English...best in the country?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
21

<p>Purely in terms of education, LACs and bigger universities both offer the same type of product, undergraduate education. But LACs offer a completely different college <em>environment</em> than “research institutions”, a good reason to split them up, because the rankings are most important to somebody researching college options. They both offer the same thing, just like trucks and motorcycles both are going to get you across town. But you don’t rank trucks and motorcycles in the same list. People who want to attend a LAC are going to want a small student body, isolated environment etc. </p>

<p>Of course, unlike motorcycles and trucks, these aren’t perfect categories but rather a spectrum, and the Princeton environment is going to be closer to Williams than UT Austin, despite being in the same category in US News. But don’t let the handful of exceptions get in the way, the average student body in the Research Institution list is going to be 10 times the size of the average student body in the LAC college list. </p>

<p>Bigger universities offer things that LACs cannot. Substantially more classes are offered, important guest speakers and performances will come to campus, a much larger school library. Beyond the immediate classroom there are many more educational opportunities. How can you rank these things when you’re trying to rank “undergraduate education”? You can’t. </p>

<p>So yes, I do believe that Berkeley should be ranked with schools of the same size, and Princeton and Caltech should be ranked with smaller schools. The size of a school affects its undergraduate education in ways that you can't put numbers on.</p>

22

<p>Sakky, good to see you back to your old form. Brevity was never your strong point. Ok now, were to begin? How about the topic of GSIs. I would say that there are definitley some who don't want to be there, who really have no interest in what they're doing, but from my ecperience that is rare. You see, these people get off on English. They love it, cant get enough of it, and would be happy talking about it all day. I would say even more so then some Proffs who have been at it for 30 years. Either way, it doesn't really matter because as much as you dance around the issue of what makes a quality grad student, the fact is that Cal has the number one rated English department in the country, so they are going to get some amazing applicants. Now, as far as how those applicants turn out as GSIs, I cant say for sure, but I can tell you that I'd rather take my chances with one of them then with a GSI with the 150th ranked English department in the country. OK enough of that. Next, you say that I can't really say that Berkeley is better than Southwest Missouri State, which I fully agree with. I can't. And I haven't. But on the other hand, if someone lets me choose between eating a juicey 1/4 hamburger (yum!) and a steaming pile of dog poop, I'm gonna go with the burger. You see, although I've never eaten poop(and I hope I can speak for you here) I have a pretty good idea that it wont taste as good as the burger. Moving on. I've heard you use this "sometimes the Ivys are cheater" argument, but lets be honest, you have to be really, really poor get your tution waved at Harvard or Yale. Most people fall somewhere in the middle and for the overwelming majority of people, Cal will be much, much cheaper. +, that has nothing to do with the argument that having a top rated grad school help the undergrad program. You're trying a bate and switch, sakky, and I'm not gonna fall for it. Whatever, I know you'll continue to badmouth your school whenever possible, but I just wanted to put in my two cents.</p>

23

<p>Badmouthing the school? My position on Berkeley has always been the same - excellent graduate schools, flawed but still pretty good undergraduate program. If that's your definition of 'bad-mouthing' a school, then so be it. However, I maintain my stand that it's important that the flaws be discussed, unless you happen to be one of those people who wants to pretend that the flaws don't exist. I thought this was supposed to be a discussion group to have an honest discussino about Berkeley, not a cheerleading section for Berkeley. </p>

<p>And again, you refuse to deal with the issue at hand, which is research vs. teaching. I agree that the Berkeley graduate students are at the top of their game - when it comes to research. After all, they are there because of research. But just because you like to do research and are good at it doesn't mean that you like to teach, especially when we're talking about teaching undergrads. Think about it - let's say that you are a top-flight graduate student in English doing highly esoteric and obscure research on Elizabethan poetry or whatever. Does that mean that you want to be teaching basic freshman composition to some undergrads, or that you're going to be good at it? Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but the point is, there is no necessary connection between the two. High-end researchers get excited about talking about things at their level, I agree, but you must agree that they tend to dislike dumbing things down to the undergraduate level. As an undergrad, you just want to learn the basics, but brilliant graduate students tend to get bored teaching the basics. </p>

<p>And besides, it doesn't matter anyway. First off, I see that you still won't answer the question of how departmental rankings have to do with places like Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, or other elite LAC's. Tell me, what are their departmental English rankings? Oh, they don't have any. So what does that mean then? You keep dodging the question, but I'll keep asking it. Does it mean that a guy who has an English degree from Amherst received a terrible education? I don't think so. I think what it really means is that the value of 'departmental rankings' is limited. </p>

<p>Let's compare what happens at Berkeley and, say, Amherst. You go to Berkeley to study English, you are going to be taught by profs and by GSI's. The profs and the GSI's are mostly interested in research, not necessarily in teaching. You go to Amherst to study English, you are going to be taught only by profs. There are no GSI's. The profs are specifically chosen because of their strong interest in teaching and their skill at it. Are you still sure that the Berkeley undergrad is better off.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And I haven't. But on the other hand, if someone lets me choose between eating a juicey 1/4 hamburger (yum!) and a steaming pile of dog poop, I'm gonna go with the burger. You see, although I've never eaten poop(and I hope I can speak for you here) I have a pretty good idea that it wont taste as good as the burger.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly, so you agree that your argument before that "since I never attended 2 undergrad schools, I can't compare them", is nullified. Just like you can surmise that one school is better than another without having to actually attend both, so can I. </p>

<p>
[quote]
you have to be really, really poor get your tution waved at Harvard or Yale

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh? Really really poor, you say? Harvard has just announced that anybody who comes from a household that makes less than 60k a year will get a full-package, and if that household makes less than 40k a year, that package will consist of 100% grants. In 2002, the average US household income was about 42k. Yale's policy is not exactly the same but is not substantially different. So what's this talk about having to be 'really really poor' in order to get yourself covered at Harvard or Yale? </p>

<p><a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income02/prs03asc.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income02/prs03asc.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
"[the tuition] has nothing to do with the argument that having a top rated grad school help the undergrad program."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So then why did you raise the issue? You're the one who raised the issue of price, not me. You're the one who talked about how you were getting a 4 or 5 times better financial deal than you would have gotten at Harvard or Yale. I agree that cost, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with the discussion of graduate schools and undergraduate programs, but then, why did you bring it up?</p>

24

<p>Now to Bigbrother, I would agree with you that perhaps having 2 categories is useful from a taxonomic perspective if there were only a few exceptions along the way. </p>

<p>But I don't believe there are only a few exceptions. I believe that many if not most "research universities" are effectively quite LAC-ish. Again, we both agree on Princeton and Caltech. But those aren't the only ones. With the exception of Cornell and maybe Penn, the Ivies display strong LAC-ish characteristics. After all, what is Dartmouth, if not basically a LAC that just happens to also have a few professional schools and a few graduate schools? What is Brown if not a LAC that just happens to have a med-school and a few PhD programs thrown in? What is Yale if not a LAC that happens to also have a bunch of graduate programs? The same thing could be said for the non-Ivy schools that are considered to be 'research universities'. For example, isn't Rice basically a LAC? I might even make the argument that MIT is basically a LAC, at least in terms of size (keep in mind that MIT has only about 4000 undergrads, whereas Wellesley has about 2500 - so the MIT undergrad program is really not that far off). Or how about the University of Chicago - it has only about 4000 undergrads. Places like Duke, Johns Hopkins, Emory, - the undergrad programs at these places are not particularly large (~6000 undergrads). Even Stanford has only about 7000 undergrads. </p>

<p>So really, when you look at it, I would have to say that there are more 'exceptions' in the research universities classification than there are non-exceptions. Think about it. Just like Princeton is closer to Williams than to UTAustin in terms of environment, I could make the argument that MIT is the same way. After all, if you had to pick one that is closer to the MIT undergrad environment, would you pick Williams, or UTAustin? I could make the argument that Chicago is the same way, etc. etc. When you start getting this many exceptions, you really have to wonder just how useful the categories really are.</p>

25

<p>Where to begin? For the last time (and I don't know how I can make this any more clear) LACs ARE GOOD!!!!! I"M NOT DISMISSING THEIR QUALITY!!! How else would you like me to frame that? Because it seems to me that I have consistently stated this, and yet you keep saying that I'm dodging something. One more time: LACs give are good. There. Whew. The question, which you seem to have forgotten, was never "what is better, cal or an lac." The question was, does a good grad program help its undergrad counterpart. So lets go ahead and stick to that. If you want to discsuss another issue feel free to start a new thread. By the way, I do think that Cal has problems, as does Harvard and its ilk, and if you want to start a tread about cal's problems I'll give you my word that I will be very ready to contribute. But, as I said, this is about something else, something specific. The thing I don't get about your argument is it appears that you're saying the only way to get a good education is at an lac. Because this idea that Grad students being bad teachers is not unique to Cal. But my point is that the quality of grad students is better here(for this area, and if you follow the rankings) then almost any other place in the world. So I'll ask you again, if the GSIs are bad here, what are they going to be like at a school that doesn't have one of the top grad programs? Namely, every other non-lac in the county. Are they all going to be bad?</p>

26

<p>No, the question is not solely about GSI's and their impact on undergrads. The real question is about the quality of undergraduat education. A sidepoint is, as I have been discussing with Bigbrother, whether the "research university" is really LAC-ish. Again, take Princeton. Bigbrother and I (and I would suspect also you) would agree that Princeton is basically just a LAC that also happens to have some strong graduate programs. You go to Princeton as an undergrad, you are rarely if ever going to be taught by a GSI. Princeton uses far far less GSI's than does Berkeley. So let's say that Berkeley does have better graduate students than Princeton does. In terms of undergraduate education, what does that matter, if Princeton rarely uses GSI's anyway? You go to Berkeley as an undergrad, you get taught by a mix of profs and GSI's. You go to Williams an an undergrad, you get taught by only profs. You go to Princeton as an undergrad, you get taught by mostly profs (with the occasional GSI). Hence, the real question is not whose graduate students are better, the real question is whose undergrads are being taught better.</p>

<p>Now, I would agree with you that if you want to compare Berkeley to, say, UCLA, then because these 2 schools run their undergraduate education in almost the same fashion, then your comparison is clear - you will probably get a better undergrad education at Berkeley than at UCLA. In both cases, the education is mostly delivered by GSI's, so in that case, the quality of the GSI's matters a lot. Hence, I have always agreed that Berkeley provides a better undergraduate education than does UCLA. </p>

<p>But we're not just talking about UCLA or similar schools. We are talking about ALL schools. Remember, this discussion is about Berkeley's #1 English department ranking and what does that really mean for undergraduate education. When you compare against only other schools that also rely heavily on GSI's, it means something. But I would contend that when you want to compare against all schools, it doesn't mean that much. </p>

<p>The REAL question is how good the undergraduate education is, and the fact is, you don't need to deliver undergrad education through GSI's. The LAC's certainly don't. Even the so-called research universities vary in how much they use GSI's, i.e. Princeton and Caltech use them very little. To say that Berkeley has excellent graduate students doesn't really say much about the undergraduate education when you compare Berkeley to places that don't really use GSI's.</p>

27

<p>Most research universities use GSIs. To what degree, I really don't know the stats. To say that Cal english uses more GSIs than other schools without giving any data doesn't mean much to me. For the sake of argument I'll assume that Princeton uses less english GSIs, and maybe because of that they have a more satisfying undergrad english program, but if we are going to use that argument then we have to assume that all schools that DO use more GSIs are worse than Cal, because Cal has higher quality students (and please just concede this point!) But really this isn't the issue. The issue is, again, that grad programs help (or hinder) thier undergrad counterpart. I don't understand why you even disagree with this, because to me it seems like common sense. Like I said, if you want to talk about something else, I'm more than willing, but right now we are soley talking about the above topic.</p>

28

<p>Conor, I have never disputed that Berkeley has an excellent graduate English department, and that Berkeley English graduate students are excellent researchers in their field.</p>

<p>The real question is how much of that translates into an excellent undergraduate program, and to me the connection is tenuous at best. The LAC's example proves that you don't need a strong graduate department (or any graduate department at all) in order to run a strong undergraduate program. </p>

<p>The difference is twofold. #1 - as I have said, some schools simply use fewer (or no) GSI's in teaching their undergrads. And #2 - just because you're a brilliant researcher doesn't mean that you're a good teacher. Yes, some brilliant GSI researchers are also good teachers. But other brilliant researchers are terrible teachers, either because they don't know how to teach, or (even worse) because they don't WANT to know how to teach, and consider it to be a distraction that drains their time from what they really want to do, which is research. </p>

<p>Case in point - when the Berkeley English department has to decide what graduate students to admit, honestly, how heavily do you think teaching ability and teaching motivation is weighted? Probably hardly at all, you must agree. You know and I know that they are going to look at grades, GRE scores, papers written, and other evidence that a candidate is going to produce strong research. Whether the person is a good teacher, or whether the person even cares about teaching, is way way down on the list, if it is even on the list at all. </p>

<p>I'll put it to you another way. The best English teacher I have ever had is the one I had in 9th grade. Was she a brilliant, genius researcher in the field? Hardly. But it didn't matter. She knew how to teach. On the other hand, some of the absolute worst English instruction I have ever had are from exactly the "brilliant GSI's" that you cite. Brilliant researchers? Sure. On the other hand, horrid teachers. They didn't know how to teach, and they didn't want to know. The time I spend trying to learn under them was far better spent just sitting at home reading the book.</p>

29

<p>I absolutely agree that what kind of GSI a person would make plays no significant role in the admitance proccess, but (and its a big but) I would hope that once they ARE admited, the university would be more selective with who they choose to be a GSI. After all, not every grad student is a GSI. Plus, maybe the less inclined grad students choose to be readers rather than GSIs, that way they don't actually have to teach anything. Another thing, outside of very, very basic english, the vast majorty of GSI's are only leading section, not actually conducting lectures. As I'm sure you'd attest, section is alot more relaxed and requiers alot less teaching ability. As far as the LAC argument that we keep rehashing, you're right, as you've been all along, you don't need a strong Grad department to have a strong undergrad. But then again it doesn't hurt, and in fact it actually helps tremendously. The thing you have to keep in mind is that LACs and big research Universities draw completely different students and you can't really compare them. They both have their pros and cons.</p>

30

<p>Well, what we hope to happen and what actually happens are two different things. For example, while we may hope that the university would be selective about who it chooses to be a GSI, the reality is very different. As I'm sure you know, many departments at Berkeley actually REQUIRE service as a GSI from every one of its graduate students as a precondition for the PhD. Not just as a reader, but as an actual GSI. Hence, you end up with GSI's who are very good, to mediocre, to absolutely terrible. You get some GSI's who really like teaching, and then those who are there only because they have to be there and who couldn't care less about whether their students are actually learning anything. </p>

<p>Speaking specifically of the English department at Berkeley, while the department does not have a formal requirement to serve as a GSI, the way that other departments at Berkeley do, it is basically a 'de-facto' requirement. That is, unless you are one of the minority of Berkeley English graduate students that manages to land full fellowships for the entire way through, you are expected to be a GSI for several terms. It's basically a de-facto precondition of your grad-student funding. So, once again, you end up with those English GSI's are there because they have to be there. </p>

<p><a href="http://english.berkeley.edu/graduate/#Teaching%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://english.berkeley.edu/graduate/#Teaching&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

31

<p>Wouldn't you agree though that leading section doesn't really mean "teaching." Sure, they're in charge, but their job is to get students talking about things that the actual teacher brought up during lecture. Yes, they need to be able to answer questions when they come up, but in my experience there has never been a GSI who didn't know 100 times more about their subject then any undergrad in the section meeting. There are GSIs that make section better and their are GSIs that make section worse, but the main component is the ACTUAL teacher, not the GSI.</p>

32

<p>Knowing more than the undergrad and actually being able to convey that knowledge (or simply even wanting to convey that knowledge) are completely different things. </p>

<p>Speaking specifically about the points you addressed, sure, GSI's need to able to answer questions. The problem is that some GSI's can't answer questions in a manner that is actually intelligible by the average undergrad. Even worse, some GSI's don't really want to answer your questions. Again, I would point out that while some GSI's are highly motivated, others are there just because they have to be there, and have no motivation to really answer your questions, run a good section, or really do anything at all.</p>

33

<p>This has morphed into something vastly different from where it started, but thats OK. I guess I'm just going on my own experience, which has been pretty good on the GSI front. Maybe next semester I'll get one of these bad ones that you keep talking about and I'll change my tune, but for now I'll continue to be happy with the people who have intellegence that dwafs my own, as well as having office hours at coffe shops that let me enjoy a nice mocha while I visit with them.</p>