My dear friend, Sam, Berkeley grad students do not teach undergrad courses (except for some DeCal classes and writing courses)…they lead discussion sections and labs (just as they do in every other major U.S. public and private research university).</p>
<p>xiggi, I’m not gonna rehash the TA/GSI arguments here that you bring up “ad nauseum”. However, I will say Berkeley is a top graduate school and uber-selective for graduate students and its GSIs are among the brightest apprentices in their respective fields. During my tenure at Berkeley, I never had a foreign GSI with an impossible to understand accent. </p>
<p>You can criticize the methodology, but determining something as broad as best teaching is a subjective question that warrants a subjective answer. Berkeley happens to be included in the results, which obviously you seem to disagree…but it’s there (probably just to spite you).</p>
<p>That’s a good point, but would only help to explain the complaints from enrolled students. The focus of my argument on grad programs was the flack Berkeley gets from outsiders, and the point about student complaints was just a supporting argument. I agree though that complaints from students at Berkeley and Harvard probably has a lot to do with “#1 expectations.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That really doesn’t make sense - you seem to be implying that Berkeley is lacking in this respect. It also has an amazing/walkable campus, and it’s in one of the world’s leading areas - even if it’s in a small city, there’s a lot to be said about the Bay Area, with San Francisco (the second densest large city in the US, after NYC) + the tech capital of the world. Of course it doesn’t make sense to compare a 10 sq mi city to the nearly 500 sq mi city of LA, but the Bay Area is comparable. I would argue the Bay Area is in a position of greater influence, given the presence of Silicon Valley and the other tech areas throughout the Bay.</p>
<p>IMO it makes more sense that UCLA would be getting less flack from outsiders because its faculty/programs aren’t at the level of Berkeley’s, so there’s less of an expectation for its undergrad.</p>
<p>The three people he referred to are one professor and apparently two of his advisees. Note that these two advisees did not get any teaching experience at Northwestern (no result from CTEC, a teacher/course evaluation site at NU).</p>
<p>^ It’s not clear what classes the poster is referring that they’ll teach… Seems like they are PhDs/visiting post-docs. I don’t have data on post-docs and visiting profs teaching classes at Berkeley. Post-docs aren’t usually considered grad students.</p>
<p>I will say I’ve been on this site a long time and haven’t read too many complaints from Berkeley students about GSIs or profs. This is more indicative:
<p>UCB, despite bringing it up “as nauseam” I surely must have failed to present my arguments properly. Although GSIs or TAs might have incredibly variable aptitude in teaching, language skills, there is little to support the notion that most are “the the brightest apprentices in their respective fields” when it comes to TEACHING. Some might be one step away from earning a PhD and plan a career as a professor who teaches; others see having to teach as a nuisance while awaiting a career in … research and the expected enjoyment of a teaching sinecure.</p>
<p>Fwiw, the sections versus full lecture is a canard. The impact of the GSIs and TAs cuts much deeper than that as they have their hands in “pedestrian” activities such as grading or even influencing the curriculum. While it might be acceptable in STEM subjects, this practice is a disgrace for most of the other subjects. It is rather simple … you do not go to Berkeley (as you say one of the top universities in the world) to have your papers graded by someone barely more experienced than you, especially one who was educated in a foreign country and might not have acquired the nuances of our language. The grading of papers goes MUCH farther than adorning a red letter on the first page; the expectation is to been taught how to improve writing papers by properly trained and experienced TEACHERS, and not by glorified amateurs. </p>
<p>We live in a world where we accept that the best universities rely on peer teaching while parents would scream bloody murder if high schoolers would teach (oh sorry, lead discussions for) middle schoolers, or if HS seniors would teach freshmen. Further, most schools require a mountain of experience or certifications for K-12, but the best universities seem happy to accept the “credentials” of foreign mercenaries, and expect students to pay just the same! </p>
<p>Feel free to be happy with such heresy, but do not pretend this represents “dedication to the teaching” at the undergraduate level. Pfft!</p>
<p>It’s a common complaint about berkeley that it’s gritty, grimey, etc. And i’ve heard this complaint from many people. Of course, you hear opposite complaints about UCLA “it’s too perfect.” whatever that means. </p>
<p>In addition, the two most exciting and vibrant cities are generally agreed to be Los Angeles and NYC. San Francisco, Chicago, and other major cities just don’t compare.</p>
<p>“In addition, the two most exciting and vibrant cities are generally agreed to be Los Angeles and NYC. San Francisco, Chicago, and other major cities just don’t compare.”</p>
<p>Enough of the BS already. Chicago has a REAL vibrant and safe downtown with a REAL transportation system to get you there. It has multiple WORLD class museums and some of the best theater and dining experiences in this country. NYC is in a class of it’s own and really can’t be compared to any other city in the U.S. LA doesn’t come close to NYC, but Chicago is at least in the ball park.</p>
<p>beyphy, citing a couple people’s viewpoint doesn’t prove anything. I’ve heard just as many - actually more - comments that say the opposite, i.e. that Berkeley’s campus is quite clean (every time I’ve been on it, it was clean). I’ve never heard anyone say that Berkeley’s campus is “gritty, grimy,” but I have heard that quite a lot about the surrounding city areas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, it doesn’t really make sense to compare LA the city to these other much smaller cities. LA is absolutely huge - 468 square miles, and that’s just the city, not even counting the suburban sprawl of other cities. I think this comment also demonstrates your lack of experience outside of LA - it’s not “generally agreed upon” that it and NYC are the “most exciting and vibrant” cities. LA isn’t even that dense (the city of Berkeley is even denser), which is why it isn’t as vibrant as Chicago and probably other places as well. Of course, to those who have only really spent a significant amount of time in LA, it’s the most exciting place after NYC. Having spent quite a bit of time in various cities, I can tell you: LA is boring compared to the likes of Chicago or San Francisco. Of course, that’s just my opinion, but I won’t pretend that this is “generally agreed upon.”</p>
<p>I don’t want to go on too big of a tangent, but in terms of rivalry it’s always been LA vs NYC.</p>
<p>type in google: LA vs; los angeles vs; NYC vs; or any other types of these searches, and you’ll see that the top search is always, NY and Los Angeles.</p>
<p>One of my friends put it best: the last time Chicago was relevant was like 50 years ago :p</p>
<p>^^^Two largest cities and metro areas. Doesn’t make them the two most exciting and vibrant cities in this country. Correction: It does in the case of NY.</p>
<p>The NYC-LA rivalry mattered more when Tupac and Biggie were still alive. Which is to say, not at all. :p</p>
<p>Of course, Chicagoans think that their main rival is NYC. San Franciscans would say the same. Each has a different reason for comparison (age, size, density). IMO density is far more highly correlated with vibrancy than size. For example, Houston has a population far larger than San Francisco (2.1 million vs. 0.85 million), but it’s about 1/5 the density (3500 vs 18,250/sq mi) and as a result isn’t nearly as vibrant. LA may have the second-largest population, but in terms of density among large cities, LA falls behind NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, Miami, and DC.</p>
<p>My honest belief is that a large portion of people who complain about Berkeley’s location being at all “grimey” or “dangerous” are just sheltered kids who are too used to squeaky-clean suburban SoCal.</p>
<p>A bit politically incorrect, I know, but my take nonetheless.</p>
<p>*Overrated: basing a major life decision on ratings such as USNews and Forbes and all their sorry ilk. </p>
<p>Underrated: finding the most affordable college that offers the program(s) you’re interested in and that has an environment where you’ll fit in. *</p>
<p>I have lived in a few places. LA seems to be a world leading city in:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>ugliness - with billboards, strip malls, car wash, gas stations, and random architecture just about everywhere. granted, some architecture do look good in isolation but it’s a disaster when they and their surroundings are total mismatch. power to you if you never get tired of these eyesores.</p></li>
<li><p>superficial and fake people, at least that’s what it feels like. “you are what you drive” in LA. i got rearended by a BMW and the owner had no car insurance (gave me a fake one). my mind was going, “if you can’t afford it, don’t pretend and fake it, a*shole!” </p></li>
</ol>
<p>I am also not impressed with the education level and knowlege of many people there. But that shouldn’t surprise anybody; there’s really no incentive to care about education when looks and charm are more important in Hollywood and modeling…etc which are big in LA.</p>
<p>By the way, you seem to be one of the few that are really proud of LA. Good for you. But somehow when I asked what people there like about LA, almost all of them say “weather” and nothing else. For me, weather, along with sushi and few friends, are the only things I would ever miss about LA.</p>