<p>We’re talking about undergraduate rankings here right Sakky? I didn’t know you could get a B.S. in medicine? 
Berkeley’s departments are in many cases as strong as those at HYPSM. There is no question that is it underrated by USNWR in my mind.</p>
<p>Strength of departments matter much more for graduate studies than undergraduate studies.</p>
<p>Of course they do saejinbilly. That’s why they rate them at USNWR at the undergraduate level as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I don’t know, rjkofnovi, you tell me what we’re talking about. </p>
<p>If we’re talking about undergraduate rankings, then I would say that faculty rating actually matters even less, for the reasons that I stated before in post #43: faculty rankings have to do with research acumen, which has little to do with undergraduate education. Let’s face it. Most undergrads in any discipline are not going to become researchers. They don’t really benefit from being taught by a prominent research professor. Heck, in many cases, they are actually hurt by it, if research prominence comes at the expense of teaching ability, which it very often does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that they don’t matter to undergrads at all. But I would argue that they matter relatively little, and probably far less than what USNews would say. Sure, for that small minority of undergrads who do want to become researchers, the faculty research prominence does indeed matter. But most undergrads don’t want to become researchers. They just want to be well taught before moving on to whatever career they will have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. Maybe you could search the Berkeley section of CC for my posts where I have discussed this particular topic at length. Then feel free to argue your points on that section.</p>
<p>The PA scores at USNWR clearly state that they are for “undergraduate” purposes. There are plenty of instructors who are not researchers who can’t teach worth a lick either. I’d prefer to have one who is both of course. Some of the finest researchers are also fine instructors. At a larger school you have the benefit of searching them out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, this clearly makes the people filling out these surveys more knowledgeable about undergraduate teaching quality rather than the schools they think of as peers for some ambiguous reason and the schools where the top scholars in their field are from.</p>
<p>And you’re so certain that all of the instructors are so much better at smaller schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think I’ve ever drawn the line as “small school” versus “large school”. Ever.</p>
<p>No. You just assume a larger institution doesn’t teach as well as a smaller one like Brown.</p>
<p>Well I’m getting tired. Heading to bed. Thanks for the lively debate modestmelody and sakky. I have always been impressed by your comments and style in which you defend your points. :-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where have I ever stated large school =/= doesn’t teach as well as small school. There are problems I think when you get to be a certain size when it comes to creating a close-knit academic community around concentrations, which for me, was an essential part of out of classroom learning. But there is nothing that stops a large school from having the best teachers in their classrooms, intrinsically.</p>
<p>Now, I happen to not know of any schools that are, say 10k plus undergraduates, that have the same institutionalized emphasis on teaching as some of the smaller schools, however, there are many smaller schools with terrible teaching. Smaller =/= better teaching. Larger =/= cannot have good teaching.</p>
<p>Institutional prioritization of teaching = good teaching.
Institutional prioritization of research over teaching = worse teaching.</p>
<p>rjkofnovi, what do you have against small schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing, other than the fact that he went to Michigan and thinks it is way underrated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. Since you seem to be focused on engineering, let’s talk about that, particularly in the Berkeley context. Many - probably most - Berkeley engineering courses are taught by 1, or at very most 2-3 professors who may rotate amongst each other. Many of the course sequences progress in lockstep: requiring that you take course A before you can take course B, then course C, etc. Hence, there’s nothing to seek out. If you have to take course A in a particular semester when it is taught by a terrible teacher, then that’s your tough luck, if you actually want to graduate on schedule.</p>
<p>It is during the undergraduate years when the student quality that you decry is actually at its most salient. Grad students, I agree, do spend a correspondingly large ratio of their time interacting with faculty. But undergrads spend relatively little of their time with faculty - they spend far more with other students. And that is where the true learning takes place. </p>
<p>I shudder at how little thermo I would have actually learned if I hadn’t been surrounded by reasonably intelligent students who were able to debate its finer points with me. However, more importantly, I often times wonder how much more I would have learned if the other students were even more capable and were therefore able to discuss the topic at an even deeper level. Maybe then I would have finally understood what the heck the M.R.'s actually mean. All I needed was one other student who could explain to me in plain English what they actually meant, for Lord knows, the prof could never do so.</p>