<p>eastcoastbound,</p>
<p>Why does that matter, however? If you're just learning how to do the basics, why do you need someone at the upper limits? What makes that person a better, more devoted, more talented pedagogue? </p>
<p>What difference does it make if someone's a great researcher when I'm learning how to do calculus?</p>
<p>With globalization the and the rise of Asia and the European Union, the dynamics of business is not going to be just national anymore.</p>
<p>sofla951,</p>
<p>First off, I happen to go to a program that focuses on Pacific Rim globalization, so I can attest to a few things:
Globalization is limited in many respects. That, and most Americans will still work for American companies. To this day, the largest trading partner of the US is Canada, at about 500b USD/year. However, the vast majority of American economic activity is still generated from within the US itself. Trade only represents about 10% of the American GDP, and it's unlikely that that will change much on the margin even with globalization.</p>
<p>Regardless, what difference would it make if trade does grow as a % of GDP? With the exception of a few firms, most large companies that conduct trade in the US have US offices, meaning that you'll be hired by Americans working for firm X. To that end, what Mr. Yamaguchi thinks about your undergrad's name is meaningless.</p>
<p>UCLAri, I think the undergrad experience is more than just getting good instruction. Just about everyone seems to OVER-emphasize this point. And just about everyone seems to disproportionately bash Berkeley for "lack of good instruction" simply because we have such a well-known RESEARCH faculty. Just because you're school is very strong in research, does not point-blank mean the instruction is also going to be bad. You can make the same argument for other top schools such as Stanford, MIT, and dare I say Harvard? who have very strong research faculty. How come no one is bashing them? Based on the arguments I've seen above, they should get EQUAL bashing, if not MORE! If they have stronger research than even Berkeley, that must mean their undergrad instruction must be even WORSE! Right? C'mon man. I am honestly sick of this double-standard. </p>
<p>Schools like Stanford, MIT, Harvard and the like go under the radar for many of the things Berkeley gets shafted for, simply because they are more selective in their admissions and have an overall smaller student population. I would argue Berkeley instruction, faculty and resources (except maybe $$'s) are on PAR if not better than all these schools. </p>
<p>People also seem to automatically get wrong notions when they see a large undergrad population number. If I say "ABC University" (not even mentioning Berkeley) has an undergrad population of 25,000 - what do you automatically assume? Large undergrad populations do not automatically mean large classes. I'd like to point out that all the top schools (including Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley) have similar percentage of classes with above 50 students and below 20. How come then Berkeley is singled out? Simply because of the sheer number of undergrads I'm sure. As a larger school, Berkeley can offer a lot more classes (students have a larger selection of classes they can choose from than many of the other top schools). More undergrads, and more classes, result overall in smaller classes... People automatically assume larger undergrad populations = ridiculously large classes (simply because they got "sticker-shock" at the sheer number of undergrads). Conversely, when someone goes to a school like Stanford or MIT and encounters large classes, they probably will be less likely to complain putting it off as "This will likely only be for my general ed classes, I can deal with this for now" or "I don't care if my class is a bit large - I'm going to Stanford/MIT/Harvard!"</p>
<p>Berkeley always get shafted by the sheer size of the population, but never gets praised enough for the benefits of a larger undergrad population. You're going to have a larger variety of backgrounds and interests from a larger undergrad population (i.e. more clubs, more variety of activities, and a more lively atmosphere than you would get from a smaller school). People should give credit where it's due. Smaller is not always better, larger doesn't always mean larger, and research doesn't always mean bad instruction!</p>
<p>khan,</p>
<p>I never suggested that researchers can't be good instructors. On the contrary. I've had superstar researchers make great professors. What I'm saying, however, is that good research doesn't necessarily mean good undergraduate instruction. </p>
<p>To that end, I do think that the same problem exists at Stanford, MIT, and Harvard. However, what mitigates the oftentimes crappy instruction is small class sizes and greater emphasis on the undergrads than at Berkeley. There is no double-standard in my mind: LACs are much better for instruction than research universities, but if you do go to a research university, the small classes and greater amount of resources poured into each undergrad is a nice thing to have at the top privates. </p>
<p>This is, of course, not as much of a concern at the graduate level, as I have learned.</p>
<p>khan, I think you're assuming far too much from my posts. Please consider that I have not implied most of what you've suggested is a problem with my arguments.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>it matters because
--the way a researcher presents their works is different from a teacher who reads about their works. this might not apply to everybody, but i feel that i can get more insights from experts. well, at least for biological sciences, i can learn from a experimental aspect, rather than bookish memorization. </p>
<p>--also, i can learn from the way they are presenting their works, so when it comes to the time that i have to present my own research, i have some idea like basic organization of my talks, and ways to target general audience. </p>
<p>--if i ask a question, i can get a more comprehansive answers because they probably have thought about that before. </p>
<p>--a lot of time professors are very enthusiastic about the subject, that can injects passion to my own conviction.</p>
<p>as for calculus, i had a great professor when i took multivariable calculus. what i learn from taht class is not just how to do problems on the test, but a new thinking style. i think what i have the most from the undergrad experience is to think critically, and logically. and the way i am thinking owes largely to the professors i encountered, and had classes with.</p>
<p>this might only apply to science majors.</p>
<p>eastcoastbound,</p>
<p>Why don't admissions at grad programs seem to agree with this, then?</p>
<p>And who says that LAC professors haven't thought about their subjects? They're usually people with degrees from the same places at professors at research universities. I mean, if they got a PhD from a top program, I doubt that they're not enthusiastic.</p>
<p>This by no means applies to science majors only. What, you think social science/econ people don't think about new things? We have upper limits of thought, I hope you know. Sure, it may not be as steep of a learning curve, but it's not like you can just walk into an upper-div econ class and just ace it if you don't have the basics down.</p>
<p>I guarantee I haven't taken as much math as you, but I can handle myself when I proofread my girlfriend's papers, and she's molecular bio.</p>
<p>To expand upon the idea of larger classes: Granted, Berkeley does have large classes for the general ed courses, but does it really matter if you have 100 people in your class vs. 400? Do you honestly believe you're going to get that much more attention from your professor if you have 100 people in your class vs. 400? Private schools, for instance, that have the 100 person class, can play the game and claim that the student:faculty ratio is 75% smaller than at the school with the 400 person class, even though it makes no difference in terms of faculty attention to the students.</p>
<p>Also to note, once the general ed courses are done (which are generally large at all research-based universities), the class sizes shrink significantly, YES - EVEN AT BERKELEY!</p>
<p>UCLAri, although my last couple posts were in response to an earlier post from yours, what I am speaking to is not necessarily to address every point I believe you made, but rather addressing the general antagonistic attitude people seem to have against Berkeley - and the unfair assumptions people in general seem to make on this forum when bashing Berkeley. I have nothing against you and I think you make some really good points.</p>
<p>khan,</p>
<p>Having gone to a school comparable to Berkeley, I know well enough what happens in upper div classes.</p>
<p>However, there is a big difference, on the margin, between average class sizes at Cal and at Pomona.</p>
<p>khan,</p>
<p>Cheers to that. I thought you were responding to me, and was a bit confused about stuff I never remembered saying.</p>
<p>Again, I think that Cal is easily a top university-- top 1% by far. But I do kind of tire of the idea that what Mr. Nakatani or Mr. Swun think of my university should affect my decision of where to go to undergrad.</p>
<p>Quote:
"But I do kind of tire of the idea that what Mr. Nakatani or Mr. Swun think of my university should affect my decision of where to go to undergrad."</p>
<p>I know - I'm kinda tired of it too. But isn't prestige something everyone, whether they admit it or not, finds important, especially when selecting a school to attend? And isn't prestige sadly exactly that? - what "Mr. Nakatani or Mr. Swun thinks of my university" - just multiplied by many more Mr. Nakatani's and Mr. Swun's... and add in a Ms. Swan. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, many of the arguments on these forums center around a university's prestige (cause whether people like to admit it or not - it matters to them!). The discussions/arguments regarding prestige aren't always apparent though and are disguised in many ways. But ultimately, they stem from the idea of "what do people think of my university?" Sometimes I think discussions of "quality" are just a cover for the real issue being asked, regarding "prestige." That's just my opinion though. </p>
<p>And regarding the difference in class sizes between Berkeley and Pomona, I'd say this should be more of discussion of differences between large research universities (Stanford, MIT, and Berkeley included) vs. LAC's (Pomona, etc.). Again, Berkeley shouldn't be singled out unfairly making it look like some of the other top PRIVATE schools don't face the same issues. I think you'd agree with that... </p>
<p>Now don't get me wrong - I think there are many things Berkeley can improve on... and I would say that most arguments for improving Berkeley pretty much boil down to this: be more selective in admissions and accept less students. Beyond that, there are many details that can be argued of course...</p>
<p>khan,</p>
<p>If only publics weren't beleaguered by politics at the "I want my little Johnny to go there"-level!</p>
<p>I agree that prestige should count for something, but I'm just saying that for about 90% of the Cal population the opinion of the average Japanese, Chinese, French, Italian, German, Russian, or Chilean person is meaningless. Who cares? What you should care about is what the average employer for whom you'll work thinks. I once was bothered by the fact that a coworker of mine in Japan hadn't heard of UCLA. Then I realized that I shouldn't care: for one, she was a rural Japanese teaching elementary school. She also had nothing to do with my future employment prospects!</p>
<p>I get asked all the time why I chose less-prestigious schools twice in a row (UCLA over Cal and some privates, and later UCSD over some bigger IR programs.) My answer is always the same: prestige is only one factor.</p>
<p>I'm not too worried about my future, personally.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>grad admission committees wouldnt know because it doesnt worth their time to investigate each professor's teaching ability, but they do have a general idea of which programs produce good students. if you only count quantity of students, berkeley sent out a lot of students to top programs. but if you have to normalize with the entire student body, then sure, berkeley has a huge undergrad population and not all are as successful. also, if you go to a grad school and not excited about the subject you will study and possess necessary skills, why go to grad school at all? yea sure, you can get in top grad program, but question is if you can survive it.</p>
<p>well, im not clueless about sources of LAC professors. actually, the grad program im attending TSRI, has a phd-postdoc program to train LAC professors. so yeah a lot of LAC professors have extensive research training. but once they are in the LAC they focus mainly on teaching instead. but there is a difference in talking about other people's research from talking about own research. like i can talk about spherical harmonics, molecular orbital theory etc, but only when i talk about my own work, i can be really excited. i mean this can very well be my own personal experience, but i just like the environment in which professors talk about subject that means a lot to them.</p>
<p>of course people in social sciences are pushing their fields along. i only say that because i only can add a science major perspective, more or less a disclaim.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>I'm not arguing that prestige is what people SHOULD care about, but I'm just trying to comment on how people seem to be in general (prestige is a big issue in my opinion to most folks). And I agree that it's only one factor to consider over many...</p>
<p>Now whether you factor in local, national, or international prestige, I guess that all depends on each person. (i.e. I'm sure international students care about a university's international prestige... and that's probably what helped draw them to that university to begin with! :)) </p>
<p>I think you'll do quite fine UCLAri!!!</p>
<p>eastcoastbound,</p>
<p>Again, remember that most people at the undergrad level, even those who will go on to do research later, need a solid foundation in the basics. I agree that being challenged at an undergrad level matters, but even those of us at the graduate level are constantly finding out how important the basics really are. I'm constantly made to realize how lucky I am to have a solid foundation in math here at UCSD-- not everyone is so lucky.</p>
<p>I just believe that in the long-run, it's the basics that will propel you along, not the frontiers. It's the PhD level where you really want the best researchers, not that BA level. This is especially true, I believe, for the first two years of an undergrad education.</p>
<p>I mean, I'm glad that I got to work with some of the best political scientists in the world at UCLA as an undergrad, but it's now, at the graduate level, that I realize how dumbed down the undergrad level really is, and why it makes sense.</p>
<p>khan,</p>
<p>Well thank you. I'm still debating whether or not to get a PhD, but odds are that I'll just take the MA and run with it. Not like I'd make more money with the PhD anyway...</p>
<p>And yes, I do think people factor in prestige. But I just think that worrying about prestige at Berkeley vs. UCLA vs. Michigan is like worrying about whether you should get the BMW 7-series or MB S-class because one is going to be more instantly recognizable. They're both at the top of their game.</p>
<p>Or, for an example I find more entertaining, whether a country like Japan should buy a JSF or Eurofighter...</p>
<p>i agree that undergrad is when you build your foundation. i never said that undergrad should work to do great research and publish a lot of paper. and yeah professors tend to dumb down their presentation for students (they are usually pretty good at audience targetting. it's kinda their jobs to be like that) and like i said before, building up a foundation is like training a way of thinking. at least in molecular biology, each school has own flavor of thinking styles (i.e. berkeley is very structural and chemical based, mit is very cell and genetics based), so i can see that when i talk to people from different schools. i dont really see what i said before is in conflict with this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there are 160 total nobel prize laureate (including peace prize and literature prize which are less prestigious) in the US. Plus that also includes people who were educated abroad and did their Nobel work in the US. 10 is not a number to be sneezed at.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And again, what is the SIZE of the Berkeley undergraduate population? </p>
<p>Or let me put it to you more starkly. How much larger is the Berkeley undergrad popuulation compared to, say, Harvard's? Now, how many more Nobels have Harvard undergrads won compared to Berkeley? </p>
<p>Again, you tell me. </p>
<p>
[quote]
i've seen enough people who went to mit, harvard for undergrad and dropped out of berkeley grad school. they certainly rn't known as the "mit guy/girl" or "harvard guy/girl". in fact, nobody even cares that they went to prestigious schools like mit or harvard. they are jsut people who cant pass qualifying exams. seriously, no journal will publish your work just because you went to a certain institute for undergrad
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who's talking just about "publishing your work"? I'm talking about what happens when you enter the workforce. For good or ill, if you went to Harvard, you will be known around the office as the 'Harvard guy'. That is, of course, unless you happen to be working for one of those firms where Harvard men are ubiquitous, in which case, you will just be known as 'one of the guys'.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is, of course, unless you happen to be working for one of those firms where Harvard men are ubiquitous, in which case, you will just be known as 'one of the guys'.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My God...the sheer amount of ego...it could destroy the Earth, sucking it into a black hole of self-love.</p>
<p>Let's not discuss such terrifying doomsday scenarios, sakky. :p</p>