US News top schools: 1983 versus 2006

College Search & Selection
141

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Would you like me to quote Sowell (who himself quotes an entire stack of scholarly research about the subject which, to my knowledge, has never been refuted)? I'll get the book out if you want me to. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>All I can take from this is that you either like studying theoretical math or you had a good math prof (probably both). But the fact is, a lot of Berkeley engineering students aren't so lucky. First off, they don't really like theoretical math. That is, after all, why they're not majoring in math. Secondly, they don't always get good profs. Don't believe me? Maybe you should go to ratemyprofessors.com and note the conspicuously poor ratings that some Berkeley math profs get. </p>

<p>Now, you may say that these students are wrong in not wanting what they should want. But even if that were true, that doesn't change the fact that they do not want what Berkeley is evidently giving them. It's like a company saying that customers are stupid for not wanting what the company has to sell. The company may be right - maybe the customers are stupid - but you're certainly not going to endear yourself to your customers with that attitude. </p>

<p>
[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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And shall we talk about those snarling profs who clearly want to have nothing to do with undergrads at all? Or profs who are just not good at teaching? I think anybody who has had experience with Berkeley will have to agree that there are profs who are like that.</p>

142

<p>calx,</p>

<p>the majority of cc students are underachievers in high school. Not that a lot of them arn't late bloomers, but when using sat scores to say a student body is stronger, when nearly 1/3 of the student body isn't calculated into the equation is just silly.</p>

143

<p>
[quote]
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 résumés.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There are other poor students who nevertheless get extremely high test scores and GPA's. Yet as it stands, those students tend to go to the top private schools. Berkeley should be competing vigoroulsy for these students. That does not happen. Like I said, many of those students actually find that those top private schools turn out to be CHEAPER than Berkeley is because of the financial aid, and that's an important consideration when you don't have a lot of money to begin wit. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I also think that diversity (including socio-economic diversity) adds strongly to the quality of the education and college experience. In my dorm at Berkeley, you had the crown prince of Norway and the son of Mexican migrant workers living two rooms down. I think both students benefitted from that kind of diversity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But only if the diversity is actually bringing in good students. Just because a class is diverse doesn't make it good. </p>

<p>To give you another example, I know a URM who was brought in who grew up in a poor neighborhood. The problem is, he was also basically a punk. Truth be told, he was the laziest student I have ever seen. His GPA after his first semester was literally a 0.5 (2 D's, 2 F's), and that was because he simply chose not to study. He never WANTED to study. He flunked out, but only after Berkeley gave him chance after chance - these were the days before Prop 209 when Berkeley was incented to keep URM's around. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Maybe that's true at most schools, but at Cal, the current GPA of the football team is equal to the campus average, and the current graduation rate is actually higher than the campus average, despite the fact that Cal is a top 10 football team. Cal Football has turned from an academic liability to an academic strength.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is something I'd like to see with documented evidence. As I know you're seen in my other posts, the documented NCAA evidence demonstrates that Cal football players graduate at a woeful rate. Granted, it's old data brought in by the former coach, so we'll just have to wait for the new data, but regardless, they were part of the Cal football team too. Just because they came in as part of the old coach's regime doesn't mean that they don't count as Cal football players. They still count. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Cal graduates more poor students than all of the Ivy league COMBINED.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, because Cal graduates far more students of ANY background than any of the Ivy League schools, for the simple reason that Cal is a far bigger school. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Cal often is the top choice for many of those students, often they fit in better there than in colleges where there are very few other lower-income students. There was a very insightful Wall Street Journal article about the subject and how Stanford for example had to create a special cultural support program for poorer students who felt alienated on a campus where most students came from wealthy backgrounds.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And how about all of those poor students that come into Berkeley and flunk out? Again, what do you think about that guy who got that 0.5 GPA? If anything, Berkeley should be doing something about all those students who come in and then do not graduate. Maybe it's because they run out of money, in which case, Berkeley should either be willing to pony up the money or else not admit them at all. Or maybe it's because Berkeley is admitting students who can't or don't want to meet Berkeley academic standards. </p>

<p>Regardless, I see absolutely no virtue in admitting students who won't graduate. None. In fact, I would actually say that this is an "anti-virtue" - that those students would be better off not being admitted to Berkeley at all, than being admitted and flunking out or otherwise not graduating. Why bring in students who aren't going to graduate? You're just wasting those students' time and money, and wasting Berkeley's academic resources on them.</p>

144

<p><a href="http://calbears.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/053006aaa.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://calbears.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/053006aaa.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The ONLY team in the Pac-10 that can claim this (including Stanf*rd and UCLA).</p>

<p>Next thing I know you'll be complaining about how long it took Marvin Philip to graduate. MUST'VE BEEN A CC STUDENT!!!</p>

145

<p>
[quote]
I think anybody who has had experience with Berkeley will have to agree that there are profs who are like that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sakky, don't claim such aggregated nonsense as if it's reality. Plenty of students hear about it, and many might experience it, but c'mon, your claim does not touch with many students' experiences.</p>

146

<p>Here is a comparison of SAT scores 1964 versus 2006. The 1964 scores were recentered using a conversion table on the web. The year 1964 was before baby boomers entered college (1963 data). Two years later, in the 1966 Barrons Profiles of American Colleges, after the first freshmen class of baby boomers, the SATs had already jumped about 50 points. These are the only schools for which I had good data.</p>

<p>university, 2006 SAT midpoint, 1964 recentered SAT midpoint, change</p>

<p>University of Southern California 1355 1140 215
Washington University in St Louis 1440 1240 200
Wake Forest University 1325 1150 175
Clemson University 1205 1030 175
Tulane University of Louisiana 1350 1190 160
University of Pennsylvania 1430 1280 150
Georgetown University 1390 1240 150
University of Notre Dame 1385 1240 145
Carnegie Mellon University 1380 1240 140
Emory University 1380 1240 140
Duke University 1430 1300 130
Stanford University 1455 1350 105
University of Virginia-Main Campus 1325 1220 105
Vanderbilt University 1370 1270 100
George Washington University 1280 1180 100
Southern Methodist University 1230 1130 100
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 1320 1230 90
Princeton University 1480 1400 80
Dartmouth College 1450 1370 80
University of Chicago 1440 1360 80
Boston University 1300 1220 80
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1200 1120 80
Cornell University 1385 1310 75
Yale University 1480 1410 70
University of Connecticut 1185 1120 65
Syracuse University 1215 1160 55
University of Delaware 1205 1150 55
Boston College 1335 1300 35
Columbia University in the City of New York 1440 1410 30
Case Western Reserve University 1340 1310 30
Johns Hopkins University 1385 1360 25
University of Denver 1165 1140 25
Worcester Polytechnic Institute 1280 1260 20
University of Rochester 1320 1310 10
Lehigh University 1320 1310 10
Rice University 1435 1430 5
California Institute of Technology 1510 1510 0
Clark University 1205 1220 -15
Brandeis University 1350 1370 -20
SUNY at Binghamton 1265 1300 -35
Purdue University-Main Campus 1145 1180 -35
Michigan State University 1140 1230 -90</p>

147

<p>So Rice hardly changed at all. Interesting.</p>