<p>I'm a student at Cal and it's finals week...through my entire time here I've pretty much had to teach myself all of my classes and it got me wondering, do you guys have the same experience as students of a private and smaller school?</p>
<p>For the most part, the quality of education here is garbage. They give you a list of books to buy and the professor tells you what pages/chapters to read, then they give you a 300 question multiple choice exam on it and call it "learning." </p>
<p>I'm getting more and more frustrated that I'm paying so much money....for really nothing. </p>
<p>...do any of you guys feel like you have to teach yourself courses? or is your school actually teaching you concepts through lecture and discussion?</p>
<p>^ I have found the quality of instruction at Stanford to be entirely excellent. I was fortunate enough to only have one large lecture class during Fall quarter, but even in that class the professors were amazing because they were obviously excited about the material themselves. And the post-doc who led the discussion section was very on top of things as well. I’d had the opportunity to meet several faculty members at Stanford, and at other top universities, before making my college decision, and the quality of Stanford faculty was probably the most significant factor in my decision. </p>
<p>I do think that some degree of self-teaching is inherent in college study, but what you’re describing is something very different, and sounds more like abdication of teaching responsibility. Berkeley is a great school, but it might be that with budget pressures and huge classes, that is the best that some of the professors can manage now… :(</p>
<p>BTW, Stanford is a private school, and much smaller than Cal; not sure what you meant at the end of your first paragraph.</p>
<p>^i disagree partly with zenkoan. while stanford faculty overall seem to be great, i think for introductory classes, it is often hit or miss. it also depends on the department. almost all faculty in the sciences and social sciences are excellent researchers, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to being a good professor. for example, the physics department is known for having awful professors in any of the introductory series (20s, 40s), and that was my experience this quarter. the professor didn’t reach well at all, and we were forced to rely on previous knowledge and the textbook.
my experience in polisci was different. i loved the professor for the class i took, and he actually TAUGHT the class. the class was still very heavily reliant on readings, but in polisci, the subject matter is very reliant on the specific readings because we read the actual research from experts in the field.
in the chem department, some professors are known for being good professors, and others are known for being so bad that people drop classes and take them elsewhere (even in upperlevel chem classes) </p>
<p>and i think the OP meant: as students at a smaller private school, do we have the same experience as him and other Cal students</p>
<p>^NJDS, the difference in our experience may be based on the fact that, other than that one lecture class I mentioned (IHUM), I haven’t taken any intro-level classes. Another thing I love about Stanford is that you can enroll in just about any class you feel prepared for, even those with stated prerequisites. In a couple of cases I just contacted the professors of the classes I was interested in, explained my prior exposure to the material, and they were fine with that. The advisors are also good at explaining which prerequisites are more like recommendations rather than strict requirements. OTOH, I’m not pre-med, so for those that are, it will probably be more important to follow a particular course sequence and to take intro courses.</p>
<p>Assuming one goes to lectures and pays attention, there is a strong chance that they will not have to teach themselves much. For my 3 classes this quarter I really had to just solidify some things that I missed/forgot from lecture on my own. TAs will solidify things too, but the textbooks I had were good. Physics 45 last year I had to teach myself a lot. Lecture and section was horrible, but at least the lecture notes were good. My intro math classes last year I really didn’t have to teach myself at all. My polisci classes were mixed. One I had Rob Reich, whose a teaching god. The others the teachers were good, but they mainly just went over the readings, which helped the many people who didn’t do the readings (not me though). </p>
<p>Physics 20/40 series and Math 50 series are known for poor teaching quality. IHUM is pretty hit or miss, although it’s not like you need to go to IHUM lecture haha. Math 50 series I think there’s generally at least one good professor whose lecture you can attend.</p>
<p>I went to U of Chicago, and had a similar experience; I found myself skipping lectures just to learn material on my own. I got sick with mono my second year and dropped out and I just can’t convince myself to go back. My parents will pay my tuition, but why bother? I do miss my old friends though; it was nice to be surrounded by a bunch of other smart, hardworking people.</p>
<p>Recently, I’ve been teaching myself college. I’m hugely insecure about this decision, but with what it costs to do college the traditional way, it seems to make the most sense. And there are so many great learning resources out there, too; thanks world wide web.</p>
<p>This is exactly why we didn’t want the kids applying to Berkeley. Great grad schools - husband attended and had an excellent experience - but lousy undergrad education. Even 15 years ago, before the money was as tight, the calc class was so large it was taught in two auditoriums, broadcast into the second auditorium. It’s reputation remains so high because of the grad schools and the caliber of students it attracts - they are all stars at ‘self-teaching.’ But I’m always astounded that parents are willing to pay OOS tuition for this when there are so many schools that offer a much better education for the same dollar.</p>
<p>M’s Mom - I realize this is off the Ops topic, but I can tell you why so many OOS students pay for UC undergrad education. If they don’t check the little box that says they need financial aid, they are accepted more readily, even with substandard stats. So, they’re willing to pay 3 times the tuition for something they would not have achieved for their academics. California residents who pay taxes have a right to be very upset over this, since their kids with higher stats are likely being displaced by those with $$$. It’s very sad. Someone tell me if I’m wrong.</p>