<p>If I may add, you, sakky, have even said that Berkeley is the best place to get a Ph. D. How can that be? What is Harvard doing wrong? Whatever it is, they need to fix it, because it's making them look like idiots. Billions in the bank, and yet they're inferior to a much younger public school. Can you explain that? Your arguments on this forum tend to center on Berkeley's "horrible" undergrad program, what have you to say about Harvard's "horrible" Ph. D program?</p>
<p>greatestyen,</p>
<p>So, you're willing to bet that all of Cal undergrad is just like the experience at your one program?</p>
<p>I took at look at this website: </p>
<p>If you count them up, you'll notice that out of those programs which both schools have, on 17 occasions, Berkeley is better than Harvard. In fact, Harvard is so bad, that it only beats Berkeley 12 times. They tie once. And of course, engineering isn't even included in my total because Harvard does not appear on that list which Berkeley is usually leading. (Hmm...)</p>
<p>Now, what I'm going to say is pretty logical. Since these are Ph. D rankings, it is obvious that the best graduate students will want to go to the best programs. Most of the time, that will be Berkeley. Since that is so, it can be assumed that Berkeley attracts the best first-year graduate students in the world. What's the result? That the graduate students (GSIs) grade harshly on every single little thing they assign to the undergrads. Mostly because they are under even more pressure, but also because they just don't tolerate crappy work, which is rare. So what you get is a system in which undergrads are forcefed graduate-level expectations.</p>
<p>Sure, a lot students fail to meet these expectations, but why should Berkeley be blamed for that? I second the person on this thread who said that if the student isn't smart enough then that's their problem. The resources are there and it's relatively easy to do well if one has the desire (and the brains.) That is how it works in my Asian History classes and that is how it works in other departments. I know because I have friends in almost every department and that is how they described their departments. </p>
<p>In the end, as clear from the bottom of this website:: </p>
<p>Berkeley has the best arts/humanites, physical science/math, and social/behavioral science programs in the world. It's ALMOST the best engineering school, and it's only big problem is the life sciences (and it isn't even that big of a problem...) It is impossible to say the same about Harvard-a private school which faces the embarrasment of having less ranked programs than public institutions like Berkeley, UCSB, NC, and Florida.</p>
<p>stop hijacking the thread you stupid troll</p>
<p>d-a-d alias "Sakk*k*y" alias "sakky.":</p>
<p>I have PM'ed you to contact me. Re-registering under multiple posting names is a violation of the Terms of Service. - Mod JEM</p>
<p>and your sn-creating frenzy shows how much of a life you need</p>
<p>sakky. = d-a-d</p>
<p>but gratestyen does not = sakky</p>
<p>why would I be arguing against myself? (someone is an idiot here, and it's not me.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky are you not measuring up at grad school because of some shortcomings at Berkeley?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you saying that I am not measuring up? I said it before, I'll say it again, I'll compare my record to yours anyday.</p>
<p>Sakky, </p>
<p>Let me put this another way, When you went to grad school, did you find that the students who graduated from HYPSCM were more prepared than you because you didn't go to those schools for undergrad?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I may add, you, sakky, have even said that Berkeley is the best place to get a Ph. D. How can that be? What is Harvard doing wrong? Whatever it is, they need to fix it, because it's making them look like idiots. Billions in the bank, and yet they're inferior to a much younger public school. Can you explain that? Your arguments on this forum tend to center on Berkeley's "horrible" undergrad program, what have you to say about Harvard's "horrible" Ph. D program?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that Berkeley was the absolute best place to get your PhD. I said that Berkeley was one of the best. I would probably put it in a 3-way tie with Stanford and Harvard. </p>
<p>However, I do agree with the basic point that in many cases, the Berkeley PhD programs are better than Harvard's. But we're not really talking about that. Here, we are talking about the undergrad program. I believe that Harvard's undergrad program is better. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I took at look at this website: </p>
<p>If you count them up, you'll notice that out of those programs which both schools have, on 17 occasions, Berkeley is better than Harvard. In fact, Harvard is so bad, that it only beats Berkeley 12 times. They tie once. And of course, engineering isn't even included in my total because Harvard does not appear on that list which Berkeley is usually leading. (Hmm...)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am quite familiar with this website, and in fact, I have referenced it on many occasions.</p>
<p>However, the NRC rankings have a number of weaknesses, mainly it that it places a lot of stock and emphases on individual departments, with little regard to the SIZE of those departments. For example, there are far far more Poli-sci graduate students than there are, say, Materals Engineering graduate students. </p>
<p>I also don't particularly understand why Biology has to be broken down into 8 categories. Why is that? If you want to break down Biology into 8 separate categories, then why not break down, say, English into 8 separate categories too.</p>
<p>Nor do I understand why is it that doctoral programs that are connected to professional programs are not measured. For example, what about doctoral programs in business administration? What about doctoral programs in education? What about doctoral programs in public policy? </p>
<p>This is why I think the NRC rankings are less useful to compare 'overall' school strength. They are highly useful if you want to investigate the strong departments in a particular discipline. But not as a means of comparing overall school to overall school. </p>
<p>But in any case, none of this gets to the point which I have been making which is that while Berkeley is an excellent place to get your Phd, as I have said many times, Berkeley is not as good a place to get your undergrad degree. Still good, but not as good as the PhD programs are. </p>
<p>I don't see why this is such a controversial point. You said it yourself - schools have different strengths and weaknesses. Berkeley's strengths are its PhD programs. Berkeley's weakness (relatively speaking) is its undergrad program. </p>
<p>You are free to disagree, but don't point to a bunch of PhD departmental rankings. I've said many times that the PhD programs at Berkeley are great. It is the undergrad program in which Berkeley can do better, and in particular in which it may be better to go to another school. PhD rankings have little to do with undergraduate quality. That is why the LAC's like Williams and Amherst can offer such strong undergraduate programs despite not having any strong PhD programs (in fact, not having any PhD programs at all).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let me put this another way, When you went to grad school, did you find that the students who graduated from HYPSCM were more prepared than you because you didn't go to those schools for undergrad?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What I would say is that I believe I am one of the luckier ones. </p>
<p>However, if you really want a good example, I would say that perhaps we should write a PM to Calkidd (if he's still around). He had a lot to say about his undergrad experience at Berkeley.</p>
<p>I'm not asking about CalKidd. I'm asking you.</p>
<p>"Let me put this another way, When you went to grad school, did you find that the students who graduated from HYPSCM were more prepared than you because you didn't go to those schools for undergrad?"</p>
<p>Your answer was no. </p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>sakky, you didn't answer my question. I asked how it was intitutionally possible for Harvard to be richer than Berkeley and yet have, on a whole, worse programs and worse faculty. I asked that since you brought up the factor of financial resources. As I see it, it proves that money does not always equal success. Can you offer a better answer?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not asking about CalKidd. I'm asking you.</p>
<p>"Let me put this another way, When you went to grad school, did you find that the students who graduated from HYPSCM were more prepared than you because you didn't go to those schools for undergrad?"</p>
<p>Your answer was no.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What I will say is this. I believe there are plenty of other Berkeley students who could and should have made it to elite graduate programs, but didn't, because they couldn't amass the kind of academic record they needed while at Berkeley. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I asked how it was intitutionally possible for Harvard to be richer than Berkeley and yet have, on a whole, worse programs and worse faculty.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you really believe that Harvard is worse 'on the whole' to Berkeley? I doubt it. It's only worse in those categories that the NRC measured, in the strange way that the NRC did measure it. For example, the NRC had nothing to say at all about professional schools. Harvard spends a lot of money maintaining extremely strong professional schools, but that is not something that the NRC measured. I agree that it wasn't the mandate of the NRC to measure those things, but still, you cannot really say that Harvard has worse programs "on the whole". There are certain programs in which Berkeley is better than Harvard, but, on the whole? That is pretty dicey.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I asked that since you brought up the factor of financial resources. As I see it, it proves that money does not always equal success. Can you offer a better answer?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that money does not always equal success. </p>
<p>However, again, we are still talking about the undergrad program here. What does it really matter if Berkeley has all these great doctoral programs if you're just an undergrad? We have to look at the various factors that have to do with the undergrad program. Money is just one factor. So are faculty resources. So is the general cross-admit factor. After all, why is it that Harvard wins the cross-admit battle with Berkeley for freshman admits, if those cross-admits didn't feel that Harvard was better? </p>
<p>The point is, Berkeley has great PhD programs because it, in part, somewhat robs the undergrads of resources and saves them for its doctoral programs. That is why the gap exists between the strength of its doctoral program and its undergraduate program. Don't constantly invoke the strength of Berkeley's graduate programs when you're talking about undergrad.</p>
<p>sakky, you are so biased. </p>
<p>First off, OK. You've now declared that your prejudice against NRC. So let's use your beloved US News. </p>
<p>According to US News, Berkeley offers THE BEST PH.D PROGRAMS IN THE NATION. So you're gonna talk crap on US News now too? No matter which way you spin it, Berkeley is the best academic insititution in the world. And I know for a fact that you said that somewhere so I'm going to try to dig it up and make you acknowledge your statements. </p>
<p>Now, let's say Berkeley's undergrad is in fact "weaker" than it's PhD programs. Well, it is a well known fact that Harvard College is "weaker" than it's PhD programs. So then since Harvard's PhD programs are weaker than Berkeley's, isn't it obvious that Harvard College is weaker than Berkeley undergrad? Afterall, both Berkeley and Harvard have the same professors teaching to PhDs and undergrads---meaning that professor Harvey of Harvard's Asian History department, is a likely to be a worse scholar than professor Berkey at Berkeley's Asian History department. The same case occurs across nearly all disciples. </p>
<p>So then, is Berkeley clearly not a better academic institution than Harvard? Or are you going to be in denial for life?</p>
<p>p.s. you STILL haven't answer my question, which is, how is it possible for Harvard to be equal to (or inferior) to Berkeley, given that it has more money? (And don't start saying now that money isn't important....you were the one who mentioned it first.) What is wrong with Harvard? Obviously it has some major problems if it can't beat "horrible Berkeley" across the board.</p>
<p>wow... so many Berkeley Chauvinists here.....</p>
<p>and guess what, if in reality they have to chance to go to Harvard, I bet my **** that most of them won't choose Berkeley over Harvard.........</p>
<p>Just because you go to Berkeley doesn't mean you have to deify it. I know there's a lot of school pride or what not...but you don't have to convince everyone that it's the BEST UNIVERSITY OF THE WORLD.......o well... ***</p>
<p>It's just funny.....</p>
<p>just saw this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, let's say Berkeley's undergrad is in fact "weaker" than it's PhD programs. Well, it is a well known fact that Harvard College is "weaker" than it's PhD programs. So then since Harvard's PhD programs are weaker than Berkeley's, isn't it obvious that Harvard College is weaker than Berkeley undergrad?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>wuahahahahahahahahahahahahahah</p>
<p>what kind of logic is this???????
I didn't read the posts, but I hope you are being sarcastic</p>
<p>Well for your information, HypnosX, I rejected Harvard to come to Berkeley. </p>
<p>I believe in the rankings and through them, it should be obvious that since Harvard's faculty is, as a whole, dumber than Berkeley's faculty, the quality of their teaching will differ accordingly. </p>
<p>Say a lecture is given on XYZ at Berkeley and Harvard at the same time. Now, since the Berkeley professor is, as usual, smarter than the Harvard professor. Which lecture will be better? The Berkeley one!</p>
<p>Both Harvard and Berkeley's undergraduate education mostly consists of large lecture classes. Since that is so, the "sitting experience" is the same but not the "academic quality." Berkeley has the best PhD programs, which means that it has the best faculty-and the best faculty give the best lectures. Now, if you're going to start talking about section discussions or lab, the same bloody thing applies. Since Berkeley's PhD programs are the best in the world, its obvious that only the best in the world will go to them. Once they get there, those graduate students become Graduate Student Instructors (GSIs)-or in Harvardspeak, Teaching Fellows. Now, since Berkeley's GSIs are better than Harvard's Teaching Fellows, it is obvious that they (the GSIs) will provide the best quality conversations and guidance in section discussions/labs in the world.</p>
<p>HypnosX, there are not that many "Berkeley chauvinists" here, just a few very vocal ones.</p>
<p>greatestyen, let's just say that the faculty and graduate students at both Harvard and Berkeley are equal and will give you about eqaul conversations. Will one school's classes be generally at least slightly smaller, so you can more easily have these conversations? How about the quality of students? Will you be able to have better conversations with the Harvard students, or the Berkeley students? This goes for in the dorms, the classrooms, the clubs, the parties. I don't deify Berkeley, and I don't deify Harvard, but at the bery least, there's something to be said for high quality peers, and on this regard, few schools can match Harvard.</p>
<p>If the debaters here want anyone else to get something from this threat, they could address this question: Does it take a certain personality type to particularly benefit from the undergraduate experience at Cal or Harvard or both? Just for sake of argument, it seems to me a kid has to be pretty self-reliant to go to Berkely as a freshman and failing to have a certain type of self-assurance (arrogance?) could be a handicap at Harvard.</p>