<p>Brown and Dartmouth have horrible grad programs.</p>
<p>All excellent graduate schools have excellent undergraduate programs. But some programs that do not have excellent graduate programs can also have excellent graduate programs. The only exception to this rule are excellent graduate programs that do not even offer undergraduate programs, like Rockefeller and UCSF.</p>
<p>CSU's are the place to go for undergrad over UC's??? All I know is I thank God I never went to a Cal State. My best friend goes to Cal State Fullerton and from his stories, and the help I have to give him with his classes, it in no way compares to the great undergrad education I got at a UC. In this case its easy to tell that the faculty is what makes the difference.</p>
<p>"All excellent graduate schools have excellent undergraduate programs."</p>
<p>There is a little secret that almost all high school students have learned: when it comes to standardized tests, it is always safe to discard the answer that contains words such as "ALL" or "ALWAYS". </p>
<p>Well, in this case, this applies to the above statement. Obviously, not ALL excellent graduate schools have excellent undergraduate programs. Unless, the definition of excellence encompasses a range that includes average and medicre levels.</p>
<p>"All excellent graduate schools have excellent undergraduate programs."</p>
<p>The UCs are an exception to that rule. For example, Berkeley's PhD programs compete with HYS. Berkeley's undergrad program doesn't even come close to competing with HYS, much less other more obscure schools like even Vanderbilt and Wake Forest. Berkeley is like the opposite of Dartmouth. It has a great graduate school program, but a HORRIBLE undergrad with the exception of maybe one or two good programs. Likewise, Dartmouth has a great undergraduate program, but a HORRIBLE graduate school with the exception of a great business school.</p>
<p>I disagree with both of you (Xiggi and Gutrade). But that's what this forum is for eh?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The UCs are an exception to that rule. For example, Berkeley's PhD programs compete with HYS. Berkeley's undergrad program doesn't even come close to competing with HYS, much less other more obscure schools like even Vanderbilt and Wake Forest. Berkeley is like the opposite of Dartmouth. It has a great graduate school program, but a HORRIBLE undergrad with the exception of maybe one or two good programs. Likewise, Dartmouth has a great undergraduate program, but a HORRIBLE graduate school with the exception of a great business school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Horrible? Consistently in the top 25 is horrible?</p>
<p>You need to put things in perspective.</p>
<p>I agree with Alexandre. Too much misinformation goes around this forum. UC Berkeley has a great undergraduate program; the graduate program is particularly well known because of the top faculty (in some cases the best in the country and that includes Harvard, Yale, Stanford.) The graduates of UC Berkeley undergrad commonly go to extremely good graduate schools.</p>
<p>Can we just clarify what we mean when we say that a specific undergrad program is good? I know this is a hard question because publications like US News doesn't know what makes one undergrad program better than another. Thinking about this question allows us to view the college admission process in a different perspective.</p>
<p>Alexandre, you may disagree with me all you want. However, I hate to point out that ONE SINGLE example would be sufficient to undermine the veracity of your statement: "All excellent graduate schools have excellent undergraduate programs."</p>
<p>I think that it would be MUCH easier for me to find a single school with an excellent graduate school and an average undergraduate program than for you to find that EVERY graduate school has an excellent undergraduate. </p>
<p>Read my comments about gross generalizations and biased information. Had your statement started with "The majority of excellent graduate ...", it would have been equally powerful and ... correct. </p>
<p>The difference is subtle but important.</p>
<p>Jonw222, nobody is denying the solid reputation of Cal. </p>
<p>However, read your post again and notice how you can't speak about Cal ... without mentioning its graduate school. When discussing undergraduate schools, the presence or absence of a graduate school should not have such relevance.</p>
<p>Are you trying to suck me into a philosophical discussion Xiggi? LOL I think we view things quite differently. You think of an undergraduate program as a totally separate entity from its graduate counterpart. I view an undergraduate program as a subset of a graduate program. According to your definition, it is possible for an undergraduate program to be mediocre while its graduate counterpart is elite. According to my definition, it is impossible for there to be a huge difference between the two. </p>
<p>Who is right? Both of uperhaps. It is just two different way of seeing things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"All excellent graduate schools have excellent undergraduate programs."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Talk about blanket generalizations.</p>
<p>Take two examples which counter the above statement:</p>
<p>U of Michigan (Alexandre's Holy Grail) vs. Brown U.</p>
<p>U of Michigan clearly possesses a number of nationally recognized graduate programs across a broad range of departments. No questions about the excellence here.</p>
<p>But its undergraduate program? </p>
<p>Take a look at Princeton Review's Top 10 "Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses" - and U of M is #9. (of course Alexandre dismisses Princeton Review as total rubbish, wonder why?)</p>
<p>This contrasts with, for example, Brown - where every single professor is REQUIRED to teach undergraduate classes. </p>
<p>Someone earlier mentioned that "Brown and Dartmouth have horrible grad programs". </p>
<p>The fact is that if one is discussing a University offering the "Trifecta" of Professional Graduate Schools (i.e. Medical, Law and Business) - you'll see that we are comparing apples to oranges:</p>
<p>Brown does not have a Law or Business School
(though its Medical School ranks 15th best in Primary Care by USNWR 2006 Med School Ranking)</p>
<p>Dartmouth does not have a Law School (and the Tuck Business School is also nationally ranked - #6 in USNWR 2006 B-School Ranking). Furthermore, Dartmouth only offers around 20 graduate programs (compare that to U of M - don't know the number off hand, perhaps Alexandre can fill in this blank - but I assure you it is going to be a multiple of Darmouth's number).</p>
<p>What's the point? That schools like Brown, Dartmouth (and I would include in this list Princeton - which offers NONE of the "Trifecta" of Business, Medicine or Law). These are institutions which are largely focused on its UNDERGRADUATES.</p>
<p>Again, the point here is that a large research University is great for a potential grad student since the graduate programs will take the lion's share of the school's focus, resources, $$$, attention, professors, etc. vs. the undergraduate program. Take for example Princeton - which ranks near the top in terms of endowment, library volumes, resources, etc. - the difference between Princeton vs. Harvard / Yale? Princeton undergraduates won't need to be competing with a large %-age of P-ton grad students for resources (i.e. no P-ton Med, Law or B-School students) - frankly, the resources are largely there FOR the undergrads not the grads (which is the other way around in large research Uni's).</p>
<p>Can you get a good education at a large, research oriented university? Of course. </p>
<p>Could you get an even better education at a smaller, less research focused college / university where the focus is on the UNDERGRADS vs. graduate students? I would argue absolutely.</p>
<p>In fact, this is one of the MAIN reasons I chose Princeton (over Yale and Harvard) for undergrad and it's also the reason I chose Wharton when it came time to go to B-School.</p>
<p>Guttrade has officially been bumped up to biggest troll on these boards. Ubermensch better get his butt in gear if he wants to regain that title. The question that anyone with even the smallest bit of smarts has to ask themselves is how does guttrade, a highschool student from New Joysey, knows anything about which universities are good and which are not? My advice for guttrade is to concentrate more on that yale "likely letter" and less on schools that you couldn't even get into.</p>
<p>Calling other people's name pretty much shows your level of intelligence.</p>
<p>Cal and UCLA's undergraduate programs are far less competitve than their graduate counterparts, especually for UCLA's, and they rank higher than they deserve because of benefitting from their graduate program's reputation. Besides all the reasons other people point out, 95% undergrads of CAL and UCLA are from California, but their grad departments get students from all over the world (again UCLA is lesser than Cal).</p>
<p>So in general UC's students get dellusional to think they are good at their graduate students.</p>
<p>Cal and UCLA undergrads are excellent. Look at their stats, and you'll see.</p>
<p>For example, Berkeley has the largest number of people who have attained 1500+ on the SATI.</p>
<p>"Cal and UCLA undergrads are excellent. Look at their stats, and you'll see.</p>
<p>For example, Berkeley has the largest number of people who have attained 1500+ on the SATI."</p>
<p>Im not going to check that rather ill give you the benefit of the doubt but that still a skewed statistic because Berkeley is so much bigger than any private.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cal and UCLA's undergraduate programs are far less competitve than their graduate counterparts, especually for UCLA's, and they rank higher than they deserve because of benefitting from their graduate program's reputation. Besides all the reasons other people point out, 95% undergrads of CAL and UCLA are from California, but their grad departments get students from all over the world (again UCLA is lesser than Cal).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is it "especially" true for UCLA and not Cal if UCLA's student body is statistically almost the same as Cal's? Hm?</p>
<p>The UCs just don't measure up when it comes down to an undergraduate education. Not even the biggest UC-o-phile would dispute that the UCs are not as good at undergraduate as they are at the graduate level. To deny it would be denying the truth. To say that Berkeley is on par with HYS for an undergrad education is simply far-fetched and ludicrous. You might as well say that Rutgers is as good as MIT. Simply ludicrous.</p>
<p>He has one good point
"Not even the biggest UC-o-phile would dispute that the UCs are not as good at undergraduate as they are at the graduate level"</p>
<p>okay, there is a (rather small) DISPARITY between the UC undergrad and grad programs (at least for the top 3). But to say that Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD don't offer excellent undergraduate education is flat out wrong. In fact, 6 of the UC's are in the top 50, so unless you consider everything below US News top 20 as HORRIBLE education, then please, reconsider what you're saying. Just because their undergraduate programs aren't ranked AS HIGH as their graduate program in no way qualifies them as BAD.</p>