<p>Mahras, I am surprised that you distinguish between graduate and undergraduate quality. That's something naive teenagers who regurgitate what their overprotective, ignorant and underestimating parents tell them to brainwash them against going to larger universities. I did not expect that from you. Cal is definitely as good as Duke at the undergraduate level and superior to Duke at the Graduate level.</p>
<p>mahras2,</p>
<p>What is the difference between the quality of graduate level education and the undergraduate level education? Isn't the faculty the same for a given school? I don't think any school has separated its faculty into 2 groups, the 'undergraduate' faculty group, and the 'graduate' faculty group. Can you give me a university which is great in graduate level ranking for a certain department, but sucks in its undergraduate ranking for that department? Check the US NEWS ranking in bussiness and engineering, there is not any notable difference for the list of top universities between undergraduate level and graduate level. If a university is good at the graduate level in one of these 2 rankings, it should be good at the undergraduate level ranking as well, as long as it has a corresponding undergraduate program.</p>
<p>Berkeley is not as good as Duke at the undergraduate level. </p>
<p>20,000 + undergrads at cal compared to less than 7,000 at duke?</p>
<p>Be real</p>
<p>I would not object to the notion that Cal's graduate programs are stronger than its undergraduate programs. Afterall, Cal's graduate programs as a collective are among the top 3 on Earth and Cal is definitely not one of the top 3 undergraduate institutions on Earth. However, Cal's undergraduate programs cannot be so much weaker than its graduate programs that the latter would be considered #1 or #2 in the US and the former would not be consider among the top 10 or top 15 in the US.</p>
<p>So DiamondT, by your reasoning, LACs are better than Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale? Afterall, LACs have, on average, three times fewer undergrads than H,M,P,S and Y.</p>
<p>Didn't take my parents to brainwash me on that. I generally am a fan of larger schools than smaller ones (didn't apply to LACs). </p>
<p>While there is certainly a positive correlation between graduate school strength and undergraduate strength (the top 20 undergrads all boast good grad schools), I do believe there is a difference between undergraduate and graduate school quality. Graduate school has a lot to do with specialization than the undergraduate level. </p>
<p>Lets take econ. If I was getting a PhD in finance with the goal to study the effect of info theory in finance without a doubt I would be heading to Berkeley. I would have a top notch advisor and direct access to great research. On the other hand, undergraduate econ curriculum is pretty standardized. Therefore, at the undergraduate level it comes down to other factors which varies from person to person. For me it would be research opportunities, ability to get personalized help and the ability to get recruited. Duke/Stanford would both be better for those areas than a large school like Berkeley where you would be competing against a larger number of people for a relatively small number of spots. </p>
<p>Nothing against large schools. Those are often the ones where great research is done but undergrads do tend to be second class citizens there. A friend of mine who is a bio major at Berkeley went through hell to score a decent lab position where he was doing more than cleaning test tubes. Most of the really good ones ended up going to grad kids.</p>
<p>Mahras, do you think the 6,000 undergrads at Harvard or Columbia somehow take precedence over the 14,000 graduate students? Do you think the 4,000 undergraduate students at MIT, Chicago or Johns Hopkins somhow take precedence over their 8,000 or so graduate students? Is it just at Cal where undergrads are treated as "second class" citizens? </p>
<p>And I personally believe in a highly specialized undergraduate education. I specialized a great deal as an undergrad. Yes, I took a great variety of Math, History, Political Science, Physics and Psychology classes at Michigan. I even took an Anthropology and an Engineering class. But at the end of the day, close to 25 of my 45 classes were in my chosen major, Economics. I took 6 graduate level classes my senior year and two of my professors were begging me to join PhD programs. And mine wasn't an unusual case. Roughly a quarter to a third of my fellow students were in a several position. Most of us chose to join major companies rather than enter the realm of academe, but the interaction you seem to think is lacking is definitely there. </p>
<p>I will definitely agree that at Cal, the administration is very bureaucratic and disjointed. I will agree that Freshmen and Sophomores must take initiative to get attention. But once students hit their upper level classes, they are getting the best education one can get.</p>
<p>College tour people always tell us that their institution is really actually an intimate liberal arts college within a research university and that undergraduates have plenty of research opportunities and that all their faculty teach undergraduates. In which top universities is this most true?</p>
<p>
Sure they do. Take Maryland as an example.</p>
<p>chronicidal- Dartmouth, Princeton, Brown, Rice, Tufts, Brandeis, Rochester, Wake Forest, Chicago, Case Western, Caltech.</p>
<p>Warblersrule, I agree with your list (except for Chicago), and I would add Duke, Vanderbilt, WUSTL and Yale to the list. However, it also depends on the major. For example, at Princeton, the Math department supposedly doesn't focus much on undergards.</p>
<p>Add W&M to that list</p>
<p>you guys are awesome! your linkes and data are very helpful. </p>
<p>I have narrowed down my choices to Stanford and Duke right now (got into Cornell, JHU, and some others also).</p>
<p>At first I was madly in love with Duke because of its commitment to social service. I really liked programs like Duke Engage, Duke Make a difference, the Hart Leadership Program, Baldwin Scholar, service initiative, etc. </p>
<p>I'm looking for a 'pre med track' and want to mix sciences with public health. that's my thing: AIDS activism, saving the world, becoming the next Paul Farmer :) haha</p>
<p>so when I was introduced to all of these wonderful programs at Duke, I wasn't sure if Stanford would have similar things, but I think they do. I dont think Stanford's are laid out as nicely as duke's, but I think you can find them. </p>
<p>Here's something a stanford student told me:</p>
<p>"Public service: Stanford wins, hands down; we've got tons of people graduating and joining/starting social entrepreneurship ventures. Again, being in the middle of Silicon Valley helps. Stuff gets started here. Waaaay more than at Duke. The Global Fund for Women was started by a Stanford prof. We've got graduates working at Benetech, the world's leader in providing easy and secure ways to report human rights violations. We have classes on how to start and maintain your own non-profit, along with workshops scattered throughout the year. I've helped brainstorm for Interplast to help them come up with new marketing strategies to attract donors so they can send more teams of surgeons abroad. I'm also part of a group now working with Kiva to help expand the range of people they receive donations from to help microfinance entrepreneurs in developing nations based on the model set by Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus. Some other amazing places within easy earshot: Delancey Street Foundation, Kaiser Family Foundation, Papilia, the Body Shop, BUILD, World of Good, and many more. Believe me, there is far more you can do here in terms of social service/programs"</p>
<p>I think that did it for me...</p>
<p>what do you guys think?</p>
<p>-laura</p>
<p>sorry for the typos above.</p>
<p>links*</p>
<p>You sound like a Duke person. IMO you are trying to convince yourself that Stanford has the same opportunities for you -- maybe someone nudging you that way -- but you would be most happy @ Duke.</p>
<p>"So DiamondT, by your reasoning, LACs are better than Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale? Afterall, LACs have, on average, three times fewer undergrads than H,M,P,S and Y."</p>
<p>In terms of quality of education, I would say that the top LAC's have a better undergraduation education than HYPSMC.</p>
<p>BTW, I attend Stanford, so it's not like I would be biased towards LAC's.</p>