Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Who's gonna?

By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 01:59 am: Edit

your mom

By Spacechic20 (Spacechic20) on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 04:47 pm: Edit

oh ok, just checking.

By Mavfosho (Mavfosho) on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 05:59 pm: Edit

i mite choose berkeley over columbia

By Webhappy2 (Webhappy2) on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 06:08 pm: Edit

There was at least one guy who put Berkeley's Putnam team way out there (look at Putnam history; this was ~20 yrs ago).... I guess that guy really wanted the Cal atmosphere.

By Boxosox (Boxosox) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 01:29 am: Edit

I'm choosing Berkeley over Harvard (then again i wasn't admitted to Harvard...)

By Mintbee (Mintbee) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 11:19 am: Edit

i'm chosing berkeley over brown, in case anyone is interested...

By Rayray222 (Rayray222) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 07:16 am: Edit

I chose Berkeley over Columbia. Because Im from California, and the only non California schools worth going to are Harvard and Yale.

If you don't get into Harvard Yale or Stanford in California, you go to Berkeley. Sad but true.

Columbia? Brown? Cornell? Nope. Its better to stay in California and get a great Berkeley education. Tops in the world.

By Mintbee (Mintbee) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 08:40 am: Edit

i concur for obvious reasons...

By Itempest (Itempest) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 10:13 am: Edit

I didn't turn down Harvard (they beat me to it) but I turned down U Penn and Cornell for Berkeley. For similar reasons to Rayray's.

By Deferreddude (Deferreddude) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 10:54 am: Edit

My friend is turning down Harvard for Stanford. Another friend of mine turned down Harvard for Dartmouth. It's not like people don't turn down that old school in Massachusetts. It happens all the time.

By Karen182 (Karen182) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 02:34 pm: Edit

I'm turning down Duke and Cornell for Cal...

Basically for Rayrays reasons. When I got rejected from Princeton, i just couldn't see spending twice as much when a Cal education is just as good (or better!) in engineering.

By Jojo23497 (Jojo23497) on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 06:52 pm: Edit

I'll probably choose Cal over Amherst College - just to let y'all know

By May_1 (May_1) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 02:46 am: Edit

I'm having thoughts of turning down MIT for Berkeley, but I'm concerned it'll bite me in arse as (1) there's the prestige factor, and (2) as a public institution facing budget cuts, I might not get to have all of the perks of a private institution.

By Tavilach (Tavilach) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 03:13 am: Edit

...but it's so much less depressing at Cal!

...and it's great weather!

...and it's the prestige of your graduate school that counts!

...and Cal does have enormous prestige in the sciences...just not "street" prestige!

...and the budget cuts (I've talked to the dean) aren't hurting the actually academic programs in the least bit, given that Cal is only...say...30% public (I forgot the actually figure...).

...and MIT is elitist!

...and at MIT, you constantly see people pretending not to be nerds, instead partying all night and day. Be true to yourself! Let out the nerd in you!

...and...

...and I didn't get into MIT. I probably wouldn't have gone if I had, though. Sure, the name is potent, but the name really doesn't matter for undergraduate studies.

Go Bears!

May 1, go where your heart is, wherever that may be. Don't be concerned about prestige or perks. Be concerned about which college fits your personality.

You may well be better off at MIT. You certainly might be better off at Cal.

Good luck in your decision.

By Boxosox (Boxosox) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit

...well said

By Tavilach (Tavilach) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Not exactly. I'm sure I'm going to get heavily flamed...

By Webhappy2 (Webhappy2) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Go to MIT over Berkeley anyday, unless cost is really a concern to you.

By Webhappy2 (Webhappy2) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 07:17 pm: Edit

As UG of course.

For grad school, I would say they're about equal so look at the research interests and the $$ offered.

By Tavilach (Tavilach) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 07:21 pm: Edit

Webhappy, how can you say that so blatantly? As I've said time and time again, your undergraduate experience is about fit, not prestige. Perhaps you're a little bit caught up in MIT's name and reputation to realize that for an undergraduate education, Berkeley can be just as, or even more, fulfilling.

Many people would/should indeed pick MIT. Many of them pick it just because it's MIT. Many pick it because it is an amazing school. In any case, you can't just tell someone to "[g]o to MIT over Berkeley anyday." That's just rude, uncalled for, and completely biased.

By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 07:29 pm: Edit

It is common knowledge that MIT provides a much better undergrad experience. Berkeley is known only for its grad schools, which are top-notch. It's undergrad, however, is a much different story. To put it bluntly, Berkeley has the undergrad quality of San Jose State and the graduate quality of Harvard.

By Uhohcollege (Uhohcollege) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 07:45 pm: Edit

wow ok guyz chill! haha college is a personal decision. many ppl chose MIT over Berk for experience, people, prestige, education. And many people chose Berk over MIT, experience, diversity, feel, education, people, etc. Its not an absolute issue =). I'm sure you'll make the right choice tho May_1.

By Rayray222 (Rayray222) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 11:32 pm: Edit

Stanford man. If Berkeley has the undergraduate quality that low, then how do people I know with a 2.9 GPA in MCB at Berkeley get into top ten PhD programs in Biology?

If undergraduate is so low, why does Cal have more National Merit Finalists than anyone else?

Stanfurdguy, you got a huge chip on your shoulder. Maybe your gf at Berkeley dumped you for a Berkeley artist. Who knows...

By Sakky (Sakky) on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Look, both Stanfordman and rayray222 are beyond the pale.

Berkeley's undergraduate quality has its problems, as I have discussed numerous times. But to compare it to SJ State is a vicious slur.

On the other hand, rayray222, like I've said many times, Berkeley has lots of national merit finalists just because Berkeley is so big and will therefore have lots of all kinds of people. What counts is not the absolute number, but rather the percentage. I would also not exactly consider the fact that a guy with a 2.9 getting into a high-rated PhD bio program as being particularly strong evidence of much, for reasons I stated in other threads and for which you still haven't fully answered.

By Kode (Kode) on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 06:12 pm: Edit

If Berkeley is so bad, how come RayRay, who has a 1600 SAT went there?

*sarcasm*

By Tavilach (Tavilach) on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Ah, but Sakky, engineering is another story. Berkeley's undergraduate engineering program is top-notch.

By Rayray222 (Rayray222) on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 03:30 am: Edit

Kode. After high school, sarcasm doesn't register with me anymore.

FYI. I met a lot of guys with 1550 + on their SAT at berkeley. LOTS of Asian Americans for some odd reason. And a lot of them were in the college of letters and science.

One of my friends was a very smart guy in high school (japanese guy), but he played football in high school because he loved it.

I guess he didn't have the "passion" to try to become a westinghouse scholar or wutever, because he wanted to PLAY FOOTBALL IN HIGH SCHOOL.

So he didn't get into Harvard, but since he was a super smart guy, he went to Berkeley.

By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 03:39 am: Edit

So you saying that Berkeley is a smart school because it is full of HYPSMC rejects? It would be more compelling to cite instances where somebody chose to go to Berkeley instead of HYPS. So far, I haven't heard from a single one on CC who has done that or who was even thinking about doing that.

By Rayray222 (Rayray222) on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 03:50 am: Edit

When did HYS admit ALL the smart students?

When? You really think that HYS takes the 5000 smartest students available out of the 1.3 million college bound seniors?

You think that those 5000 have the highest IQ out of the entire 1.3 million population? LOL!

I would say that HYS (total) would be lucky to have 35% of the 5000 smartest IQ pool. By the way, until that post, I always thought that Stanford and Harvard were of equal prestige. But now... I see that Stanford accepts more insecure people that I thought...

By Tavilach (Tavilach) on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 03:55 am: Edit

Stanfordman, you won't find many on CC. CC is fully of prestige-centered lunatics, who would never dream of choosing Berkeley over the great HYPSMC...

Of course, the actual student body is a different story. My overnight hosts spoke of a number of people who chose Berkeley over those schools. While I was taking a tour, a girl was saying how she was probably going to choose Berkeley over Harvard...not for financial reasons, either, but because of it's atmosphere.

By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 05:04 am: Edit

I think it is a given that Harvard is more prestigious than any school in the world. Come on rayray.....it's harvard!!

By Tavilach (Tavilach) on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 06:07 am: Edit

I agree, Stanfordman. Of course, prestige really doesn't mean anything .

By Techieguy (Techieguy) on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 04:58 pm: Edit

For the undergraduate reputation, check out USNEWS rankings for PEER ASSESSMENT SCORE.

Berkeley consistently ranks with MIT, Princeton, etc.

This is coming from other professors who rated Berkeley's UNDERGRADUATE education.

By Pho_Sho (Pho_Sho) on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 08:14 pm: Edit

and higher IQ = smartness = success???
so you're predetermined if you're gonna fail or succeed?
idiot

guess who the president of the US is
guess what his IQ is
guess what school he went to
idiot

By Tavilach (Tavilach) on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 08:31 pm: Edit

The president is George W. Bush...duh!

His IQ is probably around a flat 100.

He went to Yale University!

Eek...this next part isn't a question. All I see is the word "idiot." Do I repeat it? I guess so...

Idiot.

Yay.

By Itempest (Itempest) on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 08:44 pm: Edit

People can change their IQs. It's not a predetermined thing. People are always becoming more perceptive, more intelligent, and more or less visual. When I first took an IQ test several years ago, I scored a 120. Today, I score significantly higher. Now there's no need to toot my horn or anything, but my point is IQs can change.

Or can they?

By Ahorseisahorse (Ahorseisahorse) on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 06:27 pm: Edit

hehe, great post pho sho!

berkeley indeed becomes a top-level school because 1. of the number of applicants they admit (could be a negative also) 2. it's cheap!

So people who get admitted to ivy league/private schools tend to pick Berkeley...because they wouldn't like to spend as much money as they have to. Would you like to enter graduate school with a whole bunch of debt from loans?

Also, ppl who are admitted to Harvard but can't afford the education, end up going to Berkeley (known for being a #1 public school). There, they work their butts off so they could get into great graduate schools, and by that time, they would have saved enough money to have the option to attend~

Of course, smart people who believe they could spend the money, go to Harvard, Stanford, Yale, etc.~ others wait it out for grad school

By Tavilach (Tavilach) on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 08:34 pm: Edit

That's not really true, Ahorseisahorse.

Many people pick Berkeley, even if they are financially capabable of attending HYPS.

Why? Berkeley is not only great, but unique. People like that.

Being cheap is not it's only asset. Don't make it seem that way.

Even on my tour with twenty people, there was a girl debating between Harvard and Berkeley. She wasn't talking about cost...but rather, beauty. She seemed to be leaning towards Berkeley (the campus is, contrary to popular belief, one of the most beautiful campuses around).

By Webhappy2 (Webhappy2) on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 08:55 pm: Edit

Why does grad school cost $$. Talking to the seniors at Caltech, my impression is that most ppl get at least a $20k stipend per annum during grad school (including, of course, full tuition, health care, etc).

By Karen182 (Karen182) on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 09:38 pm: Edit

If you go into the right fields, Webhappy, grad school is paid for with stipends. These fields are engineering and sciences, for the most part. Should you want to go to law school, med school, business school, or get a phd in art history or russian literature or something, however, be prepared to cough up the money. It's not free.

By Auginator (Auginator) on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 09:28 pm: Edit

I have always heard of Berkeley to be extremely difficult as an undergrad institution. Most people applying to grad school have actually told me that the admissions office of many grad schools will grade schools like CAL, MIT, and CT on a curve due to their extensive undergrad prorgam that doesn't have grade inflation (at least i don't think MIT and CT have grade inflation, but I have heard that HYPS do). Usually a 3.0+ at Berkeley puts you in a strong standing to get admitted into a graduate school whereas a 3.0 at much of the other high class schools (with grade inflation) really puts you at a disadvantage. But, thats just what I have I heard, personally I think it's true, I asked allot of cal students about this topic.

By Ares15 (Ares15) on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 11:19 pm: Edit

What exactly is Berkeley's mean GPA? I've been told 2.8ish.

By Auginator (Auginator) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 12:44 am: Edit

Wow, you never fail to catch me do you Ares? Well as a matter of fact most people told me because the ciricculum is extremely competitive, the GPA is in the 2.8ish range. But I suppose you'll just assume it's because of us mediocre student wouldnt you?

By Ares15 (Ares15) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 12:57 am: Edit

Why so anal-retentive? I asked you a simple question, that's it. You seriously need to stop taking every post as a personal attack.

A 2.8 is very much an inflated GPA but not nearly as bad as it is at HYPS. It's very misleading how so many people claim that Berkeley has NO grade inflation, when it clearly does.

Neverless, Berkeley's relatively low grade inflation is a good thing as it makes it easier for employers, grad schools, etc. to weed out the good students. The flip-side is that it's psychologically bad for Cal students. Anyway, I don't think a 3.0 at Berkeley is all the impressive (.2 above the mean?), most people can attain that easily. I think a 3.4+ is a better cutoff, but still heavily dependent on one's major. For instance, an EECS major with a 3.1 is very respectable.

By Auginator (Auginator) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Pardon my anal-retentiveness, after hours of debating I assumed that was a personal attack. I would definately agree that a 3.4 is a better cutoff, a 3.3 get's you into most honors programs at cal. I guess I just have to go there and find out for myself.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 02:01 pm: Edit

In response to the gambit made that graduate schools know that Berkeley grades hard and so those graduate schools compensate accordingly, why argue about it? Why not just check out the facts?:

http://www.architrave.net/college/gradeadj.htm

According to that link, it is indeed true that Berkeley's own law school (Boalt) treated GPA's from different schools differently - but apparently to the detriment of Berkeley. For example, according to the chart, Boalt actually gave extra GPA points to a guy from HYPS but nothing to a guy from Berkeley. Hmmm.


Or just consider Berkeley's own information about who gets admitted to top graduate schools. Consider the medical school admissions stats of the last 5 years. According to Berkeley's own numbers, Berkeley undergrads have generally required a GPA that is actually higher than the average admitted GPA to get into most of the top 20 medical schools. For example, the average admitted student to UCSF medical school had a 3.75. However, the average admitted Berkeley student to UCSF in the last 5 years had GPA's ranging from 3.84-3.91. Why?

http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm

Or take law school as an example. Again, the GPA's for admitted Berkeley students to the top law schools in the country are generally greater than what the average admitted GPA's are at those law schools. Take Harvard Law. The average admitted student at Harvard Law had a GPA of around 3.85. The average Berkeley undergrad who was admitted to Harvard Law had a GPA that ranged from 3.84-3.98. The average admitted student at Yale Law had a GPA of around 3.9 or so. Of the past 6 years where information is available, the average Berkeley student who was admitted to Yale Law had a GPA that was significantly higher than 3.9 (apparently the year 2001 was a weird anomaly). {Note for those of you who wonder how to get a GPA of greater than 4, notice that the LSDAS grade-shredding process credits an A+ with a score of 4.33 and not just a 4).

The point is that I see little evidence of compensation for GPA for Berkeley undergrads.

By Madelinemay11 (Madelinemay11) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 03:51 pm: Edit

"So people who get admitted to ivy league/private schools tend to pick Berkeley...because they wouldn't like to spend as much money as they have to. Would you like to enter graduate school with a whole bunch of debt from loans? "

Loans are not a big deal if you're planning on become a doctor or engineer...you'll pay them back in no time (almost any other major, and you better care about $$$).

If money were not an issue, I think most people would pick an Ivy league school over Berkeley. ELC, appeals, transfers, ICAP, IGETC etc. have made Berkeley accessible to almost anyone.

Besides, a cheap education isn't always viewed in the same light....you may think it's a real bargain, but others may think that you got what you paid for.

By Ares15 (Ares15) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 06:21 pm: Edit

"So people who get admitted to ivy league/private schools tend to pick Berkeley...because they wouldn't like to spend as much money as they have to. Would you like to enter graduate school with a whole bunch of debt from loans?"

The cross-admit matriculation rates prove otherwise. For the majority of cases, students would glady turn down Berkeley for HYPS even if they would have to accumulate a lot of debt. The phrase "it'll be worth it in the end" is hard to ignore. For anectodal evidence look at this very thread! If I recall correctly, NO ONE turned down HYPS for Berkeley; HYPS turned them down instead.

As for Berkeley's GPA, as I said, it is relatively less inflated when compared to HYPS. But consider this, most Berkeley courses are graded on a curve right? With so many mediocre students attending Berkeley it's not that hard to get an A because they can pad you from the C's and D's. Grad schools aren't stupid and they know this. The opposite is the case for HYPS. You're thrown into a classroom for direct competition with some of the brightest students in the world. Grade inflation is often legitimated by saying that if these kids were at another university, it's likely they'd all get A's, so why not compensate by bumping the average GPA up to reflect that. As a result, grad schools aren't necessarily going to take the 3.5 Berkeley student over a 3.5 Harvard student simply because Harvard suffers from grade inflation. There's much more to it, and often times it works out in favor of the HYPS student.

By Ahorseisahorse (Ahorseisahorse) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit

I would agree with most of the things Ares15 mentioned, except for the "mediocre students" part. 99% of ppl accepted at Berkeley were top 10% at his/her high school; HYPS don't have that statistic (Fiske)...Yea, yea, there I go giving off statistics, and I know that there are many non-competitive high schools out there;...but in my opinion, I don't think there are enough of the "mediocre students" to pad "you" from C's and D's at Berkeley. Why? Well first of all, the competitive ppl tend to enter EECS, or MolCellBio...so the curve isn't going to be so nice for them, cuz they're going to be competing against fellow HYPS waitlists/rejects who are qualified enough for top ivy leagues.
I mean, HYPS also accept "mediocre students" too, so it's not exactly the "brightest students" in the world, either...

By Ares15 (Ares15) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

Mediocre being defined as significantly less academically capable than the average HYPS student. Trust me, there are a lot of them at Berkeley. Any current students will be able to attest to that. By virtue of Berkeley's large applicant pool, it's only natural that many slip through the cracks. Their primary role is to pad your GPA. That's the competitive nature of Berkeley, you feed off the lesser students.

"Well first of all, the competitive ppl tend to enter EECS, or MolCellBio...so the curve isn't going to be so nice for them"

I actually mentioned this in one of my posts, if you bothered to read it. EECS is definitely more competitive, but there are still people there to fail out so your grade can be boosted a couple of points. However, the number of mediocre students in EECS is significantly less than Berkeley's overall average.

"I mean, HYPS also accept "mediocre students" too, so it's not exactly the "brightest students" in the world, either..."

They're called athletes, or URMs in some cases (not to say that either of these groups are comprised solely of idiots). They're very much an exception and far from exclusive to HYPS. Overal, HYPS have a much more solid student body than Berkeley. They have the ability to weed out many of the students who slip through the cracks and get into Berkeley.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit

The major weakness of using the top 10% of high school as a fulcrum for a particular argument that proves the selectivity of Berkeley suffers from a fatal weakness in that it hinges upon the strength of the high school. Let's face it. Berkeley tends to draw most of its undergrads from California and the fact is, many if not most California high schools are pretty darn mediocre. Yes, a few good ones exist, but for the most part, California secondary education is nothing to be proud about. Contrast that with the elite prep/boarding high schools that HYPS often draw from, and you get the picture. Graduating in the top 50% of Philips Exeter is probably worth the same as graduating from the top 5% of a mediocre California high school.

Besides, I also find a fatal misunderstanding of statistics here. Nobody is saying that HYPS has absolutely zero mediocre students and nobody is saying that Berkeley doesn't have some students who are better than anybody at HYPS. That's not how statistical arguments work. Statistical arguments are based on trends, and let's face it, in general, HYPS have fewer mediocre students, as a percentage of their student bodies, than does Berkeley. And in general, the HYPS student body tends to be more qualified than the Berkeley student body. For Berkeley to successfully compete with HYPS, Berkeley will have to improve the student body across the board. You can't just look at isolated incidents, you have to look across the board. It's like saying that just because one guy in the world smokes 3 packs a day and still lives to be a 100, can you now say that smoking is not dangerous? I think we all know that in general, smoking is bad for your health. That doesn't mean that every smoker has bad health. It doesn't mean that every nonsmoker is healthy. What it does mean is that smoking has been statistically shown to be bad for your health.

By Tri_Fm (Tri_Fm) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 01:35 am: Edit

Why are we even comparing Berkeley to HYPS?

We should compare Berkeley to Vanderbilt, UMichigan, UVirginia and other relatively "lower" schools, since Berkeley itself is a relatively "low" institution.

Plus, budget cuts will put Berkeley even lower than it is now. I predict that by 2010, Berkeley will be ranked 30th or so by US News, since its financial resources will dip lower.

By Rtkysg (Rtkysg) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 01:45 am: Edit

Cut it off Tri_Fm. You are so 'naughty'

By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 02:02 am: Edit

Hmm.. Looks like someone wants 'spanking'. Hold on while I find the leather thongs...

By Ares15 (Ares15) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 02:02 am: Edit

I'm going to assume Rtkysg is an international student. The phrase is "cut it out," for future reference.

By Auginator (Auginator) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 03:11 am: Edit

Regadless of all the stats, if it's pretty easy to get straight A's at Berkeley then I definately wouldn't mind getting a 4.0 GPA, I think that will put me in fairly good shape for H, UCSF, or SU Med schools? I admit that mediocre students do slip through the cracks, but as a public school, Berkeley needs to educate as many people as possible right? I admit my HS was not very competitive, and therefor the best I could get into (regardless of my class rank, ec's, SAT's, etc...) was Cal (which I would still consider a very good accomplishment, top25 tier school after all), but what about the plethora of other schools ranked below cal? How do those students make it into med school? Regardless of the stats, Berkeley still has an med school admit rate higher than the national average.

http://bioeng.berkeley.edu/undergradprog/premed.html

I believe it states that somewhere on that website.

By the way, if you look at Stanford's entering class for their med school's MD program you will find allot of schools generally rated lower than Berkeley

http://med.stanford.edu/md/admissions/class_profiles.html

I guess I have nothing better to do but work my ass off, boost my Berkeley GPA (apparently above the med schools average GPA because I go to Cal), apply to like 20 safety med schools, and pray really really hard. As far as I'm concerned, I have heard Berkeley to be extrmely competitive, I guess I will find out in about two month or so right?

By Ares15 (Ares15) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 03:20 am: Edit

Why can't you just say "I agree?" It would be much easier.

I'd rather not go off onto the tangential subject of med schools because they are of no concern to me.

By Ahorseisahorse (Ahorseisahorse) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 06:32 am: Edit

^_^;

By Sakky (Sakky) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 09:51 am: Edit

Well, to ignore the rather unusual digression that some of the other guys here are taking, and just deal with your specific points, Auginator...

*Do Berkeley students get into med-school more often than the average student?

Yes, but not all that much more. You can see the numbers for yourself:

http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/national.stm

So, yes, Berkeley students do get into med-school more often than the average student. But isn't that as it should be? After all, I think nobody will dispute that the average Berkeley premed is better than the average premed nationwide. Berkeley is supposed to be an above-average school, so Berkeley students are supposed to get into medical school at an above-average rate, don't you think? Otherwise, you might as well just go to an average school. When Berkeley takes credit for getting students into medical school at a higher rate than the average, it reminds me of the old Chris Rock joke about how certain people always try to take credit for doing things they're supposed to be doing. "I take care of my kids" "Well, yeah, you're SUPPOSED to take care of your kids." Similarly - "Well, we have a better-than-average med-school placement rate". "Yeah, well, if you're really a good school, you're supposed to do that."

* Do candidates from 'lesser' schools get into top-ranked med-schools?

Indeed they do, and in fact, there's something going on here that I and a few other people on this board (especially calkidd) have discussed at length. The simple fact of the matter is, med-school admissions are very much a numerical game. Especially in the first-round. All med-schools run essentially a first-round screen through AMCAS where your statistics (your GPA shredded in several ways such as overall GPA, GPA in premed classes, etc., along with your MCAT), Med-schools examine those numbers mechanically and decide which candidate will be invited to submit a round-2 app, and only in round2 will your application be read by a human-being. The upshot is that if your GPA isn't strong enough, you won't even get past round 1.

Which leads to a strategy that both calkidd and I endorse, if admitedly reluctantly, which is that if you are really hell-bent on going to medical school then you should seriously consider going to a 'lesser' school where you will clearly be the one of the top students and where A's will come easier. Or if you insist on going to Berkeley, you should seriously consider taking your tougher premed classes at a community college. The fact is, as far as med-school admissions are concerned, it's far far better to present star grades from San Jose State than to present average grades from Berkeley. That's the 'game' of med-school admissions.

Consider this link. It talks about being a premed at Stanford, but the same thing applies to Berkeley.

"Myth #11.

I AM ALWAYS BEST OFF TAKING ALL MY
INTRODUCTORY PRE-MED CLASSES AT
STANFORD.

False. It is true that it is more difficult to get an A in a Stanford pre-med class than it is at most other schools. This is easier to understand since you are graded on a curve with some of America’s best students. Consequently, an ‘A’ at Stanford can mean a lot, particularly in science classes with a ‘C’ mean.

However, most of you won’t get A’s in every
class. And because of this, some of you certainly
would have had higher GPA’s elsewhere. It is also true that medical school know this and will take it into account.

However, this ‘forgiveness factor’ is not infinite. Getting a 4.0 in your pre-med requirements at a junior college will certainly make you a stronger applicant than a 3.5 in your pre-med requirements at Stanford. One admissions officer I spoke with estimated the bump factor of attending a school like Harvard or
Stanford to be between 0.3 and 0.5 of a grade point.

For some of you, an ‘A’ in high school could
be achieved through hard work and determination.
This is not necessarily true of the pre-med classes at Stanford. Everyone is trying hard. They are all smart. And the classes can be very difficult.

The upshot of all of this is that some of you
may be more successful applying to medical school by taking most of your pre-med classes elsewhere. And I have certainly known many applicants who would have
been more successful applying to medical school if they had pursued their academic passions at Stanford and took their pre-med classes elsewhere, either in summers or in a year off. I have also known students at Stanford—
who would have been fantastic physicians—who
quit the pre-med process in frustration without exploring this option. If you want to be a doctor and are struggling at Stanford, this option is worth exploring.

I say this with some hesitancy because I know
it may cause controversy and it is difficult to know who would be statistically better off focusing their pre-med energies at a less competitive institution. I should also
add, however, that all such ‘core’ classes cover the material required both for the MCAT and to be a good doctor.

This in no way is meant to imply you made the
wrong choice by coming to Stanford if you are a premed. Quite the contrary, Stanford may be the best place in the country for pre-meds to attend college. You can attain a first-rate education in any field and simultaneously approach your pre-med curriculum with more flexibility and more creativity than at nearly any
other university.

Take home point: Consider taking some of
your pre-med classes elsewhere if you are hitting a wall here. Many successful medical school applicants have
done this."

http://questscholars.stanford.edu/oldstuff/activities/professional/pre-med_letter/premed-letter-2001-2-pdf.pdf


The point is, when it comes to grades, the med-school admissions process does not really reward heroes. People who attempt hard curricula at hard schools do not get rewarded at anywhere near the rate they should be. Med-schools are tremendously mechanical when it comes to round-1 screens. If you don't have the stats, then you're out.


*Is it easy to get A's at Berkeley because of all the mediocre students?

No, I would not characterize it that way at all. I certainly will agree that it can be slightly easier because of all the bad students. But the fact is, you are going to be encountering some pretty darn harsh curves, and the presence of mediocre students that you will live off of will not be enough to compensate you for the harsh curve. And in particular, I would not say that it's easy to get A's in engineering at all. Most of the weeding, where the bad students are kicked out of engineeering, happens in freshman and sophomore year. But even if you survive the weeding, engineering A's are still tough to come by (although easier than before).

What I would say is that I think if you have a decent brain, you can say that it's not that hard to get a C, because all the stupid and lazy students will be taking up the D's and F'. But getting an 'A' is a totally different story, especially in a class full of premeds. In those classes, you will have quite a few go-getters who all want the A (because they all need it to get into medical school) and because of the curve, there are only a limited number of A's that will be given out. It will be tough to fight for those A's, day-in, day-out.

The upshot is that you heard right - Berkeley is an extremely competitive school, especially in any subject where premeds abound. I have seen many an eager premed come to Berkeley only to have his med-school dreams dashed on the jagged rocks of the Berkeley curve. Both Calkidd and I have come to an agreement that Berkeley really isn't all that good of a place if you want to go to medical school, because the way that Berkeley runs its curricula won't really do much to boost your chances of getting in.

By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Hey Sakky I am going for pre-med and I found your links to be very helpful. Thank you.

By Auginator (Auginator) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 03:06 pm: Edit

I will agree with Stanfordman99, I do find the information given to be very helpful, I had no idea that such a loop hole (getting your A at a less competitiive school in the summer) even existed. So if I actually decided to still atttend CAl but yet take my Bio and Chem courses in the summer at a JC (and get an A) that would put me at a huge advantage ?!? I always thought Med Schools were the same way with undergrad college admissions, you take the hardest courses, get an A, and then get in, I kinda feel stupid right now. Sakky, for once I do find your relatively blunt and to the point approach to be helpful.

By Deferreddude (Deferreddude) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Hey Stanfordman you can probably take classes at Berkeley or Davis during the summer to inflate your GPA. Taking classes at a local JC might look bad on your transcript.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Well, auginator, since I noticed that you want to do BioE, I don't know if my strategy is going to work all that well for you. The fact is, if you want to do BioE, then you are going to have to traverse the (killer) premed weeder sequence as part of your lower-prereqs. Because you're not a transfer student, I have serious doubts over whether the BioE department will accept those credits from another schools. I suppose you could always ask, and you might get a few, but I doubt that you'd get all of the lower division physics/O-chem/bio stuff all successfully transferred over, which means that you'll have to do them at Berkeley.

And even if you do, it's not exactly like you're gotten yourself completely out of hot water. You're still going to have to do all them BioE upper-division engineering classes, and they ain't no joke either.

The upshot is, again, if you want to go to med-school, it doesn't pay to be a hero. What you said in your previous post is indeed true, if you can do it, then the best course of action is indeed to take the hardest courses, study very hard, and get an A.

But, ay, there's the rub - it's a very very big 'if'. The fact is, unless you're an out-and-out genius, there are going to be many many engineering classes in which you can study as hard as you possibly can and still only get a mediocre grade. This isn't high school where everybody can potentially get an A, and all you have to do is put in effort and do all the work and you'll probably get an A. In Berkeley engineering and hard-sciences, because of the curve, there are only a limited number of A's that are going to be handed out, and everybody wants them. So you can study as hard as you want, but that's not enough. If you want an 'A', you can't just know a lot. You have to know more than the other students, and the other students are trying to outwork, outstudy, and outknow you. That's how curving works.

Let me give you an example. Let's say you take, oh I don't know, Physics 137A - Quantum Mechanics (QM). This is one of the core classes for declaring the physics major, and as a result, most of the students who are in there will be people who have a very strong interest and acumen in physics. Do you think you can get an A in that course if you simply study hard? Well, think about the situation. Remember the curve. To earn the A means to not just know QM well, but to know it better than the average student in that class - which basically means to beat out the majority of those guys. All those other guys will be studying hard too. Many if not most of these guys will be physics geniuses (that is, after all, why they're trying to declare the major). Are you game?

The same can be said for any curved class, whether it's at Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, Harvard, or wherever. And it's perhaps the most fundamental disconnect and source of misunderstanding among incoming freshmen. In high school, your grades in a particular class are essentially determined by yourself and the teacher. Everybody in a particular high school class can in theory get an 'A'. But in curved classes in college, which comprise the majority of technical classes including engineering and premed classes, students are now competing against each other. Curving is a game of musical chairs - some people must receive a bad grade, and there are only so many A's to go around. If you want an A, you have to beat out all the other people who want it. It's not just about knowing the material, it's actually about knowing it better than the other students know it. Your test scores by themselves are meaningless. What counts is your test score relative to everybody else's test score. That's a fundamentally different ballgame than what you saw in high school.

I like this blog from a former UCLA student. I think it frames the issue in high relief. Yeah, yeah, it's from UCLA, but honestly, it's not all that much different at Berkeley:

"My freshman year, I met this friend of mine who was crying because she got an 76% on her math midterm. I told her that she should be glad she passed, she told me, "the average grade was 93%, the curve fails me." Weeders can have curves, as these three examples show... but only to make sure some people pass... and some fail. Famous weeders are courses like: Communications 10, Life Scienes 1 (and 2 & 3), Chemistry 14a (and all the subsequent ones get only harder), English 10a (OMG that class was hard), CS33, etc. Oh, and if you're wondering, my friend ended up getting a C- in her math class after studying her butt off. Lucky her!!!"

http://www.moochworld.com/scribbles/ucla/16.html


Now having said that, let me say this. You shouldn't see curves as perennial nightmare monsters that are always trying to screw you over. In fact, many times, the curve can actually help you. In particular, the curve can protect you from, shall we say, evil and punitive profs. I remember on one of my old exams, I scored a 30%, and I celebrated. Why did I celebrate? Because the average was a 25%, and so because of the curve I got a very good grade. True, I knew next-to-nothing, but hey, I knew more than the average student knew, and that's what counted. In fact, I believe the highest score in the class was only around a 40%. I know that the prof wanted to give everybody an F. But the prof had said in the very first class that the class would be graded on a curve, which meant that some students must get good grades even if the prof didn't really want to give them. So in this case, the curve actually saved me and a lot of other people in the class.

By Sackingsballa (Sackingsballa) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Boxosox: I thought you were going to UCLA?

By Tri_Fm (Tri_Fm) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Sakky, you really don't need to make long long posts. It's sufficient to just say:

"HYPMS >>> Berkeley"

That's all that's necessary, and your point is proven.

Basically, HYPMS >>> Berkeley is an axiom, just like 1+1=2 is an axiom, and hence it doesn't require any kind of proof.

By Itempest (Itempest) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Can 1+1 some day in the future not equal 2? I don't think so...

By Sakky (Sakky) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:46 pm: Edit

Well, tri_fm, the problem is of course that your statement is true only for this moment in time. 50 years ago, Berkeley was probably >>> S and M. The rankings were probably something like HYP>B>>>SM. Berkeley unfortunately didn't keep up and consequently got lapped.

By Auginator (Auginator) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 12:36 am: Edit

I am actually an Integrative Biology major, which I believe is more flexible and dare i say easier than any of the engineering majors at Berkeley. However, I do thank you for your post, it is extremely helpful and informative. I'll definately be sure to ask an IB counselor about some of the theories I picked up today, to try and see which classes I can transfer credit to from an easier college/course.

Tri FM, if we are going by your theory, then is it misleading to say...?

Oxford>Cambridge>>>HYPSMC>Top25 Tier>Every other school

I suppose when most people claim that Oxford is better than Harvard, they are really just stating an axiom? I would disagree, it's not quite that simple to make a formula that over uses the ">" symbol.

By the way Sakky, I am curious about your opinion. Do you think the reason that HYPSMC are now regarded to be better than UCB because of Regan's attack on Berkeley almost 50 years ago?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/06/08_reagan.shtml

Or is it more complex than that? If anyone has an opinion/answer to this I'd like to know, it's been bugging me for a while.

By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 03:23 am: Edit

I must say something about this Oxford>Cambridge>>>HYPSMC stuff.
No... no no no no....
Maybe this was true 100 years ago, but today, Harvard is six times richer than Oxford. UK universities are facing budget cuts and all that nonsense. Their professors are moving to the States because American schools can give them more benefits.
Oxford is not better than Harvard, far from it. And btw, Cambridge is ranked as the #1 Uni in the UK now, not Oxford.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:15 am: Edit

Well, auginator, if you really want to get into the history of UC, I think that blaming Reagan for the decline of UC is a bit of a stretch. Yes, Reagan had a well-publicized political dispute with the protests that were happening at the time and with UC-President Clark Kerr who he felt should have done more to control the protests, and yes, Reagan did cut UC spending temporarily as a political jab. On the other hand, as soon as the protests were reined in, Reagan substantially increased spending on higher education.

"Despite a running feud with the University of California, he increased spending for higher education by 100 percent while overall state spending rose 50 percent."

http://www.statenet.com/news/features/_C.a.n.n.o.n./?2

So I don't really know if you can blame Reagan for the decline. I think the decline would have happened with or without Reagan. I personally suspect that the real problem began when Berkeley did not constantly raise its selectivity to match its peer institutions. All elite schools became substantially more selective after the late 60's and 70's. HYP, for example, became far less prominent bastions of old upper-crust money than they were in the past and became far far more meritocratic in their admissions. Yes, there still are a few guys getting into HYP just because of rich legacies, but they're a drop in the ocean compared to what used to happen at HYP in the old days. Berkeley also increased its selectivity, but not at the same rate. And competition among schools is always relative - if you're not keeping up with your peers, then you're basically falling behind. The upshot is that Berkeley became known as, to put it bluntly, the dumping ground for those people who couldn't get into HYPSM.

I personally think that a tremendously interesting sidestory is how exactly did Stanford and MIT rise from basically nothing to becoming 2 of the pre-eminent schools in the world in only a short period of time. Neither of these schools has the benefit of age - both of them are relative upstarts, Stanford being born in 1891 and MIT born in 1865 (contrast that with UCBerkeley which started in 1868). And the early life of Stanford and MIT were characterized with mediocrity - especially Stanford, which was threatened with bankruptcy several times.

UCBerkeley, on the other hand, quickly established itself as, at the time, the premier force to be reckoned with on the West Coast and by the 1930's was one of the highest-profile research schools in the world, culminating in a string of nuclear-research related Nobel after Nobel after Nobel in the 30's, 40's and 50's (to compare, Stanford didn't win its first Nobel Prize until 1952). Consider this statistic. 50 years ago, on this day, Berkeley had 6 affiliated Nobel prize winning faculty. MIT nominally had 3 (actually, MIT probably only had 2 because Edwin McMillan who won the '51 physics prize was technically affiliated with the both the MIT Radiation Lab and with the Berkeley Physics department but actually spent most of his time at Berkeley, but, fine, since he did have an MIT affiliation, we'll count him in the MIT category). Stanford had 1.

Or consider this. 50 years ago, the sharpest students in California clearly preferred UC, especially UCBerkeley, over Stanford. Stanford had limited resources and limited offerings compared to the seemingly vast opportunities available at Berkeley. And MIT wasn't exactly held in high regard either, being seen as a dumping ground for the working-class. The point is that Stanford and MIT started from rather inauspicious beginnings to elite status.

Aha, so you're doing IB, now are you? Heh heh, you're going to have to put up with a lot of jokes because everybody at Berkeley knows it's a creampuff major. You're going to have to put up with people thinking that you're doing that because you couldn't handle MCB. You're going to have to put up with people snickering at your major as "biology-lite" or "pseudo-biology" or "biology with an asterisk" or "IB, the Diet Coke of Biology". Then again, you may well have the last laugh because your easier classes and higher grades might get you into medical school. But the snickering is the price you pay.

By Auginator (Auginator) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Biology-lite, lol. Well, if it helps me, then I will have the last laugh. So far, the only difference I have noticed is that in IB you take the MATH 16 series while MCB are forced to survive the much harder MATH 1 series. Here's the real kicker, most grad schools don't know the difference, and some schools even think the 16 series is harder because 16>1, thats exactly what my Pre-Med counselor told me. Oh well, I guess I'm forced to take the easier courses

By Kode (Kode) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Fear Math 53... :|

By Auginator (Auginator) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 12:31 am: Edit

Ouch...I'll keep that in mind Kode...thanks.

By Eliteconnect (Eliteconnect) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 01:02 pm: Edit

"Aha, so you're doing IB, now are you? Heh heh, you're going to have to put up with a lot of jokes because everybody at Berkeley knows it's a creampuff major. You're going to have to put up with people thinking that you're doing that because you couldn't handle MCB. You're going to have to put up with people snickering at your major as "biology-lite" or "pseudo-biology" or "biology with an asterisk" or "IB, the Diet Coke of Biology". Then again, you may well have the last laugh because your easier classes and higher grades might get you into medical school. But the snickering is the price you pay. "

Well..that comment pretty much shows the poster's ignorance about the IB major at Berkeley. First of all, NO ONE would call integrative biology a "creampuff major"...the requirements for IB are the SAME as the requirements for MCB (with the exception of allowing the Math 16 series to be used instead of the math1 series). The IB upper division courses also have brutal curves and are not considered the "diet coke of biology" courses...IB 132-Human Physiology, IB123-Exercise Physiology, IB163-Survey of genetics (cross-listed with MCB), and IB160-Evolution are ALL incredibly intense courses with vicious curves. If IB classes are such a joke..why do so many IB classes sastisfy the graduation requirements for MCB majors? Why are IB and MCB classes cross-listed? Your comment was just vicious, unwarranted, and just downright false.

P.S.: I'm not even an IB major..I just took a few IB upper divs because I find it fascinating and I think they would give me a good background for the BS section of MCAT.

By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 01:09 pm: Edit

i chose Cal over UCI.

where's my F-ing medal

By Muslimah_Angel (Muslimah_Angel) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 09:04 pm: Edit

lol

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 01:56 am: Edit

Eliteconnect, you choose to call me out by calling me 'ignorant'? Fine, the battle is joined.

First of all, let's be clear about what you mean by IB classes satisfying the requirements for MCB majors. I take it you're talking only about MCB upper-division free electives. Depending on what MCB track you take, you may have the option of up to 2 free electives, which a pool of classes, including some IB classes, will fulfill. But that's the only case situation where IB classes can be used to fulfill MCB requirements. MCB regular requirements cannot be fulfilled by IB courses.

And the actual use of free electives is exactly what I'm talking about as it demonstrates that in general IB is easier than MCB. Many MCB students will freely and happily take as many IB classes as their track allows rather than taking additional MCB classes, for those IB classes are understood by the MCB students to be easier. It's no different than the chemical engineers or mechanical engineers cherry-picking classes in civil-engineering whenever they can in order to fill engineering requirements and boost their GPA. Hence, the fact that many IB classes may, technically speaking, be used to help MCB students fulfill graduation requirementsnot only does not demonstrate that IB classes are at the same level as MCB, but the reality of what MCB students actually choose to take actually indicates that IB classes are easier.

And about your contention that MCB classes and IB classes are cross-listed, is that a particularly common phenomenom? I went through the catalog, and I see a grand total of two IB classes that are crosslisted with MCB, and one of them is a graduate-student class (MCB C245/IB C266). The other is MCB C142/ IB C166, and I agree that that one is a difficult IB class. But the point is that cross-listing between IB and MCB is not common by any means. And don't try to fire back with examples of how taking certain IB classes bars you from receiving credit for taking later MCB classes. That's no different than earning zero or reduced credit for taking the Math 1 series after already completing the Math 16 series. Certain classes do cover largely the same material and therefore it is reasonable that students should not be allowed to receive full unit credit for taking classes that cover largely the same material. But just because certain classes cover largely the same material, that does not mean that they are 'cross-listed'. Cross-listing fundamentally means to cover the same material with the same grading scheme. For example, just because a certain community-college engineering class covers exactly the same material as a class at MIT does not mean that those classes can be said to be cross-listed in any way, shape, or form.

Furthermore, if you think that IB classes are curved hard, why not take a gander at MCB curving, or electrical engineering curving. Now that's REALLY harsh curving going on. I'm sorry, but IB students really don't have anything to complain about.

The problem is that IB cloaks itself in a mantle of rigor that it doesn't deserve. IB attempts to project an image that it is just as difficult as MCB, when the fact is, the students know the truth. Go ahead, poll a bunch of MCB and IB students and ask them which major do they think is really the harder one. Ask some MCB students whether they think that IB is easier or harder. Then ask some IB students whether they think MCB is easier or harder. You can also look at where students migate. A given IB student is far more likely to have been a former MCB student who couldn't cut it, as compared to vice versa. You hardly ever ever hear of an IB student complain that the IB major is just too hard, so he's going to switch to MCB.


Now, I will grant you a filip. IB is, on an absolute scale, not quite as cheesy or creampuffy as other majors where you really can get top grades for doing very little, or in many cases, for barely showing up to class.

But I don't think that's the important issue. The issue is one of perception. IB attempts to cloak itself in a mantle of rigor that it doesn't truly deserve. In other words, IB is a sheep in wolf's clothing. The truth is, IB has many (not all, but many) students who want to maintain the veneer that they are studying something that seems more difficult than it actually is. I know that might tick off some IB majors, but before you flame me, honestly, sit down and think about it, and you'll have to admit that in your heart you know it's true.

Now don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the IB curricula per se. If you want to study that stuff, then by all means, you should study it. What I wonder about is why is it that IB classes tend to be graded easier and assign less work than MCB classes do? If that sounds vicious, well, welcome to the schism that exists between IB and MCB.