<p>^I guess you are saying Berkeley is full of poor kids with poor interview skills.</p>
<p>^ Uh, most kids at Berkeley come from CA, and it’s likely that CA is one of the most competitive regions for the scholarship. There is also not a lot of support on campus for the application process like there is at other schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well yeah! Each UC campus is comprised of approximately 33% Pell Grantees. Counting the Blue and Gold financial aid program, nearly 70% of Cal’s students are on finaid. Compare that to many top private schools where 65% are full pay. Sure HYP is down to ~50% full pay, but then their definition of “need” approaches the 1 percenters. :)</p>
<p>^^“Californian competition” hasn’t stopped Stanford students from winning all these undergrad scholarships every year. Also, the support is part of the undergrad experience. </p>
<p>I never heard of Nobel winners giving credits to their undergrad schools. They often mentioned the department and collegues at their universities. OTOH, UNDERGRAD scholarships winners often give credits to their colleges, professors, and mentors for obvious reasons. </p>
<p>Again, Nobel winners went to colleges LONG TIME AGO and the work that led them to the prize were done (long) AFTER colleges. It’s simply ridiculous to use these TINY number of Nobel winners to make claims about undergrad education and generalization about student bodies. I doubt that’s what they taught in your stats or econometric classes - to stretch like this.</p>
<p>
My dear friend Sam, please re-read all of my posts in this thread. I never claimed anything about undergrad education relating to the tiny numbers of Nobel winners. Your contention is undergraduate scholarships are more indicative of quality undergrad education. I say it’s more indicative of the school’s selectivity and support through the application process than the quality of undergrad education. </p>
<p>I pointed out other possibilities relating to why some schools have higher proportion of Nobel Prize winners…instead of just dismissing the data as meaningless.</p>
<p>“Your contention is undergraduate scholarships are more indicative of quality undergrad education. I say it’s more indicative of the school’s selectivity and support through the application process than the quality of undergrad education.”</p>
<p>I competely agree.</p>
<p>
Yet, you called those that disclaim that “whiners”.</p>
<p>
Like I said, I don’t say they were indicative. But when compared with Nobel, they would be more indicative based on the fact (see how I have some basis?) that the mentors, the research opportunities that contribute part of the winners’ credentials, and the support through the application process are all there today. OTOH, the Nobel didn’t perform any of the work that got them the prize when they were undergrads. By the way, when did the last Nobel winner graduate with a bachelor degre from Berkeley? 1960s or 70s? Also a strong support through the application process is a form (though not the only form) of adminstrative support for the undergrads. Whether undergrad education is of high quality or not may depend more or less on how how the administration value the undergrad programs. </p>
<p>
That’s exactly what I was talking about: making suggestions and generalization (using the word “possibilities” is just a convenient way to shift the burden when you were actually implying a claim) with no basis. Your thought that Berkeley is more intellectual and less preprofessional than others that had less or no Nobel winners (we are talking about only 11 out of couple millions of Berkeley alums over the course of almost a century) is inconsistent with the fact that Berkeley has a popular and highly ranked undergraduate business degree program, a huge engineering program, and the fact that it’s in the low end in terms of graduates pursuing PhDs on a per capita basis. So if I were you, I wouldn’t just look at one number that seems so remotely related to undergrads today while ignoring other numbers/facts that seem more relevant but suggest the contrary.</p>
<p>
No, I was saying those whining were from schools that didn’t do so well in this metric.
I apologize if I’ve offended you. </p>
<p>
The average age of a Nobel Prize winner is what? 60? 70? Almost all winners will have been an undergraduate decades ago. </p>
<p>
I wasn’t comparing others to Berkeley. I was just thinking of reasons why other schools haven’t produced as many Nobel Prize winners.
What about my other point that top producers had government seed money for big research projects? </p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with your point about Nobel Prize impact on vaunted “undergraduate education”. I would say its more important to have Nobel Prize winners on staff (who happen to teach undergrads)…Berkeley does.</p>