended another school, and if so they want to see records. And who could blame them? Why would they take a chance on someone who even after being put on probation can't keep a C average? Don't hate Berkeley, hate the game.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And from above you can see why it can be extremely difficult to 'keep' a C average once you are on probation. If you have a bad first semester, then it's no picnic to pull your average back to a C in just one semester. Think about the pressure of knowing that if you don't get a 3.0-4.0 term gpa for your probationary semester, you're going to be expelled because your overall gpa will still be below the C cutoff. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Even if Berkeley completely expunged his school record and let him go, would he just lie to the next school that he applied to? They ask if you've ever attended another school, and if so they want to see records. [/ quote]</p>

<p>I'm not asking anybody to lie. Just expunge the bad grades that are really old. So the next school would ask to see the records, and they would see the records of either only recent grades and/or grades in classes where he passed.</p>

<p>You think this is unprecedented and radical? Several schools have a policy of simply not recording any failing grades you get. You fail a class, no record of that class appears on your external transcript. Or consider what MIT does. Certainly we can all agree that MIT is no slouch when it comes to academic rigor. Yet even MIT implements a policy in your freshman year where if you don't pass a class, no record of that class appears on your external transcript (MIT keeps an internal transcript where that class is recorded, but will not present this transcript to outside parties). If MIT can hide bad grades like that, why can't Berkeley? After all, these are bad Berkeley grades from more than a decade ago. What does it matter now? </p>

<p>
[quote]
And who could blame them? Why would they take a chance on someone who even after being put on probation can't keep a C average?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I blame them. Like I said, you gotta have a C OVERALL average at the end of your probationary semester. Not just a C in the classes of that probationary semester, but an OVERALL C average. Depending on how badly you did in the semester that put you on probation, that can be a very tall order indeed. </p>

<p>And again, I would point to the example of MIT. MIT basically hides bad grades from your freshman year from the eyes of external parties. So if MIT can do that, is it really so radical for Berkeley to hide certain bad grades from external parties? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Don't hate Berkeley, hate the game.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, but Berkeley is part of the game. </p>

<p>Look, plenty of schools, including schools that have extremely strong reputations for rigor and toughness like MIT and Caltech, are still quite liberal when it comes to not recording bad grades, allowing you to take lots of classes pass/not pass, and basically helping troubled students either get back into good standing or at least getting into another school. However, looks like according to you, you never want to help any troubled students. Let's just hope that you never run into trouble.</p>

39

<p>Sakky, while its true that if during your first semester you flunk all of your classes you would need to recieve 4 As the next semester to avoid dismissal, but if you are generally doing alright (above 2.0) and then run into some hard times and fail some classes you really DO recieve a second chance (sort of). If the case is simply one bad semester then all you have to do is get a 2.0 for your next semester. "Students are placed on academic probation if their Berkeley term GPA falls below 1.5 for any semester. In this case, you must bring your Berkeley term GPA up to a 2.0 in the following semester, or you will be subject to dismissal." So they do give you a break if you have shown that you are, for the most part, a good student.</p>

40

<p>However, you must agree that the present setup of academic probation really screws over those new students who come in and have a bad time in their first semester. </p>

<p>Here's the quote:</p>

<p>"Students are placed on academic probation if their cumulative UC GPA falls below 2.0. Should this happen to you, you will need to bring your cumulative UC GPA up to a 2.0 the following semester or else you will be subject to dismissal."</p>

<p><a href="http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/collegepolicies/probation.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/collegepolicies/probation.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>So what that means is that if you are on probation, you have to bring your overall GPA to a 2.0. Not just your term GPA, but your overall GPA. Depending on how badly you bombed your first semester, getting yourself to a 2.0 in just one semester may be next-to-impossible. </p>

<p>I think you gotta admit, that's pretty harsh. Why not have something like an MIT-style freshman grading scheme? The point is that you shouldn't be completely screwed just because your first semester is a bad one.</p>