<p>Thanks for your higher level math (at least to me!) collegehelp.
It seems no matter how we slice and dice, Harvard, Princeton and Yale are Harvard, Princeton and Yale.</p>
<p>Another 5 second experience:</p>
<p><a href="http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_search_sends_request%5B/url%5D">http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_search_sends_request</a>
Result for classes taught by Smoot at Berkeley
*Search Results
There were 0 matches to your request.
*
<a href="http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/faculty/Smoot.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/faculty/Smoot.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Research Interests </p>
<p>2006 Nobel Prize winner-Experimental Astrophysicist George Smoot is an active researcher in observational astrophysics and cosmology. Smoots group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley is observing our galaxy and the cosmic background radiation that is a remnant from the fiery beginning of our Universe. Projects include ground-based radio-telescope observations, balloon-borne instrumentation, and satellite experiments. The most famous of these is COBE (the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer satellite), which has shown that the cosmic background radiation intensity has a wavelength dependence precisely that of a perfectly absorbing body, indicating that it is the relic radiation from the Big Bang origin of the Universe. </p>
<p>Using NASAs COBE DMR, Smoot and his colleagues have made a map of the early Universe discovering the seeds of present day galaxies and clusters of galaxies. These seeds show up as variations at one part in 100,000 level in density from place to place. They also reveal information on the Big Bang and the origin of the Universe. In addition to continuing work on the four years of COBE data and on-going balloon experiments, Dr. Smoot has joined with colleagues in Europe to propose a new European Space Agency satellite to extend and improve these measurements. Dr. Smoot has also published a popular book on cosmology: Wrinkles in Time.</p>
<p>More on Dr. Smoots research and projects can be found at <a href="http://aether.lbl.gov/%5B/url%5D">http://aether.lbl.gov/</a> or through the Physics Department home page.</p>
<p>Current Projects </p>
<p>CMB data analysis: A major effort is data processing and analysis and the development of new techniques and algorithms. This included the analysis and extension of the extensive data set obtained by the COBE satellite during its four-year mission and analysis of balloon-borne instruments (MAXIMA/Boomerang) data. We are currently in analysis of the second-generation CMB anisotropy mission WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe -launched June 2000).</p>
<pre><code>Max Planck Surveyor is the forthcoming (launch 2008) third-generation CMB anisotropy satellite. We have a major effort in the planning, simulation, and design for the Planck Surveyor satellite-borne mission to measure the cosmic microwave background anisotropy with greater angular resolution and more sensitivity than has been achieved with the COBE DMR and succeeding efforts including WMAP. The European Space Agency and NASA mission Planck Surveyor is nearing completion of fabrication and about to enter the test and verification stage prior to launch August 2008.
Galactic Emission Mapping (GEM): The GEM project is aimed at measuring and modeling Galactic millimeter to meter wavelength emission and Galactic structure. We utilize data from satellites, such as COBE and ground-based observations in our Galactic modeling. As a major component of the program, we have developed a precise, controlled radio telescope and receivers which are used to make and calibrate radio maps of the sky. The GEM instrumentation has operated from a remote site in California, Colombia, and Tenerife (the Canary Islands), and is currently in Brazil and a sister instrument is under construction in Portugal.
Dark Energy Probes: We have a significant effort in (weak) gravitational lensing and a portion of the group works on the supernova cosmology project, particularly SNAP. This is a currently growing effort. This work is connected to BCCP.
</code></pre>
<p>Berkeley Center for Cosmology Physics: I am currently Director of the Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics and we have a substantial effort going in basic cosmology research in theory and observations as well as a large education and public outreach set of activities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By the way. in my previous post about the formula for predicting peer assessment, the "R-square" of .86 means that 86% of peer assessment is accounted for by the factors I listed. The other 14% could be due to faculty quality or some other factor that was left out of the equation or it could be random error, such as ignorance of the schools being assessed. But, 86% is most of it.</p>
<p>Xiggi, </p>
<p>More for you Xiggi,</p>
<p>"L & S Colloquium on Undergraduate Education
Chancellor Birgeneau on Berkeley: World Class
Undergraduate Education at a Public University
by Rob Holliday</p>
<p>At the October 17, 2005 Letters & Science Colloquium, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau expressed strong support for maintaining Berkeley's excellent reputation for excellence not only in research, but also in undergraduate education, and he confirmed his commitment to continue providing world class public education to the citizens of California. Following his talk, he fielded questions from the audience of faculty, staff, and students.</p>
<p>After a year as chancellor at Berkeley, Birgeneau has developed warm relationships with students as both teacher and chancellor. He characterized Cal students as "engaged and engaging," adding that students at Berkeley consistently demonstrate a desire to transfer their acquired skills to their society. He expressed particular admiration for the "huge sense of community involvement" he has found here, more than at any other school where he has taught and called the Berkeley student body "inspiring" in this regard.</p>
<p>Discussing undergraduate education in general, Chancellor Birgeneau identified three elements as critical components of a successful undergraduate experience: teaching, research, and learning. Elaborating on the first, he stressed the paramount importance of excellent teaching, coupled with world-class research activity, in an environment where "research enhances teaching and teaching enhances research." In the past, as a departmental chair and now as chancellor, Bigeneau has always encouraged first-tier researchers to teach undergraduate courses and become actively involved in undergraduate education. At Berkeley, Chancellor Birgeneau commended the freshman seminar program and the L&S Discovery Courses as two vital campus venues that bring Distinguished Teaching Award winners, Nobel Prize laureates, and MacArthur Genius Award recipients into direct contact with undergraduates as instructors in a wide range of fields across the curriculum. Birgeneau acknowledged Berkeley's pre-eminence in the second component, research, and expressed his ongoing commitment to involve undergraduates in scholarship and research whenever possible. For the third element, learning, to flourish, Birgeneau asserted that it is not enough to have outstanding and inspiring teachers, but that it is necessary to have extraordinary and gifted students as well. Students can find inspiration as much from the student sitting in the next seat as they can from the faculty at the front of the class, the Chancellor observed."</p>
<p>This idea that Berkeley gets its reputation just from its graduate schools is a bunch of bunk.</p>
<p>Collegehelp,
I appreciate your efforts to help us all better understand the relationship between Peer Assessment and other quantitative factors. Frequently I have posted that I believe the Peer Assessment scores are way out of whack and bear no resemblance to the quality of the students coming out of ABC university. A common criticism that I have received for making this claim is the retort that PA scores are NOT connected to the objective data and that they are tied to other considerations (although everyone seems to have a different explanation of what these other considerations actually are).</p>
<p>While I’m not sure what to make of your multiple regression analysis,, I do find interesting some of the colleges that your methodology identified as noticeable mismatches between predicted PA and actual PA, eg,</p>
<p>THE MOST UNDERRATED
Notre Dame (predicted at 4.5, actual at 3.9)
Rice (4.4, 4.0)
Wash (4.4, 4.1)
UCLA (4.5, 4.2)
Tufts (3.9, 3.6)</p>
<p>ND, Rice, Wash U, and Tufts are all colleges that I have often claimed get shortchanged by their PA scores. </p>
<p>THE MOST OVERRATED
U Chicago (predicted at 4.1, actual at 4.6)
UC Berkeley (predicted at 4.3, actual at 4.8)
Caltech (4.4, 4.7)
Johns Hopkins (4.3, 4.6)
Stanford (4.6, 4.9)
Carnegie Mellon (3.9, 4.2)
U Michigan (4.2, 4.5)</p>
<p>xiggi:</p>
<p>I always took you for a left-brain type of guy. Perhaps the four years in the SoCal sun has softened your analytical ability such that one, anecdtoal point = statistics? Does CMC not offer sabatticals? </p>
<p>Might I suggest you send your resume to James Carville since its an election season and you could add value to their team. :)</p>
<p>Oh goodie! Can we start the election-year blue-red bashing now! Okay bluebayou: You defend George Bush first. Go ahead. Don't be shy. </p>
<p>Now get back to college discussion, or take it to the Caf</p>
<p>Proud Dad, your post #240 was pretty good. That is why it was ignored. ;)</p>
<p>xiggi my good friend. Perhaps you need to search a little lomger than is required for a "five second" sound bite.. Professor Smoot was teaching FRESHMEN physics when he received the wake-up call from the Nobel Committee...</p>
<p>From the Daily Californian on the day the announcement was made:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Smoot has been a member of the physics department faculty at UC Berkeley since 1994 and is currently teaching the Physics 7B class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ProudDad:</p>
<p>Not sure I get your point. Carville is one of the best in the business, and is likely to be on the winning team this cycle. Xiggi attends a top Poli-Sci program. What's wrong with a little career advice?</p>
<p>
Carville is one of the best in the business, and is likely to be on the winning team this cycle.
BB, agreed but it sure didn't sound like your equating jumping to a statistical conclusion from one anecdotal point with working for Carville was exactly an endorsement! ;)</p>
<p>Did I jump to the wrong conclusion?</p>
<p>DStark, I didnt miss ProudDad's number 240 post. In fact, it is the epitome of what I have been saying over and over on CC on several different threads. This neurotic statistal analysis and prestige seeking in our society is fed by the credentialism that is pervasive in the working world, notably in the professions like lawyers and doctors. Kids are encouraged to apply to 15 schools NOT because they really want to get in and really want to go there, but because they want to stack up the acceptance letters and gloat and brag and so forth. I have seen it time and time again. I know of one family that applied to schools of their daughter's most competitive classmates just to muddy the water and see if they could knock someone off their game. Sick. Very, very sick. She had NO intention of attending those schools and in fact didnt attend them and used her HOOK to attend the ONE Ivy she applied to and got accepted. UGH!</p>
<p>Some schools are overrated. Some schools are underrated. Some schools arent even rated at all and should be. And some that were previously off the radar screen completely are making headlines with phenomenal improvements and attracting top students. Elon comes to mind immediately in that crowd.</p>
<p>In the end, its all about fit. We all want our kids to be happy, flourish, thrive, be challenged, mature, meet the person of their dreams, get into grad school, etc. Some kids go to the school next door. Some kids want a big state school with amazing sports programs and "fun factor". Some kids want to go far away to a different corner of the country. Some kids want urban and edgy, others want country club setting or earthy tree hugging. Some want tradition and some want new edge. Some want Astronomy and Physics and some want Music Theory/Performance or European History. What difference does it make if your school is ranked number 67 or 27 or 7? NONE. ABSOLUTELY NONE.</p>
<p>What matters ALONE is that your kid is happy, challenged, thriving, and maturing.</p>
<p>Who is to blame for this mess? Many parties: admissions officers, employers, grad schools, parents, teachers, counselors, professional consultants, neighbors. Wanting the best for your kid isnt wrong or evil. Its when it gets out of hand and becomes something more: elitism, prestige seekers, arrogance, condescension, credentialism, and all the attributes of snobbery.</p>
<p>If you have a kid who gets into CalTech or Stanford or Berkeley, I congratulate you, wish them the very best, and hope like heck you made the RIGHT decision, because its a real bummer if you got in somewhere and are miserable for whatever reason.</p>
<p>I dont care if your kid goes to Georgia Southern or Georgia Tech, frankly. Florida or Florida International. UNC or NCState. Virginia or Virginia Tech. Georgetown or George Washington. Emory or Elon. South Carolina or Citadel. WashU or Univ. of Wash., Pepperdine or Penn. Rice or Renselauer. CaltTech or CalState Fullerton. North Dakota or Northwestern. Trinity or Tufts. BC or BU. Fordham or Furman. It just doesnt matter to me personally. Am I happy for you and your kid? Yep. But what I want to hear is that your kid is IN a college of THEIR choice, it was a great choice for them, they are thriving and maturing and ready to tackle the world and solve problems.</p>
<p>Hawkette, my take is that your selection from Collegehelp's analysis tends to support the use of PA as a factor in ranking analysis rather than the opposite. If not, you have to accept the premise that Notre Dame and UCLA are both significantly superior to Chicago, Berkeley, Cal Tech, and Johns Hopkins. I don't believe that that is true, certainly with regard to the impact a degree from one of the "objectively inferior" universities is likely to have on a graduate's future prospects, simply as a matter of the weight of the credential.</p>
<p>Xiggi: Finn E. Kydland taught Freshman Econ in 2004 when he won his Nobel, too. Since then, however, he has limited his undergraduate teaching to upper division seminars, which strikes me as not unreasonable.</p>
<p>mammall, post 221, cannot agree more. This has become a self-esteem nation, if a kid flunks math, it's because he has an alternate IQ, if his teacher calls his answer wrong, he is being abusive and the kid suffers from trauma and needs therapy.</p>
<p>Between all the protected groups all notion of merit has been abandoned.</p>
<p>to post 32, CT2010, there were 1596 perfect 2400s in the last cycle, 2005-2006. That's from the researcher at College Board, so not superscored. Some may have attempted twice.</p>
<p>When colleges say they rejected thousands of 800s they mean individual tests, since there were approx 12000 perfect 800s in math and 11300 in Reading and so on. But when it comes to the perfect 2400 there are less than 1600 and quite a few of these are foreign students who cannot reasonably compete due to restrictions on both aid and nos of internationals that can be admitted. Hope this helps.</p>
<p>(PS: I spoke to the guy who does this at Princeton/ETS)</p>
<p>I made a mistake, the 1596 refers to those who scored between 2350 and 2400. Sorry.</p>
<p>friedokra, I agree with your sentiments in your latest post and I usually am nodding in agreement when I read your posts. </p>
<p>I've only been saying similar things in thousands of posts. ;). I really should stop. :) </p>
<p>I am usually nodding in agreement when I read Kluge's posts too.</p>
<p>kluge,
My desire is not to knock down traditional powers like U Chicago or Caltech, but rather to improve the appreciation for colleges that I consider true peers, but which get much lower respect from academics. I also believe that graduate school prominence has long played a role in determining an institution’s reputation among academics and that any survey (like PA) that rewards this has no place in an undergraduate ranking methodology.</p>
<p>As for your specific response to how collegehelp’s analysis creates “predicted PA scores,” you have stated that his work promotes ND and UCLA as “significantly superior” to U Chicago, UC Berkeley, Caltech and Johns Hopkins. Here are the predicted rates that collegehelp created for these colleges:</p>
<p>4.5 Notre Dame
4.5 UCLA</p>
<p>4.1 U Chicago
4.3 UC Berkeley
4.3 Johns Hopkins
4.4 Caltech</p>
<p>While conventional academic thinking is turned somewhat on its head with these rates, the only really consequential difference is U Chicago. For the others, I don’t think that a deficit of 0.1-0.2 is that significantly different. </p>
<p>My personal feeling is to let the historical powers have theirs, but more importantly it is to let the others rise to an IMO much-deserved, comparable level. I am pretty confident that a more current PA (Personal Assessment) done by employers would go a long way to telling students just how much difference there really is in these institutions (my view: it’s a lot smaller than the current PA numbers would have us believe).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also believe that graduate school prominence has long played a role in determining an institution’s reputation among academics and that any survey (like PA) that rewards this has no place in an undergraduate ranking methodology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have to respectfully disagree about this. I chose my undergraduate college on the basis of its strong graduate program in my intended major, and it is well that I did, as I was taking graduate-level courses in my major before I graduated. Having graduate-level resources on campus can do a lot to ensure a better undergraduate learning experience.</p>