<p>Someone told me that Berkeley’s undergrad English department is (second) best in the country. Has anyone else heard that? (and where do people find info on what colleges are good with what majors?) How do you think UCLA’s eng. department compares?</p>
<p>actually, my roommate is a 4th year english major, he says its the best in the nation.........and UCLA can't compare.....</p>
<p>It's very likely that it's the best; their graduate English department is ranked #1 in the country (tied with Harvard and Yale). You can find all of its graduate departments ranked by number in the first section of the course catalogue--almost all of which are ranked in the top 10. The high rankings of Berkeley's grad departments should speak volumes of the teachers' and GSIs' quality, but I have yet to see rankings of specific undergraduate departments.</p>
<p>Just for the record, though, I'm an incoming golden bear and haven't taken classes in the English department; I know only the statistics I've read, which are good.</p>
<p>Not to sound incongruous, but I think this whole conversation is steering towards a dangerous direction. The fact is, rankings of graduate departments have very little to do with undergraduate academic quality. Rankings of graduate departments are precisely that - the rankings of the how good the graduate program is, as usually measured by research effectiveness. Yet the reality is, as an undergraduate, especially in something like English, the quality of the graduate department has little to do with how good the undergraduate education is. What really matters at the end of the day is how well you are taught as an undergraduate, not how good the graduate program is. When you're an undergraduate, you should worry about undergraduate quality. When you're a graduate student, that's when you should start worrying about graduate quality.</p>
<p>To illustrate my point further, consider the elite LAC's, like Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Wellesley. I think we would all agree that these are excellent places to get an undergraduate program in English. Yet, what are the rankings of the English departments at these LAC's? Are they anywhere near the top? Are there anywhere to be found at all? For the most part, they are pretty much unranked. So does that mean that anybody who got an English degree from Williams College had a terrible terrible education, and doesn't know jack? I don't think so. What it actually means is that graduate departmental rankings and undergraduate quality are not tightly coupled. You can provide an excellent undergraduate education without a strong graduate department, and vice versa.</p>
<p>hey guys, my roommate is 4th year undergrad, i dont know where you keep getting the "grad' thing but no, i know what i'm talking about</p>
<p>Ok, then have your roommate justify to you where he is getting this information about Berkeley being the best for undergrad English. Then, whatever ranking he pulls out, have him point out where Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Wellesley are on that ranking and then ask him to justify their placements on the ranking, especially if they are nowhere to be found.</p>
<p>Sakky, i can definately see what you are saying. But dont alot of the graduate students teach at the undergraduate level. I mean i know the professor gives the lecture but when students are broken up into discussion sections they are taught by the TA. If according to the rankings and the other info that the graduate instructors are good, wouldnt their expertise and teaching pass down to the undergraduates? (similar to a trickle down theory)- Just a thought.</p>
<p>Msagaki, of course you are correct, a lot of graduate students (in fact, I would say darn near all of them) have to teach at the undergraduate level. </p>
<p>However, that just leads to the next question that you should have asked - why is it that as an undergraduate, so much of your instruction has to come from graduate students? You go to college to be taught by professors, not by graduate students. </p>
<p>Think about it - who are the graduate students, really? These are not established scholars. These are not (yet) established experts in the field. For the most part, they are just people who are a few years older than you who happened to have done rather quite well - at least, well enough to get into graduate school. But let's be honest. Many of them will never complete their PhD's (the attrition rate for PhD candidates is high), so many of them will never become true academic scholars. And many of them who do complete their PhD's will never become professors or even lecturers at even a no-name school (again, the competition for positions in academia is fierce), and some of them particularly those in the sciences/engineering, don't intend to enter academia anyway (they're going to go straight to industry). So, be honest, what's better - having the bulk of your teaching delivered by graduate students, or having it delivered by an actual, bonafide professor, like what happens at the LAC's like Williams, Amherst, etc. Keep in mind that the LAC's have few if any graduate students, and so the profs basically do all the teaching, including sections and so forth (Actually, in LAC's, the classes are so small that there is no need to break up the class into sections in the first place, but I think you see my basic point). </p>
<p>Also, you have to remember something else about graduate students at a place like Berkeley. What do they have in common? Basically, they were admitted because of their demonstrated potential to do research. Which means that they had good grades, good test scores, and research capabilities. What's missing in that list is good teaching skill. The ability to teach is rarely if ever a consideration in determining which graduate students to admit. So what you end up with are a bunch of highly skilled, research-capable graduate students but who, on average, are mediocre when it comes to teaching. True, some TA's are great teachers. But as I'm sure you know, some TA's are horrible. </p>
<p>The point is that teaching is a discrete skill. Just because you're brilliant and just because you're a good researcher doesn't mean that you're going to be a good teacher. We've all known people in our lives who are geniuses, but you don't really want to go to if you want to learn something, because they either don't know how to express themselves in a way for people to understand, or they're just jerks, or whatever it is. </p>
<p>In my life, I have had quite a few TA's who were brilliant researchers, but were completely worthless when it came to actually trying to learn anything from them. Many of them didn't know how to help you understand, and, quite frankly, some of them seemed as if they didn't want you to understand. A lot of TA's don't really want to be TA's (they are doing it because their program requires that they spend X semesters as a TA), and so they don't care because they want to get back to their research, and it shows. </p>
<p>Contrast that with the LAC's. To get hired at a LAC as an assistant professor, you have to show evidence that you are a good teacher. To get tenure at a LAC, you have to (among other things) present a long history of quality teaching. Hence, the quality of instruction you will get at a LAC is, on average, surely better than what you would get from a bunch of graduate students, you must agree.</p>
<p>The simple fact is, very few undergraduates are going to engage in research. Most undergraduates aren't good enough to do the research, and even of those who are good enough, many don't want to do research. Most undergrads just want to learn the material, and so they just want to be taught well. Hence, as an undergrad, what you should worry about is whether your program is going to provide you with good teaching, not whether your program does good research. When you're a graduate student looking for a good research mecca, that's when you should worry about what program is known for strong research.</p>
<p>Sakky just likes to argue. To say that Grad school quality has very little to do with undergrad is crazy. It has everything to do with it, especially at a large school like Cal. A highly ranked Grad department brings in the best grad students(GSIs) as well as the best profs, not to mention quality lectureres, increaded funding, and prestige in post graduate life. You have to remember that it is all one group of people in the English department, grad and undergrad.</p>
<p>Sakky doesn't realize that department rankings are based on the respect of that department overall. The teachings in Native American authors of the 17th century at Berkeley is going to be superior to anywhere else. </p>
<p>This knowledge, academic excellence, progressive way of thinking is what makes Berkeley ranked number 1 in English and a top 5 in almost every single discipline there is.</p>
<p>Fine, the explain what's going on with the LAC's then. Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore have essentially no graduate schools. So does that mean that their undergrad is terrible? Go ahead and say it - you think that the elite LAC's are some of the worst places to go and everybody who goes there is getting a shoddy education. Are you prepared to say that, conor?</p>
<p>What's going on with the LAC's is that the education is structured differently, and graduate programs don't overlap with undergraduate education. Sakky, your argument relies on the assumption that LAC and bigger universities are set up in the exact same model. They obviously are not.</p>
<p>An English undergraduate at Amherst/Swarthmore etc. may be getting smaller intro classes than a Cal English undergraduate, but there are negatives to a LAC English program. Like having half as many English classes to choose from.</p>
<p>Sakky, my man, is that the best you can come up with? Of course I don't think the top LACs are bad. I never implied that, and as a matter of fact they might even be better for certain individuals. As a guy who loves rhetoric as much as you, I am disapointed that you chose to go that rout, rather than talking about my points about how graduate schools work to better certain undergraduate departments.</p>
<p>Fine, conor, then we'll play it your way. So how exactly do graduate schools work to 'better' undergraduate departments? Let me pick your 3 points in turn.</p>
<p>First, you say that highly prestigious graduate departments bring in the best profs and the best GSI's. The key question is, what do you mean by 'best'? When you say 'best', do you mean the best researchers? Perhaps. But if you mean the best teachers, come on, I think very few people would agree with you on this point. The fact is, it is a rare person indeed that the best researchers are also the best teachers. In fact, often times (not always, but often), they are mutually exclusive, especially as it relates to undergraduate teaching. Think about it - if you were a genius, Nobel-caliber physics researcher, do you really want to be spending your time teaching Intro to Physics? Seriously. Here you are, dealing with some of the most complex and esoteric physics problems in the world, and then you have to be the one lecturing about how to calculate a basic force diagram? </p>
<p>Case in point, I think any Berkeley student can tell you horror stories of professors and GSI's who were just horrendous teachers. Sure, these guys are the 'best' in their field. But, as an undergraduate trying to learn the material, how does that fact help you? What does it matter to you that they are the 'best', if you can't learn from them? </p>
<p>Secondly - let's talk about increased funding. Sure, those 'best' departments get a lot of funding. But where does the funding go? In almost all cases, right back towards their research. And again, most undergrads don't participate in research. So what does it matter if there is so much funding available. </p>
<p>Furthermore, since you're the one that played the 'funding' card, then let's talk about funding. So, what is the expenditures-per-undergrad-student figure at Berkeley? And what is it at rival schools? Hmm, seems to me that Berkeley spends less per student than do rival schools. So if you truly believe that per-capita funding is something important, hey, that's actually a reason to not choose Berkeley. Are you sure you want to go down this road?</p>
<p>The third one, I will grant you. It's a matter of prestige. I completely agree - big graduate departments bring a veneer of prestige to them. So if that's what you want - just a prestigious degree - and you don't really care about things like teaching, then fair enough. But then again, that's no different than people who go to Stanford or Harvard just for the big name. </p>
<p>Now, to BigBrother, I'm afraid I cannot agree completely. I agree that some research universities are set up similarly to Berkeley. But not all of them are set up that way.</p>
<p>Case in point. Take Princeton. Be honest - what is Princeton, if not a LAC that just also happens to have a bunch of highly regarded PhD programs? Specificially, the Princeton undergrad program is structured very similarly to that of the LAC's, with limited GSI's, a traditionally extremely strong emphasis on undergraduate education (to the point that at Princeton, it is the graduate students who feel like 2nd class citizens, which is a far cry from what happens at Berkeley) , relatively small class sizes, and so forth. Yet, just because Princeton also happens to have a bunch of PhD programs, it is classified by USNews as a research university. But why? Let's face it - Princeton, in terms of pedagogical philosophy, is basically a LAC. </p>
<p>The same could be said for Caltech. Again, the use of GSI's at Caltech is limited, the class sizes are extremely small (some classes have more profs than students), and the emphasis on undergraduate education is quite strong. Heck, Caltech's undergrad student body is actually smaller than that of many LAC's. It's just that Caltech happens to have a bunch of elite graduate programs, so they are classified as a research university. But if you really were to look at the pedagogical philosophy, we could make an argument that Caltech is actually a LAC. Taking an undergraduate class at Caltech is more similar to taking an undergrad class at Swarthmore or Harvey-Mudd than it is to taking an undergrad class at Berkeley. </p>
<p>The point is that I have always found the distinction that USNews makes between LAC's and research universities to be a highly artificial one. Not all research universities are alike when it comes to undergraduate education, in fact, some are actually quite LAC-ish. Hence, it is quite possible for a "USNews research university" to set up its undergraduate model in the same model as a LAC. Look at Princeton. Look at Caltech.</p>
<p>Now you're arguing with US News, Sakky, rather than arguing with me...No doubt Princeton and Caltech both fall on the LAC model side of the spectrum. </p>
<p>That's why I didn't say "research universities", I said "bigger universities".</p>
<p>That Sakky really have a thing against Berkeley. He has been posting his long posts for years. I wish I had that kind of time on my hand.</p>
<p>sakky hates cal. we all know that</p>
<p>No, he doesn't hate Cal. A significant amount of what he says is constructive criticism...things that Cal could do better.</p>
<p>Sakky, please stop the Clintonian, "the depends what the definition of 'is' is. By best, I think you know what I mean, the brightest and highest achieving students. And your argument about researchers might be true in some science related fields, but it doesn't really hold up in English. Writing a disertation about Middle English law practices in Chaucer is not the same as devoting 60 hours a weak in a lab working on a cure for cancer. English GSIs aren't spending a majority of their time working on their disertation, they usually get some sort of grant or fellowship and don't have to GSI for a semester or two for that. As for prestige, well like it or not that also helps with undergrad education because it not only attracts the best grad students, but also the best undergrads who want to be part of the program and work with amzing profs and GSIs. As for funding, its true that Harvard and Yale offer more per student money, but they cost about 5 or 6 times as much to attend, so I think I'm more than breaking even in the deal. ANd maybe those schools offer better undergrad English programs, but because neither you nor I have had the privlage of attending both for undergrad, neither of us can say which is better. And thats not my argument anyway. By no means am I trying to keep you from your "Cal education is sub-par" mantra, but you you only make yourself look foolish by making this argument.</p>
<p>Come now, conor, you know and I know that the true dispute of this whole process is the definition of what 'best' is. Everybody has a different definition of what that word is. Heck, I can define the word 'best' such that some no-name junior college is the 'best'. </p>
<p>Let's talk about some of the points you brought up. First of all, you specifically brought up the topic of graduate students in English, and whether they do or do not become GSI's and their funding and so forth. You talk about how they usually get some sort of grant or fellowship and don't have to be a GSI for a semester or two for that.</p>
<p>Well, first off, in the semesters where they are not GSI's, then obviously they have no impact upon undergraduate education, because if they are not GSI's in a particular semester, then they are obviously not teaching any undergrads in that semester. In fact, during those semesters, they have very little interaction with the undergraduate student body at all. Hence, in those semesters, what they do is irrelevant to the topic of undergraduate education. </p>
<p>Furthermore, let's talk about grants and fellowships. Since you want to talk about English, let's talk about it. Consider this quote, from the Berkeley Department of English.</p>
<p>"Teaching
It is the expectation of the department that each student in the Ph.D. program will have the opportunity to serve at least two years as a Graduate Student Instructor (GSI). Typically, students begin teaching in the third year, following successful completion of course and language requirements, and first serve as teaching assistants leading weekly discussion sections for larger lecture courses taught by department faculty members. Students who have passed the qualifying exam become eligible for appointments as Teaching Associates. Associate Instructors teach their own sections, under general supervision, of English 1A/B, the required reading and composition course. </p>
<p>Graduate students may also be employed as Readers for several of the department's larger undergraduate classes. Readers grade papers and exams and hold office hours to confer with students. </p>
<p>Students who are appointed as GSIs and Readers receive in-state fee waivers in addition to a stipend. "</p>
<p>What that basically means is that many graduate students in English have to fund at least some of their years by serving as a GSI or a reader. While it is not an absolute 'requirement' to be a GSI or a reader, the reality is that many must do so. After all, ask yourself, why would somebody want to spend time being a GSI or a reader if he/she had a fellowship/grant that covered all the costs and provided a stipent anyway? I think we can all agree that many graduate students in the English department end up becoming GSI's and/or readers in order to cover their bills. Surely you cannot disagree with that.</p>
<p>Hence, think about what that means. It means that a lot of GSI's and readers are doing what they are doing not because they really want to, but because they have to. They need the money, and that's why they're doing it. But many if not most of them don't really want to be doing it. For the most part, they didn't come to graduate school to end up teaching a bunch of undergrads or grading a bunch of undergraduate papers. They came to graduate school to do their research and complete their dissertation. </p>
<p>Hence, I think we can all agree that all GSI's and readers in the English department (as in other departments) are there because they have to be there. Most of them don't really want to be there. Most of them would rather be working on their research. We've all seen examples in our life of people performing tasks not because they really want to, but because they have to. We've probably all been there ourselves - we get stuck doing something we don't really want to do. Tell me, how dedicated are we towards doing a good job when we're doing something we don't really want to do? </p>
<p>Also think about the issue from a quality-control standpoint. Honestly, how many GSI's really care about doing a good job? Some do, but I think we all agree that many do not. After all, if they get bad teaching reviews, does it really affect them? The key task they have to complete is their dissertation, and that's not going to be affected by how well or how poorly they were as GSI's. Berkeley is not going to deny somebody a PhD simply because he was a bad GSI. </p>
<p>Hence, it is inevitably that many GSI's adopt a "don't care" attitude. Again, don't get me wrong. Some GSI's are excellent. But many others don't know how to teach well, and they don't want to know how to teach well. Conor, if you're not a current Berkeley undergrad maybe you should ask current Berkeley undergrads about their general teaching skills of Berkeley GSI's. The consensus seems to be that while some are very good, there are many others that are mediocre at best. </p>
<p>I would again, also tackle your 'prestige' angle. You say that prestige attracts the best undergrads who want to work with amazing profs and GSI's. Fine, then once again, I would have you explain what's going on with the elite LAC's? It seems to me that the student bodies at the elite LAC's are just as strong, if not stronger than the student body at Berkeley. Surely those LAC students are not going there to work with top GSI's, because LAC's don't have GSI's. And as far as 'amazing profs' are concerned, it seems to me that Berkeley profs are probably more famous and prestigious than are the profs at Williams. So what does that mean? Are those students who chose LAC's being stupid for choosing LAC's? Are you saying that anybody who graduated from an elite LAC must have received a terrible education because he didn't get to work with famous profs or GSI's? I asked you these questions before, and you dodged them. </p>
<p>Also - about your contention that Harvard and Yale cost 5 times more than Berkeley? Really? And how about financial aid? I happen to know several people who got into Harvard and Berkeley are chose Harvard, in part, because it was actually CHEAPER to go to Harvard, once financial aid was factored in. Berkeley offered a package of loans and grants, whereas Harvard offered a package of all grants. One of those guys was joking to me that he 'really' wanted to go to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so he has 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. </p>
<p>Now obviously, for SOME people, particularly those people who are richer, Berkeley does tend to be cheaper than private schools like Harvard and Yale (however, if you are truly rich, then you probably don't care about the cost delta anyway) . However, the point is that Berkeley is not cheaper for everybody. Cheaper for some people? Yes. But cheaper for all people? Absolutely not. For some people, Harvard is actually cheaper. </p>
<p>And what's up with the contention that since neither of us can attend both for undergrad, neither of us can say which is better? By that same contention, neither of us have both attended Berkeley and Southwest Missouri State University, so maybe SMSU is better than Berkeley. After all, using your own logic, since you never attended SMSU, how would you know that SMSU isn't better? In fact, I could argue that Berkeley is the worse than any other school in the world, and since you obviously have not attended every school in the world, then by your own logic, you have no way of disputing that claim. Hey, I am just playing by your own rules. If you say that I have no basis for saying that Berkeley is bad because I have never attended rival schools, then you have no basis for saying Berkeley is good, because you never attended rival schools either. Are you sure you want to go down this road? Who's the one that looks foolish here? </p>
<p>Now, to BigBrother. You know that I have always had an issue with USNews's artificial dichotomy between research universities and LAC's. After all, they both hand out bachelor's degrees. So why shouldn't they be all be in the same category? After all, we're supposed to be talking about who offers the 'best' undergraduate education. When you ask that question, why is it important to make a disctinction between a 'research university' or a 'LAC'? You're either the best, or you're not. </p>
<p>I would also ask what do you mean by 'bigger' universities? I take it you mean 'bigger' as in 'larger student bodies' So, should Berkeley only be judged against other 'bigger' universities, but not small universities like Princeton or Caltech which have tiny student bodies? And if so, why? Again, at the end of the day, you are either providing the best undergraduate education, or you're not. If you're not, then it doesn't really matter why you're not. You can say that you're not because your school has lots and lots of students and so you're really big, but that doesn't matter. I don't want to hear excuses. I don't think anybody wants to hear excuses. Nobody goes to Berkeley or any other large school and accepts a subpar education just because the school is big. They want the best education, and if they're not getting it, they're not going to care about why they're not getting it. All they care about is that they're not getting the best education. </p>
<p>And finally to ev700 and najmsh, so you really think I hate Cal? I have always said that Cal is a tremendously strong graduate school, and even its undergraduate program, while flawed, is still pretty good, although it could be substantially better. But I suppose that doesn't matter, because according to you, anybody who points out anything wrong with Berkeley is a 'hater'. That's precisely why Berkeley never fixes any of its problem - because anybody who points them out is automatically labeled a 'hater'.</p>