<p>
</p>
<p>Misery loves company…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That teaching quality is not currently measured is a problem that has been noted throughout the education literature time and time again. But that’s not to say that it couldn’t be measured despite its subjectivity. After all, society routinely and successfully rates movies and other subjective works of art. Surely we can all agree that Slumdog Millionaire is a better movie than Battlefield Earth, camp value aside. </p>
<p>Furthermore, we actually do try to measure teaching quality. Practically every single class has students fill out course evaluations during one of the last class sessions, where students are supposed to be rating how well the class was taught. Heck, MIT actually publishes its teaching ratings for its EECS and Sloan courses (but unfortunately only those majors) on internal websites that are available to any registered student, the purpose of which is to guide students to courses that are well taught. Why do this at all if teaching quality truly cannot be measured? Furthermore, many schools - Berkeley included - offer Distinguished Teaching Awards - which (hopefully) are won by professors who are actually superior teachers. Again, how can this be true if teaching quality is unmeasurable? Why not confer teaching awards via a random number generator? </p>
<p>The problem is not that teaching quality cannot be measured - because clearly it can be - but that teaching quality doesn’t seem to matter either in terms of overall departmental ranking or in terms of the career decisions of individual faculty members. Winning boatloads of Teaching Awards will not improve the ranking of a particular program, nor will never winning any such awards - and, indeed, routinely earning atrocious teaching ratings - detract from the ranking. It should, but it does not. </p>
<p>What that also means is that individual faculty members have no incentive to become better teachers, and indeed, strong disincentives to do so. Like I said before, a strong researcher but mediocre teacher is far more likely to be promoted to tenure than a strong teacher but mediocre researcher, and indeed, the Teaching Award is often viewed as the Kiss of Death by sparking concern that you’re not sufficiently devoted to research. Nobody even won a Nobel Prize through strong teaching. Hence, faculty members have every incentive to shortchange teaching in favor of research. </p>
<p>Departmental ratings, as currently devised, therefore do not provide useful information to the typical undergrad. It would be as if I wanted to see a good movie, but all of the movie ratings sites told me only how strong the special effects were in each movie. I’m not a 10 year old kid - I don’t care solely about the strength of the special effects, and indeed, many of the best movies ever made have no special effects, and many terrible movies are pervaded with special effects. Special effects are only a relatively minor factor: far more important are the quality of the screenplay, the acting, and the art/cinematography direction. All subjective categories to be sure, but all still measurable. For example, surely we can all agree that Kate Winslet is a better actress than is Paris Hilton, even though acting ability is a subjective opinion. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Expected…but often times not obtained. Again, Caltech is notorious for offering some of the worst teaching in the nation, a notion to which my brother freely attests. He and many other people he knew would go for week-long stretches of never attending lecture at all, instead reading the books on their own time, because doing so was a better pedagogical experience than the poorly taught lectures. The analogue would be when reading the screenplay of a movie were more entertaining than actually watching the movie itself, perhaps because of the terrible acting or poor cinematography of the movie. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I can’t speak for others, I’m not singling out Berkeley. The overemphasis on research at the expense of teaching is a pervasive problem at all research universities. </p>
<p>However, what does make Berkeley stand out is that Berkeley’s purported strength is the high (research-oriented) ranking of its departments. And while that does indeed justifiably attract the best PhD students, the relevance to most undergrads is minimal. Again, most undergrads don’t care about research. They’re never going to read academic research journals, indeed, they probably have never even opened one, nor would they understand them if they did. A typical undergrad simply wants to obtain a decent job, or perhaps being admitted to a decent professional school (in order to obtain a decent job).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not just athletes. Entertainers too.</p>
<p>Lots of homeless people. Clowns yelling left-wing propaganda from street corners. Considerable dog droppings on the sidewalks. People trying oh-so-hard to look cool and smart.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I appreciate your honesty, but likewise, I’m also annoyed by your constant bombardment of Cal by maliciously portraying it as something similar to so-so schools. Berkeley is a prestigious school. Yet here you are incessantly telling the whole world that it isn’t. Berkeley produces some of the best students around. Yet here you are telling the whole world that it isn’t. Berkeley grads are some of the most successful in their fields and yet here you are saying it isn’t. Every time people mention about the positive aspects of Berkeley, you’re quick to response and post otherwise. You inexorably focus on the negative aspects of Berkeley just because it is a state university. For you, being a state university is bad thing. For you a state university couldn’t be better. That line of thinking you practice in your life clouds up your mind from thinking sagaciously and fairly. </p>
<p>You mentioned that about 95% of Cal graduates stayed in California. First of all, you don’t have exact data for that. So where did that 95% come from? My wife graduated from Berkeley about 8 years ago but she’s now in the Philippines thats half the globe away operating a chain of medium-to-large-size department stores. A sizable number of her former Berkeley friends are now living and working in New York. She has many friends in Texas, Florida, Chicago, and in many parts around the world too. She communicates with her old pal from Cal in Barcelona, Spain. She has friends in London, Frankfurt, Paris, Rome, Brazil, Mexico, India, Dubai, Singapore, Taipei, Shanghai and Kuala Lumpur. She attends an annual Cal alumni gathering in Hong Kong. So, I doubt if your statistics are near to reality. </p>
<p>Now, granted that your 95% story is true, how bad do you think should that be for Berkeley graduates, or for any California university for that matter? California is America’s biggest economy. If it’s a country, it would rank #9 in the world. Meaning, it’s richer than ALL the countries in the world except the G8! So, then why would Cal grads be leaving from California when the jobs are there? How would that make sense? Why would one go to South Carolina, North or South Dakota, Arkansas, Vermont or anywhere except WS, NYC or Chicago and Boston when they can seek jobs right at there own backyard? And I strongly doubt it that having a Berkeley degree, computer science for example, would put you in a disadvantage situation when and should you go out of California to seek employment. Look at Cal’s comsci data. Your claims are far from the truth. <a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/CompSci.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/CompSci.stm</a> So, no offense to you, hawkette, I think you are quite an informative poster, but I think that this time, you were just making up your data in order to portray that Berkeley is just as good as those so-so schools you constantly (which is annoyingly) pitted Berkeley against. In this case, you are the one whos ignorant about Berkeley.</p>
<p>RML,
</p>
<p>I think that the actual numbers are something like 93-94% students from IS. As for placement, maybe your Italian is precluding you from understanding that an important word in my post is “probably.” I don’t know the actual numbers and don’t think that they are published anywhere. Do you have any data to counter my thought? Anyway, my point was that graduates were very likely to stay in California because the economy has historically been great and the lifestyle and weather are very hard to beat. Like you say, why go to South Carolina or Wisconsin or Oklahoma when you’re from Bakersfield and you go to college at Berkeley and you can get a job in San Mateo working for a great company like Applied Bio or Franklin or any number of other great employers in the Valley? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, having posted over 4000 times on CC, I’d be surprised if even 50 of them dealt with UC Berkeley. I don’t know what the heck you are talking about with your charges of “constant bombardment” and “malicious portrayals.” </p>
<p>Second, you’ve got a lot of nerve calling places like U Virginia, U North Carolina, W&M, etc so-so schools. It drives me crazy when I read such things from you and posters from certain other schools----such comments are arrogant, communicate an unsubstantiated sense of superiority and probably reflect a complete lack of understanding of what else is out there. What you’re not getting is that there are a lot of good schools across the USA and saying other schools are good is not the same as saying that UCB is bad. Both can be good. </p>
<p>As for California, you really don’t get it!?! I like California. I actually know the state well and I like UC Berkeley and its grads. The politicians may be pathetic and there are a lot of flakes and phonies, but for several decades, it’s been the most dynamic economy in the USA (only Texas is close) and the quality of life is fabulous. UCB has played a strong role in that economic growth, particularly with the work at Lawrence Livermore and even more in the alumni contributions in Silicon Valley. But I don’t see how that automatically translates into a superior placement position to other very good schools in other parts of the USA. Stanford maybe can make that claim due to its stronger student body and equally strong academic rep. But UCB?…I don’t think so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve missed the point. Because Berkeley grads tend to stay in Calif (and why shouldn’t they?), the “prestige” or the high quality that Berkeley turns out doesn’t get to be as well known in other parts of the country. Really, in other parts of the country, people just don’t think about Berkeley all that much, other than having a vague impression of liberal-hippie-60’s. (And many of them don’t think much about UCLA other than sports.) BTW, Berkeley is a fine school – so what if not everyone in the country bows down to it? How does that impede the quality of education that a Berkeley student receives? You seem to be confusing “everyone bows down to and recognizes” with “quality.”</p>
<p>
Well, I’ve argued that part of the problem with departmental rankings is that they ask academics which are best…Hawkette has argued that employers and students should also have a say. Academics will rate programs on factors important (and visible) to them…and many of these factors are, as you say, not that important to the typical undergrad. However, I would argue that what distinguishes academic programs are research and scholarly activity. </p>
<p>And you’re right it is all subjective…some people think Will Ferrell and his inane movie “Stepbrothers” is hilarious (my brother is one of them)…I find his comedy unfunny and painfully annoying.</p>
<p>
…and LANL…and LBNL</p>
<p>
“A 2008 student survey found that 52% of Berkeley seniors have assisted faculty with research or creative projects.” [UCB - Facts at a glance]</p>
<p>"One hundred percent of Materials Science & Engineering majors are involved in undergraduate research…</p>
<p>"More than 160 undergraduates currently participate in research with the Department of Physics…</p>
<p>“Every year, >4500 undergraduates participate in research…” [UW By The Numbers]</p>
<p>Do Michigan “student athletes” conduct cutting-edge research in the field of kinesiology? Do they publish in the latest journals of kinesiology? </p>
<p>And how exactly do you research “general studies”?</p>
<p>As for the Cal “student athletes,” I’d like to see any evidence of research into “social welfare.” Did DeSean (“MeSean”) Jackson, one of the many Cal football players majoring in “social welfare,” ever perform such research before he defected to the NFL? </p>
<p>IMHO, some of these “jock” majors at the state schools (and these are the top two publics in the land) are a complete joke.</p>
<p>hawkette, </p>
<p>Like I said, who cares if I’m from Berkeley and my school isn’t that popular to the mainstream masses in the state of Arkansas or Idaho or West Virginia or Maine or South Dakota? Why would I care? </p>
<p>If I’m from Berkeley and I’m my alma mater school isn’t respected and sought after by my target future employers, then that’s another story. But then we all know that that’s something Berkeley grads should worry too much about, for the fact is every single top employer in America scouts talents at Berkeley. Heck, even McKinsey or Boston Consulting or the Big 4 accounting/auditing firms in America scout talents at Berkeley. Add to that those booming and thriving companies in the Bay Area, and specifically, the tech industry in Silicon Valley where Berkeley grads count one of the most, if not the most number of graduates employed or operated business ventures. California is also the entertainment capital of the world, and that’s a huge industry. So, whilst the economy isn’t growing at the moment because of the economic slump, California’s economy is still larger than all countries around the world, except the G8. Therefore, if you’re saying Berkeley is an ordinary school because people in Arkansas or Idaho or South Dakota, etc., haven’t really heard of it, then that’s another mistake of yours. (Seems like you have too many to care, to be honest.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, likewise, hawlette. That’s something you didn’t understand as well. You did not understand that prestige is the biggest single factor to consider for in schools. Why do people aim for HYPMS, for example? Do you think the education that one can get from there is superior to the education one can get from the lower ivies? No. But people still aim for HYPSM because they’re very prestigious schools, or more so than any other school in America. Heck, one may even get a better education from Amherst or Williams than Harvard or MIT. But when one is admitted at all 4 schools, one is most likely be joining either in Harvard or MIT. Why? The answer is so simple. Whilst Amherst or Williams are good and all, they don’t have the prestige that H or MIT has. Heck, Amherst can’t even compete with Duke or Columbia when it comes to this specific issue. </p>
<p>In reality, people look at school prestige as well as program prestige/strength. Maybe not every would consider those two factors as the most important factors, but I guess most students would, when given the chance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha ha ha… again, why would I seek employment in Arkansas or Idaho, for example, when I’m a Berkeley graduate and there are more jobs to fill in in the California than in other states? Come on, tell me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is that even an issue? I guess the same people in the same locations don’t think Columbia or Penn or Northwestern or Chicago all that much. But would that make those schools substandard? No. Would that paralyze their graduates from seeking jobs in those states where their alma mater schools aren’t popular? No.</p>
<p>
Here I wonder if they scout at Berkeley or merely at the more selective Haas.</p>
<p>Also, source? At least according to [this</a> thread](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/2921910-post1.html]this”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/2921910-post1.html), Berkeley has 2 out of the 5 Big Ones.</p>
<p>
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek::eek:</p>
<p>^I’m pretty sure that list is a little outdated :/</p>
<p>IBClass06, a school that doesn’t have a prestige is almost useless to attend, for most of those well-established companies consider the name of the school of their applicants. Most top employers do have a list of schools where they recruit at. If your school isn’t in the list, you won’t even get an interview. For example, if you want to work for Google, it’s wise to go to school that’s in the “radar” of Google. </p>
<p>School prestige matters whether you agree with it or not, or whether you like it or not.</p>
<p>
But isn’t Haas part of Berkeley? lol</p>
<p>anyway, I’m pretty sure they also scout talents at L&S and COE. <a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Employers/EmpSurvey.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Employers/EmpSurvey.stm</a></p>
<p>RML,
I don’t know where you got the idea that I think UCB is “substandard.” Never said that or even came close to implying that. Saying other schools are good does not mean that UCB is not. </p>
<p>What it seems like you’re expressing is a view that there is Berkeley and HYPSM and then there is everyone else. If you’ve lived and worked anywhere other than the Bay Area, you know for an absolute fact that this is not the case (and most folks in the Bay Area, while certainly proud to have a place like UCB nearby, probably understand this as well). Sorry to break it to you, but the USA business world does not revolve around undergrads coming out of UC Berkeley or even HYPSM. </p>
<p>As for your implication that companies in distant states are irrelevant, your comments remind me of those Manhattanites who really think the USA economy is all about them and that they are always the smartest guys in the room. You guys really need to get out more. There are A LOT of smart, talented folks in the USA who built terrific businesses in some of the most unlikely places. Ever heard of Bentonville, AR??</p>
<p>Heck, just look at the top private companies in the US. One is in your backyard (do you know what it is?-hint: it is a big UCB employer), but many others are spread around the country in places like NH, OK, KS, MN, MI, VA, FL (have you ever visited any of these states???) and the folks that work at these companies aren’t fixated on UC Berkeley, HYPSM, or any other distant college for that matter. They may have heard the name, but are much more likely to consider good kids coming out of top schools in their regions as every bit as good or better. You may disagree with their views, but they’re the ones making the hiring decisions and that’s what really matters. </p>
<p>When considered in a national context, your myopia with prestige and the top undergraduate schools in general, and UC Berkeley in particular, grossly overstates the recruiting heft of these schools. The connection becomes a bit tighter when you go to the graduate school level, but even then, after a few weeks on the job, nobody cares if you came out of UCB or San Jose State. </p>
<p>Finally, I have always believed that UCB has a meaningful recruiting advantage in places like the Silicon Valley and students viewing that as a desirable work destination would likely benefit from going to UC Berkeley. But otherwise, there are dozens of schools across the USA that can make similarly strong claims to graduating good students who would be potentially valuable additions to a company.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh huh, and if they really cared about research, don’t you think that more of them would pursue PhD degrees, or at least master’s in their field? I guess that weren’t that interested in it.</p>
<p>Simple participation alone measures little about how truly interested in a particular activity. For example, I and plenty of other guys in the neighborhood used to play baseball after school, not because we truly loved playing baseball, but simply because it was ‘the thing to do’: you did it because your friends were doing so, and you wanted to hang out with your friends. </p>
<p>While I can’t speak for UW, Berkeley offers special perks for research: you can either earn course credit, often times in the form of a grade (which is often times an easy A, or at least a B - it is practically impossible to “fail” research credits), or you can earn pay. I am therefore not surprised in the least to find that 52% of Berkeley seniors would engage in research: heck, I would expect that more would do so for simply the pay or the course credit alone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet simply because something is subjective doesn’t mean that can’t measure it. What matters is where the bulk of the opinion then lies. Surely I could find some people who actually believe Battlefield Earth is the greatest movie in history, but they would be distinctly in the minority. </p>
<p>Furthermore, subjectivity does not imply unmeasurability. Why even have movie ratings systems such as rottentomatoes at all if movie quality cannot actually be measured? Why even confer Academy Awards if movie artistic quality cannot be measured? Similarly, why have students fill out teaching evaluations, if teaching quality cannot actually be measured? Why offer Distinguished Teaching Awards? Are we simply trying to waste everybody’s time? </p>
<p>Better quality movies will tend to earn higher rottentomaties and metacritic ratings and a higher chance of earning awards. Similarly, better teachers will tend to earn higher teaching evaluations and a higher chance of earning the Distinguished Teaching Award. Granted, the correlation is not perfect: as every terrible movie and terrible teacher has some fans. The issue is where the consensus opinion lies.</p>
<p>But, again, the problem is that, for the purposes of departmental ranking, the quality of teaching, frankly, doesn’t matter. Higher teaching evaluations will not improve the ranking of your department, although it should.</p>