<p>CalX:</p>
<p>I didn't intend to bash UVa....they (finally) have seen the issue, and are making great strides to attract low income kids, including free rides (no loans). Of course, what took 'em so long to notice the dearth of poor kids?</p>
<p>vic,</p>
<p>On UVa's admissions website, the scores are higher because they used the best combined (the 1280-1490 i guess). HOWEVER, according the cds you posted, it is completely vague to whether both cal and UVa either use best combined or best single setting. However since both schools use the exact same cds questionaire, I don't think you can go brandishing about that uva uses combined and cal doesn't. the cds states (in the exact same language in both cal and uva's cds) </p>
<p>"Percent and number of first-time, first-year (freshman) students enrolled in fall 2005 who submitted national standardized (SAT/ACT) test scores. Include information for ALL enrolled, degree-seeking, first-time, first-year (freshman) students who submitted test scores. Do not include partial test scores (e.g., mathematics scores but not verbal for a category of students) or combine other standardized test results (such as TOEFL) in this item. The 25th percentile is the score that 25 percent scored at or below; the 75th percentile score is the one that 25 percent scored at or above."</p>
<p>which is then followed by the 25th and 75th %tile of math and verbal. To get your 25-75 total you just add up the 25 math and verbal and the 75 math and verbal. So if I am completely misunderstanding this I am sorry, but it seems that at least according to your data, UVa and cal use the same method for calculating SAT scores - whether or not its best combined or single sitting is unknown to me but my suspiscion is its best combined when you do it that way. </p>
<p>You're misunderstanding my comment about a lower ranked college professors (not a community college - you don't need a ph.d.) vs. a uva professor. The example which is used, while extreme, still is "right." Just because you teach at potunkee college doesn't make you a bad teacher. If you're a math professor you're job is to teach math - you can teach calculus whether or not u work at uva or at joe blow u - whats different is hte quality of student. My point is that when comparing cal to uva - while cal has a more "distinguished" faculty, how does that enhance the education quality. You can't always have the most distinguished faculty member teach you - sometimes you jsut get whoever is there. Its also a well known fact that many of these distinguished professors are more into their own research than teaching - especially undergrads.</p>
<p>My point is just because cals faculty has won more awards for research, it doesn't mean they're better teachers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're misunderstanding my comment about a lower ranked college professors (not a community college - you don't need a ph.d.) vs. a uva professor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would say you don't actually need a PhD to teach at even the best universities, and some faculty do not have such degree (or their terminal equivalents). Surely it is more common to have a PhD, especially from a tom program, at the top schools than at community colleges, but a PhD is not required to teach at the best schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is that when comparing cal to uva - while cal has a more "distinguished" faculty, how does that enhance the education quality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is it in quotations marks because you mock the idea, or what?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can't always have the most distinguished faculty member teach you - sometimes you jsut get whoever is there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is true. It is also true of every other school, but certainly true at Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its also a well known fact that many of these distinguished professors are more into their own research than teaching - especially undergrads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is well repeated, that's for sure!</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is just because cals faculty has won more awards for research, it doesn't mean they're better teachers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, and I think this could be said of any other school as well. This is part of why sakky argues that people should more seriously consider LACs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Cal wanted to recruit based on SAT/GPAs alone, it would blow away Virginia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not if UVA did the same. Socioeconomic diversity at UVA is lacking, but the average SAT score and GPA are dragged down by its effort to boost in-state geographic diversity.</p>
<p>I'm not getting involved with this but I don't think SATs are a precise indicator of anything. A different of even 50, maybe more points, is meaningless.</p>
<p>Then what else would people get into mindless ****ing contests over? :p These threads are amusing. It's fun to see how petty otherwise intelligent people can become.</p>
<p>i only act this way because you always get these certain people (barrons, viccissitudes) who will make comments about certain schools (UVa) more often than not in a negative light - for no reason.</p>
<p>It gets annoying after a while and sometimes you have to beat a dead horse on stupid issues (sats) in order to defend you're alma mater.</p>
<p>drab, </p>
<p>I don't put distinguished in quotations to mock it, I just put it in quotations because UVa's faculty is also very distinguished and I find it absurd to be equating faculty teaching ability based on awards given to a faculty for things not involving teaching. No disrespect meant.</p>
<p>Also, I believe UVa, while it is a medium sized university, because of a lack of focus on research, has a lac feel to it - of course on a much larger scale. and of course because many of UVa's better graduate programs are in the liberal arts (english, history, religious studies), and not in the hard sciences.</p>
<p>"i only act this way because you always get these certain people (barrons, viccissitudes) who will make comments about certain schools (UVa) more often than not in a negative light - for no reason."</p>
<p>AGREED!</p>
<p>Saying that the quality of teaching at Berkeley is lower because its faculty is superior is nonsense. I have found the opposite to be true. Top faculty members, who actually make the bulk of the Cal faculty, tend to be quite passionate about their subject. As well, being the world leaders in their area of research often translates directly in the content of their lectures. For students, it's extremely stimulating to be at the forefront of the matter.</p>
<p>Some of the best teachers I've had at Berkeley were Nobel prizes. Yes, they did have office hours. As a matter of fact, some will also have dinners or BBQs with their students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not if UVA did the same. Socioeconomic diversity at UVA is lacking, but the average SAT score and GPA are dragged down by its effort to boost in-state geographic diversity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Part of the problem is that Virginia competes regionally with local public schools like North Carolina, that are just as good. For a N. Carolinian, paying out of state tuition at Virginia doesn't make sense. For someone from Pennsylvania or Tennessee, Michigan is just as good an option for a top OOS public school.</p>
<p>The difference between Virginia and California is a good part of the reason why Berkeley is the better school. CA is a far bigger and culturally richer state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i only act this way because you always get these certain people (barrons, viccissitudes) who will make comments about certain schools (UVa) more often than not in a negative light - for no reason.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I read a lot of what vicissitudes writes, and I think he rarely even talks about UVa, and when he does, I just don't think it's "more often than not in a negative light," but maybe I'm incorrect. <em>shrug</em></p>
<p>UVa's faculty is obviously very distinguished. You say it's absurd to equate faculty teaching ability with on awards given to a faculty for things not involving teaching, but is it not absurd to equate faculty teaching ability negatively based on research prowess?</p>
<p>i never once stated that uva's professors are better than cals, or that cals professors are bad because they excel at research. I simply stated that because cal's professors have a lot of research awards doesn't mean that they have a more capable faculty.</p>
<p>The fact that Cal's faculty has more research awards does mean that it's better. Furthermore, I've argued that those academic distinctions don't necessarily imply an inverse relationship with the quality of the teaching, to the contrary.</p>
<p>I don't want to turn this into a battle between Cal and UVA (too late?;)), but it's fair to say that there has been a drastic shift in the methodology of the most popular undergraduate ranking (USNWR), change which has tremendously damaged Berkeley's position at the top at the expense of non-top 5 private schools. Virginia is quite unique in that it is the public school which most resemble private schools, and as such it has been boosted by the newer ranking criteria.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that Cal's faculty has more research awards does mean that it's better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Better at research, yes. But that's not what really matters for most undergrads. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, I've argued that those academic distinctions don't necessarily imply an inverse relationship with the quality of the teaching, to the contrary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, numerous studies published by the Department of Education and other interested parties have shown precisely this correlation. Thomas Sowell devotes numerous chapters to this very subject in his book "Inside American Education", citing numerous scholarly reports. </p>
<p>It is true that there is no 'absolute' relationship between the 2. But the correlation is clear. All things being equal, strong research does tend to mean weaker teaching for the equivalent caliber of prof, and this is true at ALL schools, not just Berkeley. It's just like nobody has ever shown an absolute link between smoking and cancer (that is, you can smoke and still not get cancer), but the correlation is clear. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Top faculty members, who actually make the bulk of the Cal faculty, tend to be quite passionate about their subject. As well, being the world leaders in their area of research often translates directly in the content of their lectures.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is a big difference between being passionate in their subject and being able to translate that passion into something that undergrads can understand. </p>
<p>I know a guy who said that one of his most painful experiences was taking calculus (Math 1B) with a prof who quite clearly didn't want to be there. That's not to say that he wasn't passionate at math. Far from it - he was clearly passionate about the advanced geometry that he was researching. But come on - teaching a class on basic calculus was clearly not what he wanted to be doing with his time, and everybody in the class could tell. This class was far far beneath him, and he treated it as such. He basically gave the attitude that if you don't understand this stuff, then you are simply stupid and unworthy. What's up with that attitude? Of course the students don't understand the stuff - that's the whole point of having the class in the first place, so that students can learn something that they don't understand. If everybody understood it, there wouldn't need to be a class about it. It's like a maid who complains about the house being a mess - but if the house wasn't a mess, you wouldn't need a maid. </p>
<p>The truth is, big-time researchers often times do not like teaching intro subjects. I can see why. They're not learning anything by teaching an intro class. Doing so doesn't really help them in their research. Many of those profs would far prefer to teach grad-level courses where they might actually learn something that will help them in their research (because profs often times learn quite a bit from their grad students). But a basic intro class? Not so much. So when they are assigned to teach such classes, they often do so in a conspicuously unenthusiastic manner. </p>
<p>That's not to say that they are ALL like that. True, some prominent researchers are also good at teaching intro classes and want to be good at it. But this is certainly not a universal trait by any means. </p>
<p>
[quote]
For students, it's extremely stimulating to be at the forefront of the matter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That presumes that you can actually understand it. What if that one math prof had decided to discuss his latest advanced geometry proof to his basic undergrad calculus class? Honestly, how many of those students would have actually been able to understand it? Be honest, now. I'd probably be able to count them on one hand, and still have fingers left over. (Honestly, if you're that good at math that you can understand how a highly advanced math proof works, then what are you doing in Math 1B?) Maybe even more importantly, how many of those students would even WANT to understand it? Again, I think we can agree it would be very few. Let's face it. The vast vast majority of students in that class are there not because they truly love math (and especially not theoretical math). They are there because they are engineering or science majors and are hence required to take calculus. They just want to get the basic mathematical tools for their major. They're not majoring in math, and they have no interest in knowing high-level math. {Honestly, how many engineering students really care about math proofs?}. </p>
<p>So the point is, we have a situation where the prof doesn't really want to be teaching the class, and the students don't really understand or care about the prof's research. Hence, this is clearly a situation where having prominent researchers as profs really doesn't add value to the undergrad education. </p>
<p>Now, I agree that there are some cases where prominent researchers do add value, notably with certain advanced undergrad classes, but the point is, there is no simple relationship between research and good undergrad teaching. Truth be told, I know many undergrads who would have rather had their lower-division math classes taught by their high school math teachers than by the Berkeley profs they got. Their high school teachers were not researchers, but at least they were good teachers who would have been enthusiastic about those lower division courses, something that you just can't say about many Berkeley profs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about why UVA is in the same neighborhood as Cal with regardws to SATs. If Cal wanted to recruit based on SAT/GPAs alone, it would blow away Virginia.</p>
<p>I think it's kind of borderline scandalous that a flagship state school like Virginia only has 6% of its students from lower-middle incomes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm afraid I find this argument irrelevant. Matriculating a bunch of poor students with relatively low test scores (relative to the rest of the students) does not, by itself, increase the academic quality of a school. It may be good for a school to do that from a social justice standpoint, but that has nothing to do with academic quality PER SE. </p>
<p>I agree that Berkeley could probably vastly improve the average SAT score of its students by simply admitting fewer poor students. But that's not really the point. It doesn't matter what you COULD do, it only matters what you ACTUALLY do. Cal (or any other division 1A school like Virginia) could probably also increase the average academic quality of its students by simply shutting down its football program. But given that schools are not going to do that, then you have to include the players as part of the student body. </p>
<p>That doesn't mean that I am saying that Cal shouldn't admit poor students with relatively low test scores. I didn't say that. What I am saying is that that's really a political and social decision, not an academic one. Optimally, what Cal ought to do is bring in poor students who are also extremely strong academically (i.e. extremely high test scores, grades, etc.). But the truth is, Cal can't quite do that because, let's face it, Cal tends to lose those students to the top private schools because of the extremely aggressive financial aid that those schools provide. I will always remember how 2 guys i know who grew up poor got into both Berkeley and Harvard, and then found out that it would actually be cheaper for them to go to Harvard once financial aid was factored in. One of them sarcastically joked that it had always been his dream to go to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All things being equal, strong research does tend to mean weaker teaching for the equivalent caliber of prof, and this is true at ALL schools, not just Berkeley. It's just like nobody has ever shown an absolute link between smoking and cancer (that is, you can smoke and still not get cancer), but the correlation is clear.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course there is a strong and absolute correlation between smoking and lung cancer. It's quite disingenuous of you to compare the link between smoking and lung cancer (which is quite evident) to the link between research prowess and quality of teaching (which is far more nebulous.) Based on my experience, there isn't a negative correlation between the two, to the contrary. I have found the opposite to be true in my years at Berkeley, despite the fact that it's a very common assumption to think the opposite is true.</p>
<p>Since you mention Math 1B, my prof for that class (Hald) was an outstanding researcher who also was a superb lecturer and very dedicated teacher. Every few classes he did go on brief tangents about his research, but he had a knack for weaving that material into the </p>
<p>
[quote]
The vast vast majority of students in that class are there not because they truly love math (and especially not theoretical math). They are there because they are engineering or science majors and are hence required to take calculus. They just want to get the basic mathematical tools for their major. They're not majoring in math, and they have no interest in knowing high-level math. {Honestly, how many engineering students really care about math proofs?}
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Truth be told, I know many undergrads who would have rather had their lower-division math classes taught by their high school math teachers than by the Berkeley profs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is such an appallingly <em>WRONG</em> attitude for an engineering student to have! A strong theoretical math foundation is crucial for them too. This is a serious problem with the American high school system approach to mathematics. Maths is not about tools, it's about a way of thinking. Fully assimilating that way of thinking will make them better thinkers and better engineers. Perhaps at other colleges profs will approach first-year maths as a set of tools to provide to future engineers, but I'm glad to hear that the approach is more rigorous at Berkeley. That actually doesn't surprise me, we have a WORLD-CLASS faculty that sets very high standards.</p>
<p>In my 1B class, prof Hald would mention some research subjects in passing (or in his office hours) and those subjects did relate to those he was teaching, and made the material more interesting. In intro to physics, the material (mostly newtonian mechanics) did not relate at all to the prof's research, but my prof provided a framework and perspective in the approach to looking at problems that he uses in his research and not only makes him an outstanding researcher, but made him look at "ordinary" physics problems with a passionate eye, a passion that he conveyed to his students and that made the class and material more stimulating.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree that there are some cases where prominent researchers do add value, notably with certain advanced undergrad classes
[/quote]
No question, and those classes make up about half of a typical student's curriculum. While the "research premium" is more evident at advanced levels, I would definitely argue that the value added was great even for introductory courses. Have you taken E45 (INTRO to materials science) with Morris? His research and consulting insights were superbly well integrated into the course material. It was great to understand the significance of elements of materials science as they related to cutting-edge research, and to learn about some of the processes (many quite unusual) that have lead to the development of materials science.</p>
<p>Outside of science and engineering, the research premium is just as important. Research subjects in Econ, Psych, Hisotry or English literature are readily relatable to the base subjects and often make for interesting additional course reading material and subjects for discussion in lectures.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Matriculating a bunch of poor students with relatively low test scores (relative to the rest of the students) does not, by itself, increase the academic quality of a school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I VEHEMENTLY disagree with this. The fact is, SAT scores have been found to be strongly correlated with family income. There are a lot of very bright poorer students who haven't had the benefit of test prep classes or a strong high school curriculum, and whose potential is greater than those above average students from wealthier backgrounds who have leveraged greater resources to build better college entrance r</p>
<p>calx,</p>
<p>another point which i seemingly left out.</p>
<p>regardless of having poor students with so so SATs, or rich students with great SATs, the fact is, berkeley's (along with every uc) sat scores are greatly greatly exaggerated school wide. cal is roughly 30% transfer (about 4000 incoming freshman x 4=16000. total cal undergraduate body about 23000) students - with the overwhelming majority from community colleges. Now this isn't a knock to people who have gone to community college (i know there are people who go for money reasons), but the vast majority of people at community colleges weren't great, good, or even decent students in high school. If you could take a school wide average of sat scores - or a school wide 25%-75% I'm sure cal's sat range would be significantly lower, as well as top 10% of hs class.</p>
<p>This is a dumb argument. Do you really think there is a difference between the quality of the students/professors at UVa versus Berkeley? There isn't. Any difference there is is absolutely miniscule and varies from student to student and professor to professor. About the only thing these two schools have in common is the fact that they are both highly regarded public schools. They attract very different types of students, and they have very different campus feels. (I have visited both.) Personally I prefer the historic, small-town, community feel at UVa to the urban, modern vibe at Berkeley, and that's why, if I were to be admitted to both, I would choose UVa. Not because of any percieved or imagined difference in quality (a difference of 20 SAT points? That's like, 5 questions!), just because of personal preference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For a N. Carolinian, paying out of state tuition at Virginia doesn't make sense. For someone from Pennsylvania or Tennessee, Michigan is just as good an option for a top OOS public school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What a strange comment. UNC and UVa are also different schools with very different feels, and I could easily see why a North Carolinian would choose to attend UVa over UNC. Michigan and UVa are also extremely different schools, and it's easy to see how someone could like one and not the other. It doesn't matter where you're from, if you like UVa and want to go there, you should. You might argue that it makes more sense for me to be in the honors program at University of South Carolina but I have no interest in USC and doubt I would go there if it were free. Not because I believe the education is poor quality but because I don't feel at home there and don't want to spend four years of my life there. I'd love to spend 4 years of my life at UVa and I'd pay more to attend there. But that's just me, I suppose.</p>
<p>jags: yes indeed, financial motives are the main reasons students go the JC route. I disagree with the premise that "the vast majority of people at community colleges weren't great, good, or even decent students", maybe that's the sample of students you know, but it doens't represent the majority. In any case, i don't think the profile of JC admits to Berkeley is very different from the general population in terms of how they do at college, as a matter of fact they are supposed to do quite well.</p>
<p>Alice: yes, I think that by and large the faculty at Berkeley is better than at Virginia, especially in the sciences and engineering, where the difference is far from miniscule. However I do agree with you that a choice between these two schools should be based on personal preferences given the significant differences in their environments.</p>