<p>
Alexandre writes: Most good universities (private or public) will be intense academically. I do not think top public schools like Cal, Georgia Tech, Michigan, UCLA, UIUC, UVa and William & Mary are any less intense than top private universities.
I think you are simply guessing at this. </p>
<p>I know you are for UCLA.</p>
<p>You’ve stated your opinion. Here’s what the faculty of the UCLA Dept of Economics says in their 8-year internal review
The size of our program limits us in offering other aspects of the academic experience that students find at smaller colleges, or at major universities that have a small student teacher ratio, such as Princeton. most economics majors at UCLA complete their program of study without a significant research component, and without much interaction with ladder faculty members, reflecting our faculty shortage.</p>
<p>(in a graduating senior survey) only 57 percent answered affirmatively regarding quality of faculty instruction for straight economics… our speculation is that the enormous size of the classes we offer (400 students or more for the core courses and principles courses, often 150-200 students for electives), combined with the fact that students may feel frustrated over not being able to take more classes from ladder faculty, may contribute to this view at graduation.</p>
<p>We offer support to our undergraduate students through an undergraduate counseling office. The staff here is very efficient, with just two full time counselor slots to serve 1,500 majors. Presently we have only one slot filled.</p>
<p>The courses that are required for all the economics majors include two microeconomic theory courses (course numbers 11, and 101), and one macroeconomic theory course (102). Some majors also require econometrics (103). In the past, these courses were often taught by adjunct faculty, whereas now they are taught largely by standing faculty. Specifically, only about 40 percent of these courses were taught by ladder faculty at the time of our last 8-year review, whereas about 60 percent were taught by ladder faculty over the last 3 years.
Here is what History department faculty says in its 8-year internal review
As currently constituted, however, the major appears to be rather diffuse. There is no course sequencing and therefore no real progressive journey through the major, unless the student takes it upon him- or herself to fashion such a sequence</p>
<p>A more rigorously structured major would presumably make it somewhat less popular; but the recommended changes would likely have the compensatory benefit of raising the reputation of the History major on campus. This is no small thing, given that the openness and flexibility of the major seem to have fostered the impression, shared by
<p>When the review team asked the majors to identify the main
<p>Irrespective of the type of course—whether seminar or lecture—the most gifted students claim to have quickly discovered a boilerplate mechanism for evaluation and grading of written work, one based on the mechanics of writing (grammar, paragraph organization, and so forth) and not systematically concerned with the development or refinement of arguments presented in lecture. One student, a transfer from Santa Monica Community College, said that it was harder to earn an A there than in the History Department at UCLA
These are some of the largest undergrad majors at UCLA, and what you read above are sentences pasted directly from the department reviews on the UCLA faculty senate website. They hardly sound like giving the challenge and education you’ll find in the top colleges.</p>
<p>And I have a friend who is “proud”, if that is the right feeling to have, of getting a degree in Econ from UCLA without ever writing a term paper.</p>