<p>
Yes, the American winner of today’s Nobel Prize in physics, David Wineland, has a BS from Berkeley and PhD from Harvard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the props, rjk!! :)</p>
<p>Nearly 7 million views and growing!! Go Bucks!! lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCB, you are either slacking or starting to sleep at the wheel. Where is the new thread about the Cal connection to the Nobel winners. </p>
<p>I am disappointed as I was looking forward to another Smoot, Perlmutter, Williamson, Akerlof, McFadden, or Chu discussion. ;)</p>
<p>Duke just got its first home-grown Nobel Laureate: Dr. Robert Lefkowitz (Chemistry). Woohoo!!</p>
<p>^But he’s in the med school, not chemistry department. We know Duke has a very fine med school so it’s not surprising. Wash U has had a few from the med school before after all.</p>
<p>^ Exactly! And what’s his impact on Duke UNDERGRADS (the supposed theme of this College Search and Selection forum)??? Probably nothing. :)</p>
<p>Xiggi, I believe there is only one Cal connection so far this year…an undergrad in the 1960s. I didn’t feel like rehashing old debates.</p>
<p>Well, perhaps next year there will be a Nobel laureate from CalMed. All that is needed is a winner and for Cal to grab that little med school in the Bay. Beats relying on that govie energy lab too much for props. :)</p>
<p>Sam, I’m not why it matters whether Dr. Lefkowitz teaches undergraduates or not. Its just nice recognition for the university; I’ve never said that all of those Nobel Laureates associated with Berkeley don’t enhance the school’s overall reputation, since they certainly do. Its just that somewhat weaker students, large class sizes, low financial resources, and bad undergraduate focus dampen UCB’s quality in spite of its incredible graduate programs and faculty.</p>
<p>Does anybody else think its really impressive that a Medical School professor can win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry without even obtaining a PhD in Chemistry? It shows you how interdisciplinary higher education has become.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Best</a> Undergraduate Teaching | Rankings | Top National Universities | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching)
</p>
<h1>8 Berkeley/ Duke/ UMBC/ Notre Dame/ Chicago</h1>
<p>You were saying…?</p>
<p>
What makes them incredible? High USNWR ranking? If so, our USNWR rated UNDERGRADUATE programs are really incredible too:</p>
<p><a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/business[/url]”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/business</a></p>
<h1>3 Berkeley</h1>
<p><a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate[/url]”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate</a></p>
<h1>3 Berkeley</h1>
<p>I don’t trust the US News Undergraduate Teaching List. Dozens of Berkeley alums I’ve talked to over the years have complained about the monstrous class sizes, undecipherable foreign TAs exported from China and India, the inaccessible professors, the poor financial aid, the nonexistent advising, etc.</p>
<p>I think USNWR is just trying to recognize state universities a bit more since critics have argued that the publiciation is biased to favor private universities.</p>
<p>
But you do when it fits your agenda.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They are not trying; they have actively done this from the moment they felt compelled to go beyond the simplistic and poorly defined surveys of the 80s. They are on record that the rankings rely on intangibles --a nice term to describe the gamesmanship, cronyism, and ignorance-- to level the playing field. </p>
<p>Under growing pressures to minimize the impact of the survey parts (read PA) Bob Morse has simply ordered boxes of lipstick to make his old pig look better. Hence, the “guidance” counselors surveys. The result is akin to a trip from Scylla to Charybdis! </p>
<p>Fwiw, the Best Undergraduate Teaching is simply asking the same judges at the County Fair to vote for the best apple pie after picking the best casserole. They go to the same folks who already have shown their limitations in the Peer Assessment boondoggle. </p>
<p>It is all about gamesmanship and hearsay! But to some, such things are the best ingredients for gospel!</p>
<p>UCB,</p>
<p>That’s a weak response to goldenboy. Let’s look at the methodology from the US News:
How in the world can college administrator at college A know anything about undergraduate teaching at colleges B, C, etc.? 
</p>
<p>^ I don’t know…perhaps you should ask them. I’m just providing actual survey results that attempted to address the claim. FWIW, that’s better than some hearsay on an internet message board.</p>
<p>There is nothing to ask. That survey is pure horse manure. Twelve monkeys throwing darts at their charts will be just as valid. Actually, the randomness of the throws would yield a more objective results. Morse should be embarrassed. But that horse left the barn years ago.</p>
<p>Why are we arguing about UC Berkeley on a Big Ten thread?</p>
<p>Take it outside, boys.</p>
<p>^ <em>whines</em> Sparkeye started it… :D</p>
<p>Xiggi, what makes it “horse manure”? Dartmouth and Princeton topping the list? My guess is you think it’s somehow contaminated by inclusion of the top 2 publics.</p>
<p>Braxton Miller could be the best Running back in his draft class</p>
<p>That spin move is deadly</p>
<p>UCB, most garbage surveys and rankings find a way to bring reasonable choices at the very top to hide the ridicule that follows. </p>
<p>And, you will never convince me that large public research universities excel in the area of dedication to teaching undergraduates.</p>
<p>Best Undergraduate Teaching Methodology
Many colleges have a strong commitment to teaching undergraduates instead of graduate-level research. Based on a survey conducted in spring 2012, all the…</p>
<p>Seriously?</p>