<p>
[quote]
Berkeley used to be ranked in the top 5 a couple of decades ago
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, there it is again. Specifically, which year was that? I would really like to see the data. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Faculty resources are mostly important inasmuch as they help improve the quality of the faculty. They are more of a tool than an end. And in the end, there is no dout that the quality of the faculty at Berkeley is better than Duke's, practically across the board
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I don't have USNews in front of me right now, what would happen if faculty resources was no longer considered as a category? What would the rankings of Berkeley be now? </p>
<p>The value of having 'brilliant' profs teach you becomes apparent if you are actually going to become an academic yourself. Yet the fact is, the vast majority of undergrads at Berkeley (or at Duke) are not going to become future academics. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You can't cherrypick a couple of Nobels who haven't taught undergrads recently and generalize. I had two classes with Nobel profs as an undergrad. Beyond Nobels, you get a sense of incredible priviege from knowing that you are taught by people who are world leaders in their fields. As brilliant as they were, I certainly can't say that Debreu or Harsanyi really were more brilliant than many of my other profs. I also have found from my experience that many of the leaders in their fields were also great teachers. Part of it was the passion that they had for their subjects was clearly conveyed in their class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you say that I can't cherry-pick, and then you do the same? </p>
<p>What I can tell you is that I had a grand total of zero Nobel Prize winners teach my classes. Granted, I wasn't in a major that was a Nobel category, but the fact remains that of those that I know who did engage in such majors, the vast majority of them never got taught by a Nobel prize winner.</p>
<p>And besides, like I said, as an undergrad, you jprobably don't want to be taught by a Nobel prize winner anyway, or any 'brilliant' researcher for that matter. When I'm sitting in my basic calculus class, all I want is somebody who can clearly explain how to do the mechanics of the problems in front of me. Having a 'brilliant' mathematician isn't really going to help to do that. What I really want is somebody who knows how to communicate the concepts clearly. That's why I found myself many times wishing that it was my high school math teacher who was teaching these courses. Sure, he wasn't a brilliant researcher. But who cares? At least he knew how to explain things clearly and make math seem fun, something that these 'brilliant' Berkeley math profs certainly did not do. </p>
<p>Which gets to the notion of 'passion'. While obviously great researchers are passionate about their research, there is a big difference between that and being passionate about teaching undergraduates, especially teaching a basic-level course to undergrads. Many profs are extremely annoyed at having to do this, and it shows. Makes sense too. Think about it. If you're a brilliant physicist, do you really want to be teaching the physics 7 or 8 series? Do you really want to be spending your time explaining what a vector is? Do you really want to be talking about the basic equation F=ma? I think not - you probably want to be back in your lab trying to discover the esoteric secrets of the universe. That's why many 'brilliant' profs feel frustrated about teaching undergrads, especially basic undergrad courses, because they feel constrained in having to explain 'dumbed-down' concepts. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I couldn't disagree more! One of the best profs at Cal was my Math 1B prof, I thoroughly enjoyed the class and the interactions I've had with him during his office hours.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And many students report, as can be seen on ratemyprofessors.com, how much they hated their Math 1B prof. Absolutely HATED him. Don't take my word for it. See for yourself. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think you also display the kind of ignorance about maths that many engineers or non-scientists have. Part of this ignorance is cultural, mathematics being more elevated in countries like France or Russia while the subject is viewed as too impractical in the States. Pure maths is a system of thought more than a set of tools, it a system that is a powerful basis to expand your mind and view concepts with more rigor but also more imagination.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Be that as it may, that just seems to be another reason why American students should not want to prefer Berkeley. If Berkeley teaches something in a manner that Americans dislike, then that only seems to be a reason for Americans to not want to go to Berkeley and instead prefer a school that will give them what they want. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The opportunity to interact with students from more privileged backgrounds at Berkeley is there, they make up about a quarter of the student body vs the majority at a school like Duke. Berkeley is actually #3 in the ranking from Washington Mounthly, which measures success by "how well a school is an engine of social mobility, drives economic growth through research, and demonstrates a commitment to national service".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh huh, and according to that same ranking, UCLA is actually ranked #2. So does that mean that people should turn down Berkeley for UCLA?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.collegeguide.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.collegeguide.html</a></p>
<p>And besides, consider the methodology behind the Washington Monthly ranking. It includes things like the percentage of students who enroll in ROTC, the percentage who enter the Peace Corps, and the percentage of federal work-study that go to community service. It also includes interesting categories like the total amount of research dollars spent (not the per-capita dollars spent, but the total number), and the total number of PhD's granted in science and engineering. It's hard for me to see what exactly that has to do with undergraduate education. You criticize USNews for offering 'irrelevant' categories, but the Washington Monthly ranking is far worse in that some of the categories are REALLY irrelevant. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.methodology.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.methodology.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
I wasn't saying that students from less-privileged backgrounds are less likely to succeed at Cal, just that they are less likely to attain their professional goals than students from professional backgrounds, and that Berkeley has about three times the % of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which might account for a large part of the gap in grad school acceptance rates.</p>
<p>This doens't necessarily mean that a student from a lower socio-economic background is more likely to succeed at a top private school, s/he might actually feel alienated by his/her new environment
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that is going to have to happen anyway. Look, if you're poor and you want to move up, you will inevitably have to interact with people who are richer than you at some time in your life. Whether you do it in college, or in graduate school, or in your job, or whatever, at some point, you will eventually have to interact with rich people if you want to become rich yourself. If you never want to be alienated, then that basically means that you will always stay with your peers, which means staying exactly where you are forever. </p>
<p>
[quote]
furthermore, your response shows the limitations of focus on professional goals and social mobility at the expense of broader goals of a more diverse educational experience. A future doctor or lawyer from a privileged background can greatly benefit from interacting with a more socially diverse student body.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, don't shoot the messenger. It's not me telling Berkeley students to focus on professional goals and social mobility. It is the students who have decided to do that all by themselves. Surely you have encountered the phenomenom where a giant chunk of incoming freshmen are seriously considering doing premed or prelaw. That's why MCB and political science are by far the 2 largest majors on campus. I think we can all agree that most people in those majors aren't "really" interested in MCB or poli-sci. Those majors are packed because they are full of premeds and prelaws. </p>
<p>Or how about when the consulting and banking firms come to recruit, and the line to talk to them stretches all the way across the room, and sometimes to the outside hallway? Or when those firms come to interview at the career office, their interview slots are always heavily oversubscribed? Why is it that professional programs like engineering and Haas always have far more interested students than space available for them? </p>
<p>The point is, it's not me that's focused on professional goals and careerism. Don't shoot the messenger. Don't blame me. It's Berkeley students themselves who are focused on professional goals and careerism. I am just telling you what they want. It's not my fault that that's what they want. I didn't create the situation. I am just telling you what the situation is. If you don't like it, take it up with the students. Convince them that they should be less focused on career goals. Be my guest. </p>
<p>However, given that students are highly focused on career goals, it is a legitimate question to ask what school should they prefer in order to fulfill those goals?</p>