<p>Also, I'm not saying that the ugrads do whatever they want to do. A ugrad never gets to do that, not even as a volunteer. I know from experience, you are not capable of heading your own project. No matter what, you are doing what the professor wants, so why not get paid for the time you put in. And it increases legitimacy. I still feel that point is crucial. Also, the ugrads may not be able to add a lot of cognitive thought to a research project, but they sure as hell add a lot of manpower. What I mean by this is that when my friends or I work in a lab, you start out having to learn a lot, but also having to do a lot of cruddy work that DOES benefit the lab. The worst of us have to start off cleaning test tubes, but hopefully you don't stoop that low. Many have to calculate tedious and boring things such as the degree of unsaturation of a molecule for 1000 molecules. It is easy, you don't gain from it, but the lab does. And this is not something you have an option with, only after experience do you get to do something worthwhile. And then, the lab benefits then too because you have the experience to take on something more challenging. You are not just doing research for the sake of learning, you are actually helping out the lab, whether that is through menial work or through cognitive thought. You are benefitting the lab</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky: Mmm... By lenient, I meant that MIT is more forgiving with regards to grades for engineering and sciences. They offer pass/fail first sem and modified pass/fail 2nd semester as others have mentioned. Whereas at Berk you're thrown into the fire from the start.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, I don't know if that really is more lenient, on an aggregate basis. Keep in mind that the MIT pass/no-grade-recorded first-semester exists * whether you like it or not *. True, it helps you a lot if you fail all your classes in that semester, as those failing grades won't even be recorded. But what if you get straight A's? Then they're all converted to "passes" which basically means that that semester didn't even exist from a GPA perspective. Hence, if you screw up in later semesters, the fact that you got straight A's in your first semester doesn't help you. Whereas at Berkeley, you can build up a "war-chest of top grades" if you have an excellent first semester, which will help you avoid academic probation in later semesters as you go through the weeders. </p>
<p>Hence, I don't know that MIT is really any more 'lenient' on an overall basis. All I can say is that MIT is lenient towards the BAD students than Berkeley is. But is MIT really more lenient towards the good students? No, actually I would say that MIT is WORSE. </p>
<p>And I said it before, I'll say it again, at Berkeley, you can just retreat to one of the creampuff majors that the athletes tend to camp out in. MIT doesn't have any creampuff majors - even the easier majors are by no means easy. In fact, they're still quite hard. Hence, on an overall basis, MIT is almost certainly harder than Berkeley is. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. At MIT, EVERY undergrad has to complete the general institute requirements, including the difficult science and math sequence. Even if you're one of the rare people who decides to major in the humanities at MIT, you still have to complete the GIR's. Hence, there's nowhere to run, there's nowhere to hide. On the other hand, at Berkeley, you can just declare one of the easy majors and hence get out ever having to do any of the difficult courses. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As for your point about the arbitrary level of quality, a half-baked engineer doesn't refer to quality of education. If a student flunks out of Berkeley, from what I've seen, it's usually because that person didn't do the assignments, didn't seek help, didn't apply him/herself, or didn't care. I want graduates who are meticulous and thorough, not talented and lazy.</p>
<p>Those who fail out of Berkeley probably wouldn't have passed had they gone to another school. They have far too poor study habits and most will still not bother studying. In fact, I'm willing to bet that many of them will do worse because they will underestimate the competition level. Overall, I'm quite confident that other less prestigious engineering schools are also producing students with a distribution like Berkeley's. That is, they are rewarding the students who apply themselves and who try hard. Losers who play all day wouldn't cut it there. All that differs between the schools is the initial talent of applicants and the research focus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I REALLY don't know about that. Perhaps you shouuld come and check out the distribution of people who graduate from lesser-ranked engineering programs. I think you'd be quite shocked at the level of quality. </p>
<p>Besides, think of the consequences of what you're really saying. Think it through logically. If the quality of the engineering undergrads really is equivalent from school to school like you say it is, then, frankly, there is no reason for students to choose to go to Berkeley over a lesser-ranked school. Furthermore, there would be no reason for engineering employers to prefer to hire Berkeley engineers over those from other schools. That's logical, right? You said it yourself - if those lesser schools really are producing a distribution of graduates that is equal to Berkeley, then why shouldn't employers just recruit at those other schools? Why don't Google and Microsoft just recruit at a bunch of no-name schools? Presumably, the whole point of going to a school like Berkeley and as opposed to some no-name school is that Berkeley is supposed to grant you an advantage as far as employers go, but if there really is no advantage to be had anyway, then why go to Berkeley at all? You can just save money and go to a CalState. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Another point is how much career opportunity the graduate of Idaho State has with an engineering degree. Graduates of top schools carry a brand name, and engineering firms spend more time and money recruiting there. Also, when competing for a job, experience (which should probably indicate that you haven't blown up bridges, even if you went to a lesser school) and brand name (how likely you are not to blow up a bridge based on what we can assemble from your undergraduate grades and degree) make the difference in being hired or not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Aha - prestige and brand name. But now you've just contradicted yourself. You said before that those graduates from those other lesser schools are just as good as Berkeley's engineers are. Well, if that's really true, then why/how does Berkeley have more prestige? After all, if the quality really is the same, then there is no reason for employers to prefer the bigger brand name, right? </p>
<p>Look, at the end of the day, the Berkeley brand name and prestige w.r.t. engineering has to be backed up with SOMETHING, otherwise, the market would have inevitably adjusted and employers would have no reason to prefer that brand namd and prestige. Basically, Berkeley maintains its brand name by graduating engineers who are better than the engineers from lesser schools. But then that must mean that those other schools are easier, such that some students who flunked out of Berkeley could have graduated from those other schools. </p>
<p>
[quote]
All this is saying that a graduate of a lesser school might not even get a chance to blow up a bridge. That's the difference that prestige makes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, in your scenario, why isn't this guy being given that chance to blow up the bridge? After all, if the quality of engineers coming out of that lesser school really is the same as that coming out of Berkeley, why wouldn't he get the chance to blow up that bridge? </p>
<p>You can fool the market a few times, but you can't fool the market indefinitely. If those other graduates at the other schools really were as good as Berkeley's graduates, then surely employers would have figured this out by now, and then would have given the chance for these guys to 'blow up bridges'. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I've worked around the Bay in various positions, and all of my employers have commented that Berkeley engineers are far more knowledgeable, dedicated, and talented than Stanford ones. Take that as you will, but I don't see Stanford's practice of not weeding its undergraduate program as the ideal model. Undergraduate engineering is meant to be tough. I don't think I'd be a better engineer if I went to Stanford. Most likely I'd slack off; Berkeley really trained me to be tough.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can say whatever they want, and they can say whatever they want, but at the end of the day, Stanford engineers are clearly not hurting for jobs. Far from it, in fact. And like I pointed out, Silicon Valley grew up around Stanford, with Stanford graduates as their seedbed of human capital. It didn't grow up around Berkeley. Certainly from a technology commercialization standpoint, Stanford is a far far more successful university than Berkeley is. Numerous high-tech firms were born at or around Stanford , with Stanford graduates as their core technologists (i.e. Google, Cisco, Sun, HP, Yahoo, and so forth. Relatively few such firms came out of Berkeley, especially when compared on a per-capita basis. </p>
<p>The point is, whatever issues you may have regarding the 'softness' of the Stanford engineering curriculum, you can't deny that it works. Stanford engineers do quite well for themselves. </p>
<p>In fact, if I had to speculate, I would argue that the Berkeley engineering difficulty actually HURTS the students, relative to what happens at Stanford, as perhaps the Berkeley engineering difficulty is so extreme that it just forces students to study constantly, thus forcing them to neglect social skills. Let's be honest - the guy who gets the job offer or gets the job promotion is rarely the guy who just has the best technical skills and/or works the hardest. Usually, it goes to the guy who has 'good enough' technical skills and works 'hard enough', but combines that with strong interpersonal skills. Numerous times have I seen brilliant and hard-working engineers with stellar GPA's nonetheless not get the job that they want, because they got beaten out by somebody with far lower grades and worked much less hard, but had better interview/personal skills. In fact, I remember some of them rueing the fact that they worked so hard on their studies, saying that they should have studied less and instead spent time building their social skills. </p>
<p>But that's just speculation. I don't know exactly what's going on. But it's undeniable that Stanford engineers do well for themselves. That must mean that some employers obviously like them. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Most likely I'd slack off; Berkeley really trained me to be tough.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, if you're doing well at Berkeley, then good for you. </p>
<p>My basic question is, again - what about those people who are not doing well at Berkeley? What happens to them? Not everybody at Berkeley is doing well, you know - some of them are doing quite poorly. I am quite certain that these people would have been better off if they had gone to another school - either at Stanford (if they could have gotten in), or at a lesser, easier school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Um, why are you only selecting the one page where it talks about volunteer opportunities. You do realize there are pay opportunities as well. And in fact, there are more pay opportunities than nonpaid ones.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course there are. I'm not denying that they exist. But these are like RA positions - where you have to follow the directives of the prof. What if you want to do a project that only YOU are interested in? Then that's where volunteer UROP comes into play.</p>
<p>And that's what I'm talking about at Berkeley. Again, what if you are doing a project that only YOU are interested in? Can you really expect to still get paid or get credit? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I'm not saying that the ugrads do whatever they want to do. A ugrad never gets to do that, not even as a volunteer. I know from experience, you are not capable of heading your own project. No matter what, you are doing what the professor wants, so why not get paid for the time you put in. And it increases legitimacy. I still feel that point is crucial. Also, the ugrads may not be able to add a lot of cognitive thought to a research project, but they sure as hell add a lot of manpower. What I mean by this is that when my friends or I work in a lab, you start out having to learn a lot, but also having to do a lot of cruddy work that DOES benefit the lab. The worst of us have to start off cleaning test tubes, but hopefully you don't stoop that low. Many have to calculate tedious and boring things such as the degree of unsaturation of a molecule for 1000 molecules. It is easy, you don't gain from it, but the lab does. And this is not something you have an option with, only after experience do you get to do something worthwhile. And then, the lab benefits then too because you have the experience to take on something more challenging. You are not just doing research for the sake of learning, you are actually helping out the lab, whether that is through menial work or through cognitive thought. You are benefitting the lab
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, if you're just talking about grunt-work that needs to be done, sure, pay people to do it (or give them credit). But you said it yourself - you as a student aren't really benefitting from that. That's not truly "research". </p>
<p>True research is doing a project that YOU really want to do, on a topic that is interesting to YOU. And, no, that doesn't mean doing cruddy test-tube cleaning, but doing REAL data analysis on a project that YOU own. </p>
<p>I think you either greatly underestimate the ability of the average undergraduate, or you greatly overestimate the level of sophistication of most research out there. Most research papers out there are not so complicated that a reasonably driven and intelligent undergraduate couldn't figure out how to run such an experiment. Obviously the most complicated experiments that are published in the top journals tend to be very complex and involved. But there are also hundreds and hundreds of no-name journals out there, filled with rather simplistic experments. </p>
<p>Let me give you an example. Take a gander at the following research paper. The author basically analyzed the collaboration network of various rappers (Wu-Tang Clan, Snoop Dogg, Jay-Z, Eminem, Warren G, etc. etc.) and then mapped them out to show which rappers are more 'connected' to other rappers. Put aside the jargon that the paper uses (which I think any reasonably technically savvy undergrad either knows or should be able to figure out), and I think you can see that the research in this paper isn't that complicated. Yet the paper actually got published in the Journal of Statistical Mechanics last year. Just read the paper, and I think you should be able to convince yourself that it's really not THAT hard to do. </p>
<p>Note - don't be intimidated by the fact that the author comes from MIT. Look carefully and notice that he's a MANAGEMENT student at the MIT Sloan School, and yet he still managed to publish his paper about rappers in a physics journal. Nor did it require any expensive equipment. All it needed was access to a data archive (basically the access to the Original Hip-Hop Lyrics Archive, which is a public database on a public website). </p>
<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/rsmith80/www/rapcollab.htm%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/rsmith80/www/rapcollab.htm</a>
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/rsmith80/www/RapNetworkFinal.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/rsmith80/www/RapNetworkFinal.pdf</a></p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I think the research that he did was pretty easy, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have value. It does have value. But that's the point - there's a lot of valuable research that you can do that really isn't that hard. It's just a matter of approaching problems in a novel manner. Nobody ever bothered to analyze the connectivity of rappers before, which is why his paper is valuable and why it got published in a fairly significant journal. </p>
<p>But also note - he's the sole author of that paper. That basically means that this was entirely his own project, done on his own time. If this was a close collaboration with a prof, the prof would be a co-author. Now, granted, he probably got some faculty advice and some guidance on some parts of the project. But the project was still solely his. </p>
<p>The point is, there is a LOT of research out there that a reasonably driven Berkeley graduate can do. If a paper like this (and many others like it) can get published in the J. Stat. Mech., then surely a reasonably hard-working and intelligent Berkeley undergrad can come up with his own research project that can be published in at least a no-name journal. Good research is not THAT hard to do.</p>
<p>So instead of spending your time washing test-tubes or other such grunt work (whether you are getting paid or not), do a project like Reginald Smith did. It's clearly much more interesting to do, and gives you the chance to become sole author in a significant journal. And even if you don't get published in a journal like he did, you can still publish it as a 'working paper' on your website, and then reference it on your resume. Frankly, doing something like that is going to be a LOT more helpful to your career than washing test-tubes, even if you are getting paid.</p>
<p>Nice story. I think its awesome that this guy was able to do something like this. And I absolutely agree, we should allow students to get more connected with research so that they too can do work like this. That's great. However, that path does not work for all fields. You said that a lot of the humanities fields you can simply search and make connections using databases such as lexis nexis, etc. true, so that is wonderful for those fields. However, many of the science fields are not so simple.</p>
<p>True, there are definitely science fields where like theoretical mathematics (what math isnt theoretical lol) where you work primarily with a pencil and paper. For those kids of fields, again i agree with the notion that they shouldnt get paid for doing whta they want. But, what about the fields where you have to do real wetlab work. there is a lot of research that is of that kind too. Most neuro labs, cancer labs, chemistry labs, they all have wetlab work. And in order to make a publication for this kind of work, you do need to have a certain of training and skill. You cannot just head up your own lab, and say hmmm, I think I'm gonna synthesize a new form of antibiotic today. That's jsut not gonna happen. You need supervision, and you start at the bottom. Having that said, for those kinds of jobs, you should be able to get paid because what you are mainly doing IS what the profs want you to do. so then you can ask, why are you doing it? Well, that doesn't mean it doesn't still benefit you. If you are in those fields, such as molecular biology, working under a professor and building yourself up is the only way to go. Along the way, you benefit, but so does your professor.</p>
<p>I'm curious what you think these students who get paid at mit are doing? I know for a fact that my gf and her friends are all getting paid and they are working in a lab. Now you could say that she is just doing what the professor wants her to do, but the fact is, she couldnt do something on her own in teh first place. She needs the help, gudiance and resources that the prof provides. However, given these resources she is able to mutually benefit herself and the lab. That is why the lab pays her, they have a job they want her to do, but it benefits both her and the lab. She isn't taking this job just because of the money, it actually is benefitting her academically as well. Basically, what I'm saying is if they weren't paying her, she would still be in the exact same lab voluntarily. But the fact is, they DO pay her. And MIT does give compensation, so Berkeley should be able to do the same. So yes, you do get the academic adn the monetary benefit, but its not something that other schools are not providing already. And yes, you aren't working on a project that you came up with, but in these fields you couldn't do that anyways. </p>
<p>And when you finally do become good enough that you can head your own project, the prof will let you do that, while still paying you because although you are not provdiing the menial benefit anymore, you are now providing an EVEN BIGGER benefit to the lab, your brain and unique ideas.</p>
<p>It seems, you are making an unequal comparison, you compare washing test-tubes to being able to write your own paper and publish. If you in a field that you are having to wash test tubes, you probably wouldn't be able to publish on your own anyways. You are comparing apples to oranges</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, what about the fields where you have to do real wetlab work. there is a lot of research that is of that kind too. Most neuro labs, cancer labs, chemistry labs, they all have wetlab work. And in order to make a publication for this kind of work, you do need to have a certain of training and skill. You cannot just head up your own lab, and say hmmm, I think I'm gonna synthesize a new form of antibiotic today. That's jsut not gonna happen. You need supervision, and you start at the bottom. Having that said, for those kinds of jobs, you should be able to get paid because what you are mainly doing IS what the profs want you to do. so then you can ask, why are you doing it? Well, that doesn't mean it doesn't still benefit you. If you are in those fields, such as molecular biology, working under a professor and building yourself up is the only way to go.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, there it is again - the notion that, even in these particular fields, you "need" to have to start at the bottom by starting at the bottom and doing grunt work that nobody really wants to do. Once again, I think you are severely underestimating either the ability of the students at Berkeley (and MIT) to perform useful experiments by themselves, or you are overestimating the complexity of modern science (probably both). In reality, there is a large and burgeonong field known as 'amateur science' in which nonprofessionals (basically tinkerers and hobbyists) can do useful and interesting science experiments using relatively cheap home lab gear and producing publishable work. Granted, that work usually can't be published in a top journal, but there are lots of no-name journals out there that are just begging for articles. And even if, for some odd reason, you can't publish in any journal at all (a very unlikely situation as long as your experiment is reasonable), again, you can still self-publish it on your own website as a 'working paper', and then still reference it in your resume. Or publish it on one of the open Internet archives like arXiv. </p>
<p>Just take a gander at the following amateur science sites, where enthusiasts and hobbyists get together to swap/trade equipment, discuss research methodologies, talk about how to build their own sophisticated technologies from cheap parts, etc. I am quite convinced that most reasonably driven science enthusiast can have a field day by using the techniques of amateur science, and create publishable research experiments. There's a LOT of science that can be done by amateurs. </p>
<p><a href="http://amasci.com/%5B/url%5D">http://amasci.com/</a>
<a href="http://www.eskimo.com/%7Ebillb/amasci.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/amasci.html</a>
<a href="http://www.sas.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.sas.org/</a>
<a href="http://www.msu.edu/user/boswort9/attempt1/cep817web/amasci/amsciwww.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.msu.edu/user/boswort9/attempt1/cep817web/amasci/amsciwww.htm</a></p>
<p>And even amateurs can sometimes publish something in a major journal. Once again, I would invoke the example of (amateur scientist) Reginald Smith at MIT. Here's his paper on ionization cascade glow discharge. He didn't even run the experiment. All he did was model and characterize the experiment mathematically, using math that isn't THAT complicated (i.e. should be understandable by any physics or engineering undergrad in their 3rd year or beyond). It got published in the Journal of Physics, which is arguably THE top physics journal in the world. And, again, notice, he was sole author on the paper, meaning that he had no significant help from anybody, including profs. And that "Bouchet-Franklin Research Institute" that he is affiliated with is basically his own amateur private lab (hence, probably his living room or basement). Hence, with no equipment, no faculty guidance, not even a real university to back him, he was able to publish a paper as sole author in a major science journal. Surely that's a heck of a lot better than joining some lab and doing grunt monkey work that nobody wants to do. </p>
<p>Now obviously I don't expect everybody to be as resourceful as Reginald Smith. What I am saying is that, if you want to get involved in research, there are a LOT of things you can do by yourself. I agree that there are fields in which you can't do things by yourself. But there are plenty of other fields in which you can. Science is a vast field in which amateurs with limited equipment and resources can still contribute a lot if they are resourceful. Like I said, as an amateur, you probably won't be able to publish in a major journal (unless you're as good as Reginald Smith). But who cares? Just publish in some no-name journal. Or just publish on an open archive. </p>
<p>Now, what I CAN agree with is that Berkeley can offer lab time to undergrads who want to run their own experiments. That would indeed greatly increase the feasibility of amateur science within the student body. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm curious what you think these students who get paid at mit are doing? I know for a fact that my gf and her friends are all getting paid and they are working in a lab
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They're getting paid $1250 a semester. That's not exactly a huge chunk of change. Frankly, I would happily forgo $1250 a semester in return for the freedom to pursue an amateur science project and do precisely the project that I want to do (hence, not just silly grunt work). </p>
<p>Now, of course, if I could do precisely the project that I wanted to do, and STILL get paid, well, yeah, of course, that would be peachy. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Now you could say that she is just doing what the professor wants her to do, but the fact is, she couldnt do something on her own in teh first place. She needs the help, gudiance and resources that the prof provides.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>She needs the help, guidance, and resources? No, she probably doesn't need it. See above. Again, there are far more opportunities for students to pursue projects by themselves than you seem to think there are. </p>
<p>Now, that's not to say that the lab doesn't provide those things. I'm sure they do. But the notion that she (or anybody who is an MIT-caliber student) "needs" those things is way off the mark. There are a lot of things that she can pursue by herself. Heck, there are a lot of things that MIT students do do by themselves, with little faculty guidance. For example, I know a guy at MIT who built his own solar-powered motorcycle in his own spare time. He didn't need to get paid to do it, or get academic credit to do it. He's a motorcycle enthusiast and an alternative energy enthusiast, so he just put his 2 interests together one day. </p>
<p>Look, nobody is denying that professorial direction and guidance helps a lot, as well as working in a major research lab. Of course all of that is helpful. But my point is, you don't NEED it. If you want to pursue research, there are a lot of things you can do by yourself. Sure, maybe he can't publish his "research" in a journal, as it's not exactly an 'experiment'. But who cares? For the purposes of advancing his career (he's an engineer), doing something like that is certainly a far bigger boost to your hireability than doing menial labor in a major research lab. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems, you are making an unequal comparison, you compare washing test-tubes to being able to write your own paper and publish. If you in a field that you are having to wash test tubes, you probably wouldn't be able to publish on your own anyways. You are comparing apples to oranges
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I really don't think so. See above. Reginald Smith managed to publish 2 papers in major physics journals. He certainly wasn't wasting his time doing anybody else's grunt work. That guy who built his own solar-powered motorcycle, I am quite sure is eminently hireable by any firm that is pursuing alternative energy. For example, he could just ride his bike to the job interview at such a firm and then show his interviewers what he built and how he built it. That's gotta be pretty impressive. </p>
<p>So again, I emphasize, there are a lot of things you can do in science all by yourself. Rarely do you need to actually join an established lab. Joining a lab is just one way for you to pursue science research. There are a lot of things you can do that have to do with pursuing your own interests. Reginald Smith knows a lot about rap (because he's interested in it), so he wrote a paper about rap. That other guy knows a lot about and is interested in solar power and motorcycles, so he built a solar-powered motorcycle. There are a lot of things you can do by yourself by pursuing your own interests.</p>
<p>I agree with you that there are lots of things that you can do yourself in research, and that you should be able to do this stuff, but that is not what I am talking about. I think the problem is that we are talking about two different things. Yes, the guy built a motorcycle, yes the Reginald guy did some great rap correlation, but this is NOT what I'm talking about. I don't understand why we cannot connect on this. So, you are talking about all of the research that you can do yourself, and if you can do that stuff, then that is great and just pursue it. What is the problem in that, why do we have to even bother with the people who can do research by themselves. You could argue that we should provide more opportunities to allow people to FIGURE OUT how to do research by themsevles, that I agree with. Because frankly, you give some examples of people doing stuff by themselves, but I know that many people don't know how to do that kind of stuff, or at least don't realize that they CAN do that stuff. I think many people do not know the proper path to take to be able to do this stuff themselves. </p>
<p>For example, I think that it would be an interesting idea to hold some kind of session, maybe called "Amateur Science - How to initiate your own research", and basically that kind of thing explains to people on a general level how they could begin doing their own research. Like it or not, this not something that just comes naturally. Although you have shown cases where it has happened, it is not the norm for a student to say, "hmm, i know, I'll figure out how to build a motorcycle and do it, I believe in myself". They are MORE LIKELY going to think, "hmmm, I want to build something, but I just don't know what to do, hey, why don't I join one them sweet Berkeley engineering labs and they can show me some tips and tricks and get me started" Which I would argue is not a bad way to go either, but it would be cool if these people didn't have to rely on the lab and they could instead go to a session where it talks about precisely this, how to start your own homemade research project, and then you have the confidence to do it yourself. THIS idea I would agree to. And fo rhtis, of course you shouldn't get paid.</p>
<p>However, what I was talking about in my previous posts WERE the things that you just cannot do by yourself. Whether you believe it or not, there are things you just need a lab for and guidance. For example, I want to do something in cancer biology. I want to be able to work with metastatic cells and figure out the signalling pathways they take, etc. Well, how am I going to make any sort of even minute discovery in the field of cancer biology with real organisms. Well, I'm not saying that you absolutely cannot go and buy your own rats for science, buy your own million dollar equipment, take 100 classes on learning exactly what is going on cancer biology, then spend a year or two learning the common lab practices such as Polymerase Chain Reaction, gel electrophoresis, blah blah, and then be able to do something. But it is just so much EASIER to join a lab. The best way to do something unique in cancer biology is to join a lab, and that is what I have done. Not only is it easier, but it is better for me. I would rather get to work in a lab on the bleeding-edge of the field, than to try to do what I explained above by myself. </p>
<p>Therefore, I see two answers to this problem. One is that you continue the wya things are going with kids joining labs and starting from the bottom and moving up. Which is not a bad way to go, but then I have all my arguments of why it would be a great asset to get paid. Again, you said that it is only 1250 bucks, but like I said it is not about the money only. It is also, about the legitimacy of research that comes along with it. </p>
<p>The second answer, is a unique solution I think, but a difficult one. You have some kind of program where motivated students can come up with their own research idea in these fields, then make a proposal, and then the program gets you in touch with a professor in berkeley in that field who is doing something similar to what you want to do. Then, the professor basically allows you lab space to do what you want. But that can't be it, because natuarally you won't know how to run a PCR experiment or you won't know something about how some other experiment works, or you won't know the best course of action to tackling your problem. So in that case, the professor helps you, he explains what needs to be done, how to do it, blah blah blah. That would be ideal, you basically get your own project in for example, cancer biology, from the very get-go. In this case, yes, I would agree there is absolutely no reason to pay the students for getting to do their own stuff, and the professors helping them out in. In fact, this kind of program may actually require the students to pay a little bit for the use of facilities and professor time. Not too much, because then it defeats the purpose.</p>
<p>There are problems with this though. For example, when I came into the lab to do work in cancer biology, I had worked in sevearl labs before, but I still had no idea how I would get ANYTHING accomplished. Not just that, but I had no idea of how to even propose a question to be answered in the form of a research paper. What I mean is that in the solution I proposed in the previous paragraph, I say that the student should have an idea of the questio they are trying to answer before they enter the lab to do their own stuff. But the problem is, just coming up with this question is incredibly difficult in some fields such as this. Obviously, the big question is, how can i cure cancer, but there a BILLION smaller questions that need to be answered before you can anwer this one, and there is incredibly difficult for ugrad to make sense of that, and know exaclty what they want to do. It is almost infeasible. I know what you are saying, there lots of fields where this is feasible. But I'm not talking about those fields, I am talkig about the fields where that is not possible, like cancer biology at the molecular level. </p>
<p>I am not allowed to talk about the project that I am working on right now (confidential laws...), but basically it has to do with understanding different cancerous cell lines, and figure out relations between them. That is at a VERY high level, and even that would be difficult to come up with from a student. Within this problem, there is a billion issues which an ENTIRE lab has spent YEARS trying to solve. Therefore, this solution I think may only work in very rare cases where the student knows a hell of a lot about the field, and has worked in LOTS and LOTS of labs in that field, and knows waht they are doing. They have a name for students like that, they are called graduate students. There are those ugrads who know this much about the molecular levels of cancer biology, but not many. </p>
<p>That is why we probably need to return to the first solution, which is already happening of students in these complicated fields joining labs. But like I said earlier, then you might as well pay them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, what I was talking about in my previous posts WERE the things that you just cannot do by yourself. Whether you believe it or not, there are things you just need a lab for and guidance. For example, I want to do something in cancer biology. I want to be able to work with metastatic cells and figure out the signalling pathways they take, etc. Well, how am I going to make any sort of even minute discovery in the field of cancer biology with real organisms. Well, I'm not saying that you absolutely cannot go and buy your own rats for science, buy your own million dollar equipment, take 100 classes on learning exactly what is going on cancer biology, then spend a year or two learning the common lab practices such as Polymerase Chain Reaction, gel electrophoresis, blah blah, and then be able to do something. But it is just so much EASIER to join a lab. The best way to do something unique in cancer biology is to join a lab, and that is what I have done. Not only is it easier, but it is better for me. I would rather get to work in a lab on the bleeding-edge of the field, than to try to do what I explained above by myself
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, nobody is denying that there are certain projects that you can't feasibly do yourself as an amateur. But, frankly, you can't really "do" those projects as an undergrad lab researcher either. You said it yourself - these projects require immense levels of knowledge and equipment, such that rarely if ever is an undergrad going to be allowed to participate in them at any reasonable level. Hence, that undergrad ends up doing the inevitable - doing the monkey work that nobody else in the lab wants to do. </p>
<p>But, frankly, that monkey work is not particularly helpful to your career. Sure, you can SAY that you participated in a high-level research project. But, honestly, you didn't REALLY do that much to advance the project. It's not because you didn't want to, it's because you didn't have the ability or the opportunity. </p>
<p>Hence, in that situation, I would argue that you would most likely be better off just pursuing your own amateur research project. That way, at least you'd be able to direct your entire project, as opposed to just doing somebody else's monkey work. Furthermore, you'll get to be sole author of whatever you publish. You do monkey work in a major lab, and at best you'll be one of the late trailing co-authors on a paper, and most likely you won't even get that. Furthermore, as an amateur scientist, you'll get to see a project through, from start to finish. Hence, you'll understand the whole thing. As a cog in the wheel of a major research lab, how much are you really going to be able to understand?</p>
<p>That's why I think that being an undergrad researcher at one of these major labs is a fairly suboptimal solution, even if you're getting paid or getting credit. I think what is happening is what you said - that a lot of undergrads severely underestimate themselves (or overestimate the difficulty of all of science) and think that doing monkey work in one of the major labs is the only path they have. It is not. The vast majority of them can do better than this. Let's face it. * Doing monkey work does not help you *. </p>
<p>
[quote]
There are problems with this though. For example, when I came into the lab to do work in cancer biology, I had worked in sevearl labs before, but I still had no idea how I would get ANYTHING accomplished. Not just that, but I had no idea of how to even propose a question to be answered in the form of a research paper.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See - right there, THAT is the problem. You have all this lab experience, and yet you STILL don't really know what you're doing. You still don't know how to get anything done, you don't know how to frame a proper research question, you don't know the basics. Don't get me wrong, it's not your fault. I'm not blaming you. This is a problem with the * system *. While I'm just speculating here, I would say that those labs simply didn't bother to teach you useful things, instead, relegating you to monkey work. Like I said, that monkey work is not helpful for your career. Those labs are, frankly, not set up to really teach undergrads useful things. </p>
<p>Hence, I am convinced that many of those undergrad researchers would have been better off pursuing their own amateur projects, rather than chasing a position in a lab that they probably weren't going to get anyway. </p>
<p>But I have to question the notion that you can't do your own molecular biology experiments by yourself. Now, granted, you obviously can't do major projects at the level of the established labs. But you can still do quite a few things. Look at the following link - looks like you can build quite a few molecular biology tools and projects for not that much money. Will it be as good as the professional equipment used by the major labs? Of course not! But it will still be good enough for you to run some experiments and obtain some results. </p>
<p>Besides, think of it this way. Here is a Utah State University freshman who actually built his own homemade nuclear fusion reactor in his spare time. If he can do that, I have to believe that a lot of Berkeley students should be able to build their own science projects and equipment. </p>
<p>I disagree with the notion that people would be better off doing their own amateur project. I think that is one way to go about things, and that is good, but working in a lab is good too. To understand what I'm saying, you have to read it in full. I am not just saying that the lab is full of monkeywork, true there is that at the beginning, but what it is also a place to learn a lot. I said earlier that you do move up over time. And you could argue that what is the point of moving up, when in your own project, you start at the top. Two things, not everyone wants to do their own project. And two, it is an experience to work in a real established lab. A lot of great work is done there and it is definitely something to be part of that. I am not trying to put down working in the lab. I feel that I have gained a lot from it. I now head my own project, while still doing things my professor wants me to do. However, the person I am working under explains everything to me. I NOW know what is going on in the lab, but my point earlier was that I would not have known this had it not been for me joining the lab. The lab is a great learning experience where, along with bland work at the beginning, you do move up and get to do your own stuff. I know what's going on in the lab, I know what I am responsible for, and I get to contribute with my thoughts rather than just menial work now. But that's the thing, I am actually contributing to the lab, it is not just a one way street. Therefore, it would be good to get paid. You could argue taht when you work in a company in the job world, you gain experience and it builds your resume just to work in the company, but that doesn't mean your employer is not going to pay you. They are benefitting from you too.</p>
<p>Yep, I did great in HS, went to Berkeley and had a terrible experience, and I’m probably going to be playing catch up for the rest of my life. It’s not funny and the level of legitimate problems doing Berkeley undergrad is causing me is something I’ll regret for the rest of my life</p>
<p>^ Obviously you didn’t do that great in high school. Nice username btw.</p>
<p>Shoot me I just read most of this thread >_></p>
<p>I’m beginning to question myself why Berkeley seems to get bashed the most in these forums. I don’t see alot people bashing UCLA in their forums. But I guess it doesn’t matter at this point because I already SIR’ed anyway.</p>
<p>Well, I think it depends from person to person. I’m a chemical engineering major and the first year I found myself playing a lot of SC and hanging out with my floormates. Maybe I had a bit of a hard time adjusting in the beginning of the year, but it was smooth sailing from there.</p>
<p>Pretty sure you need the dorm experience tho.</p>
<p>This thread is depressing to say the least.</p>