Grad students at UCs get treated MUCH better than undergrads. HOW TRUE??

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>**Hi guys, one UCLA alumnus using a nickname, UCLAri, said something about the gap in the education (and quality) between the undergrad and grad studies in Berkeley. Is there some truth to it?? I’m very interested to know what you can say about that claim.</p>

<p>Here’s his full comments though I honestly think he wasn’t intending to make someone mad at his post. Let’s just limit the topic about the gap, difference and quality between the undergrad and grad studies in Berkeley. **</p>

<p>

</p>

2

<p>From what I have seen and gathered, that's true for the most (...whole?) part.</p>

<p>Honestly, when I was applying for colleges in high school, I had no idea there was such a discrepancy between undergrad education and grad education at the UCs.</p>

3

<p>I think all of what he said is true.</p>

4

<p>unlimitedx, I didn't know when I was applying either, but how do you feel now? are you satisfied with your undergraduate education thus far? Does it meet your expectations?</p>

<p>at least we're IEOR eh? ;) We have the great profs and tiny classes</p>

5

<p>Yeah not bad... though IEOR classes are getting bigger because they created a new major, ORMS, and ORMS students take the same core IEOR courses as we do.</p>

6

<p>Woah, you dudes are IEOR?</p>

<p>What kind of jobs are you expecting out of college? IEOR is awesome.</p>

7

<p>Well, IEOR is a pretty board major in terms of career choices, that's what I like about it... :)</p>

<p>The IEOR 39B is a pretty good seminar, and was one of the many factors that made my decision to switch from Bioengineering.</p>

8

<p>Great. Biongineering isn't so great.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
Most of the top researchers don't really teach classes anyway at the UCs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not true at Berkeley because it's rare for a professor to NOT be a top researcher in his or her field. If a person says that most of the top researches don't teach undergraduate classes, he or she is effectively saying that most classes (lectures) aren't taught by professors, which is false.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Most undergrad and lower div teaching is done by young professors and lecturers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In my experience, that's not the case. What I've actually observed is that most undergraduate teaching is done by middle-aged professors mostly because it is middle-aged professors (not necessarily tenured) who are the most numerous at Berkeley. Likewise, in my experience, lower div teaching is actually done by SENIOR professors who, because of their age and research, have been given the relatively easy task of teaching lower div as a sort of early retirement-vacation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
professor of mine at UCLA once said to me, "College isn't about learning facts. Facts are in books. College is about learning mental tools and making important connections both in your social life and brain. If you want to learn facts you pick up a book and read it. If you want to develop yourself, then you go to college."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am somewhat reluctant to believe that a professor said such an irrational series of statements. College, like life, is certainly about learning facts. Heck, the irrational quote itself purports itself to be a fact. And it is a fact that it exists and that the original poster of it appears to have "believed it." You can't pretend that "making important connections both in your social life and brain" aren't tantamount to creating facts - that is, things which occur. Ever heard of the "facts of life"?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Great research doesn't make you into a great teacher. Trust me, I had some "great researchers" at UCLA who were AWFUL teachers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What is this guys background? Science-related field? It's important to know because more often than not, there will be more disparities in research/teaching ability not among individual professors as a whole, but among DISCPLINES. For example, you always hear of great math researchers (profs) at Cal who are horrible teachers. But do you ever hear of great history researchers (profs) who are a horrible teachers? No, not really. It just doesn't happen and has a lot to do with different personalities types across academic. It's important to acknowledge those differences.</p>

10

<p>The top researchers at any University usually teach a limited set of courses and infrequently. This is how research faculty are hired--they are promised they won't have to teach 2 classes every semester, because they want to do research. There are also teaching faculty, those that don't do research (or do minimal research). They will focus on developing courses and teaching them. You can't be a full-time reseacher and a full-time professor, it's just too much. Some lean more in one direction than the other, that's just how things work.</p>

<p>I completely agree with the sentiment that college is not about learning facts, it is about developing yourself. College is about learning HOW to learn, about making it so that whatever you do in life comes easy intellectually, because you've had to take hard classes and do well. I don't see how that's related to the other statements, though.</p>

<p>I also agree that great researchers are not necessarily great teachers. There's nothing unusual or surprising about that. That's like saying a great violinist is necessarily a great violin teacher. That just doesn't make sense.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Besides, you have a couple possible goals after undergrad: get a job or go to grad school. Princeton grads do a better job of getting great jobs and getting into the best grad schools. They must be doing something right over there.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They're more selective, they have better students. The students are what's right, not the school. If you're qualified, it doesn't matter what school you attend, you can get a great job or go to the best grad school.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
The top researchers at any University usually teach a limited set of courses and infrequently.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What exactly are "top researchers"? Nobel Prize winners? If that is your criteria, then your conclusion is true. The Nobel is, for one reason or another, the most famous and thereby the most "prestigious" award that can be awarded to an academic. Faculty who get the Nobel oftentimes don't teach at all.</p>

<p>However, you should also recognize that the Nobel is just one prize which faculty in CERTAIN fields can win. It is my opinion that when you speak of "top researchers" you should not only be speaking of Berkeley's 6 Nobel Prize winners, but also of </p>

<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/about/honors/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/about/honors/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>If you think that most of the winners of those non-Nobel awards on that list don't teach undergraduates you are wrong. They do.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is how research faculty are hired--they are promised they won't have to teach 2 classes every semester, because they want to do research.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you have the numbers?</p>

<p>
[quote]
There are also teaching faculty, those that don't do research (or do minimal research). They will focus on developing courses and teaching them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Since when do faculty "develop" courses? I always thought that was strictly under the jurisdiction of departamental staff. After all, why give certain staff members the title of "Curriculum Planner" if the faculty are going to do it anyway?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You can't be a full-time reseacher and a full-time professor, it's just too much.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is entirely false. One, many professors do both. Two, it's not "too much" - when you think about it, dealing with undergrads only requires 10-12 hours a week for most if not all professors! (8 hours lecture and lecture preparation, 2 hours of office hours.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
I completely agree with the sentiment that college is not about learning facts, it is about developing yourself. College is about learning HOW to learn, about making it so that whatever you do in life comes easy intellectually, because you've had to take hard classes and do well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But "learning facts" and "developing yourself" are not mutually exclusive scenarios. </p>

<p>Say a student wanted to work with teachers' unions in Los Angeles Unified School District for the rest of her life after graduating from Berkeley with a BA in Political Science. Her chances of getting the job (doing "easy intellectually") would be greatly augmented if, during the interview, she could prove to have an extensive knowledge of facts (learned at Berkeley's libraries and classrooms) directly related to teachers' unions in LAUSD.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
If you think that most of the winners of those non-Nobel awards on that list don't teach undergraduates you are wrong. They do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Read what I wrote again.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Do you have the numbers?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, but I've talked to a professor who told me that he was technically "teaching" faculty, meaning he focuses on teaching courses. He doesn't get involved in research to a large extent, and when he does it's through student-driven seminar-like research courses, such as the 98/198 series.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Since when do faculty "develop" courses? I always thought that was strictly under the jurisdiction of departamental staff. After all, why give certain staff members the title of "Curriculum Planner" if the faculty are going to do it anyway?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Since always? If you look at the courses listed in the course listings, for EECS at least, we have a professor (or 2-3 professors) that are "in charge" of every course, meaning they are the authority on it. The same professor I mentioned previously discussed how he designed, with some other professors, a new course for our department and implemented a curriculum for it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That is entirely false. One, many professors do both. Two, it's not "too much" - when you think about it, dealing with undergrads only requires 10-12 hours a week for most if not all professors! (8 hours lecture and lecture preparation, 2 hours of office hours.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Name a professor that works 50 weeks a year, 8 hours a day in a lab that also teaches every semester. It simply isn't done. Look, professors that dedicate themselves to research want to spend as much time doing research as they can. That means if they don't have to teach a semester, they won't. That's fine. They're being paid to do research instead. That's how this job works. They may teach a course for a semester, but will likely take the next semester off from teaching. Then some professor who had the previous semester off will take over.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But "learning facts" and "developing yourself" are not mutually exclusive scenarios.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not saying that you don't learn facts in college. I'm not saying you shouldn't, or couldn't learn facts in college. I'm saying that the primary purpose of college, above all else, is to develop yourself. If you come out of college with a full understanding of all the subject matter from all 4 years, and yet you're still as socially and intellectually mature (not intelligent, mind you) as you were in high school, you might as well have not bothered coming.</p>

13

<p>I have to back up eudean on this one. The fact is, research and teaching are not entirely consonant, and in fact, in many ways, are actually orthogonal. A lot of, probably most, prominent researchers at any major research university do not teach undergrads very often, and often times don't particularly enjoy doing so. </p>

<p>I'll give you an example. At Harvard, it is somewhat commonplace for assistant profs who are shooting for tenure to actually be given no classes to teach for the entire year before their tenure review. That's because they are supposed to use that year to publish as much research as possible to be able to take their best shot at tenure. It's not a "true sabbatical", which would give you an entire year off from doing anything. Rather, it's really a "teaching sabbatical" - you don't have to teach for a whole year. I also found out that this is not Harvard-specific. Lots of other schools do this too. </p>

<p>So think about what that means. Here are schools that actually relieve their professors from teaching responsibilities so that they can concentrate on winning tenure. That must mean that teaching isn't particularly important, at least for tenure review. If teaching really was important, you would think that these profs would actually want MORE teaching responsibilities during that year before review. In fact, they actually usually want less (and they get it). </p>

<p>I also agree with eudean that most profs are largely in charge of their own curricula, and the more higher level the course is, the more that the prof is in charge. To give you a 'celebrity' example, Marvin Minsky of MIT is completely in charge of the artificial intelligence classes he teaches, and especially his Society of Mind classes.. Trust me, NOBODY is going to tell Minsky how to teach that class He is, after all, "Mr. Society of Mind". Curricula Planners tend to deal only with lower-level subjects where courses tend to be taught by a rotating series of profs and thus course continuity is crucial. But when you're talking about courses that are always taught by only 1 prof (and Society of Mind is always taught only by Minsky), you don't need planners.</p>

14

<p>I think we should distinguish between "top professors" (much of Berkeley's faculty) and "celebrity professors" (for example, Judith Butler), the latter being a HUGE name in a field or multiple fields, somebody obviously incredibly well-known, coveted, and respected, and someone particularly and extremely special to a field or department. Agreed?</p>

15

<p>I just use Minsky as one example as one person who is rather infamous for his control over his own teaching style. Trust me, there are plenty of profs at Berkeley, MIT, Harvard, or anywhere else who would never let anybody tell them how to teach anything.</p>

16

<p>I understand and believe it, I just think that what the celebs do is far different than what many of the "top professors" do, and it seems some people are using them interchangeably- I think they are different things.</p>

17

<p>drab, did u set up the dorm internet already?</p>

18

<p>Nah, I haven't made it up to Berkeley yet. i'm still in SoCal (unfortunately). I wanted to leave today, but it didn't happen . . . yet, anyway.</p>

19

<p>guys, thanks for your post especially those who are REAL berkeley students/alumni who contributed. you've been very helpful. </p>

<p>here's another post he made. gawd, he's starting to irritate me. he has said nothing good to cal but his posts start to get on my nerves. grrrrr... </p>

<p>it's so weird that someone who went to UC has nothing good to say but all negative. he should never have gone to UC in the first place if he does not want it there. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Oh, and the number of people who choose Cal over Stanford is VERY low, so you're in an extremely small minority. It's fairly obvious that most students choose the best school they can get into, and whether we like it or not, that usually translates into the highest ranked school.

[/quote]
</p>

20

<p>Too many people are stuck in a politically correct world where everything has to be stated in a positive manner.</p>

<p>In a way it can be an advantage as it can keep you trying even when the probability of success is incredibly low.</p>

<p>But in another way, being critical is often a far fairer way of assessing reality. The truth of the matter is, Cal is in a lot of ways worst than even many other public schools. Other schools have cheaper housing, 4 year dorms, and honors programs. Cal has none of these things. It has advantages too such as its reputation and the ability to network with top minds, but you are selling youself short if you ignore all of Cal's rather glaring weaknesses.</p>