What happened to Cal rankings?

vicissitudes · February 2, 2009, 2:46pm

[quote]
Actually, sir, THAT is fallacy. Where is the evidence that Nobel Laureates do NOT teach undergrads?

[/quote]

Do I really need to dig this up for you? Isn't this common knowledge already? Alright, if you insist. Let's look at all the nobel laureates at Berkeley right now.

UC</a> Berkeley Nobel Prize Winners

2006 - George F. Smoot (Physics)
2001 - George A. Akerlof (Economics)
2000 - Daniel L. McFadden (Economics)
1997 - Steven Chu (Physics)
1986 - Yuan T. Lee (Chemistry)
1964 - Charles H. Townes (Physics)
1960 - Donald A. Glaser (Physics)

Go to schedule.berkeley.edu and search them to see what they're teaching. For spring 2009:

Smoot - Physics 299 (graduate level course)
Akerlof - Economics 298, 299 (graduate level courses)
Mcfadden - Economics 299 (graduate level course), Economics 602 (doctorate level course)
Chu - Physics 299 (graduate level course)
Lee - Not teaching
Townes - Physics 199 (upper-div undergrad), Physics 299 (graduate level)
Glaser - Physics 299

So out of the seven Nobel Laureates here, only ONE is teaching an undergraduate level class, and it's not even a class. It's 199, independent study. That means he gets ONE undergrad to do some research/work on a project. I'll say it again. Barring special circumstances, ONE undergrad has access to any Nobel Laureates at Berkeley. And even then he can't just sign up for it. He probably has to know the guy, compete for the spot, arrange for it, etc. etc.

So before you accuse me of being fallacious, please do your research first. I don't have the time to dig this up for you every time you want to argue.

Also, notice that almost all the NLs are "teaching" 299, which is really graduate-level research and not a class. Surprised that all the NLs are researching, and not teaching? I'm not.

But let's take a step backwards. Why is this a bad thing? In fact, I think this is a great thing.

<ol>
<li>Why would Berkeley waste its NLs on teaching the undergrad? Let's be honest here, the undergrad population at Berkeley just isn't as good as the graduate population. The admissions process isn't nearly as strict. A grad student has ten times the potential for groundbreaking research that will boost Berkeley's reputation as a whole and help everyone than an undergrad student. It's much better to have NLs cultivate Berkeley's grad students.</li>
<li>Why would NLs be teaching at all? They are obviously much better at researching (it's hard to be better at teaching than research when you get a freaking Nobel for your research). It would be much wiser to use their for research full-time rather than have them teach, part time. Which is exactly what they're doing.</li>
<li>Why do undergrads want NLs to teach them, anyway? Does having a Nobel Prize make you a great instructor? No, in fact, in most cases, it makes you worse. Why? First of all, you spend most of your time doing research, and little time to actually prepare lesson plans. It's no surprise that most great lecturers at Berkeley put a ton of time into preparing their class. For example, Ron Hassner, the guy teaching PS124A, an immensely popular class, spends about 6-7 hours on every lecture slide! On top of that, he makes his midterm available online the first day of class! And he updates his lecture slides every year! That's dedication you just can't expect out of a researcher. Second of all, NLs are so advanced in their field, that they usually have trouble communicating the concepts of something like intro calculus to students. Not only that, but they also have a hard time relating to students, especially the ones who don't do well. And finally, the research done by NLs are so complex and obstruse, that most undergrads wouldn't understand it anyway. They wouldn't be able to appreciate it, so why demand NLs?</li>
</ol>

[quote]
Sure, plenty of lousy teachers abound in academia (including LACs), but, of course, Harvard has a bunch of those reseach-first guys, too.

[/quote]

Sure, I agree with you. I never said Harvard didn't. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many Harvard NLs also don't touch undergrads. But my argument wasn't about Harvard's top faculty being more accessible than Berkeley's top faculty. I was arguing that not only is there a distinction in quality between the grad programs and the undergrad program at Berkeley (grad students have more access to NLs, for example), but that Berkeley's top research and its top departmental rankings, don't really have a noticeable effect on the vast majority of the student population. Obviously, if a department such as Physics drops from #3 to #50, that would be bad. But if it drops from #3 to say, #11, would most physics students at Berkeley care? Would it really affect them in any negative way? Would any grad programs that would otherwise admit them, turn them down because the department is ranked #11 instead of #3?

mathboy98 · February 2, 2009, 2:59pm

Vicissitudes -- perhaps calm down and stay with an open mind -- MAYBE some of us actually did research as well, and are willing to share it with you.

To answer to the above post, I would say the point isn't necessarily to take courses from Nobel Laureates -- it's to take courses with elite faculty, leaders in the field. There are a ton of faculty in Berkeley who are PARTICULARLY elite in the field of math. Take David Eisenbud...I know a bunch of people who took a few of his courses. [Note -- a lot of them actually said they didn't enjoy some of his classes...i.e., you don't necessarily take a class from a famous person for the sake of his/her ability to run the class, you get to know these people because they know what you have to do to be successful in your career!! And have the connections + resources to send you places].

"Why do undergrads want NLs to teach them, anyway? Does having a Nobel Prize make you a great instructor? No, in fact, in most cases, it makes you worse."

I agree, it doesn't. The point as I stated isn't how excellent they are at teaching classes.

"that not only is there a distinction in quality between the grad programs and the undergrad program at Berkeley (grad students have more access to NLs, for example), but that Berkeley's top research and its top departmental rankings, don't really have a noticeable effect on the vast majority of the student population."

THis is a good point, given it was qualified by "vast majority." There are some for whom Berkeley is a godly place to study -- the ones who seek out opportunity.

However, for many of the others, I think it is definitely a good enough school to fit their needs, even if it doesn't offer them something better than private schools do.

I don't think we're really disagreeing here unless someone's going to argue that the grad and undergrad programs at Berkeley are ENTIRELY separate for every student.

To the top students, the connections with elite faculty can do wonders in their grad school prospects...and who knows, maybe if they end up getting close to certain faculty, they can go to grad school back at Berkeley and work with these elite faculty! It's not unheard of.

Nevertheless, I hold: "What's the use of good professors if you can't take classes with them? What's the use of good research if you don't have access to them?"

These statements are fallacies, unless you take a VERY NARROW VIEW of "good professors" -- note that almost any professor of pure sciences at Berkeley is likely fairly godly ,and no doubt so for top departments like the math and CS ones. If you mean "good professors" = Nobel Laureates, A. You're forgetting that it's "fields medalists" for math, and B. Leaders in the field who have ridiculous clout need not be fields medalists.

mathboy98 · February 2, 2009, 3:03pm

I heavily agree, though, that some of the best instructors are the least famous ones...probably because they have more incentive to do a good job at what they're trying.

Fairly noncontroversial point. I think I agree with you vicissitudes in spirit, merely that sometimes you made extreme statements, like "Berkeley academics aren't comparable to..." [I would say academics are one of the few GREAT strengths!], and the one about lack of good professors coming in contact with undergrads.

Drop one other name -- Ken Ribet [surprise, the man who proved the Epsilon Conjecture to prove the way for Wiles's proof of Fermat's Theorem] is a highly friendly man, kind to us mortals, and looking out for our well-being, plus a great professor. Almost everyone I know in all majors [heck, even English majors and such] have heard of him!

There are tons of other elite faculty, whom people regularly take undergraduate courses from.

mathboy98 · February 2, 2009, 3:06pm

"Hmm, yes that's pretty accurate. If you're very smart and motivated, you can do just as well at Berkeley as you can at another top private. But if you are not (and most are not), then things will be a bit rougher for you."

I think this is the most accurate conclusion anyone has come to in this thread though. A less than top student can still do well, and get a great job, but they still have to be above average. The lower you drop in the ranks, the less Berkeley can do for you. It is an ACADEMIC powerhouse, not a prestige powerhouse, is the best I can put it.

mathboy98 · February 2, 2009, 3:12pm

Oh and my "edit" feature is flaky, forgive the multiple posts, please.

I just wanted to say that in the end, I wasn't disagreeing with where the overall undergraduate program of Berkeley is ranked. I really couldn't care at all. I care only about where the departments are ranked, and I myself don't see distinction between the grad and undergrad ones.

Just making it clear that I was disagreeing with statements like:

"What's the use of good professors if you can't take classes with them? What's the use of good research if you don't have access to them?"

and

"Harvard beats Berkeley in almost every measure of academic quality."

I don't think from the way you've been arguing, vicissitudes, that you really believe either of those statements. Unless you're defining "academic" differently. It really doesn't seem we disagree, and it might be a choice of words issue.

vicissitudes · February 2, 2009, 10:43pm

[quote]
Vicissitudes -- perhaps calm down and stay with an open mind -- MAYBE some of us actually did research as well, and are willing to share it with you.

[/quote]

I am calm. I wasn't directing that at you so I don't know what you're getting worked up about.

[quote]
These statements are fallacies, unless you take a VERY NARROW VIEW of "good professors" -- note that almost any professor of pure sciences at Berkeley is likely fairly godly ,and no doubt so for top departments like the math and CS ones. If you mean "good professors" = Nobel Laureates, A. You're forgetting that it's "fields medalists" for math, and B. Leaders in the field who have ridiculous clout need not be fields medalists.

[/quote]

That's exactly the view I take. You'll see I mentioned that right after I was talking about departmental rankings, i.e. the "good" professors that significantly boost said rankings. Sure, if you use the word "good" in a very loose sense, most professors at Berkeley can be considered "good". I'm using it in a very specific sense. And I haven't forgotten Field Medalists. I'm using Nobel Laureates as one example of a group of elite faculty which are, let's admit it, not very accessible to students.

[quote]
I don't think we're really disagreeing here

[/quote]

I don't think we are either. I'm not sure why you just made a bunch of post quoting me and agreeing with me.

By the way, if your edit feature is "flaky", try thinking about what you want to say, making sure you've said everything you've wanted to say, and then submit it. I'm not trying to be mean but it's a pain going through all your posts sometimes.

bluebayou · February 2, 2009, 11:46pm

hey visc:

George Smoot teaches physics 7 in the fall. Phy 7 is an intro class (horror of horrors..)

vicissitudes · February 3, 2009, 1:59am

I see that he taught it last fall. I thought he gave up on that gig when he got his Nobel Prize. Poor physics 7B students.

You get my point though. NLs teaching undergrads is pretty rare.

biomech · February 3, 2009, 2:23am

Personally I still don't understand the assumption that excellent faculty are more available at private universities. Many freshman seminars at harvard for instance are more over subscribed than slots in the freshman class (less than 10% get in).

I suppose I agree that berkeley is best for better students. I would however say this is true for all places. There is little point in someone who doesn't plan to use the resources of harvard or berkeley going to those places if they just plan to sit through lecture every day and not work in a lab or talk to profs. I guess I'd revise that statement to say berkeley is best for those who make use of what it has to offer.

As far as profs. being accessible to students in large classes that might be generally true. If you want interaction go to office hours...

Also vicissitudes I do have to ask if you've tried to get research at berkeley and harvard. I have and found it pretty easy at both. I've worked in labs at both and I didn't find it that different both in terms of what was expected and the other undergrads. There are literally tons of research opportunities at berkeley, just go to the URAP website and check for deadlines that were extended. That means no one applied for them... I don't know many (any) people here that seriously looked for research they were qualified for and didn't get it. If you know any computing at all you're almost guaranteed a spot on a lab according to most faculty I've talked to. If you (or some undergrad at berkeley) want help getting research positions pm me on here and I'll give you a list of labs I know are looking for people as I'm on the research list and get bombarded with emails all the time.

Also for getting into grad school it actually does matter in that if you go to a department with a good grad ranking you get to do better research. Remember that it's mostly undergrad research which gets you into grad schools in the sciences. If you do well in research you can overcome bad other factors whereas the reverse is not really true.

As to the grad classes thing, there's nothing stopping people from taking grad classes. Just sign up via telebears...

As far as pure academic quality (by almost any measure you want to come up with) Berkeley, Harvard and Stanford are by far the best in the US averaged across all fields. I just think it's too bad that so many people outside of academia don't recognize this. If you asked people at Harvard (as I have) they generally say that berkeley is the same level and it really depends on the prof. or the specific subfield.

As for your physics example I think it would matter. Physics in particular seems to track people into tier one grad and undergrad physics programs. It's surprisingly deterministic, though more so based on where people get their phds.

Look, I really like Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Caltech and other good research universities. I can understand why people would pick those places over berkeley but I also understand why people do the reverse.

biomech · February 3, 2009, 2:26am

I should also add that a number of my friends took Romer's econ class this last semester. She is currently chair of Obama's council of economic advisors. We also sent Chu to be head of the department of energy.

vicissitudes · February 3, 2009, 3:00am

Let me explain why excellent faculty are more available at private universities.

One way of looking at it is student to faculty ratio. If you have a high student to faculty ratio, then it's harder for the students to get to know their professors. That means ALL faculty are less available at a large public university at Berkeley. Therefore, we can also conclude excellent faculty are less available at Berkeley.

Another way of looking at it is the gap between the quality of the graduate program and the undergraduate program. It is much wider at Berkeley than at Harvard. What this means is that Berkeley focuses more resources on its grad programs and research, and devote their top faculty to that as opposed to its undergrad, as I have shown in an earlier post. It makes perfect sense, it's the best way to run the university given its circumstances, but still, top faculty are less accessible to undergrads.

Yet another way of looking at it is availability of research. It's much easier to get research at a private university than at Berkeley, because there are so many students at Berkeley and it's hard to accommodate everyone. As such, it's harder to get to do research with a faculty member.

But you're missing the other side of my argument. Ultimately, how much does all of this matter? I would argue, for most students, little to none. Who cares if NLs are not accessible to them? They wouldn't understand the research anyway. And NLs are not especially good at teaching either, on the whole.

===============

I agree that for all places, better students do better. That's pretty obvious. The questions is, how much worse do the worse students do? At a top private, they can still do okay. At a place like Berkeley, they might very well flunk out. That's the difference.

As for Office Hours, I think that's a bit of a cop-out. First of all, yes it would be ideal if students who needed help just go to Office Hours. But that's not always the case. Often the students who need help, don't know they need help. Or, the professor is an intimidating grouch. Or, the student has a class during that time. Look, we have to face the reality that many students just don't go to office hours. Should we just say "too bad, if you flunk out it's your fault." That seems pretty harsh. Instead we should take a look at the current situation, and ask ourselves how we can improve it? If we always use the "there's OH" cop-out then we'll never have the motivation to improve the system.

===============

As for research, let's just say that I have friends who have tried to get research and are doing research at both Berkeley and Harvard. Let's face it, it's not exactly easy to get research at Berkeley. You have to jump through all these hoops. The SURF application process is a mess. And a lot of students don't get the research they applied for. On top of that, because faculty is less accessible at Berkeley, it's harder to get to know a faculty member, and then walk up to them and ask if you can do research with them. Even if you get research at Berkeley, often it's just meaningless lab work, assisting a grad student who's doing the real research. My friend at Harvard has done some pretty cool research and even got published. I haven't heard too many people like that at Berkeley.

=====================

On the topic of grad classes, that's also a bit of a cop-out. That's like saying, if your high school sucks, you can also take classes at the local CC, which is ranked #1 in the state. Well, does that excuse the poor quality of the high school? Why should students have to jump through hoops just to have a good education?

Not exactly the same with undergrads taking graduate level courses, but you get my point. Undergrads have to take undergraduate level courses. A lot of them are required for their college and major. Why should they have to take on graduate classes on top of that just to get a good class? We should be focusing on the undergraduate classes and how we can improve them.

On the topic of pure academic quality, I can agree with you that Berkeley, Harvard, and Stanford, are among the best in the US across all fields. But I'm not talking about pure academic quality. I'm talking specifically about the quality of Berkeley's undergraduate program. And sadly, on the whole, it's simply not as good as Stanford's or Harvard's. I don't know why this is so hard for some people to accept. Berkeley's undergrad is clearly better than 99% of all the other undergraduate programs out there. Why is it such a big deal if it's not as good as Stanford or Harvard?

mathboy98 · February 3, 2009, 1:04pm

"On the topic of pure academic quality, I can agree with you that Berkeley, Harvard, and Stanford, are among the best in the US across all fields."

OK, see you had earlier explicitly commented that some school beats Berkeley academics in almost every regard....which I would take issue with. I wouldn't say the academics are lacking. Yes, the undergraduate resources may lack. There was reason for me to clarify what you were saying, so that the FACT that we were agreeing could even be made clear:

"I'm not sure why you just made a bunch of post quoting me and agreeing with me."

It wasn't quite all as simple as agreeing, some of it was really asking whether you really meant what I understood. It is pretty easy to mistake statements about academic quality [which you made] to refer to the actual academic departments, rather than the specific undergrad program + resources allocated to it. I'm hardly worked up -- I even managed to read and see that you're not trashing Berkeley better than quite a few seem to have on this thread...and have been consistently taking a pretty balanced view.

"I am calm. I wasn't directing that at you so I don't know what you're getting worked up about."

Well, you were making a huge post complaining about how you had to dig up statistics, which referred mainly to how many Nobel Laureates actually teach undergraduates, and then saying it doesn't matter how many do teach undergrads. If you read my own view on this: A. Nobel Laureates are not the only leaders in their fields. Neither are Fields Medalists. I know who some fields medalists are at Berkeley, and I'd rather work with other professors who're experts in the areas I am more interested in...and you cannot dismiss the fact that these famous people are around. OBVIOUSLY we can't understand their research. Heck, not even graduate students necessarily can yet. Nevertheless, their support [e.g. through recommendations] is quite something when someone wants to apply to grad school, and they don't have to be horrible teachers either. It is also, to a degree, inspiring to have them around at least to me. I don't think the quality of teaching is all that makes an undergraduate program at all.

That is in response to:

"Who cares if NLs are not accessible to them? They wouldn't understand the research anyway. And NLs are not especially good at teaching either, on the whole."

I am not even talking of NLs -- just talking of famous professors. And there are quite a few famous professors who're quite good at teaching in my department, though I won't speak for the others.

"I agree that for all places, better students do better. That's pretty obvious. The questions is, how much worse do the worse students do? At a top private, they can still do okay. At a place like Berkeley, they might very well flunk out. That's the difference."

Berkeley is undoubtedly not the best school for the worst students, but it's PARTICULARLY good for top students. Note that such top students can't just go to a school like Harvard instead, because with the unpredictability of admissions at those schools, they may not get in. Top students end up everywhere, and I'd say they're particularly privileged to end up at Berkeley, where they have a wealth of academic resources.

"On the topic of grad classes, that's also a bit of a cop-out. That's like saying, if your high school sucks, you can also take classes at the local CC, which is ranked #1 in the state. Well, does that excuse the poor quality of the high school? Why should students have to jump through hoops just to have a good education?"

This is well taken. However, I will raise one issue with it: the undergraduate program is in fact quite strong in most departments. Definitely in engineering, it's very, very strong. Similar in departments like math or physics. And in my honest opinion, it's not the average students who need stronger departments, it's generally the top students. Average students probably can't handle the departments as they are. The top students have access to much more if they need it. I don't think academic needs really go unsatisfied, and I personally haven't heard of people having much trouble getting research positions at all. Every friend and his grandma seems to be doing research...heck, I sometimes wonder how all these people even deserve it, cynical as I am about people's abilities at times.

Nevertheless, perhaps it is easier still to get research at another private university, and sure, that is a point in their favor.

"Sure, if you use the word "good" in a very loose sense, most professors at Berkeley can be considered "good". I'm using it in a very specific sense."

WHY would you ever restrict "good" to mean Fields Medalists and Nobel Laureates if you want to make a meaningful point?! They're not even the masters of every field of math and the natural sciences! I'm not saying just any old professor is the same as the next...but honestly, I WOULD NOT WANT TO WORK with any of the Fields Medalists at Berkeley. Neither does my friend who recently was accepted to its Ph.D. program. Neither do the vast majority of people I have talked to. There are masters of various fields, distinguished in various ways. Ken Ribet and Andrew Wiles [well the latter at PRinceton] with the Fermat Prize...I mean seriously, I don't see the point. If I wanted a letter of recommendation, I'd go to a master of the field I'm interested in, of which there are many more professors available.

mathboy98 · February 3, 2009, 1:11pm

"Also for getting into grad school it actually does matter in that if you go to a department with a good grad ranking you get to do better research. Remember that it's mostly undergrad research which gets you into grad schools in the sciences. If you do well in research you can overcome bad other factors whereas the reverse is not really true."

This is important. I would never forsake overall undergraduate quality for departmental quality myself. For instance, I'd never go to Harvard engineering if I could go to Berkeley engineering.

There are those for whom overall undergrad quality is more important though, and perhaps these constitute a majority.

I think in general, Berkeley is better to go to for students aiming high in academics + grad school, given the quality of departments. Less so for, say, prelaw and premed students perhaps.

biomech · February 3, 2009, 2:06pm

This argument makes little sense: "Another way of looking at it is the gap between the quality of the graduate program and the undergraduate program. It is much wider at Berkeley than at Harvard."

You're arguing that there's a large difference in the undergrad program using the same ranking (which puts berkeley fairly low) in undergrad ranking. This doesn't make much sense logically but I do understand what you're saying...

If you think everyone at Harvard gets nice one on one discussion time with profs. in intro classes you're dreaming. It's fairly similar to berkeley in many ways (the large intro classes are indeed large intro classes). The student to faculty ratio at Cal is 15:1, 75% of the classes have less than 30 students. Granted Harvard has a ratio of 8:1 and I will say that may make it easier but I really think it has more to do with the ratios in your major. Physics at Cal for instance has a ratio of something like 4:1. I'm sure that some departments like MCB or Econ have bad faculty to student ratios at Cal but it's also true that many of those students have no interest in going to grad school (I'm sure the same is true for Harvard's saturated econ and gov. departments).

Now I like harvard a lot so this isn't me bashing them (they face similar challenges to Cal) but here's an interesting article in the harvard crimson. The</a> Harvard Crimson :: Opinion :: Leave No Undergraduate Behind I have selected a few quotes. Note that I believe many of these statements hold true for Berkeley I just think that at a large research university like harvard or berkeley you have to go after things in order to truly succeed.

"Almost nobody on the Faculty of Arts and Sciences knows Im graduating today.

They wont miss me, because they didnt know I was here in the first place.

Four years ago, I was warned this would happen. But unlike so many of the insidious rumors I heard about Harvard, this one turned out to be true. Students do get lost in the crowd. In fact, most of the crowd is lost. We know we cannot simply wait to be discovered, but it might be nice if someone noticed that we existed. "

"The lack of engagement between students and faculty also means that professors rarely really get to know their students. Of those who know me at Harvard, I have had intellectual discussions with only a handful; Id be surprised if more than three knew what Im doing after I graduate. "

<hr>

I guess all I'm saying is that you can get lost in the crowd at any large research university. I don't think that's always bad but it isn't always good. I think if you feel that's likely just go to a LAC with an excellent student to faculty ratio. Let's be honest. Doing research only helps you if you're good at it and your faculty mentor writes a good rec letter. If you're terrible it isn't going to matter if you're at harvard and you get research but fail or if you're at berkeley and you don't get it in the first place (though I seriously doubt there are many people that want research and don't get it). Your arguments about more meaningful research being done at other places are pretty pointless. It really depends on the field and the faculty member. I'm going to get a paper from stuff I did first semester freshman year whereas my best friend at harvard is a sophomore and isn't close to being on a paper as he just bleeds mice all day... It's all about picking projects you can finish.

biomech · February 3, 2009, 2:12pm

Also as to the grad school classes it's more like saying that if you're in 11th grade you can take a 12th grad physics class if you want. Or more like you can register for lots of different electives meant for those a class ahead of you. I don't see why registering for grad classes means that the undergrad program is failing you. If anything I think it's a major bonus. If you go to Berkeley there is literally no chance that you'll be limited by the class offerings in most fields. If you finish all the undergrad classes you just get to take graduate classes. Heck, you can take graduate classes even if you haven't finished the undergrad classes in many departments

vicissitudes · February 3, 2009, 2:30pm

I am quite familiar with the large intro classes at Harvard. I never said there are only small classes at Harvard. What's important is that because the student:faculty ratio is much smaller at Harvard, the average student gets into more smaller classes and gets more of a chance to know the faculty. It's all relative. Of course Harvard isn't perfect, not even close. The LACs beat both Harvard and Berkeley by a mile, as you have mentioned. But that's a pretty unfair comparison. You can always bring up how student X at a worse school is doing better than student Y at a better school. So what? I don't care about student X or student Y. I care about the general student population of about 23,000 at Berkeley, especially those who don't do as well, and frankly I think most of them would be better off at Harvard. I think most of them would agree. Why is this such a contentious point?

My point regarding graduate level classes is that it's a cop-out to bring it up to cover the faults of the undergrad program. I was talking about the quality of the undergraduate program. You can't excuse a (relatively) poor undergraduate program by talking about the graduate program. Sure, students can take graduate level classes (most don't). Sure, it's a great option. But what about the vast majority of the students who don't take graduate level classes? How can we help them? Should we just say, "too bad, you can take graduate level classes but you choose not to, I have no sympathy for you"? That's pretty cold.

biomech · February 3, 2009, 6:09pm

fair enough. I believe some people would benefit from harvard but the original topic of this isn't berkeley vs. harvard but if berkeley is under-ranked. I'm happy to believe most people would rather be at harvard (seems to be generally true as I only know a few people here who turned down harvard). My issue is that the current perceptions of people on here and in high school are driven largely by the US news rankings which are basically a terrible way to pick your school if you plan to go to graduate school in the sciences (or really in general). If you are truly interested in science (particularly the hard sciences) there is little reason to choose the following schools over Cal:
Duke
Dartmouth
Upenn
Northwestern
Washu
JHU
Rice
Emory
Notre Dame
Vandy
Yale (to an extent)
Columbia (to an extent)

For me I'm confident that Berkeley had the best resources for my interests. I'm happy to realize some people might like the above schools but I do hope they know what they're getting into.

You might be right about people that can't quite hack it but by that logic we should rank Caltech fairly low as well. In Berkeley if you have a bad GPA in engineering you have to struggle a bit to transfer to L&S (but you'll likely succeed). At Caltech good luck getting into another school altogether.

About grad classes I really think you're looking at this the wrong way. My friend is taking grad physics at harvard. It's not because the undergrad physics failed him but rather is a testament to Harvard's excellent grad program which he can access as an undergrad. I personally think that means the institution is doing something right rather than it's failing because it doesn't offer an undergraduate and graduate version of the same class. In the converse I'm taking an upper div. espm class this semester with about 1/3 of the class as grad students.

mathboy98 · February 3, 2009, 8:32pm

"and frankly I think most of them would be better off at Harvard. I think most of them would agree. Why is this such a contentious point?"

Not only I, but biomech also has acknowledged that we think it's really the top students who benefit most from Berkeley, and it becomes less of a privilege to attend as you go down the ranks...

Now, having read biomech's and my own posts [let's step aside from your views on these Nobel LAureates for the moment..given that comes down to when you consider a professor famous as opposed to when I do], I see one common point. Take a look at that:

"Doing research only helps you if you're good at it and your faculty mentor writes a good rec letter. If you're terrible it isn't going to matter if you're at harvard"

I am thinking Biomech and I both are saying that the weaker undergraduates generally just want to study, go on and get their degrees. All this high-end "top-quality research" stuff is really a prospective graduate student talking, not your average undergrad.

The one and only complaint I can agree with [which I've agreed with and espoused all through the "is it hard to graduate from Berkeley" thread] about Berkeley undergraduate is that weaker students can flunk out more easily, and it's an overcompetitive world. I really think those who are heavily into research and stuff like that get opportunities when they wish. Like I said, basically everyone I know [definitely not all straight A students] has found no trouble getting research -- MCB majors, EE majors, CS majors...

I mean, perhaps other schools have more overall undergrad prestige, something like that. But I don't see what the huge deal is.

bluebayou · February 3, 2009, 8:51pm

[quote]
But I'm not talking about pure academic quality. I'm talking specifically about the quality of Berkeley's undergraduate program. And sadly, on the whole, it's simply not as good as Stanford's or Harvard's. I don't know why this is so hard for some people to accept.

[/quote]

With that I agree, but your earlier, gross generalizations were just too easy to pick apart. I would also suggest that the undergrad experience at many privates (even down a notch or two) is better than any public, just bcos of the $$.

btw: Smoot and Chu both have excellent reps at teachers. Of course, Chu probably ain't teaching this spring since he has contracted Potomac Fever. :D

mathboy98 · February 3, 2009, 9:06pm

"And sadly, on the whole, it's simply not as good as Stanford's or Harvard's. I don't know why this is so hard for some people to accept."

Yeah to second the above -- seriously, I think enough times we've agreed with this. Certainly my large post above didn't dispute this.

It is clear that you need an exercise in reading for subtlety. Notice that when I said we agree overall, you dismissed a post of mine as merely quoting you to agree with you...repeatedly, people on this thread have found particular criticisms [rather than your general point] rather strange, and you've definitely worded some things vaguely. We can easily agree with your general point while finding your justifications for it shaky.

Thread		Replies	Views
Why is UC Berkeley ranked so low?? University of California - Berkeley	36	1647	April 17, 2021
UCSD US News Ranking University of California - San Diego	18	117	April 17, 2021
More USNews Rankings! University of California - Berkeley	14	54	April 16, 2021
USNews rankings University of California - Berkeley	154	263	April 16, 2021
Is Berkeley's quality slipping? University of California - Berkeley	24	66	April 17, 2021

What happened to Cal rankings?

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

What happened to Cal rankings?

Related topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US