<p>"How sure are you that the problems one would encounter at Berkeley aren't the same problems one would encounter at many elite privates?"</p>
<p>The issue isn't Berkeley vs. elite privates, but rather huge schools vs. tiny schools.</p>
<p>"I just hope that these people don't mean Mudd is better than Berkeley for engineering because that would be totally insane!"</p>
<p>Better depends on one's goals. Berkeley likely has better job placement results, Mudd clearly has better grad school placement.</p>
<p>"The issue isn't Berkeley vs. elite privates, but rather huge schools vs. tiny schools."</p>
<p>I am aware about that and I refer elite LACs as elite privates. after all, Mudd is elite and private, so it totally fits in my description.</p>
<p>"Better depends on one's goals. Berkeley likely has better job placement results, Mudd clearly has better grad school placement."</p>
<p>Some people do usually assume that a cutthroat academic environment or an extremely rigorous curriculum means better education. That is probably why some Mudd supporters insist that Mudd has harder programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Better depends on one's goals. Berkeley likely has better job placement results, Mudd clearly has better grad school placement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As some may know, this is a subject discussed to death, and the bottom line is higher percentages of Mudd students go to grad school than likely at any of the <em>large</em> technically strong schools. I imagine MIT, Stanford included. The opportunities at any large, technically strong school are boundless, and I'd think the "better grad school placement" has to do with a more self-selected, self-motivated crowd at Mudd, not opportunities. If one's goal is grad school, there are actually some good reasons to pick a large program over a small one (though of course, there are reasons to do otherwise) -- for one thing, there are more options, I'd think. Another thing -- if you're applying to many grad programs, the faculty at Berkeley, Stanford, MIT are already top of many of the technical fields, and if you are REALLY impressive and manage to win their approval, that's an asset I think almost nobody else could have. </p>
<p>There are very distinct styles on how to prep for grad school, though, so one should go to the best school fitting one's style.</p>
<p>"Another thing -- if you're applying to many grad programs, the faculty at Berkeley, Stanford, MIT are already top of many of the technical fields"</p>
<p>One question to ask of the schools considered: Does this subset of faculty teach primarily at the grad or undergrad level?</p>
<p>I would say that the ones who teach well do the teaching. The ones who research well do the research. It's up to you to seek out the research opportunities.</p>
<p>Well the nice thing is that famous people are so abundant at these schools that it's hard to miss them at all! Every professor I've had, with the exception of two postdocs, has been somehow amazing in his field. They all scare me, and make me feel like dust. </p>
<p>I actually think that funnily, the most famous professors sometimes end up teaching the most basic courses. Take Richard Borcherds - a fields medalist. Has many times taught either Math 1A or 1B, forget which ones -- the reason for this, I think, is that these schools like to market that "oh wow, so and so insane faculty is going to teach your son or daughter!" even though of course, these guys learned calculus in 1st grade. If one doesn't look only for Nobel laureates, fields medalists, and the like, and just looks with a more informed eye at those who're some of the masters of their fields, there'll be plenty teaching undergraduates. </p>
<p>Anyone who tries to make it sound (vossron, not saying you are) like the top professors at these schools don't teach undergraduates probably will give some lame statistics like "percentage of nobel laureates teaching X course" -- insane faculty certainly interact with undergrads. Perhaps even against their own will.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone who tries to make it sound (vossron, not saying you are) like the top professors at these schools don't teach undergraduates probably will give some lame statistics like "percentage of nobel laureates teaching X course" -- insane faculty certainly interact with undergrads. Perhaps even against their own will.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, one problem is that many of the 'insanely great' researchers, frankly, don't really teach undergrads that well. No strong correlation exists between good research and good undergrad teaching, and in fact, the correlation might actually be negative. Rating sites such as pickaprof show that many top professors don't exactly have the best teaching ratings. </p>
<p>I distinctly remember sitting in math courses taught by ostensibly 'famous' professors and wishing that I was learning from my old high school math teacher instead. Sure, he wasn't an eminent researcher with publications in the Annals of Mathematics or JAMS. But at least he taught math in a way that made it accessible and fun, something that those prominent math profs apparently could not do. Particularly when you're talking about lower-division math courses such as 1AB or 5x, you don't really need a cutting edge researcher to teach you that material for these are mathematical topics that have been well established for decades if not centuries. You just need somebody who can present the material in a clear and interesting fashion.</p>
<p>Yeah it's REALLY REALLY funny to me actually. "OH MY GOD A FIELDS MEDALIST IS TEACHING MY SON...."</p>
<p>"WOW WHAT IS HE TEACHING....TOPOLOGICAL QUANTUM THEORY?"</p>
<p>"NO CALCULUS FOR FRESHMEN!!!!"</p>
<p>I'm actually taking Math 1B with Professor Borcherds this semester. I must admit that he goes insanely fast in lecture that half the time I don't understand what he is saying (which is why I also attend the other Math 1B lecture by Professor Ratner), but I really enjoy his lectures because he gives a very holistic view of math. Sure he's just teaching us basic calculus, but he also shows us how calculus connects to other fields of mathematics and higher mathematics as well as shortcomings in the basic calculus methods and how they can be overcome (usually with some method from upper div math) or how they have yet to be overcome. I was telling my friend today that I go to Professor Ratner's lectures to learn the material and maybe some methods that she knows of that aren't in the book, and Professor Borcherds' to learn how to think at a high level and get to explore math. </p>
<p>I feel very fortunate that Professor Borcherds actually feels like inspiring an interest in math in his students, but I'm aware not all such famous academics feel this way. But I feel that having a class taught be him is really a treat (I'm sure most of my classmates would disagree) since I get to see how someone of that caliber thinks.</p>
<p>Just curious, at a private college, can you audit classes that you aren't signed up for?</p>
<p>Wow. I'm in Borcherds as well, and I had no idea he was a Fields Medalist.</p>
<p>By the way, any foreign (Russian) professor here is essentially a genius in a way that'd make one gawk. Seriously...any cocky students should hear a bit about these people's lives, and it'll shut them up instantly. </p>
<p>Apparently Ratner's research baffles some of the brightest minds around. I can't emphasize this enough -- these people are basically unimaginably brilliant, and masters of their fields. That goes along with my point from before.</p>
<p>Now they don't have to be great teachers, that's certainly true. I guess the graduate students have to make up for that. Generally, I think they do a pretty good job actually. I haven't met a math professor who really sucked at teaching yet, actually. People complain about Prof. Givental -- maybe he does random topics for lower division stuff, but I took him for upper division stuff, and he actually taught the standard topics, and more of course. </p>
<p>To dill_scout -- keep me posted on how your plans are going via PM or whatever :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, any foreign (Russian) professor here is essentially a genius in a way that'd make one gawk. Seriously...any cocky students should hear a bit about these people's lives, and it'll shut them up instantly.</p>
<p>Apparently Ratner's research baffles some of the brightest minds around. I can't emphasize this enough -- these people are basically unimaginably brilliant, and masters of their fields. That goes along with my point from before.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but that doesn't really matter within the lower division. Let's face it. The lower division math courses are basically utility courses for the vast majority of students in them. They don't really care about high-end mathematical theory. They have no intention of majoring in math, and certainly not in becoming math researchers. They're just regular engineering, natural science, economics, or pre-Haas students who are just looking to pick up the mathematical tools necessary in their majors. With the possible exception of physics majors, they don't really care why calculus or linear algebra actually works. It doesn't matter to them. Hence, all they really need is somebody who can convey the tools to them in an accessible fashion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They're just regular engineering, natural science, economics, or pre-Haas students who are just looking to pick up the mathematical tools necessary in their majors. With the possible exception of physics majors, they don't really care why calculus or linear algebra actually works. It doesn't matter to them. Hence, all they really need is somebody who can convey the tools to them in an accessible fashion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, I actually think grad students could teach such a class perfectly well, especially given they probably went through the math GRE + Berkeley prelim recently, and recall their "basics" perhaps better than some of the star professors. I'm pretty sure the reason these insanely famous professors teach 1A and 1B is that the school wants to put famous names out teaching the most popular classes, just for effect.</p>
<p>These top notch faculty <em>mainly</em> are an advantage to students who'd like to go to grad school, as you say.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure, I actually think grad students could teach such a class perfectly well, especially given they probably went through the math GRE + Berkeley prelim recently
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think they really need to have even that. Like I said, I think many high school math teachers could probably run Math 1AB and certainly 16AB. That stuff is simple single-variable calculus - little different than what is on the AP Calculus exams, and in fact, sufficient performance on the AP exams will provide credit for 1AB (and by extension, 16AB) . HS math teachers that are AP certified could therefore teach these courses just fine, and I'm sure that most of them could never pass the grad prelims.</p>
<p>I find it especially notable that Berkeley has senior faculty teaching 16AB, which is basically a watered-down version of calculus for people who don't really need to know why it works. Clearly none of those students are going to be heading to math grad school. Heck, you can't even major in math via those courses. Hence, I doubt that they really benefit much from being taught by top researchers.</p>
<p>Actually, a lot of students who take Math 1A and 1B fail despite getting 5s on AP Calc AB and BC. The Math 1AB series is very different from high school math. Sure that argument might apply for Math 16AB, but 1AB require knowing more than just mechanically plugging in numbers into equations or recognizing when you need to plug certain numbers into certain equations, which is what the AP Calc tests were all about. Thus, most Calculus teachers cannot teach Math 1AB at Berkeley. The more I think about Math 1AB the more I feel like what my professors are really trying to teach me is a really dumbed down version of analysis (Math 104). </p>
<p>mathboy: Sure thing!</p>
<p>Yeah I definitely think there's a benefit gained from grad students or the like teaching classes like 1A and 1B, over someone at a lower level. Someone could start at 1A or 1B and want to go forward in math, and having these be extremely watered down (the way many calculus courses are in high school) will just not encourage students to pursue math in more depth (i.e. it won't excite them). I find one of the biggest problems with Berkeley's math that the lower the level course, the worse it is in comparison to other schools' courses. Classes like Math 54 aren't that great on average...and yet if you go to the most advanced topics Berkeley's math department offers, they're perfectly insane and top caliber. </p>
<p>So I really think the 1A, 1B, 53, 54 standards should be kept as high as possible. </p>
<p>Actually, if one applies this argument too far, it's actually true that most graduate level material taught at Berkeley is trivial to its professors, many of whom are flat out geniuses. And yet, certainly a graduate student is just not at the maturity level to teach these courses, even if they've learned the material already. Generally, the maturity level of the teacher should vastly exceed the level of the course if it's going to be very successful, in my own opinion.</p>
<p>I can, however, agree that we don't need fields medalists teaching 1A and 1B. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, a lot of students who take Math 1A and 1B fail despite getting 5s on AP Calc AB and BC. The Math 1AB series is very different from high school math. Sure that argument might apply for Math 16AB, but 1AB require knowing more than just mechanically plugging in numbers into equations or recognizing when you need to plug certain numbers into certain equations, which is what the AP Calc tests were all about. Thus, most Calculus teachers cannot teach Math 1AB at Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then Berkeley shouldn't be providing AP Calculus credit for 1AB. After all, schools like Caltech don't provide AP credit. Rather, Caltech runs its own individual math placement exams to determine advanced standing. What Berkeley could do is take one of the 1AB final exams from a previous year and use that as a placement exam. Those incoming students who want to try to waive out of 1AB would have to earn a score that would have corresponded to a passing grade on that old 1AB final. Note, they wouldn't have to earn an A on that final, they would just have to pass. If they can earn a passing grade on the final without having even taken the class at all, then they don't need to take the class. But if they can't, then that means that they shouldn't be allowed to use AP credit to waive out. </p>
<p>The same should hold true for 16AB or - frankly, any other course that holds final exams. If students can't earn passing scores on the final exams of past years, then they shouldn't be allowed to waive those courses through AP.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then Berkeley shouldn't be providing AP Calculus credit for 1AB. After all, schools like Caltech don't provide AP credit. Rather, Caltech runs its own individual math placement exams to determine advanced standing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is why I LOVE Berkeley's system though -- they're so incredibly lax, and let a fellow like me be as suicidal as I want! Nobody cares what classes I take, and what prerequisites I do or don't have, and it's thrilling =] </p>
<p>Here's my option -- I think the way should be that if you want credit for Math 1AB, either A) take an equivalent final exam, or B) take a more advanced course, IF you're an engineer, physicist, or mathematician. I.e., I think the rest of 'em don't even need Math 1AB, and probably could do with lower level calculus courses. The engineers + others who need that rigor for Berkeley's programs should either demonstrate proficiency on an exam similar to the finals for these courses, or be allowed to take a more advanced course of similar flavor, like Math 53, in place of it. This way, less onerous testing, and we still maintain the quality of our engineers and like. Heck, engineers have to take Math 53 anyway, so if they do OK, that ought to be enough.</p>