any anandtechers heading over to berkeley?

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: EngineNr9
NightFlyerGTI is such a great Christian. Cursing, anger, resentment, totally following Christ's teachings.

A winner, to be sure.

 

[RudeBoie]

Originally posted by: quirky
<EE is the easiest to get into of other eng. from things I heard.>

nope. simply not true. I believe civil engineering is the easiest by FAR. I know someone majoring in civil eng who transferred to cal from a junior college with barely a 3.0. know a couple others who also got in at a little above that GPA.

<He got in with a frikkin 3.2 gpa and 1200 SAT? frikkin A. that makes me mad. I was better than that and didn't get in. But do you have to declare a major when you apply to Berkeley? Cause if you do, then i probably declared computer engineering, which would make sense as to why i didn't get in >

yip, cal's admissions are really wierd that way. know a guy who got in with 3.2, 1020 sat :/

Yeah, I'm still a little pissed at CAL. The main thing is that schools never give an honest answer about whether you can get in. I got a 1320 (knew should have taken it more than once) and a 4.0 with lots of extracurrics when I applies for EECS, and they rejected me, and they wouldn't even give me a jc plan or spring admit. Whenever I asked them to help me with deciding whether to go EECS or L&S for CS, they'd always say, "well, you have a good chance either way."

It's all based on major. If you know what major they're lacking in, and just want to get in, apply, and change later (but too hard to chance back to engin from L&S).
Another good guaranteed way is to apply to any L&S major at Berkeley from HS. (I assume they still have this program). If you get rejected, no matter how poor of an applicant you were, they'll give u a juco plan, where you just need to get a 3.0 in those classes to be guaranteed in.

My friend got that, and while I like him and all, he lied on his app, got a 3.4 and 1150 in HS, and had a guaranteed in while I had to struggle to come back in. I'm a bit bitter about that :disgust:

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: McPhreak
I'm simply going to reiterate my point which I'm standing by: For a college who's identity stems from and prides itself and with it's so-called "diversity", it's pretty sad that it's "diversity" is the same, if not less representative (40 percent asian? Please...they should just rename the place U.C. Chinatown) than your other colleges.

No university's identity stems from "diversity." It comes from academic excellence and the pursuit of the truth. Admissions in California are now supposed to be based entirely on merit. If a person believes that colleges and universities should lower their standards for people with certain skin colors, then that person is a racist, plain and simple.

Ok. Now you're going way off topic. I'm not going to talk about reasons why Berkeley isn't as diverse as they they should be. I don't care about that. However, I would have to argue that a major part of Berkeley's identity is diversity (or so it seems). Simply put, if I asked the question to every Berkeley student, "What set's Berkeley apart from all the other universities (i.e. what's different about Berkeley)?", your number 1 and 2 answers respectively would be

1. Academics
2. Diversity

However, what a great portion of the student body has to realize is that coveted diversity barely exists. As I've shown above, they're no more diverse than their most hated rivals across the bay. They've simply just been fooled into thinking that Berkeley is such a diverse campus, when in truth, it really is not that diverse. Like some of you guys, I also believed Berkeley was a diverse place, until I graduated and moved. When compared to other places, Berkeley just isn't so diverse anymore.

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: RudeBoie

McPhreak, you shouldn't be comparing stats with other schools like NYU, you should be comparing with other CALIFORNIA schools. The same people who apply to Riverside apply to Berkeley, but they're NOT applying to east coast private schools.

I don't think diversity really is a big deal, unless there's bias AGAINST a particular type.

Look, I've already compared Berkeley to NYU and then to Stony Brook and since someone didn't like that because it was not a highly selective school, I compared it back to NYU and also to Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia. Now you want me to compare it to a California school (which I already did in Stanford). If I do that, someone's gonna claim it's a private school or it's not a private school. Eventually, I'll be comparing Berkeley's student body to De Anza College's student body.

I think I've already provided enough data to simply state that there is no longer a basis for Berkeley to consider itself unique due to it's "diversity". It's just as diverse/un-diverse as the next college, and that it's a shame that the university is fooling it's students into thinking that Berkeley is one giant melting-pot (how many times have you heard that phrase?) of diversity.

And no, I don't think diversity is a big deal either. Do I care that they accept so many asians in Berkeley? No, because if they didn't I probably would have never gotten in. Do I care that the student body is not reflective of the nation's ethnic distribution? I couldn't care less. Am I bitter about my Berkeley experience? Hell, no. I loved the place. I have no regrets. Do I think Berkeley's simply fooling itself by claiming how diverse they are and how this makes the campus unique? Yes.

 

[AgentEL]

Originally posted by: RudeBoie

Originally posted by: quirky
<EE is the easiest to get into of other eng. from things I heard.>

nope. simply not true. I believe civil engineering is the easiest by FAR. I know someone majoring in civil eng who transferred to cal from a junior college with barely a 3.0. know a couple others who also got in at a little above that GPA.

<He got in with a frikkin 3.2 gpa and 1200 SAT? frikkin A. that makes me mad. I was better than that and didn't get in. But do you have to declare a major when you apply to Berkeley? Cause if you do, then i probably declared computer engineering, which would make sense as to why i didn't get in >

yip, cal's admissions are really wierd that way. know a guy who got in with 3.2, 1020 sat :/

Yeah, I'm still a little pissed at CAL. The main thing is that schools never give an honest answer about whether you can get in. I got a 1320 (knew should have taken it more than once) and a 4.0 with lots of extracurrics when I applies for EECS, and they rejected me, and they wouldn't even give me a jc plan or spring admit. Whenever I asked them to help me with deciding whether to go EECS or L&S for CS, they'd always say, "well, you have a good chance either way."

It's all based on major. If you know what major they're lacking in, and just want to get in, apply, and change later (but too hard to chance back to engin from L&S).
Another good guaranteed way is to apply to any L&S major at Berkeley from HS. (I assume they still have this program). If you get rejected, no matter how poor of an applicant you were, they'll give u a juco plan, where you just need to get a 3.0 in those classes to be guaranteed in.

My friend got that, and while I like him and all, he lied on his app, got a 3.4 and 1150 in HS, and had a guaranteed in while I had to struggle to come back in. I'm a bit bitter about that :disgust:

if it helps, you can try applying under Engineering - Undeclared, which is different than normal underclared b/c you are already in the College of Engineering. You have the ability to choose any major offered by the CoE including EECS. All you need is to sign a paper and get a 2.0. Plus it leaves you with more options b/c you can take a couple CS classes before you declare to make sure its your cup of tea.

 

[Waveslidin]

Ahhh, good old Bezerkley. Don't forget to join the Young Republicans club there, you'll have lot's of company? 😉

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: McPhreak
Look, I've already compared Berkeley to NYU and then to Stony Brook and since someone didn't like that because it was not a highly selective school, I compared it back to NYU and also to Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia. Now you want me to compare it to a California school (which I already did in Stanford). If I do that, someone's gonna claim it's a private school or it's not a private school. Eventually, I'll be comparing Berkeley's student body to De Anza College's student body.

I think I've already provided enough data to simply state that there is no longer a basis for Berkeley to consider itself unique due to it's "diversity". It's just as diverse/un-diverse as the next college, and that it's a shame that the university is fooling it's students into thinking that Berkeley is one giant melting-pot (how many times have you heard that phrase?) of diversity.

And no, I don't think diversity is a big deal either. Do I care that they accept so many asians in Berkeley? No, because if they didn't I probably would have never gotten in. Do I care that the student body is not reflective of the nation's ethnic distribution? I couldn't care less. Am I bitter about my Berkeley experience? Hell, no. I loved the place. I have no regrets. Do I think Berkeley's simply fooling itself by claiming how diverse they are and how this makes the campus unique? Yes.

So then what is your definition of "diversity?" It seems to be skin color diversity. Who are you to say what is "diverse" enough and what isn't? And why is skin color diversity in any way a desireable goal in itself? And what is the right amount of skin color "diversity?" 72% white, 13% Hispanic, 12% black, 3% Asian? 70/13/13/4? 2/45/45/8? Oh, but then you would have a quota, and liberals are against quotas. Not that that's a particularly courageous position since quotas have been illegal since 1978.

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: McPhreak
Look, I've already compared Berkeley to NYU and then to Stony Brook and since someone didn't like that because it was not a highly selective school, I compared it back to NYU and also to Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia. Now you want me to compare it to a California school (which I already did in Stanford). If I do that, someone's gonna claim it's a private school or it's not a private school. Eventually, I'll be comparing Berkeley's student body to De Anza College's student body.

I think I've already provided enough data to simply state that there is no longer a basis for Berkeley to consider itself unique due to it's "diversity". It's just as diverse/un-diverse as the next college, and that it's a shame that the university is fooling it's students into thinking that Berkeley is one giant melting-pot (how many times have you heard that phrase?) of diversity.

And no, I don't think diversity is a big deal either. Do I care that they accept so many asians in Berkeley? No, because if they didn't I probably would have never gotten in. Do I care that the student body is not reflective of the nation's ethnic distribution? I couldn't care less. Am I bitter about my Berkeley experience? Hell, no. I loved the place. I have no regrets. Do I think Berkeley's simply fooling itself by claiming how diverse they are and how this makes the campus unique? Yes.

So then what is your definition of "diversity?" It seems to be skin color diversity. Who are you to say what is "diverse" enough and what isn't? And why is skin color diversity in any way a desireable goal in itself? And what is the right amount of skin color "diversity?" 72% white, 13% Hispanic, 12% black, 3% Asian? 70/13/13/4? 2/45/45/8? Oh, but then you would have a quota, and liberals are against quotas. Not that that's a particularly courageous position since quotas have been illegal since 1978.

When we talk about "diversity", it's usally assumed by default we mean racial/ethnic diversity. When people say "Berkeley is more diverse", 99.9% of the time they mean we have so many cultures than your average school.

I have no idea about all that other stuff you're talking about. Like i said, I don't care to go on as to why diversity is good or bad. Just that Berkeley shouldn't advertise something that's not a unique trait as something that is.

Here's an analogy (very rough. Bear with me): Subaru claims that what makes Subaru's so special and unique is it's side impact air bags. However, if you take a look around you'll notice that Volvos and all these other cars also have side impact air bags (I don't know how true this is, but let's just pretend for analogy's sake), therefore I think it's sad that they try and pass this of as a trait which separates themselves and makes them unique from the rest of the cars. Now you are coming in and asking me why side impact air bags are desirable at all. Well, this is completely irrelevent. I'm not for or against side impact air bags, I'm simply pointing out that it's a shame that Subaru bases it's identity on such a "unique" feature when in fact it isn't unique at all.