<p>as a current student at cal, i have to say I'm happy with the quality of professors so far in my lower div classes. I've been fortunate enough to have good professors for all of my classes so far, but I know there can also be bad ones (like at any institution).</p>
<p>GSIs, varied a little. On the whole, my GSIs have all been excellent, though there was one single GSI who was, by no means horrible, but a bit unclear and I felt she could have been better.</p>
<p>Other than that, the quality of instruction imo is excellent. I've heard a fair number of complaints from my friends going to various other universities (among those, stanford; which people tend to like to compare cal to).</p>
<p>I think you're reaching into a mixed bag here. Few colleges will offer all great instructors and few will provide only bad ones. Cal is no different. There will be very attentive and accessible professors, as well as arrogant ones. I would venture a guess and say that the quality of teaching overall, though, is quite high here.</p>
<p>Okay, I was lazy so I wanted to just not post a response and let this thread die. Apparently that's not happening.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, so explain to me how I'm singling out Berkeley, when the thread is talking about Berkeley in a forum about Berkeley. When there's one topic at hand, and someone's talking about one topic, that's not called "singling it out." If this thread were talking about multiple schools, and I only talk about Berkeley, then yeah I'm singling it out. But that's not exactly what's going on here. I mean, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do that would make you happy. So when someone asks "what's the quality of teaching at Berkeley" should I say "Oh, it's so-so on the whole, and by the way the same goes for the teaching at Michigan, and UVa, and the other UCs, and the food's decent, and you can get a nice triple for $9,995, and the maximum number of units you can take per semester is 20.5." Did the OP ask for all this info? No. The OP asked "what's the quality of teaching at Berkeley" so I answered "it's so-so." What's wrong with a straight answer? Am I twisting the truth? No, that's what I think Berkeley's teaching quality is. Why do you automatically assume that the student already has a twisted version of the truth in which the student thinks all top universities provide extremely good teaching, and by somehow showing him the light only for Berkeley, that's somehow that means I'm out to get Berkeley. I thought being "impartial" is just being truthful without taking a side. Show me a definition somewhere that suggests otherwise.</p>
<p>By the way, if anyone's being impartial here, it's you. It seems to me like you just want to present Berkeley in the best light possible and try to get everyone to come. I bet if I wrote a response that said "oh, Berkeley's teaching's pretty good, certainly better than UCLA's or UCSD's" you wouldn't try to attack me for it, but if I were to say something like "oh, Berkeley's teaching's pretty good, but not as good compared to the elite LACs" you would respond with "hey, why only compare Berkeley with LACs? That's singling it out! It's still better than most other universities! Why not compare universities with universities?" Admit it, that's what you would say. Why not just stop the comparisons and just give a straight answer, no strings attached? Let the student himself figure out the other institutions? Or are you afraid that being impartial wouldn't present Berkeley in a good light?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why do I feel the need to be familiar with a school to comment on it? Would you like to show me how I could comment on a school about which I know nothing? Let me go around telling all the prospective students about the teaching at Harvard, even though I've never taken a class there in my life. Then there are bound to be hordes of people jumping down my throat for talking about a school with which I have no experience with. So I can't win either way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, I am basing it on something else other than the fact that it's a research institution. I think it's a horrible generalization to just say that "since Berkeley is a research institution, its teaching must not be great." In fact I think that's exactly what we should not do: label a school as having bad teaching simply because it's a research institution, yet that's exactly what you are encouraging me to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So now I have a vendetta against Berkeley? I've defended Berkeley numerous times in this forum and others. I've always said that it has one of the best grad programs in the country, a undergrad program that is better than the vast majority of other schools, and should probably be in the top 15th. I give credit where it's due, and I don't think Berkeley's teaching is where the credit is due. Look, there are some good teachers at Berkeley, some phenomenal ones, even. I give credit there. I mentioned that in my first couple of posts. There are also some bad teachers and I mentioned those too. If I really had a vendetta against Berkeley, it seems like I would be only talking about the bad teachers. But that's not what I'm doing. Even you have to admit that taken as a whole, the teaching isn't stellar. There are good ones and there are bad ones. That's something we all agree on, and that's exactly what I wrote. So I don't see how I'm "lying to the prospective students" or "have a vendetta against Berkeley."</p>
<p>I've explained this before and I'll explain it again: it's impractical for me to add extra information when it's not being asked. I try to answer as many students' questions as possible by just giving a short, straight answer, so I don't want to keep going around adding caveats that puts Berkeley in a better light (in other words, hold a bias in favor of Berkeley). And it seems to me like most people don't bother to do this. Let's just look at a few threads on the Berkeley forum. This one asks about Berkeley's education:</p>
<p>Wait, what about in the late 90s when Berkeley went from #27 to #20? UCLAri didn't mentioned that! Or how about the fact that other schools (private schools with growing endowments) are rising faster in the rankings, partly because there's more room for them to grow? UCLAri didn't mentioned that! He must be against Berkeley then! In fact if you check that thread, you'll see that I did mention that, and in fact defended Berkeley's education. But I didn't see you jumping down UCLAri's throat and praising me.</p>
<p>Or how about this thread about Cal's prestige?</p>
<p>
[quote=sakky]
I've certainly known quite a few engineering students who went through this transformation. As incoming freshmen, they plan to accomplish an entire kaleidoscope of activities - but a year or 2 later, all they want to do is avoid flunking out.
</p>
<p>Wait, what about those engineers who come out of Berkeley doing extremely well? sakky didn't mention the whole picture! He must really hate Berkeley then. In fact, let's look at what I wrote in that thread:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with your first statement. But in my opinion even if you don't get active in everything UCB has to offer, it still provides one of the best undergrad engineering program out there (the others being Stanford and MIT).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I don't see you jumping down sakky's throat and then start praising me for giving students "impartial" information.</p>
<p>So let's review: I praise and defend Berkeley in most of my posts, then come and post one post that presents it in a slightly negative way (which I think is just being honest) and suddenly I have a vendetta against Berkeley. Is it YOU who have a vendetta against ME? Or do you just never speak up whenever I speak positively about Berkeley and only try to bash me in the face when I'm not? Because that's your definition of impartial, right?</p>
<p>"The OP asked "what's the quality of teaching at Berkeley" so I answered "it's so-so." What's wrong with a straight answer?"</p>
<p>Nothing. But if you're saying the teaching is so so because the teachers are too concerned with research (which is what you said), then you are being dishonest by not adding that all reseach schools will have the same problem.</p>
<p>"By the way, if anyone's being impartial here, it's you. It seems to me like you just want to present Berkeley in the best light possible and try to get everyone to come."</p>
<p>I think if you went back and looked at my posts you'd see that I'm pretty fair about berkeley and its faults.</p>
<p>"Why do I feel the need to be familiar with a school to comment on it? Would you like to show me how I could comment on a school about which I know nothing?"</p>
<p>Well, you've said that the mediocre teaching is due to being too focused on reseach. Its safe to assume that Harvard is just as interested in research as Berkeley is, so I don't see why you couldn't comment on it. THat is, unless there is another reason why berkeley's teachers aren't good besides the research thing, in which case I'd love to hear the reason.</p>
<p>"Yes, I am basing it on something else other than the fact that it's a research institution."</p>
<p>Please share with us what you're basing it on then. Your previous posts have said that its based on being overly concerned with research.</p>
<p>"Even you have to admit that taken as a whole, the teaching isn't stellar."</p>
<p>No, I think the teaching is very stellar. I'd guess that most Cal students would agree with me. Of course there are some bad apples, but as a whole there probably isn't a better and more well rounded faculty in the world.</p>
<p>"Wait, what about those engineers who come out of Berkeley doing extremely well? sakky didn't mention the whole picture! He must really hate Berkeley then."</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>"So let's review: I praise and defend Berkeley in most of my posts, then come and post one post that presents it in a slightly negative way (which I think is just being honest) and suddenly I have a vendetta against Berkeley."</p>
<p>I didn't say you have a vendetta against berkeley.</p>
<p>"Is it YOU who have a vendetta against ME? Or do you just never speak up whenever I speak positively about Berkeley and only try to bash me in the face when I'm not? Because that's your definition of impartial, right?"</p>
<p>I don't have a vendetta against you. But I don't follow you around to see what you're posting on a daily basis either. I happened to see what you posted and I thought I'd disagree with you. All I want is for people to be clear and accurate with their posts (either for or against berkeley). If I don't try to clear things up that I beleive to be false then they have a way of slowing turning into truth. For years the big beef against Cal was that all the classes were HUGE!!!!!!! People said it so much that it turned into truth and the evidence de jour for why berkelely isn't a good school. No one seemed to care that this whole statment is false and that berkeley's classes aren't much bigger (and in some cases smaller) than just about all of its peer schools. So if you're saying the teaching is generally less than stellar I want you to say why you think that. If you are basing it entirely on your first hand experience than I can't argue with that. But if you're trying to pin it to something bigger (like research) then I want you to explain how this is a problem unique to berkeley before it becomes the next evidence de jour for berkeley's crappiness.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nothing. But if you're saying the teaching is so so because the teachers are too concerned with research (which is what you said), then you are being dishonest by not adding that all reseach schools will have the same problem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I didn't even mention research in my first two posts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, you've said that the mediocre teaching is due to being too focused on reseach. Its safe to assume that Harvard is just as interested in research as Berkeley is, so I don't see why you couldn't comment on it. THat is, unless there is another reason why berkeley's teachers aren't good besides the research thing, in which case I'd love to hear the reason.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well then, Cornell is also interested in research. So is Michigan. So is MIT. So is Yale. Why didn't you mention any of those schools? Why did you only mention Harvard as a comparison? Maybe you are trying to single out Harvard and Berkeley? Maybe you have a vendetta against the two schools? That's your definition, not mine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please share with us what you're basing it on then. Your previous posts have said that its based on being overly concerned with research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I said that since Berkeley tends to hire based on research and not teaching quality, and that might explain the phenomenon that I have observed that frankly, Berkeley's quality of teaching is uneven.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, I think the teaching is very stellar. I'd guess that most Cal students would agree with me. Of course there are some bad apples, but as a whole there probably isn't a better and more well rounded faculty in the world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As a whole? That would imply that almost all of your teachers have to be at least above average. This is far from the case from what I've seen. Maybe you just happened to have experienced a better crop of teachers. But as a whole, I think there are better faculties out there with regards to teaching. The elite LACs, for example.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't say you have a vendetta against berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's what you wrote:</p>
<p>
[quote]
It just seems to me that unless you have some ventetta against Cal, you sould be fair about the information that you give.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since you clearly don't think that I am being fair about the information that I'm giving (for some reason), it follows that I have a vendetta against Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I happened to see what you posted and I thought I'd disagree with you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But you also saw the thread on Cal's Prestige (since you posted in it) and you didn't bother to write a whole paragraph on how sakky left out information, even though now you admit that you agree. So it seems to me like you disagree with a bunch of posts and just pick and choose which ones you want to argue against. And I think that's perfectly fine; I certainly don't have enough time to argue against everything on CC that I disagree with. But that's the point: just as how you post against whichever point you feel like, I post whatever I feel like. When I first made the post on this thread, I didn't feel like going into more depth and mentioning other research universities (who knows if the OP is even interested in another research university). But at least I made a post that was my honest opinion and directly relevant to the question. If you want to come in and say that "while I agree that there are some bad teachers at Berkeley, that's probably the case at every top university", I don't have a problem with that. But don't start accusing me of being unfair or lying to the prospective freshmen.</p>
<p>By the way, if I shared my experiences with the teaching at Berkeley, it might scare off even more prospective students. But my PM is open if you're that interested.</p>
<p>"Actually, I didn't even mention research in my first two posts."</p>
<p>You didn't give much of a reason in your first posts other than some professors are hard to understand and can't explain the concepts. Later, when pressed, you said that it was because Cal cares too much about research.</p>
<p>"Well then, Cornell is also interested in research. So is Michigan. So is MIT. So is Yale. Why didn't you mention any of those schools? Why did you only mention Harvard as a comparison? Maybe you are trying to single out Harvard and Berkeley? Maybe you have a vendetta against the two schools? That's your definition, not mine."</p>
<p>I've said numerous times in this very thread that all research universities are obsessed with research. I assumed that you knew that Cornell, MIT and Michigan were research universities. In the last example I used Harvard because it is the gold standard of American universities, yet it is still a research school (just like Cal!) </p>
<p>"No, I said that since Berkeley tends to hire based on research and not teaching quality, and that might explain the phenomenon that I have observed that frankly, Berkeley's quality of teaching is uneven."</p>
<p>And I've said that all research universities hire based on research and not teaching quality. Don't they? Or do you know something that I don't?</p>
<p>"As a whole? That would imply that almost all of your teachers have to be at least above average"</p>
<p>Yes, most have been excellent.</p>
<p>"But you also saw the thread on Cal's Prestige (since you posted in it) and you didn't bother to write a whole paragraph on how sakky left out information"</p>
<p>I try to avoid sakky because I feel like he just repeats things over and over and isn't flexable at all in his oppinions. That said, check my posts. I call him out quite often.</p>
<p>"So it seems to me like you disagree with a bunch of posts and just pick and choose which ones you want to argue against"</p>
<p>Yes, I don't respond to every post that I either agree or disagree with. That would require more time than I choose to put into this site.</p>
<p>"When I first made the post on this thread, I didn't feel like going into more depth and mentioning other research universities"</p>
<p>And that's why I came in to clarify things.</p>
<p>"But don't start accusing me of being unfair or lying to the prospective freshmen."</p>
<p>I thought you were being unfair so I said so, but I don't think I called you a liar. If I did then I'm sorry.</p>
<p>"By the way, if I shared my experiences with the teaching at Berkeley, it might scare off even more prospective students"</p>
<p>Don't let me stop you. Your experiences are just as valid as mine or anyone elses. I have no problem with people saying they've had bad teachers. However there is a differnce beteween saying that your experience has been bad and saying that berkeley as an institution has mediocre professors because they hire based on research potential.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You didn't give much of a reason in your first posts other than some professors are hard to understand and can't explain the concepts. Later, when pressed, you said that it was because Cal cares too much about research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, you were the first one who said the word research and you were the first one to mention the "professors can't be good because they care too much about research" argument. I only commented on research because you brought it up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've said numerous times in this very thread that all research universities are obsessed with research. I assumed that you knew that Cornell, MIT and Michigan were research universities. In the last example I used Harvard because it is the gold standard of American universities, yet it is still a research school (just like Cal!)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I assumed that students would know that research universities focus on research (wonder where the term "research universities" came from), so I didn't bother mention that all research universities care about research. I think my assumptions are just as valid as yours.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"No, I said that since Berkeley tends to hire based on research and not teaching quality, and that might explain the phenomenon that I have observed that frankly, Berkeley's quality of teaching is uneven."</p>
<p>And I've said that all research universities hire based on research and not teaching quality. Don't they? Or do you know something that I don't?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, they do. That's what I just said. All you did was repeat what I said.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"As a whole? That would imply that almost all of your teachers have to be at least above average"</p>
<p>Yes, most have been excellent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By "your" I use it in a general sense, not just you blondeonblonde. If the entire faculty as a whole can be considered "very stellar" then any Berkeley student would have at least most of his teachers be above average. That's certainly not the case with many students I know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't let me stop you. Your experiences are just as valid as mine or anyone elses. I have no problem with people saying they've had bad teachers. However there is a differnce beteween saying that your experience has been bad and saying that berkeley as an institution has mediocre professors because they hire based on research potential.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't worry, I'm not holding back in fear of hurting your feelings. I'm not saying that Berkeley has mediocre professors BECAUSE they hire based on research potential. I'm saying I've observed (through whatever means, not just personal experience) that Berkeley has mediocre professors, and one main factor that contributes to this might be that Berkeley doesn't focus on teaching. It's not a "Berkeley is a research school, therefore Berkeley has poor teaching" argument.</p>
<p>Whatever. This is going nowhere. For anyone thinking about going to Cal, go to campus and ask students what they think of the teaching quality. I'm extremely confident that they'll say that for the most part its great. Vicissitudes argument hasn't won me over, but maybe I'm just weird like that.</p>