Anonymous wrote:When I was a graduate student then a postdoc years ago, every time I would be really annoyed when the advisor assigned an undergraduate to me. It's a liability. Was at Cal.
Or you could see it as a failed opportunity for developing your mentorship and people management skills. I bet you’re not good at those even now.
I actually had positive experiences with assigned undergrads during my doctorate. You get what you put in.
Anonymous wrote:When I was a graduate student then a postdoc years ago, every time I would be really annoyed when the advisor assigned an undergraduate to me. It's a liability. Was at Cal.
Is this the new tactic for bashing universities? To pretend you went there to give more credence to your posts? Come on, we know you made that one up. Seriously, no need to lie, all posts are anonymous and frankly nobody cares.
Anonymous wrote:When I was a graduate student then a postdoc years ago, every time I would be really annoyed when the advisor assigned an undergraduate to me. It's a liability. Was at Cal.
Or you could see it as a failed opportunity for developing your mentorship and people management skills. I bet you’re not good at those even now.
I actually had positive experiences with assigned undergrads during my doctorate. You get what you put in.
You must be joking. The advisor is just shifting their own work onto you, because they don't want to do it. As a grad student or postdoc, you have limited time and more important things to do than to deal with undergrads.
Anonymous wrote:When I was a graduate student then a postdoc years ago, every time I would be really annoyed when the advisor assigned an undergraduate to me. It's a liability. Was at Cal.
Is this the new tactic for bashing universities? To pretend you went there to give more credence to your posts? Come on, we know you made that one up. Seriously, no need to lie, all posts are anonymous and frankly nobody cares.
No need to lie. I know inside out of Calvin building. Frequent visitor to LBNL.
Anonymous wrote:When I was a graduate student then a postdoc years ago, every time I would be really annoyed when the advisor assigned an undergraduate to me. It's a liability. Was at Cal.
Or you could see it as a failed opportunity for developing your mentorship and people management skills. I bet you’re not good at those even now.
I actually had positive experiences with assigned undergrads during my doctorate. You get what you put in.
You must be joking. The advisor is just shifting their own work onto you, because they don't want to do it. As a grad student or postdoc, you have limited time and more important things to do than to deal with undergrads.
I’m not joking. That’s how you develop soft people skills, project management etc. In your career you’ll have to deal with people less knowledgeable than you are that need to be motivated and trained. You definitely missed that opportunity. Berkeley students are some of the most hard working and smart there are.
Anonymous wrote:When I was a graduate student then a postdoc years ago, every time I would be really annoyed when the advisor assigned an undergraduate to me. It's a liability. Was at Cal.
Or you could see it as a failed opportunity for developing your mentorship and people management skills. I bet you’re not good at those even now.
I actually had positive experiences with assigned undergrads during my doctorate. You get what you put in.
You must be joking. The advisor is just shifting their own work onto you, because they don't want to do it. As a grad student or postdoc, you have limited time and more important things to do than to deal with undergrads.
I’m not joking. That’s how you develop soft people skills, project management etc. In your career you’ll have to deal with people less knowledgeable than you are that need to be motivated and trained. You definitely missed that opportunity. Berkeley students are some of the most hard working and smart there are.
What makes you qualified to give a lesson to people? What's you accomplishment in life, research wise or management wise? Is managing undergrad the only way to develop soft skills? How about inter-lab collaboration? How about working with peer graduate students or postdocs, would that stop you from developing soft skills, or "definitely" missed that opportunity? If you are happy working with unders, that's great, you do you. However, different people have different preference.
Anonymous wrote:When I was a graduate student then a postdoc years ago, every time I would be really annoyed when the advisor assigned an undergraduate to me. It's a liability. Was at Cal.
Or you could see it as a failed opportunity for developing your mentorship and people management skills. I bet you’re not good at those even now.
I actually had positive experiences with assigned undergrads during my doctorate. You get what you put in.
You must be joking. The advisor is just shifting their own work onto you, because they don't want to do it. As a grad student or postdoc, you have limited time and more important things to do than to deal with undergrads.
I’m not joking. That’s how you develop soft people skills, project management etc. In your career you’ll have to deal with people less knowledgeable than you are that need to be motivated and trained. You definitely missed that opportunity. Berkeley students are some of the most hard working and smart there are.
What makes you qualified to give a lesson to people? What's you accomplishment in life, research wise or management wise? Is managing undergrad the only way to develop soft skills? How about inter-lab collaboration? How about working with peer graduate students or postdocs, would that stop you from developing soft skills, or "definitely" missed that opportunity? If you are happy working with unders, that's great, you do you. However, different people have different preference.
You’re the one making sweeping generalizations that undergrads are useless, nobody wants to work with them etc. the truth is more nuanced many grad students, post docs and professors will happily mentor an undergrad. You didn’t, don’t generalize to everyone.
Anonymous wrote:Berkeley definitely has a wow factor but HYP have a bit more wow factor.
“Wow” is not what comes to mind when I hear of a top student attending Berkeley oos.
“How” is the word that comes to mind. “How” could this process have been approached differently to get a better outcome?
lol, are you for real? Poor Berkeley students attending some of best programs in the country when they could have gone straight to UVA.
Mind boggling how complete ignoramuses imagine themselves seers of wisdom!
You are cherry picking rankings to make Berkeley look better than it is.
No question the undergrad experience at UVA is better than Berkeley.
State flagships tend to have an inflated reputation in their home state. Are you living in California? The rest of the country barely thinks about Berkeley at all. You are out of touch with reality.
Just so you know, opinions about Berkeley in California are probably as polarizing, if not more so, than OOS. We are more familiar with many issues related to housing, class availability and toxic competition. It isn’t romanticized. I know 2 kids from my son’s class who got accepted to Berkeley and then got off the waitlist for UCLA and will go there instead. It is a great fit for some but not others.
Polarizing not for Cal's status as public, but because of the reasons you mentioned and the fact that it has been destination for strange people.
Who are those strange people? UC’s still end up having strong undergrad programs. It’s fine if you don’t like the culture or student life and decide something else is better for you.
At our good CA public high school about 30% of all students apply to Berkeley, and 3% get admitted (10-15), the numbers are similar for UCLA. That’s in line with the admission rate of about 10% for both Cal and UCLA. They are top students, the admission is very competitive.
HYPSM admission rate is about 5%, so they are more competitive, although some programs at Berkeley like MET (dual engineering and business degree) have admission rates below 3%. For comparison UVA admission rate is 17%.
The truth is plenty of students want to go to Berkeley in and out of state.
This looks about right for good CA public schools. It also holds for most good privates as well with acceptances in line with the overall average for UCLA and UCB.
In my experience there is a difference between public and private in terms of who attends UCB. At most of the top bay area privates the very top students do not covet (or attend UCB or UCLA). They mostly target top privates as their first choice. My top 5% kid did this as well with no interest in attending UCB based on her experience living in the bay area and knowing who went from her school. The school CCs actually ask the very top kids not to apply to UCLA and UCB unless they are actually interested in attending because the acceptance rates never vary by more than a kid or two. The UCs seem to be much more attractive to top public school kids.
That makes a lot of sense. If you pay $50k a year in tuition at a private high school you’re not going to blink at $60k tuition at Stanford, if you’re competitive enough to be admitted. But all these schools are more or less lottery tickets, and it’s conceivable that most applicants, top 5% included, will not get in HYPSM. The admission strategy may or may not include Berkeley, but a decent number go there. For College Preparatory, an “elite” private high school in the Bay Area, Berkeley is the third most attended university after Chicago and Swarthmore. The attended universities list skews private, but again we’re talking people that are not concerned with cost. Either way Berkeley is there in the mix with Ivies, LACs, etc. I don’t know a single person that would look down at Cal as not worthy enough.
Not sure I understand the comment about knowing who went to Berkeley from her high school. Is it that she doesn’t want to mix with the poor, the nerdy, or the strivers? Seems kind of shallow to me.
I give credit to UC admissions, they do identify the top students, that can be clearly seen in my kids schools SCOIR data. Quite a few kids do go to UCB from her school every year but the very top students for the most part (some exceptions of course) do not consider UCB as a top choice. It's not looking down on UCB, it's the environment (which has been well covered) along with the crazy admissions process for the top UCs. There is also a very clear racial dimension in who chooses UCB among the top students at our school.
I'm not sure why you would insinuate that my child is shallow because she wasn't interested in UCB? Seems pretty shallow to me, especially since you know nothing about her except that she was in the top 5% of her class at a top Bay area private.
I’m saying you and your kid are shallow for discarding Berkeley because of “knowing who went from her school”. Your words, not mine, but please elaborate what you mean by that. Is it the “clear racial dimension in who chooses UCB”? You’re not helping your cause, it’s probably better for everyone she’s not interested in Berkeley.
Your logic is quite faulty, if “quite a few students go to Berkeley every year,” then that’s a good compromise between where they want to go and where they can get in. I doubt you have the insight to tell if they are top students or not, unless you have unrestricted access to their application. More likely you base your evaluation on what your daughter tells you, which I hope you realize it’s not a very reliable way to tell top students apart.
My kid isn't shallow, you are an idiot. The fact that the majority of kids from her school who want to attend UCB are Asian is what it is, a simple fact and nothing else. They are also Engineering/CS grinds to help clarify things for you.
Of course she knows who the top students are, every kid does because they take the same classes together. You might not know the quality of somebodies essays but if you think that your kid cannot tell you who the top students are you are delusional. They also get notified if they are ELC so the top 9% is obvious and there is an award for the top 5% so they all know that as well.
My kids didn't want to attend UCB because she fully understands the 'experience' because she has friends there and she wanted a better learning environment since she sees, hears about, and understands some of the challenges that go with attending UCB. She also didn't want to attend because she very smart but not pointy and most of the kids who really want to attend from her school are CS and engineering oriented kids who she doesn't really connect with in her closest friend group. She also had plenty of other choices so why choose something that doesn't fit your needs?
Finally, since you want to imply racism I will point out that she is half-Asian and looks Asian. So please take your implied racist rhetoric and wander off.
Ok, let’s assume that when your said your kid didn’t want to apply to Berkeley “knowing who went from her school” she was referring to not fitting the mold of grindy, pointy, engineering/CS type Asian kids. Of course the stereotyping is not racist because she looks Asian and it’s just a simple fact and nothing else.
Curious where your top 5% student from a top private in the Bay Area ended up and in what major. I bet it’s not HYPSM because you’d have mentioned it multiple times by now.
Why would I have mentioned it? The conversation wasn't about my kid, it's about UCB. But since you ask I'll give you a bit but not too much since I don't want to dox her.
She's a Math major and she didn't go to HYPSM. She, did turn down MIT again because of fit and she ended up at a top SLAC in the end. And, before you go off the handle and say something foolish like 'no way she got into MIT' she was a recruited athlete.
No sure how that added to the UCB conversation but if it makes you feel better.
You brought your kid into the conversation. Specifically as a top 5% student from a top private that wouldn’t even consider Berkeley.
If you’re going to lie about MIT at least check your facts. From the MIT website:
“Unlike many other schools, MIT does not send “likely letters” or do “signings,” nor do our coaches have discretionary “slots” which they may fill. Prospective athletes to MIT are subject to the same rigorous, academically-focused admissions process as all other applicants.”
Amazingly, your top 5% of a top private student majoring in math didn’t bother to apply to the #3 school in math (Berkeley) and turned down the #1 school (MIT) because of bad fit.
You have zero credibility.
Again you're an idiot but I'll help out. She is targeting Finance and UCB isn't particularly great for IB. They send a decent number but on a per capita basis there are many better schools. Same for MIT though I think in their case it is that the students just aren't that interested in Wall Street. Clubs are also a mess and your recruiting process doesn't have the same level of Alumni help. She also wouldn't have been able to play her sport at UCB and athletics is a huge hook for banking, especially during the recruiting process.
Finally as has been well covered in this thread undergrad at UCB is a shitty experience with large classes and little support which is the exact opposite of what she gets now.
You’re such a clown! Berkeley and MIT rank 5 and 6 in Finance which btw is different from investment banking which is not really a discipline, it’s an industry.
Nobody gives a hoot about clubs. You want to build a network, go to a school in a financial or tech node, like New York, Bay Area and Boston and use every summer for an internship to get your foot in the door.
Alumni networking is marginally useful but doesn’t compare to people you actually worked with.
DP but it's pretty clear PP knows IB is not a discipline. And I can confirm Berkeley is a bit of a Thunderdome for finance outcomes. Competition starts freshman year with recruitment into the top clubs/frats (yes it does matter) which often make tremendous demands on students time even as freshmen. Look at Delta Sigma Phi as an example of how bad it can get. The sad part is that their alumni actually did/do very well in IB, so for some members it was worth the hazing. If you want to go to a school where simply getting in is sufficient for IB, Berkeley is not the place.
No, it doesn’t. It’s a complete waste of time. A bunch of undergrads make a club and go to companies asking about internships making themselves more important than they are. They take for themselves anything that is good anyways. Just go straight to a professor, university career office, job fairs (many companies have presence at large universities like Berkeley) or spam companies on your own instead. Most investment banking is in NY, Bay Area is known for venture capital.
I disagree, if your assertion is correct why do athletes have huge advantages in IB placement? Especially from the NE schools (Ivies and NESCAC) for spots on both coasts. CMC athletes also do very well.
They don’t, the athletes in IB thing is a shadow of what it once was. This is mostly anecdotal these days and a small percentage of the total hires.
NP: this poster who claims that clubs and sports networks are not important in the finance labor market needs to get a clue. Both are VERY important in the finance labor market. I think that's a shame, but you'd be a fool, if your goal is a finance job (in IB or more broadly) not to take those clubs seriously.
Anonymous wrote:Berkeley definitely has a wow factor but HYP have a bit more wow factor.
“Wow” is not what comes to mind when I hear of a top student attending Berkeley oos.
“How” is the word that comes to mind. “How” could this process have been approached differently to get a better outcome?
lol, are you for real? Poor Berkeley students attending some of best programs in the country when they could have gone straight to UVA.
Mind boggling how complete ignoramuses imagine themselves seers of wisdom!
You are cherry picking rankings to make Berkeley look better than it is.
No question the undergrad experience at UVA is better than Berkeley.
State flagships tend to have an inflated reputation in their home state. Are you living in California? The rest of the country barely thinks about Berkeley at all. You are out of touch with reality.
Just so you know, opinions about Berkeley in California are probably as polarizing, if not more so, than OOS. We are more familiar with many issues related to housing, class availability and toxic competition. It isn’t romanticized. I know 2 kids from my son’s class who got accepted to Berkeley and then got off the waitlist for UCLA and will go there instead. It is a great fit for some but not others.
Polarizing not for Cal's status as public, but because of the reasons you mentioned and the fact that it has been destination for strange people.
Who are those strange people? UC’s still end up having strong undergrad programs. It’s fine if you don’t like the culture or student life and decide something else is better for you.
At our good CA public high school about 30% of all students apply to Berkeley, and 3% get admitted (10-15), the numbers are similar for UCLA. That’s in line with the admission rate of about 10% for both Cal and UCLA. They are top students, the admission is very competitive.
HYPSM admission rate is about 5%, so they are more competitive, although some programs at Berkeley like MET (dual engineering and business degree) have admission rates below 3%. For comparison UVA admission rate is 17%.
The truth is plenty of students want to go to Berkeley in and out of state.
This looks about right for good CA public schools. It also holds for most good privates as well with acceptances in line with the overall average for UCLA and UCB.
In my experience there is a difference between public and private in terms of who attends UCB. At most of the top bay area privates the very top students do not covet (or attend UCB or UCLA). They mostly target top privates as their first choice. My top 5% kid did this as well with no interest in attending UCB based on her experience living in the bay area and knowing who went from her school. The school CCs actually ask the very top kids not to apply to UCLA and UCB unless they are actually interested in attending because the acceptance rates never vary by more than a kid or two. The UCs seem to be much more attractive to top public school kids.
That makes a lot of sense. If you pay $50k a year in tuition at a private high school you’re not going to blink at $60k tuition at Stanford, if you’re competitive enough to be admitted. But all these schools are more or less lottery tickets, and it’s conceivable that most applicants, top 5% included, will not get in HYPSM. The admission strategy may or may not include Berkeley, but a decent number go there. For College Preparatory, an “elite” private high school in the Bay Area, Berkeley is the third most attended university after Chicago and Swarthmore. The attended universities list skews private, but again we’re talking people that are not concerned with cost. Either way Berkeley is there in the mix with Ivies, LACs, etc. I don’t know a single person that would look down at Cal as not worthy enough.
Not sure I understand the comment about knowing who went to Berkeley from her high school. Is it that she doesn’t want to mix with the poor, the nerdy, or the strivers? Seems kind of shallow to me.
I give credit to UC admissions, they do identify the top students, that can be clearly seen in my kids schools SCOIR data. Quite a few kids do go to UCB from her school every year but the very top students for the most part (some exceptions of course) do not consider UCB as a top choice. It's not looking down on UCB, it's the environment (which has been well covered) along with the crazy admissions process for the top UCs. There is also a very clear racial dimension in who chooses UCB among the top students at our school.
I'm not sure why you would insinuate that my child is shallow because she wasn't interested in UCB? Seems pretty shallow to me, especially since you know nothing about her except that she was in the top 5% of her class at a top Bay area private.
I’m saying you and your kid are shallow for discarding Berkeley because of “knowing who went from her school”. Your words, not mine, but please elaborate what you mean by that. Is it the “clear racial dimension in who chooses UCB”? You’re not helping your cause, it’s probably better for everyone she’s not interested in Berkeley.
Your logic is quite faulty, if “quite a few students go to Berkeley every year,” then that’s a good compromise between where they want to go and where they can get in. I doubt you have the insight to tell if they are top students or not, unless you have unrestricted access to their application. More likely you base your evaluation on what your daughter tells you, which I hope you realize it’s not a very reliable way to tell top students apart.
My kid isn't shallow, you are an idiot. The fact that the majority of kids from her school who want to attend UCB are Asian is what it is, a simple fact and nothing else. They are also Engineering/CS grinds to help clarify things for you.
Of course she knows who the top students are, every kid does because they take the same classes together. You might not know the quality of somebodies essays but if you think that your kid cannot tell you who the top students are you are delusional. They also get notified if they are ELC so the top 9% is obvious and there is an award for the top 5% so they all know that as well.
My kids didn't want to attend UCB because she fully understands the 'experience' because she has friends there and she wanted a better learning environment since she sees, hears about, and understands some of the challenges that go with attending UCB. She also didn't want to attend because she very smart but not pointy and most of the kids who really want to attend from her school are CS and engineering oriented kids who she doesn't really connect with in her closest friend group. She also had plenty of other choices so why choose something that doesn't fit your needs?
Finally, since you want to imply racism I will point out that she is half-Asian and looks Asian. So please take your implied racist rhetoric and wander off.
Ok, let’s assume that when your said your kid didn’t want to apply to Berkeley “knowing who went from her school” she was referring to not fitting the mold of grindy, pointy, engineering/CS type Asian kids. Of course the stereotyping is not racist because she looks Asian and it’s just a simple fact and nothing else.
Curious where your top 5% student from a top private in the Bay Area ended up and in what major. I bet it’s not HYPSM because you’d have mentioned it multiple times by now.
Why would I have mentioned it? The conversation wasn't about my kid, it's about UCB. But since you ask I'll give you a bit but not too much since I don't want to dox her.
She's a Math major and she didn't go to HYPSM. She, did turn down MIT again because of fit and she ended up at a top SLAC in the end. And, before you go off the handle and say something foolish like 'no way she got into MIT' she was a recruited athlete.
No sure how that added to the UCB conversation but if it makes you feel better.
You brought your kid into the conversation. Specifically as a top 5% student from a top private that wouldn’t even consider Berkeley.
If you’re going to lie about MIT at least check your facts. From the MIT website:
“Unlike many other schools, MIT does not send “likely letters” or do “signings,” nor do our coaches have discretionary “slots” which they may fill. Prospective athletes to MIT are subject to the same rigorous, academically-focused admissions process as all other applicants.”
Amazingly, your top 5% of a top private student majoring in math didn’t bother to apply to the #3 school in math (Berkeley) and turned down the #1 school (MIT) because of bad fit.
You have zero credibility.
Again you're an idiot but I'll help out. She is targeting Finance and UCB isn't particularly great for IB. They send a decent number but on a per capita basis there are many better schools. Same for MIT though I think in their case it is that the students just aren't that interested in Wall Street. Clubs are also a mess and your recruiting process doesn't have the same level of Alumni help. She also wouldn't have been able to play her sport at UCB and athletics is a huge hook for banking, especially during the recruiting process.
Finally as has been well covered in this thread undergrad at UCB is a shitty experience with large classes and little support which is the exact opposite of what she gets now.
You’re such a clown! Berkeley and MIT rank 5 and 6 in Finance which btw is different from investment banking which is not really a discipline, it’s an industry.
Nobody gives a hoot about clubs. You want to build a network, go to a school in a financial or tech node, like New York, Bay Area and Boston and use every summer for an internship to get your foot in the door.
Alumni networking is marginally useful but doesn’t compare to people you actually worked with.
DP but it's pretty clear PP knows IB is not a discipline. And I can confirm Berkeley is a bit of a Thunderdome for finance outcomes. Competition starts freshman year with recruitment into the top clubs/frats (yes it does matter) which often make tremendous demands on students time even as freshmen. Look at Delta Sigma Phi as an example of how bad it can get. The sad part is that their alumni actually did/do very well in IB, so for some members it was worth the hazing. If you want to go to a school where simply getting in is sufficient for IB, Berkeley is not the place.
No, it doesn’t. It’s a complete waste of time. A bunch of undergrads make a club and go to companies asking about internships making themselves more important than they are. They take for themselves anything that is good anyways. Just go straight to a professor, university career office, job fairs (many companies have presence at large universities like Berkeley) or spam companies on your own instead. Most investment banking is in NY, Bay Area is known for venture capital.
I disagree, if your assertion is correct why do athletes have huge advantages in IB placement? Especially from the NE schools (Ivies and NESCAC) for spots on both coasts. CMC athletes also do very well.
They don’t, the athletes in IB thing is a shadow of what it once was. This is mostly anecdotal these days and a small percentage of the total hires.
NP: this poster who claims that clubs and sports networks are not important in the finance labor market needs to get a clue. Both are VERY important in the finance labor market. I think that's a shame, but you'd be a fool, if your goal is a finance job (in IB or more broadly) not to take those clubs seriously.
I didn’t say anything about clubs. But for sports, yes, the importance has declined substantially.
If you actually knew anything about this (which I doubt given your comment on “the finance labor market” as if it’s all one thing), you would know that the athlete to Wall Street pipeline was largely a function of pit trading, where aggressive and physical traders could thrive. As more trading went electronic and algorithmic, the athlete advantage shrunk substantially. Some found their way into sales or the investment banking side, but sales is a dying industry and the bankers got nerdier as deals and products got more complex. These days athletes are most overrepresented in wealth management and private banking, where social skills and a good golf game are critical attributes. And the parents don’t know the difference.
Here is the WSJ from eight years ago, titled “Wall Street’s Endangered Species: The College Jock”:
“The industry started to shift away from athletes in the 1990s as derivatives grew in number and complexity. That necessitated a hiring spree for Ph.D.s who could understand and price them. More recently, the advent of electronic trading and quantitative investing called for many more recruits with math or computer-programming skills.”
Anonymous wrote:Berkeley definitely has a wow factor but HYP have a bit more wow factor.
“Wow” is not what comes to mind when I hear of a top student attending Berkeley oos.
“How” is the word that comes to mind. “How” could this process have been approached differently to get a better outcome?
lol, are you for real? Poor Berkeley students attending some of best programs in the country when they could have gone straight to UVA.
Mind boggling how complete ignoramuses imagine themselves seers of wisdom!
You are cherry picking rankings to make Berkeley look better than it is.
No question the undergrad experience at UVA is better than Berkeley.
State flagships tend to have an inflated reputation in their home state. Are you living in California? The rest of the country barely thinks about Berkeley at all. You are out of touch with reality.
Just so you know, opinions about Berkeley in California are probably as polarizing, if not more so, than OOS. We are more familiar with many issues related to housing, class availability and toxic competition. It isn’t romanticized. I know 2 kids from my son’s class who got accepted to Berkeley and then got off the waitlist for UCLA and will go there instead. It is a great fit for some but not others.
Polarizing not for Cal's status as public, but because of the reasons you mentioned and the fact that it has been destination for strange people.
Who are those strange people? UC’s still end up having strong undergrad programs. It’s fine if you don’t like the culture or student life and decide something else is better for you.
At our good CA public high school about 30% of all students apply to Berkeley, and 3% get admitted (10-15), the numbers are similar for UCLA. That’s in line with the admission rate of about 10% for both Cal and UCLA. They are top students, the admission is very competitive.
HYPSM admission rate is about 5%, so they are more competitive, although some programs at Berkeley like MET (dual engineering and business degree) have admission rates below 3%. For comparison UVA admission rate is 17%.
The truth is plenty of students want to go to Berkeley in and out of state.
This looks about right for good CA public schools. It also holds for most good privates as well with acceptances in line with the overall average for UCLA and UCB.
In my experience there is a difference between public and private in terms of who attends UCB. At most of the top bay area privates the very top students do not covet (or attend UCB or UCLA). They mostly target top privates as their first choice. My top 5% kid did this as well with no interest in attending UCB based on her experience living in the bay area and knowing who went from her school. The school CCs actually ask the very top kids not to apply to UCLA and UCB unless they are actually interested in attending because the acceptance rates never vary by more than a kid or two. The UCs seem to be much more attractive to top public school kids.
That makes a lot of sense. If you pay $50k a year in tuition at a private high school you’re not going to blink at $60k tuition at Stanford, if you’re competitive enough to be admitted. But all these schools are more or less lottery tickets, and it’s conceivable that most applicants, top 5% included, will not get in HYPSM. The admission strategy may or may not include Berkeley, but a decent number go there. For College Preparatory, an “elite” private high school in the Bay Area, Berkeley is the third most attended university after Chicago and Swarthmore. The attended universities list skews private, but again we’re talking people that are not concerned with cost. Either way Berkeley is there in the mix with Ivies, LACs, etc. I don’t know a single person that would look down at Cal as not worthy enough.
Not sure I understand the comment about knowing who went to Berkeley from her high school. Is it that she doesn’t want to mix with the poor, the nerdy, or the strivers? Seems kind of shallow to me.
I give credit to UC admissions, they do identify the top students, that can be clearly seen in my kids schools SCOIR data. Quite a few kids do go to UCB from her school every year but the very top students for the most part (some exceptions of course) do not consider UCB as a top choice. It's not looking down on UCB, it's the environment (which has been well covered) along with the crazy admissions process for the top UCs. There is also a very clear racial dimension in who chooses UCB among the top students at our school.
I'm not sure why you would insinuate that my child is shallow because she wasn't interested in UCB? Seems pretty shallow to me, especially since you know nothing about her except that she was in the top 5% of her class at a top Bay area private.
I’m saying you and your kid are shallow for discarding Berkeley because of “knowing who went from her school”. Your words, not mine, but please elaborate what you mean by that. Is it the “clear racial dimension in who chooses UCB”? You’re not helping your cause, it’s probably better for everyone she’s not interested in Berkeley.
Your logic is quite faulty, if “quite a few students go to Berkeley every year,” then that’s a good compromise between where they want to go and where they can get in. I doubt you have the insight to tell if they are top students or not, unless you have unrestricted access to their application. More likely you base your evaluation on what your daughter tells you, which I hope you realize it’s not a very reliable way to tell top students apart.
My kid isn't shallow, you are an idiot. The fact that the majority of kids from her school who want to attend UCB are Asian is what it is, a simple fact and nothing else. They are also Engineering/CS grinds to help clarify things for you.
Of course she knows who the top students are, every kid does because they take the same classes together. You might not know the quality of somebodies essays but if you think that your kid cannot tell you who the top students are you are delusional. They also get notified if they are ELC so the top 9% is obvious and there is an award for the top 5% so they all know that as well.
My kids didn't want to attend UCB because she fully understands the 'experience' because she has friends there and she wanted a better learning environment since she sees, hears about, and understands some of the challenges that go with attending UCB. She also didn't want to attend because she very smart but not pointy and most of the kids who really want to attend from her school are CS and engineering oriented kids who she doesn't really connect with in her closest friend group. She also had plenty of other choices so why choose something that doesn't fit your needs?
Finally, since you want to imply racism I will point out that she is half-Asian and looks Asian. So please take your implied racist rhetoric and wander off.
Ok, let’s assume that when your said your kid didn’t want to apply to Berkeley “knowing who went from her school” she was referring to not fitting the mold of grindy, pointy, engineering/CS type Asian kids. Of course the stereotyping is not racist because she looks Asian and it’s just a simple fact and nothing else.
Curious where your top 5% student from a top private in the Bay Area ended up and in what major. I bet it’s not HYPSM because you’d have mentioned it multiple times by now.
Why would I have mentioned it? The conversation wasn't about my kid, it's about UCB. But since you ask I'll give you a bit but not too much since I don't want to dox her.
She's a Math major and she didn't go to HYPSM. She, did turn down MIT again because of fit and she ended up at a top SLAC in the end. And, before you go off the handle and say something foolish like 'no way she got into MIT' she was a recruited athlete.
No sure how that added to the UCB conversation but if it makes you feel better.
You brought your kid into the conversation. Specifically as a top 5% student from a top private that wouldn’t even consider Berkeley.
If you’re going to lie about MIT at least check your facts. From the MIT website:
“Unlike many other schools, MIT does not send “likely letters” or do “signings,” nor do our coaches have discretionary “slots” which they may fill. Prospective athletes to MIT are subject to the same rigorous, academically-focused admissions process as all other applicants.”
Amazingly, your top 5% of a top private student majoring in math didn’t bother to apply to the #3 school in math (Berkeley) and turned down the #1 school (MIT) because of bad fit.
You have zero credibility.
Again you're an idiot but I'll help out. She is targeting Finance and UCB isn't particularly great for IB. They send a decent number but on a per capita basis there are many better schools. Same for MIT though I think in their case it is that the students just aren't that interested in Wall Street. Clubs are also a mess and your recruiting process doesn't have the same level of Alumni help. She also wouldn't have been able to play her sport at UCB and athletics is a huge hook for banking, especially during the recruiting process.
Finally as has been well covered in this thread undergrad at UCB is a shitty experience with large classes and little support which is the exact opposite of what she gets now.
You’re such a clown! Berkeley and MIT rank 5 and 6 in Finance which btw is different from investment banking which is not really a discipline, it’s an industry.
Nobody gives a hoot about clubs. You want to build a network, go to a school in a financial or tech node, like New York, Bay Area and Boston and use every summer for an internship to get your foot in the door.
Alumni networking is marginally useful but doesn’t compare to people you actually worked with.
DP but it's pretty clear PP knows IB is not a discipline. And I can confirm Berkeley is a bit of a Thunderdome for finance outcomes. Competition starts freshman year with recruitment into the top clubs/frats (yes it does matter) which often make tremendous demands on students time even as freshmen. Look at Delta Sigma Phi as an example of how bad it can get. The sad part is that their alumni actually did/do very well in IB, so for some members it was worth the hazing. If you want to go to a school where simply getting in is sufficient for IB, Berkeley is not the place.
No, it doesn’t. It’s a complete waste of time. A bunch of undergrads make a club and go to companies asking about internships making themselves more important than they are. They take for themselves anything that is good anyways. Just go straight to a professor, university career office, job fairs (many companies have presence at large universities like Berkeley) or spam companies on your own instead. Most investment banking is in NY, Bay Area is known for venture capital.
I disagree, if your assertion is correct why do athletes have huge advantages in IB placement? Especially from the NE schools (Ivies and NESCAC) for spots on both coasts. CMC athletes also do very well.
They don’t, the athletes in IB thing is a shadow of what it once was. This is mostly anecdotal these days and a small percentage of the total hires.
NP: this poster who claims that clubs and sports networks are not important in the finance labor market needs to get a clue. Both are VERY important in the finance labor market. I think that's a shame, but you'd be a fool, if your goal is a finance job (in IB or more broadly) not to take those clubs seriously.
I didn’t say anything about clubs. But for sports, yes, the importance has declined substantially.
If you actually knew anything about this (which I doubt given your comment on “the finance labor market” as if it’s all one thing), you would know that the athlete to Wall Street pipeline was largely a function of pit trading, where aggressive and physical traders could thrive. As more trading went electronic and algorithmic, the athlete advantage shrunk substantially. Some found their way into sales or the investment banking side, but sales is a dying industry and the bankers got nerdier as deals and products got more complex. These days athletes are most overrepresented in wealth management and private banking, where social skills and a good golf game are critical attributes. And the parents don’t know the difference.
Here is the WSJ from eight years ago, titled “Wall Street’s Endangered Species: The College Jock”:
“The industry started to shift away from athletes in the 1990s as derivatives grew in number and complexity. That necessitated a hiring spree for Ph.D.s who could understand and price them. More recently, the advent of electronic trading and quantitative investing called for many more recruits with math or computer-programming skills.”
So maybe you need to get a clue.
No, I don't work in finance (thank god). I work with students applying for finance jobs. Yes, some certainly have preferences -- PE above all else -- but like applying to college, they have backups so most of the students apply to all of the firms, esp. for junior summer gigs. Kids do flame out in PE and IB interviews take the less prestigious finance offers.
Some students report strong athlete networks, but I'll admit I have less info on that. ALL students report very heavy influence of club networks, which is why students spend so much time, effort, and emotional capital on getting into -- and getting leadership positions in -- their clubs.
Sounds like you are on the buy side in this market, and I'm on the sell side. Keep in mind that athletes at elite schools today are likely to be CS/ math majors rather than geology majors.
Anonymous wrote:Berkeley definitely has a wow factor but HYP have a bit more wow factor.
“Wow” is not what comes to mind when I hear of a top student attending Berkeley oos.
“How” is the word that comes to mind. “How” could this process have been approached differently to get a better outcome?
lol, are you for real? Poor Berkeley students attending some of best programs in the country when they could have gone straight to UVA.
Mind boggling how complete ignoramuses imagine themselves seers of wisdom!
You are cherry picking rankings to make Berkeley look better than it is.
No question the undergrad experience at UVA is better than Berkeley.
State flagships tend to have an inflated reputation in their home state. Are you living in California? The rest of the country barely thinks about Berkeley at all. You are out of touch with reality.
Just so you know, opinions about Berkeley in California are probably as polarizing, if not more so, than OOS. We are more familiar with many issues related to housing, class availability and toxic competition. It isn’t romanticized. I know 2 kids from my son’s class who got accepted to Berkeley and then got off the waitlist for UCLA and will go there instead. It is a great fit for some but not others.
Polarizing not for Cal's status as public, but because of the reasons you mentioned and the fact that it has been destination for strange people.
Who are those strange people? UC’s still end up having strong undergrad programs. It’s fine if you don’t like the culture or student life and decide something else is better for you.
At our good CA public high school about 30% of all students apply to Berkeley, and 3% get admitted (10-15), the numbers are similar for UCLA. That’s in line with the admission rate of about 10% for both Cal and UCLA. They are top students, the admission is very competitive.
HYPSM admission rate is about 5%, so they are more competitive, although some programs at Berkeley like MET (dual engineering and business degree) have admission rates below 3%. For comparison UVA admission rate is 17%.
The truth is plenty of students want to go to Berkeley in and out of state.
This looks about right for good CA public schools. It also holds for most good privates as well with acceptances in line with the overall average for UCLA and UCB.
In my experience there is a difference between public and private in terms of who attends UCB. At most of the top bay area privates the very top students do not covet (or attend UCB or UCLA). They mostly target top privates as their first choice. My top 5% kid did this as well with no interest in attending UCB based on her experience living in the bay area and knowing who went from her school. The school CCs actually ask the very top kids not to apply to UCLA and UCB unless they are actually interested in attending because the acceptance rates never vary by more than a kid or two. The UCs seem to be much more attractive to top public school kids.
That makes a lot of sense. If you pay $50k a year in tuition at a private high school you’re not going to blink at $60k tuition at Stanford, if you’re competitive enough to be admitted. But all these schools are more or less lottery tickets, and it’s conceivable that most applicants, top 5% included, will not get in HYPSM. The admission strategy may or may not include Berkeley, but a decent number go there. For College Preparatory, an “elite” private high school in the Bay Area, Berkeley is the third most attended university after Chicago and Swarthmore. The attended universities list skews private, but again we’re talking people that are not concerned with cost. Either way Berkeley is there in the mix with Ivies, LACs, etc. I don’t know a single person that would look down at Cal as not worthy enough.
Not sure I understand the comment about knowing who went to Berkeley from her high school. Is it that she doesn’t want to mix with the poor, the nerdy, or the strivers? Seems kind of shallow to me.
I give credit to UC admissions, they do identify the top students, that can be clearly seen in my kids schools SCOIR data. Quite a few kids do go to UCB from her school every year but the very top students for the most part (some exceptions of course) do not consider UCB as a top choice. It's not looking down on UCB, it's the environment (which has been well covered) along with the crazy admissions process for the top UCs. There is also a very clear racial dimension in who chooses UCB among the top students at our school.
I'm not sure why you would insinuate that my child is shallow because she wasn't interested in UCB? Seems pretty shallow to me, especially since you know nothing about her except that she was in the top 5% of her class at a top Bay area private.
I’m saying you and your kid are shallow for discarding Berkeley because of “knowing who went from her school”. Your words, not mine, but please elaborate what you mean by that. Is it the “clear racial dimension in who chooses UCB”? You’re not helping your cause, it’s probably better for everyone she’s not interested in Berkeley.
Your logic is quite faulty, if “quite a few students go to Berkeley every year,” then that’s a good compromise between where they want to go and where they can get in. I doubt you have the insight to tell if they are top students or not, unless you have unrestricted access to their application. More likely you base your evaluation on what your daughter tells you, which I hope you realize it’s not a very reliable way to tell top students apart.
My kid isn't shallow, you are an idiot. The fact that the majority of kids from her school who want to attend UCB are Asian is what it is, a simple fact and nothing else. They are also Engineering/CS grinds to help clarify things for you.
Of course she knows who the top students are, every kid does because they take the same classes together. You might not know the quality of somebodies essays but if you think that your kid cannot tell you who the top students are you are delusional. They also get notified if they are ELC so the top 9% is obvious and there is an award for the top 5% so they all know that as well.
My kids didn't want to attend UCB because she fully understands the 'experience' because she has friends there and she wanted a better learning environment since she sees, hears about, and understands some of the challenges that go with attending UCB. She also didn't want to attend because she very smart but not pointy and most of the kids who really want to attend from her school are CS and engineering oriented kids who she doesn't really connect with in her closest friend group. She also had plenty of other choices so why choose something that doesn't fit your needs?
Finally, since you want to imply racism I will point out that she is half-Asian and looks Asian. So please take your implied racist rhetoric and wander off.
Ok, let’s assume that when your said your kid didn’t want to apply to Berkeley “knowing who went from her school” she was referring to not fitting the mold of grindy, pointy, engineering/CS type Asian kids. Of course the stereotyping is not racist because she looks Asian and it’s just a simple fact and nothing else.
Curious where your top 5% student from a top private in the Bay Area ended up and in what major. I bet it’s not HYPSM because you’d have mentioned it multiple times by now.
Why would I have mentioned it? The conversation wasn't about my kid, it's about UCB. But since you ask I'll give you a bit but not too much since I don't want to dox her.
She's a Math major and she didn't go to HYPSM. She, did turn down MIT again because of fit and she ended up at a top SLAC in the end. And, before you go off the handle and say something foolish like 'no way she got into MIT' she was a recruited athlete.
No sure how that added to the UCB conversation but if it makes you feel better.
You brought your kid into the conversation. Specifically as a top 5% student from a top private that wouldn’t even consider Berkeley.
If you’re going to lie about MIT at least check your facts. From the MIT website:
“Unlike many other schools, MIT does not send “likely letters” or do “signings,” nor do our coaches have discretionary “slots” which they may fill. Prospective athletes to MIT are subject to the same rigorous, academically-focused admissions process as all other applicants.”
Amazingly, your top 5% of a top private student majoring in math didn’t bother to apply to the #3 school in math (Berkeley) and turned down the #1 school (MIT) because of bad fit.
You have zero credibility.
Again you're an idiot but I'll help out. She is targeting Finance and UCB isn't particularly great for IB. They send a decent number but on a per capita basis there are many better schools. Same for MIT though I think in their case it is that the students just aren't that interested in Wall Street. Clubs are also a mess and your recruiting process doesn't have the same level of Alumni help. She also wouldn't have been able to play her sport at UCB and athletics is a huge hook for banking, especially during the recruiting process.
Finally as has been well covered in this thread undergrad at UCB is a shitty experience with large classes and little support which is the exact opposite of what she gets now.
You’re such a clown! Berkeley and MIT rank 5 and 6 in Finance which btw is different from investment banking which is not really a discipline, it’s an industry.
Nobody gives a hoot about clubs. You want to build a network, go to a school in a financial or tech node, like New York, Bay Area and Boston and use every summer for an internship to get your foot in the door.
Alumni networking is marginally useful but doesn’t compare to people you actually worked with.
DP but it's pretty clear PP knows IB is not a discipline. And I can confirm Berkeley is a bit of a Thunderdome for finance outcomes. Competition starts freshman year with recruitment into the top clubs/frats (yes it does matter) which often make tremendous demands on students time even as freshmen. Look at Delta Sigma Phi as an example of how bad it can get. The sad part is that their alumni actually did/do very well in IB, so for some members it was worth the hazing. If you want to go to a school where simply getting in is sufficient for IB, Berkeley is not the place.
No, it doesn’t. It’s a complete waste of time. A bunch of undergrads make a club and go to companies asking about internships making themselves more important than they are. They take for themselves anything that is good anyways. Just go straight to a professor, university career office, job fairs (many companies have presence at large universities like Berkeley) or spam companies on your own instead. Most investment banking is in NY, Bay Area is known for venture capital.
I disagree, if your assertion is correct why do athletes have huge advantages in IB placement? Especially from the NE schools (Ivies and NESCAC) for spots on both coasts. CMC athletes also do very well.
They don’t, the athletes in IB thing is a shadow of what it once was. This is mostly anecdotal these days and a small percentage of the total hires.
NP: this poster who claims that clubs and sports networks are not important in the finance labor market needs to get a clue. Both are VERY important in the finance labor market. I think that's a shame, but you'd be a fool, if your goal is a finance job (in IB or more broadly) not to take those clubs seriously.
I didn’t say anything about clubs. But for sports, yes, the importance has declined substantially.
If you actually knew anything about this (which I doubt given your comment on “the finance labor market” as if it’s all one thing), you would know that the athlete to Wall Street pipeline was largely a function of pit trading, where aggressive and physical traders could thrive. As more trading went electronic and algorithmic, the athlete advantage shrunk substantially. Some found their way into sales or the investment banking side, but sales is a dying industry and the bankers got nerdier as deals and products got more complex. These days athletes are most overrepresented in wealth management and private banking, where social skills and a good golf game are critical attributes. And the parents don’t know the difference.
Here is the WSJ from eight years ago, titled “Wall Street’s Endangered Species: The College Jock”:
“The industry started to shift away from athletes in the 1990s as derivatives grew in number and complexity. That necessitated a hiring spree for Ph.D.s who could understand and price them. More recently, the advent of electronic trading and quantitative investing called for many more recruits with math or computer-programming skills.”
So maybe you need to get a clue.
No, I don't work in finance (thank god). I work with students applying for finance jobs. Yes, some certainly have preferences -- PE above all else -- but like applying to college, they have backups so most of the students apply to all of the firms, esp. for junior summer gigs. Kids do flame out in PE and IB interviews take the less prestigious finance offers.
Some students report strong athlete networks, but I'll admit I have less info on that. ALL students report very heavy influence of club networks, which is why students spend so much time, effort, and emotional capital on getting into -- and getting leadership positions in -- their clubs.
Sounds like you are on the buy side in this market, and I'm on the sell side. Keep in mind that athletes at elite schools today are likely to be CS/ math majors rather than geology majors.
I agree clubs have taken on a life of their own. And this is probably the more relevant dynamic at Cal and most D1 schools where being an athlete is hard.
Anonymous wrote:When I was a graduate student then a postdoc years ago, every time I would be really annoyed when the advisor assigned an undergraduate to me. It's a liability. Was at Cal.
Or you could see it as a failed opportunity for developing your mentorship and people management skills. I bet you’re not good at those even now.
I actually had positive experiences with assigned undergrads during my doctorate. You get what you put in.
You must be joking. The advisor is just shifting their own work onto you, because they don't want to do it. As a grad student or postdoc, you have limited time and more important things to do than to deal with undergrads.
I’m not joking. That’s how you develop soft people skills, project management etc. In your career you’ll have to deal with people less knowledgeable than you are that need to be motivated and trained. You definitely missed that opportunity. Berkeley students are some of the most hard working and smart there are.
Wow you are dumb. Managing undergrads is not a skill to develop and this is not the point of grad school or a postdoc.
If you want to babysit with your free time you can find some toddlers.
Anonymous wrote:When I was a graduate student then a postdoc years ago, every time I would be really annoyed when the advisor assigned an undergraduate to me. It's a liability. Was at Cal.
Or you could see it as a failed opportunity for developing your mentorship and people management skills. I bet you’re not good at those even now.
I actually had positive experiences with assigned undergrads during my doctorate. You get what you put in.
You must be joking. The advisor is just shifting their own work onto you, because they don't want to do it. As a grad student or postdoc, you have limited time and more important things to do than to deal with undergrads.
I’m not joking. That’s how you develop soft people skills, project management etc. In your career you’ll have to deal with people less knowledgeable than you are that need to be motivated and trained. You definitely missed that opportunity. Berkeley students are some of the most hard working and smart there are.
Wow you are dumb. Managing undergrads is not a skill to develop and this is not the point of grad school or a postdoc.
If you want to babysit with your free time you can find some toddlers.
No wonder there are so many high school "researchers" these days.
Anonymous wrote:When I was a graduate student then a postdoc years ago, every time I would be really annoyed when the advisor assigned an undergraduate to me. It's a liability. Was at Cal.
Or you could see it as a failed opportunity for developing your mentorship and people management skills. I bet you’re not good at those even now.
I actually had positive experiences with assigned undergrads during my doctorate. You get what you put in.
You must be joking. The advisor is just shifting their own work onto you, because they don't want to do it. As a grad student or postdoc, you have limited time and more important things to do than to deal with undergrads.
I’m not joking. That’s how you develop soft people skills, project management etc. In your career you’ll have to deal with people less knowledgeable than you are that need to be motivated and trained. You definitely missed that opportunity. Berkeley students are some of the most hard working and smart there are.
Wow you are dumb. Managing undergrads is not a skill to develop and this is not the point of grad school or a postdoc.
If you want to babysit with your free time you can find some toddlers.
You have such an overinflated sense of yourself and a demeanor that sucks. A grad student just starting is not that much better than an undergraduate. Being a mentor at all stages of one’s career is not only rewarding but also helps you grow professionally.
Wondering what kid of relation you had with your adviser, maybe you’re just modeling behavior you were exposed to. I guarantee you’re more useless to a professor when you start than those annoying undergrads were to you. Also your adviser may be looking to screen future candidates for his lab, he asks you to mentor a few students, then that’s your duty as a member of his research team to do it, not sure why you think that’s even controversial.
Anonymous wrote:When I was a graduate student then a postdoc years ago, every time I would be really annoyed when the advisor assigned an undergraduate to me. It's a liability. Was at Cal.
Or you could see it as a failed opportunity for developing your mentorship and people management skills. I bet you’re not good at those even now.
I actually had positive experiences with assigned undergrads during my doctorate. You get what you put in.
You must be joking. The advisor is just shifting their own work onto you, because they don't want to do it. As a grad student or postdoc, you have limited time and more important things to do than to deal with undergrads.
I’m not joking. That’s how you develop soft people skills, project management etc. In your career you’ll have to deal with people less knowledgeable than you are that need to be motivated and trained. You definitely missed that opportunity. Berkeley students are some of the most hard working and smart there are.
What makes you qualified to give a lesson to people? What's you accomplishment in life, research wise or management wise? Is managing undergrad the only way to develop soft skills? How about inter-lab collaboration? How about working with peer graduate students or postdocs, would that stop you from developing soft skills, or "definitely" missed that opportunity? If you are happy working with unders, that's great, you do you. However, different people have different preference.
You’re the one making sweeping generalizations that undergrads are useless, nobody wants to work with them etc. the truth is more nuanced many grad students, post docs and professors will happily mentor an undergrad. You didn’t, don’t generalize to everyone.
They were at Berkeley. Where were you at, Caltech? MIT?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}