<p>I am going into MCB at Cal and I was floored by the number of world renown professors and it seems really strong. How does it rank in comparison to other top schools biology programs. The other post with this comment was for pre-med. I am going down the route of graduate school, perhaps md-phd, staying in research i think. anyways, usnews says its GRADUATE program for bio is number 2, does that trickle down to undergrad mcb? it seems really strong when i went, so just wondering how it compares i guess to other undergrad bio programs</p>
<p>Yes, because your GSI's and Professors are all the same faculty and students in the grad program.</p>
<p>so your saying berkeley is up there with mit, stanford, etc...for biological studies</p>
<p>The trickle-down theory is rather dubious. After all, how is it that the elite LAC's can, on a per-capita basis, get so many of its undergrads into top grad programs despite not having any world-renowned professors or big research projects going on? If there is nothing to trickle down, then how can these programs be so successful? </p>
<p>I have always noted that the LAC's always never seem to get the proper recognition despite their high levels of success in preparing their students for graduate school.</p>
<p>okay, so maybe sakky it is true that if a school does not have a great grad program it can still have a great undergrad. but i think thta if i a school has a great grad program then it most likeley will have a pretty good undergrad.</p>
<p>I disagree with sakky. The #1 factor in the quality of education was for me the quality of the faculty. The other factors like class size are not nearly as extreme as some might think, they are in fact comparable to those from top private schools. </p>
<p>
[quote]
how is it that the elite LAC's can, on a per-capita basis, get so many of its undergrads into top grad programs despite not having any world-renowned professors or big research projects going on? If there is nothing to trickle down, then how can these programs be so successful?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>faulty logic, sakky. The fact that you can do it without a great faculty through schools with very small enrollement is not a proof that there is no trickle down at Berkeley.</p>
<p>I think the LACs are successful simply because a small proportion of top applicants (usually wealthy) prefers to go to a small schools. It's a bit like how some home schools high-school level students do well, it doesn't mean that home schooling is necessarily superior to a top HS. Basically, you can fill all the top LACs with the top two thirds from Cal and Michigan alone. </p>
<p>Like the case for home schooling vs top HSs, there is a limit to personalized teaching, in terms of exposure to broader course offerings/electives at Cal (the same way you get exposed to more teachers in HSs vs home schooling).</p>
<p>
[quote]
okay, so maybe sakky it is true that if a school does not have a great grad program it can still have a great undergrad. but i think thta if i a school has a great grad program then it most likeley will have a pretty good undergrad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's a tenuous connection, I'll say. </p>
<p>Let's lower the temperature by putting Berkeley aside. Let's talk about other schools instead. According to USNews, UCDavis actually has a higher ranked Bio grad program (#17) than does UCLA (#22). Does that mean that when it comes to undergrad, that you should turn down UCLA for Davis? Heck, I see that Davis actually has a higher ranked bio grad program than does Chicago (#19), Columbia (#19), UPenn (#24), Cornell (#28), Northwestern (#28), Brown (#40), and Dartmouth (#40). But honestly, unless money is the reason, when it comes to undergrad, how many people are honestly going to turn down those private schools to go to Davis? Be honest. Would you? </p>
<p>
[quote]
faulty logic, sakky. The fact that you can do it without a great faculty through schools with very small enrollement is not a proof that there is no trickle down at Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm simply saying that you don't NEED a high-ranked department to be able to deliver a strong undergrad education.</p>
<p>Furthermore, see my response above. I highly doubt that a lot of undergrads are going to want to go to Davis rather than some of those private schools that I mentioned, despite Davis having a higher bio grad ranking. I see bio majors from those private schools far more represented in bio doctoral programs than I see students from UCDavis.</p>
<p>But don't take my word for it. Let's go ask molliebatmit, who just did the grand tour of the top grad bio programs to figure out where she will get her PhD, and eventually picked the PhD bio program at Harvard Medical School. She basically reported that at every school she interviewed at, she would run into the same batch of candidates. How many do you think she ran into who came from Davis? I'm going to go with 'zero', and I think I'm going to be pretty close to the mark.</p>
<p>Hmm, getting past the argument and answering the question...</p>
<p>Look at the online schedule. If you note the names of the teachers for the undergraduate and the graduate program, a significant number of them are the same.</p>
<p>So if those teachers are renoun (I don't know, I didn't do anything except scan over the schedule) then you can judge for yourself.</p>
<p>I've heard the program is excellent--but very difficult.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So if those teachers are renoun (I don't know, I didn't do anything except scan over the schedule) then you can judge for yourself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This gets back to a much larger issue. There is no doubt that the Berkeley faculty is renowned. But how much use is that really if you are an undergrad? The truth is, you become renowned at Berkeley (and any other research university) for your RESEARCH contributions, not really for your teaching. This is highly desirable if you're a PhD student who wants to work on the next great research project. But it's far less useful if you're just an undergraduate trying to learn the subject. Plenty of brilliant researchers are terrible teachers. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that reseearch skills and teaching skills are two entirely different things. Just because you can come up with ingenious insights doesn't mean that you are necessarily able to articulate the subject in a way that is accessible to undergraduates. There is also the simple matter of desire. A lot of prof's simply don't WANT to be teaching undergrads, strongly preferring to spend their energy in the lab producing the next great discovery. They are sometimes forced to teach anyway because they happen to draw the short-straw in the departmental meeting. Because they don't really want to be teaching, they choose to spend little time properly preparing for lectures, and it shows. </p>
<p>One of my colleagues, a Berkeley alum, once told me of a story where all the professor would do is read the book out loud during class, word-for-word. That's all he would do, in every lecture. Students eventually stopped coming to class. After all, we all know how to read. There is really no point in having a class at all if all that's going to happen is that somebody is going to read the book to you. You might as well just stay in your room and read the book yourself. There is no 'value-add' by going to class. </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that all of Berkeley's profs are like this. Indeed, Berkeley does have some very good teachers. My point is, just because a department has lots of famous researchers does not mean that you are going to be well taught as an undergrad there.</p>