<p>How is the quality of teaching at Berkeley and how intellectual are the students?</p>
<p>good, and excellent.</p>
<p>This is a very broad question. The teaching really varies from class to class. There are many large intro classes where the professor is pretty mediocre, or the professor has a heavy accent and can't explain simple concepts. This is pretty prevalent in the sciences. Then there are classes where you'll probably learn more from reading the book than attending the lectures. There are good professors too, but from what I've seen, not the majority. Anyway, you can pick your professors in most cases, so usually you can avoid the really bad ones.</p>
<p>The students are decent. For the most part they participate in pretty normal stuff and have normal conversations. You don't see too many people staying up and discussing the current state of the world or theories regarding the expanding global economy or stuff like that. It seems like students here are more hand-working than really genius material, although there are some geniuses out there. Heck, some students aren't even hard-working. There are quite a few students who tend to be rather mediocre and disappointing, and the occasional "how did this person get in."</p>
<p>Way to generalize vicissitudes. Let me try. The professors are great and the students are geniuses. But to get away from blanket statments, I'd say the there are some crappy teachers, but the majority are pretty darn good. Berkeley has arguably the best faculty in the country, so everyone here is going to be distinguished in his or her field. That doesn't mean that they'll all be good teachers, but it does mean that they know what they're talking about. But vicissitudes is right about one thing (and only one) which is that the students for that most part are pretty normal. Unlike him though, I don't use that as a pejoritive. They are normal, good people for the most part (just students at every other elite college). Its not like Harvard students are debating each other about string theory outside of class. Everyone is just trying to get by and have fun.</p>
<p>blondeonblonde,</p>
<p>The only difference between your post and vicissitudes' post was that yours was much more positive. Otherwise, you've generalized a fair amount yourself. :p</p>
<p>Hmmm... the one thing that disappointed me about UCLA when I visited it this week was the lack of outside-the-class intellectual discussion, or at least the fact that I didn't see any. But now it seems as if there is a lack of that at Berkeley too. That's kind of disappointing.</p>
<p>rgomez,</p>
<p>Most students are a bit too busy to just sit around and discuss intellectual issues...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Way to generalize vicissitudes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How did I generalize? My first comment was that the teaching varies from class to class. I said that there are mediocre professors and good ones, and there are some students who are geniuses and some who frankly don't work very hard. I don't think I expressed a pejorative view towards the students. There are a few geniuses but not many, and there are some students who are pretty lazy and mediocre. I think many Berkeley students would agree. I'm just telling it like it is. To be fair, this is the case at many other top universities anyway, and at least Berkeley is better in this aspect than say, UCLA or UCSD.</p>
<p>I actually don't know how much better Berkeley is than UCLA in this regard. Student satisfaction levels seem to be pretty similar at both.</p>
<p>vicissitudes, I'm a berkeley student and I don't agree with you at all. First, how are you defining genius? Second, what you have described is a student population at any school. Some are good, some are bad. If you would have started your post with, "Like all Universities" I wouldn't have a problem with what you said. And how are you grading the professors? Becuase, again, all schools have some good and some bad teachers, but it is pretty universally agreed upon that the faculty of berkeley is one of the best in the country, so if they're that bad then what does that say about the thousands of other schools with less impressive faculty members? And please don't try the "but they're too obsessed with research to be good" argument, because EVERY research instituition is obessed with reseach, so the playing field is equal in the regard. If you have some special data about why Berkeley professors aren't as good at teaching as professors at other top schools, please feel free to post it.</p>
<p>rgomez, if you want to discuss intellectual issues with others outside of class, you WILL find them here</p>
<p>
[quote]
I actually don't know how much better Berkeley is than UCLA in this regard. Student satisfaction levels seem to be pretty similar at both.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, by which I mean, you might find more geniuses at Berkeley than the lower UCs, but with UCLA the difference is pretty small. The two are similar in many regards.</p>
<p>
[quote]
vicissitudes, I'm a berkeley student and I don't agree with you at all. First, how are you defining genius?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By genius I mean someone who understands class material easily without studying 24/7. I don't see these people very often. Most people struggle with class material and assignments. I've seen people take a whole day or more just to finish one weekly assignment. In fact in some classes this is the norm.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, what you have described is a student population at any school. Some are good, some are bad. If you would have started your post with, "Like all Universities" I wouldn't have a problem with what you said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhh, didn't you read my previous post? I said that this is the case at many top universities. I think it's superfluous to say that in every single one of my 2000+ posts. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And how are you grading the professors? Becuase, again, all schools have some good and some bad teachers, but it is pretty universally agreed upon that the faculty of berkeley is one of the best in the country, so if they're that bad then what does that say about the thousands of other schools with less impressive faculty members? And please don't try the "but they're too obsessed with research to be good" argument, because EVERY research instituition is obessed with reseach, so the playing field is equal in the regard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's pretty universally agreed upon that the faculty of Berkeley is one of the best in country...with regards to research. I think if you were to conduct a survey on teaching quality you would find very different results. I agree with you that every research institution is obsessed with research...but so what? I don't think the teaching at say, Cornell or Michigan is stellar either. I've never praised other research institutions. I bet there are quite a few mediocre professors at Harvard too. In fact the students there complain about it. But if this is a thread about quality of teaching about Berkeley, I'm not going to start ranting about Harvard or Cornell. I'm going to tell you about the quality of teaching at Berkeley. What would the students who are coming to Berkeley care about teaching at another research institution? Just because Columbia might have a lackluster Chem professor doesn't somehow make Berkeley's Chem professor better. If he's poor then he's poor.</p>
<p>By the way, if I were to praise the teaching quality of certain colleges, it would probably be the elite LACs, such as Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, etc. I suspect the teaching at Princeton and Dartmouth, which are more focused on undergrads, are also better on the whole. So even if other research institutions don't provide amazing professors, Berkeley's still far from having the #1 faculty in terms of teaching quality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
rgomez, if you want to discuss intellectual issues with others outside of class, you WILL find them here
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah I agree with this. I don't want you to get the wrong idea that no one discusses intellectual issues. It's just that most people don't bother. But I know people who get together every week and have philosophical debates, and there are many people with good insights if you ask them. They won't come up to you and start debating the fine details of metaphysics but if you go around talking and asking them, you'll find some smart people with a lot of pretty interesting ideas you haven't thought about before.</p>
<p>"By genius I mean someone who understands class material easily without studying 24/7."</p>
<p>Oh, then yeah, this is totally unique to Berkeley. People at other top schools are all like Will Hunting. No studying, just A's. My bad.</p>
<p>"Uhh, didn't you read my previous post? I said that this is the case at many top universities. I think it's superfluous to say that in every single one of my 2000+ posts."</p>
<p>You only said something when I called you out.</p>
<p>"I think if you were to conduct a survey on teaching quality you would find very different results"</p>
<p>Wait, let me see if I can adopt your logic. Here goes: "I think if you were to conduct a survey on teaching quality you would find that the teachers are Berkeley are the very, very best in the history of the world." See, I can say things without backing it up too!</p>
<p>" I agree with you that every research institution is obsessed with research...but so what? "</p>
<p>So what? So when you answer a question about berkeley's teaching you say, "oh, by the way, the only way you can avoid this is by going to an LAC" This seems like a pretty big point to leave out of you argument.</p>
<p>"I suspect the teaching at Princeton and Dartmouth, which are more focused on undergrads, are also better on the whole. So even if other research institutions don't provide amazing professors, Berkeley's still far from having the #1 faculty in terms of teaching quality."</p>
<p>You suspect? So I guess that makes it true, right? Again, I suspect that Cal's teachers are the best in the history of the university. And I guess by your statment, berkeley would be number three in teacher quality behind Darmouth and Princeton. Or are there other research schools with better teachers that you're leaving out?</p>
<p>"I know people who get together every week and have philosophical debates...They won't come up to you and start debating the fine details of metaphysics"</p>
<p>You realize how ridiculous this sounds? Please name a school where students randomly walk up to you and start debating the fine deatails of metaphysics. So, just like your other comments, you pick on berkeley for the same things that are happening (or not) at EVERY major research university. Why not point out that berkeley doesn't have anti gravity chambers to study in or that professors don't pass out 100 dollar bills after ever lecture. I mean, if you're going to point out things that don't happen anywhere, why not at least get creative with it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, then yeah, this is totally unique to Berkeley. People at other top schools are all like Will Hunting. No studying, just A's. My bad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where did I say that this is unique to Berkeley? In fact I'm implying the opposite. In post #12 I said that the situation at Berkeley is similar to that at UCLA, and in post #8 I said that what I describe at Berkeley occurs to a similar extent at many other top universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You only said something when I called you out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, I'm not going to add all these caveats to every single post I write. If someone asks about the quality of teaching at Berkeley, I'm going to tell him/her the quality of teaching at Berkeley. I'm not going to tell him/her about the quality of teaching at Berkeley, then compare it to the quality of teaching at other research universities (which the OP didn't ask for and probably doesn't care about), then laud it for having better teaching than so-and-so university. I'm not a representative working for Berkeley to improve its public image. If someone asks a question the logical thing to do is provide a straight answer. If the OP asks "how is Berkeley's teaching compared to other top universities" or "how is Berkeley's teaching compared to the Ivies" then I'll provide a different answer.</p>
<p>But in any case, I did add the caveat that the often mediocre teaching at Berkeley also occurs at other top research universities, so I don't know why we're still debating this point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wait, let me see if I can adopt your logic. Here goes: "I think if you were to conduct a survey on teaching quality you would find that the teachers are Berkeley are the very, very best in the history of the world." See, I can say things without backing it up too!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's my logic: if we were to conduct a survey on teaching quality Berkeley's professors would probably not come out on top. This is because Berkeley does not hire its professors based on how well they teach; Berkeley hires its professors based on the research they produce. As a result, some of them teach well, and some of them do not. There are other colleges (LACs for example) that put more focus on teaching quality, so logic dictates that the professors at those colleges provide a higher quality of teaching. This is simple logic. I don't have to back everything up with conclusive data compiled over years of collecting with detailed analysis. That's not an efficient use of your time or mine. We can simply use logic and common sense to fill in the gaps. If a college is more focused on teaching quality and hires according to how well someone teaches, then it follows that that college will very likely have better teaching quality. Your statement is based on nothing (so far as I can tell).</p>
<p>
[quote]
So what? So when you answer a question about berkeley's teaching you say, "oh, by the way, the only way you can avoid this is by going to an LAC" This seems like a pretty big point to leave out of you argument.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I have said before, that's not what the question asked. If the question asks "how is the teaching quality at Berkeley" why should I go into the teaching quality at other research universities and other LACs? I'm trying to give an unbiased answer that directly answers the question given. To say that "Berkeley's teaching is alright, but you're not going to get significantly better teaching at whatever other research university you're considering anyway, so you should come here" is obviously promoting Berkeley. Just because I'm posting in the Berkeley forum doesn't mean I have some automatic affiliation to the institution. In fact I think it does the readers a disservice. The readers should read about the situation at each schools and then decide for him/herself. Think about it this way: a student is considering Berkeley or Cornell. Is he going to come here, ask about teaching quality, find out it's not as good as he wanted, and then just choose Cornell? Of course not. He's going to ask about teaching quality at Berkeley, and teaching quality at Cornell (presumably on the Cornell forums) and then compare the two and come to his own conclusions about the two schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You suspect? So I guess that makes it true, right? Again, I suspect that Cal's teachers are the best in the history of the university. And I guess by your statment, berkeley would be number three in teacher quality behind Darmouth and Princeton. Or are there other research schools with better teachers that you're leaving out?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't say that makes it true. That's why I said "I suspect" instead of "it's a fact that" because I don't have 100% solid and objective data that this is true, but it doesn't mean we can't arrive at a probable conclusion using our logic and what we know. Since Princeton and Dartmouth are focused more towards undergrads relative to Berkeley (this we know) we can conclude that it is very probable that you will get better teaching there as an undergrad than at Berkeley (this is from logic). What is your statement that Berkeley's teaching is the best in its history based on?</p>
<p>And I don't think Berkeley provides the best teaching for a research university behind Princeton and Dartmouth. Out of the 2000 or so other universities there's gotta be at least one with better teaching than Berkeley, I'm just not familiar with all of them enough to say (frankly, if I were familiar enough with 2000-odd universities, I'd be worried about myself).</p>
<p>
[quote]
You realize how ridiculous this sounds? Please name a school where students randomly walk up to you and start debating the fine deatails of metaphysics. So, just like your other comments, you pick on berkeley for the same things that are happening (or not) at EVERY major research university. Why not point out that berkeley doesn't have anti gravity chambers to study in or that professors don't pass out 100 dollar bills after ever lecture. I mean, if you're going to point out things that don't happen anywhere, why not at least get creative with it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, now you're getting defensive about nothing. I'm not even attacking Berkeley at all. Someone asked about intellectual discussions outside of class and I'm telling that person that they don't occur very often. And I actually think that's a good thing. I would not want to attend a university where the students just debate over esoteric matters every waking second. Most students at Berkeley are just normal wholesome young adults trying to have normal, wholesome lives, and what's wrong with that?</p>
<p>Now I know what you're going to say: why didn't I say in my post that "oh by the way, I think this is a good thing"? Again, I'm just trying to provide information. I don't have some personal hidden agenda where I'm trying to promote Berkeley and make everyone think it's the best place to go for college. I'm not going to answer every question by only saying the positives and then adding after every sentence "oh by the way, it's good that Berkeley is doing this."</p>
<p>To your point about anti-gravity chambers, I don't mention them because no one asked about them! If you start a thread asking "do Berkeley professors ever pass out 100 dollar bills after every lecture" I'll respond with "no, they do not" and I won't say something like "oh by the way, Harvard doesn't either." I just tell it as I see it and try to answer the question directly, without going onto some ridiculous tangents about wacky scientific impossibilities. Hey, the posters' time is precious and I'm not going to waste it by rambling about nothing.</p>
<p>"This is because Berkeley does not hire its professors based on how well they teach; Berkeley hires its professors based on the research they produce."</p>
<p>Just like every other research institution.</p>
<p>"What is your statement that Berkeley's teaching is the best in its history based on?"</p>
<p>Logic.</p>
<p>"Out of the 2000 or so other universities there's gotta be at least one with better teaching than Berkeley"</p>
<p>Why do you say that? How do you know?</p>
<p>"See, now you're getting defensive about nothing. I'm not even attacking Berkeley at all"</p>
<p>I found your statment to be silly, so I responded to it. If I say something that a professor thinks is stupid he will certainly tell me. And I wouldn't have a problem with it in the least bit. </p>
<p>My whole point is that people come here and use this information (to some extent) to choose where to spend the next four years of their lives. I think they deserve to have as much information as they can get. If someone didn't know any better and asked a question about quality of teaching and you say that its mediocre, that prospective student might not realize that what you are really saying is that the vast, vast majority of research institutions have mediocre teaching. Never mind the point that I don't agree with the idea that good reseach automatically means bad teaching or vice versa. So this person has a few options. 1) they can wait for someone else to call you out on that claim, in which case you will admit that you are speaking about a problem that goes way beyond berkeley. Or 2) they can trust your judgment and believe that this is a problem specific to berkeley. If you really were trying to help this person out wouldn't you want to key them into the fact that unless you go to an LAC (or princeton/dartmouth) that they will be forced to deal with mediocre teaching? Same thing with whole genius/metaphysics over the breakfast table comments. Alot of people think that college students at top universities actually do walk around debating Sarte or string theory or whatever, so by you not aknowledging that these things don't tend to go on at ANY college you are implying that it is stictly a berkeley phenomenon. I'd be curious how many posts you make on the harvard or stanford or mit boards warning people about professors that are overy concerned with research. If you have no "automatic affiliation" to berkeley, then I'd think you'd be willing to post these same comments on those other boards as well.</p>
<p>If parts of my post look a bit disjointed, just look at the bottom of the post and you'll know why.</p>
<p>Okay, I get where you are coming from. Here's my point: a student who is deciding between several colleges would naturally go to all the colleges' forums and ask about them, and then decide amongst them. Thus, I don't feel like I have to say "oh by the way, are you also considering Cornell? Because the professors there aren't that much different" because I assume that the student, if he considering say, Cornell, will go to the Cornell boards and ask "how's the teaching quality at Cornell" to which someone will respond "the professors are decent, I've had some amazing ones and some lackluster ones". If, in choosing between Berkeley and Cornell, the student only comes to the Berkeley forum, finds out that the teaching is uneven (i.e. sometimes good and sometimes bad), and then just decide to turn it down without trying to find out anything about the teaching at Cornell, well then I'm not sure if that kind of student is bright enough to come to Berkeley anyway.</p>
<p>To your other comment: I would gladly point out other schools' problems on their boards if I were more familiar with them and have more time. Unfortunately I probably already spend too much time on CC already, so I mainly post in the Berkeley forum since I'm most familiar with it.</p>
<p>Why count on other boards when you seem perfectly capable of giving advice? If you're goal is to make Cal seem like a bad school, then by all means continue to single it out, but if your goal is to help students then you should use whatever oppinons you have to enlighten the student on all points. As for you second point, why do you need to feel familiar with other schools to make comments about them? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that research institutions offer professors that care more about research than teaching. If that's how you feel than you should share that information with students who are thinking about attending other top research schools. If you're basing berkeley's poor teaching on something other than the fact that it is a research school than by all means you should share that information, but if it is just based on research than I don't think you need to be overly experienced with a school to share your oppinions about the quality of the professors.</p>
<p>I enjoyed blondeonblonde's style of argument and reasoning on this one.</p>
<p>I think I'm being pretty reasonable. It just seems to me that unless you have some ventetta against Cal, you sould be fair about the information that you give. If Cal is specifically bad in certain areas than by all means share that, but if you're only speaking in generalities then you're lying to the prospective student by keeping that information to yourself. I think its possible that certain people just don't like Cal for whatever reason so they try to convince otherst that its worse than it is. That's fine. Its a free country, but don't try to sound like you're impartial.</p>