Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Any ideas?

By Esun (Esun) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 11:50 pm: Edit

I don't know about those two in particular, but biomedical engineering is very strong at UCSD, which should be easier to get into than Berkeley.

By Cornellgrad02 (Cornellgrad02) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 10:19 am: Edit

Berkeley hands down....as a research university, particularly in the sciences (and most of the humanities) Berkeley blows UVA out of the water...I think it's a joke that these two schools are even compared (I have the experience to back this statement up, it's not just conjecture).

By Sakky (Sakky) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 02:55 pm: Edit

If you're just talking about sheer eminence of research and eminence of faculty, then yeah, Berkeley blows UVa away.

But I, and a bunch of other people here on CC, believe that overall educational quality is far far more than simply eminence of research and faculty. That's why the LAC's can offer such high quality educations despite having very few name-brand profs and relatively little research.

In particular, people might say that Berkeley ranks highly in this and that department. But what does it matter how highly ranked a particular department is if you feel alienated enough by the school to drop out or flunk out - compare the graduation rate of Berkeley and that of UVa. What does it matter if a school has lots of Nobel Prize winners if you never see them (i.e. when was the last time that 1986 Chemistry winner Yuan Lee or 1980 Literautre winner Czeslaw Milosz actually taught an undergraduate class?).

The reality is that undergraduate education is far far more than just the sum total of research and departmental eminence. Otherwise if you believe that, then you have to believe that all the LAC's such, because none of them have eminence research departments.

By Cornellgrad02 (Cornellgrad02) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 05:58 pm: Edit

sakky...seriously, your line is tired and old...get lost.

cornellgrad02

By Sakky (Sakky) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 07:22 pm: Edit

Oh yeah, cornellgrad02, way to defend your arguments there. Great job. You're really doing Cornell proud with your maturity and your debate skills.

By Fenix_Three (Fenix_Three) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Sakky, this is not a debate. We all know by now that you like LACs better than Berkeley. And that is a valid opinion. And it is great that you have evidence to back it up. However, please stay focused on the issue at hand. There was no need to bring up Nobel Prize winners. And the question never mentions undergraduate studies either.

As for my opinion, I honestly don't know. I'm haven't started fall semester yet, and I am not that interested in researching other schools.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Hey now, I wasn't the one that brought up the issue - it was somebody else who talked about the research eminence of Berkeley. Now that that point was already brought up by somebody else, I don't think that bringing up Nobel Prize winners is therefore much of a stretch, because after all, if you want to talk about research eminence, then Nobels follow naturally.

True the question never explicitly mentioned undergraduate studies. But we both know that the vast majority of questions here are about undergraduate studies unless specified otherwise. Let me put it to you this way - if somebody else on CC asks for opinions about a certain school without specification, are you going to assume that the person is talking about undergrad or grad? But, fair enough, I'll leave it up to the OP to tell us whether he/she wants info on grad or undergrad.

As far as the subject at hand, what I'm saying is entirely relevant. The person wants to know whether UVA or Berkeley is better for bioE or bio. It was then said that Berkeley is a better research school than Uva. True. On the other hand, it is the opinion of many including myself that that's not a good way to assess whether you should go to a school - in other words, that a school is far more than just its research departments. The LAC's in particular disprove this contention.

consider the quote "Berkeley blows UVA out of the water...I think it's a joke that these two schools are even compared..."


I don't think it's ridiculous in the least that these 2 schools can be compared, just like you can also compare Berkeley to LAC's like Williams, Amherst, or Swarthmore, and I think many if not most people would agree that as far as the quality of the undergraduate education and experience goes (maybe not in terms of prestige, but in terms of the actual quality of the education and the experience itself), the latter are far better than the former, despite the fact that the latter schools don't have prominent research departments to speak of. So if it's fair to compare Berkeley to top LAC's, then why is it so ridiculous to compare Berkeley to UVA, which as far as publics go, is about as LAC-ish a school as you can get?

By Cornellgrad02 (Cornellgrad02) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 03:29 pm: Edit

sakky...seriously, please leave...I'd be happy to debate, just don't want to waist my time or breath on someone who's driven their point into the ground and completely alienated themselves from everyone else on this board (read...you!).

Lastly, waisting my time arguing with you would hardly do Cornell proud...go intimidate some 11th grader will you.

cheers,
cornellgrad02

By Sakky (Sakky) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 04:21 pm: Edit

I've alienated everybody else on this board? Really? Not to pay myself on the back, but why are cc board members privately emailing me asking me for my advice and take on things? Why are a bunch of board members, including those I used to clash with frequently, freely saying that they respect my arguments?

Look, I have strongly held opinions, I agree. But I don't post arguments that I can't back up. I have reasons for saying what I'm saying. If you think my reasoning is bad, then by all means explain why they're bad. If you don't agree with what I'm saying, then by all means state your case.

And finally, if this is all a waste of your time, then why do you even bother posting on this thread at all?

By Dogstreet (Dogstreet) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Actually, William and Mary is about as "LAC-ish as you can get" for a public university. Never mind that it has the highest quality student body of any public (Cal and UVa are very close), its size is closest to an LAC as well.

hth

By Sakky (Sakky) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Fine, then let me revise my statements to say that UVa may not be the most LAC-ish of all publics, but I think we'd all agree it is far more LAC-ish than Berkeley is.

For those who still don't know what I'm talking about, consider this analogy. Throughout high school and grade school, I'm sure that each of us has had a really good teacher or two. Therefore I think we all know how your outlook on a subject and, heck, on your entire life can change because of good teaching.

Yet, I've never known a high school teacher do perform famous research. Has anybody else? That demonstrates the fallacy of the link between good teaching and good research. A great teacher might be a mediocre or non-existent researcher. A great research might be a mediocre teacher. Good teaching and good research are not linked.

Furthermore, most undergraduates care far far more about getting a prof who's a good teacher than getting a prof who's a good researcher. If you're an undergrad, who cares if your prof is a prominent researcher if he doesn't know how to teach a subject well, or even worse, doesn't even care to teach it well? For example, there are infamous stories of Berkeley profs whose lectures throughout the semester consist only of reading the textbook out loud word-for-word for the entire class. What extra value-added learning do you get out of that as opposed to just reading the book yourself? Yet the motive was obvious - the prof simply didn't want to teach the class and therefore decided he wasn't going to put any effort whatsoever into the teaching. In fact, one infamous incident occurred awhile ago when one prof got stuck with a small class he really didn't want to teach, and so he deliberately taught it in the worst way he knew how so that all the students would drop the class, which is exactly what he wanted because if all the students dropped, he wouldn't have to teach the class anymore.

On the other hand, if you get a prof who's a great teacher, then do you really care about how prominent of a researcher that prof is? Doubtful indeed. If you get a great teacher, then all you care about is that you're learning a lot. Whether that prof is a prominent researcher is largely irrelevant to you.

The fact is, most undergrads will not engage in any research and therefore do not benefit from studying under a prof who's a famous researcher. PhD students? Yes. But undergrads? Not really. On the other hand, undergrads do benefit immensely from good teaching.

And that's where the LAC's come in. The LAC's pride themselves on better average teaching. Profs who are prominent researchers but who can't or won't teach well have no place in a LAC but can and do thrive in the big research universities like Berkeley.

Hence, that's why I greatly question the fixation of an undergrad in going to a school that has a prominent department in this-or-that field. Yeah, the department might be prominent when it comes to research. But that doesn't really help most undergrads. Put another way, few if any of the LAC's have any prominent departments at all, because they don't do big-league research. Just because the LAC's don't have prominent departments doesn't mean that they aren't good places to go. So when people say that, as undergrads, they want to go to some big-name research university because it has a highly ranked department in such-and-such, I cringe. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the disconnect between teaching and research

By Kryptic (Kryptic) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Stop baiting the troll, it takes so little to get him started. He feeds off of your responses. Stop responding to him, or even acknowlding his existence, and he'll eventually go away. (I'm sure this alone will ellicit a 12 page response)

By Sakky (Sakky) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit

If you don't like my responses, then don't read them. I'm not putting a gun to your head. You have your opinions, and I have mine. I don't tell you what you can post, so don't tell me what I can post. If people aren't allowed to express themselves, then why even have a discussion board in the first place?

There, is that a short enough response for ya?

By Cornellgrad02 (Cornellgrad02) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

no no Sakky, you misunderstood me....posting on this thread is not a waste of my time, arguing with you and reading ten page diatribes of slippery slope logic is a waste of my time (and this message only took me thirty seconds to write!).

cheers,
cornellgrad02

sorry Kryptic, I couldn't help myself.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

Hey, if you think that my logic is bad, then by all means, present your reasons why. But you must agree that engaging in personal attacks is bad form.

And again, you say that you have to read my posts, and that wastes your time. Well, who's to blame for that? Nobody is forcing you to read my posts. If you really think it's a waste of time to read my posts, fair enough, don't read them. But if you choose to read them, then don't come back here and complain about it being a waste of your time. It was your choice, not mine.

And this post took me a whopping 15 seconds to write.

By Manchu_Princess (Manchu_Princess) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 12:38 am: Edit

Sakky, do you mean that UVA have better prof than Berkeley?
I really want to do research in college but I also like to have great teachers too..hmm

By Calkidd (Calkidd) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 01:07 am: Edit

I graduated from Berkeley in 2003 with a BS in Bioengineering, so I can tell you about strengths and weaknesses of the department there; I have no idea how things are at UVA.

Strengths of the program (BioE) include the overall strength of engineering at Berkeley - at the undergraduate level. It is also a research-focused program, meaning that there is a big push to get undergraduates involved in research, either in the summers or otherwise. On the biology side, Berkeley is very strong in chemistry, an affiliated area, and the upper division MCB labs are good courses with dedicated faculty.

Weaknesses of BioE: at any place, as a BioE you run into difficulty if you try to get an engineering job. While you might have taken a slew of hardcore mechE classes or chemE process engineering labs, your degree doesn't distinguish you from someone who took a bunch of biological psychology or integrative biology ("bioengineering lite"), and employers are thus loath to hire you. Thus, I'd recommend picking up a minor if you choose to major in BioE; this is especially true at Berkeley, where most of the engineers are highly recruited for "engineering" jobs. A minus specific to Berkeley: the department is a bit lacking in organization (although I think this might improve under the new department chair, who was appointed this summer), and that, as a result of the myriad of classes that comprise "bioengineering," you won't get to know your classmates as well as you would in another engineering discipline (in which you take 15+ courses with the same set of people).

The big weakness of biology at Berkeley (or any public school) is the sheer number of people who choose this major, likely because they're pre-med. Biology is the most popular major at Cal and the lower division courses, Bio1a-1b, are courses that you'd probably want to skip if you took AP in high school, simply because they're designed to be weeders. The upper division courses in MCB, the most popular area of biology, aren't much better (especially the "intro" courses, MCB 110, 130, 140, 150 and 160); however, the lab classes are very good - I was surprised that the profs took 9+ hours out of their schedules each week to actually be with us in the lab to help us run experiments.

Biology is going to be a crowded major no matter where you go; every major research university, public or private, is going to have the biology weeder courses and competitive students. It's also the most difficult area in which to secure an undergraduate research position. If this is something you're really interested in, I'd recommend (at Berkeley) BioE or Chemical Biology over MCB or Integrative Biology.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 01:13 am: Edit

Manchuprincess, it really depends on what you mean by 'better'.

If by 'better' you mean 'more famous' or 'more eminent research', then Berkeley has better profs. But if you mean 'better' in the sense of 'better teaching skills', then Virginia probably has the upper hand.

The real question is do you value research or do you value teaching? I would say that for most undergraduates, teaching is probably more important than research, because the fact is, only a minority of undergraduates will actually engage in research. (PhD students, on the other hand, all have to do extensive research, and so the research skills of the faculty are paramount for them).

But I'm a fair guy and what I would say is that it's really up to you. Each individual has to make a personal choice about what he/she values. If you really value research to the point that you're willing to put up with bad teaching, then Berkeley is the best choice for you. That's the tradeoff.

Now obviously that's not the only thing you should consider. You should also consider the atmosphere. Even the biggest Berkeley-booster must agree that the Berkeley administration is so cold and high-handed that it makes some students believe that the administration almost enjoys creating problems for students. On the other hand, the location of Berkeley in terms of interesting things to do is top-notch.

Again, it's all a matter of what think is important.

By Im_Blue (Im_Blue) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 05:19 am: Edit

Sakky, why do you assume that 'less famous' or 'less eminent research' automatically means better teaching skills?

By Manchu_Princess (Manchu_Princess) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 11:31 am: Edit

Calkidd: is it really to hard to find jobs with biomedical engineering major? I thought it was getting more popular and everything. But isn't it also true that undergraduate degree doesn't matter that much? I think I will eventually focus more on biomedical research but I do really like BME so that why I was considering it for the undergrad major.

Sakky: I guess either way is good, as long as a teacher is good at something (research or teaching). I haven't applied to any colleges yet so I don't even know what I will get into. What about Berkeley and UVA compared to an Ivy league schoool? Do they have better profs since they cost so much more?

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Im_blue, just think of it logically. It's easier to be better at one thing than at two, particularly when those 2 things have little if anything in common. If you've been watching the Olympics, ask yourself why doesn't Maurice Greene, who's great at sprinting, win gold in, say, archery?

As far as schools are concerned, it's all about what you specialize in. Berkeley has chosen to specialize in research. As a result Berkeley has many profs who do groundbreaking research but can't or don't want to teach. As Pedro Noguera, professor of education at Berkeley once said in an open-to-the-public meeting about teaching reform, if you're a bad teacher at Berkeley, it's not going to hurt you very much, particularly if you're a top researcher. That's why you have some Berkeley profs who get terrible teaching evaluations year-in, year-out, but still wind up teaching classes anyway. Even more telling is the attitude at research universities that not only is good teaching not rewarded, it can actually be a bad thing. For example, at Berkeley, one often hears the joke that winning the Distinguished Teaching Award is the "kiss of death" for a prof who hasn't already garnered tenure, and the reason is that if you win the DTA, clearly, you chose to spend your time improving your teaching instead of on research, and that means that perhaps you aren't serious about your research .

http://www.martynemko.com/pub/articles/truthaboutcolleges.shtm

So no, it worse eminence doesn't already mean bad teaching. But when a school chooses to emphasize research, you shouldn't be surprised that the profs are better researchers and worse teachers than a school that doesn't emphasize research. This is why the best college teachers tend to be at the LAC's.

To Manchu_princess - yes, it is true that biomedical engineering is a 'trendy' degree and as a result you may have extra difficulty in finding jobs as opposed to if you just got yourself a traditional engineering degree. The fact is, BME is still not well established. When a guy has a degee in MechE or ChemE or EECS, the market understands what that degree entails. BME is not as well known.

However, it is true that your undergraduate degree doesn't matter all that much. Hence the disadvantage is minor.

Finally, I don't know whether you'll think that having a guy who's a good researcher but a bad prof is OK. That's in the eye of the beholder. If you do go to Berkeley, just don't be surprised to get profs who clearly choose to spend absolutely no time and energy on their teaching. For example, you might get a prof whose lectures always consist of picking up the textbook and reading it word-for-word aloud for the entire lecture. Even worse, you might get profs who clearly don't want to be teaching the class at all (but they drew the short-end of the stick in the faculty meeting and so they have to teach it) and take it out on the students. It's led many Berkeley students to conclude that they're really engaged in 4 years of self-study - that the lecture teaching itself adds little value.

What compounds the problem is that Berkeley clearly chooses to emphasize its graduate school at the expense of the undergraduate program. And the results are clear - Berkeley is a far far better graduate school than it is an undergraduate school. Disproportionate emphasis, disproportionate funding, and disproportionate facility usage are reserved for the graduate students. Berkeley undergrads are really second-class citizens.

Yet I'm a fair guy. I'm perfectly willing to point out that at Berkeley you might end up in classes taught by world-famous profs. So that's pretty cool for bragging rights or if you are good enough to impress that prof into inviting you into a research project. Just don't expect to actually learn a whole lot from that prof's lectures. You will probably be doing a lot of self-study.

Now as far as the Ivy's go, it depends on the kind of Ivy. Some Ivies, notably Princeton, and to a certain extent Yale, Dartmouth, and Brown, are extremely undergraduate-oriented. Some, like Cornell, are not dissimilar to Berkeley.

By Cornellgrad02 (Cornellgrad02) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Sakky, please tell us your frame of reference for saying UVA profs have better teaching skills then those at Cal? If you have attended both universities, then that's fine. If not, then we both now that's a totally ridiculous statement. I'm sure at both universities there are both excellent and poor teachers. Second, you seem to equate premiere faculty with poor teaching skills; clearly these two are not mutually exclusive. As an aside, at Cornell (which I consider very similar to Berkeley as far student body, quality of research, size etc.) my first semester chemistry course as a freshman was taught by a nobel prize winner (Roald Hoffman) and my brother's first semester chemistry teacher at Berkeley is a member of the national academy of sciences (Alex Pines). These are not small courses dedicated to a handful of undergrads and graduate students. These are classes that are solely for undergraduates, and lots of them...I just shake my head everytime somebody says that berkeley profs (or other large university profs) are heartless research machines. The vast majority of professors--whether they're full professors, assistant professors, famous or unknown--take their undergraduate teaching and mentoring very, very seriously. Sure, there are professors who no longer teach undergraduates, but this is usually only after years and years of teaching service...There's no rule (at berkeley or anywhere else) that statses that once you've won a field medal or are elected to the national academy that you no longer have to care about undergraduates...

...ok, that's it. Manchu Princess, listening to Sakky or myself or anyone else on this board is an article of faith since none of us probably have any real clue how this works. My suggestion, email a professor (perhaps the chair of a department of interest) at Berkeley or UVA and tell them your concern--that you want to do research but aren't sure how seriously professors at either of these two schools take their undergraduate teaching duties. I'm sure you'll get very heart felt responses from both...secondly, ask them whether they believe that quality teaching has to take a back seat to research. Lastly, you could write to a professor in your intended field of study at another university and ask them what they think about the quality of undergraduate teaching at UVA and Berkeley (though your less likely to get a response since it has nothing to do with their school and they're interested in promoting whichever university they work at).

Lastly...Sakky, I was a bit inflammatory above...sorry about that. I certainly think UVA is a fantastic school, but I just don't think it offers the same breadth and depth of opportunity that a school like Berkeley does.

Cheers,
cornellgrad02

By Cornellgrad02 (Cornellgrad02) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Sakky, please tell us your frame of reference for saying UVA profs have better teaching skills then those at Cal? If you have attended both universities, then that's fine. If not, then we both now that's a totally ridiculous statement. I'm sure at both universities there are both excellent and poor teachers. Second, you seem to equate premiere faculty with poor teaching skills; clearly these two are not mutually exclusive. As an aside, at Cornell (which I consider very similar to Berkeley as far student body, quality of research, size etc.) my first semester chemistry course as a freshman was taught by a nobel prize winner (Roald Hoffman) and my brother's first semester chemistry teacher at Berkeley is a member of the national academy of sciences (Alex Pines). These are not small courses dedicated to a handful of undergrads and graduate students. These are classes that are solely for undergraduates, and lots of them...I just shake my head everytime somebody says that berkeley profs (or other large university profs) are heartless research machines. The vast majority of professors--whether they're full professors, assistant professors, famous or unknown--take their undergraduate teaching and mentoring very, very seriously. Sure, there are professors who no longer teach undergraduates, but this is usually only after years and years of teaching service...There's no rule (at berkeley or anywhere else) that statses that once you've won a field medal or are elected to the national academy that you no longer have to care about undergraduates...

...ok, that's it. Manchu Princess, listening to Sakky or myself or anyone else on this board is an article of faith since none of us probably have any real clue how this works. My suggestion, email a professor (perhaps the chair of a department of interest) at Berkeley or UVA and tell them your concern--that you want to do research but aren't sure how seriously professors at either of these two schools take their undergraduate teaching duties. I'm sure you'll get very heart felt responses from both...secondly, ask them whether they believe that quality teaching has to take a back seat to research. Lastly, you could write to a professor in your intended field of study at another university and ask them what they think about the quality of undergraduate teaching at UVA and Berkeley (though your less likely to get a response since it has nothing to do with their school and they're interested in promoting whichever university they work at).

Lastly...Sakky, I was a bit inflammatory above...sorry about that. I certainly think UVA is a fantastic school, but I just don't think it offers the same breadth and depth of opportunity that a school like Berkeley does.

Cheers,
cornellgrad02

By Cornellgrad02 (Cornellgrad02) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit

One more thing regarding the "kiss of death" with winning the distinguished teaching award at Berkeley. My undergraduate advisor (and research mentor) at Cornell won the distinguished teaching award at Berkeley. He know teaches 2 undergraduate courses at Cornell, one of which--biology for non majors--is a gigantic class with over 400 students. This professor is also widely considered one of the preeminant evolutionary biologists in the world. So, the idea that it's difficult to be a good teacher and a good researcher is ridiculous. I'll agree with Sakky and say that teaching is hard work--I know because I teach undergraduates now as well. It does take lots of preperation. But anyone who has made it to the point where they are a university professor (or assistant prof...whatever) is an absolute master at time management...and these people work upwards of 80 to 100 hours a week sometimes. Good teaching, however, is as much an intuitive art as it is something that can be prepared for. I've seen many people prepare for lectures well in advance only to have it come out like complete crap. Others, adapt and lectures flow much much better...so sakky is right: There is no correlation between research and teaching, but it swings both ways--you cannot statistically say that a good researcher will be a good teacher, but you certaintly cannot say either that a good researcher will be a BAD TEACHER.

alright...that's it (it's sunday and I'm bored in lab...so I have some more time to respond).

Also, Manchu, Sakky or anyone else...if you're interested in checking up on my story about the prof, email me and I'll be happy to give you his name and some reference material, I'd just rather not spill his name on this board. But email me at my new address, not the CC address

gartner@bio.miami.edu

cheers,
cornellgrad02

By Rtkysg (Rtkysg) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

There's always exception I believe and personally I think good in teaching does not imply bad in research. Cal is notorious for its rather 'cold and distant' professors, but it does not logically imply that they're good in research either. This however implies that Cal professors have less passion in teaching. In comparison, MIT professors are very good in teaching comparatively, but certainly it doesn't mean they're not good in research. My favorite pick for a person good in both research and teaching will be the past Richard Feynman.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 11:38 pm: Edit

Oh I see, cornellgrad02, so you demand the frame of reference that you have to attend both schools (Berkeley and Uva) before you compare them. Really? So then, using that very same logic, I suppose since you didn't attend both schools either, you too have no frame of reference to compare them. Right? So how can you say that "...Berkeley blows UVA out of the water" or "... I certainly think UVA is a fantastic school, but I just don't think it offers the same breadth and depth of opportunity that a school like Berkeley does...". Tell me, what exactly is your frame of reference for making such statements? You know what they say about those who live in glass houses.

The simple fact of the matter is that you don't need to have actually attended schools in order to compare them. It might help, but you don't need it. After all, is there a single person on this Earth who has actually attended each and every school in the country? Of course not. So then how is it that college guides like USNews, Princeton Review, Barrons, Fiske's, can be compiled? All those publications are in the business of comparing schools, but since no single person could ever actually attend every single school, the logical conclusion is that nobody has any basis to compare anything ever. Clearly that's ridiculous. So if a guy says that Podunk No-Name College is just as good as Harvard or Stanford, unless you happened to have attended Podunk No-name College and Harvard/Stanford, you have no basis to object, is that correct?

And I'm sorry to say it, but the fact is, it's simple logic that when you choose to emphasize one thing, other things tend to suffer. That's just a truism in life. If a school emphasizes research, then it's natural that teaching (and everythin else) will suffer. Berkeley is far more of a publish-or-perish environment than Virginia is, especially for tenure. It is therefore only logical that when push comes to shove and a stressed out Berkeley assistant prof who doesn't yet have tenure needs to decide what to spend time on, research will invariably be prioritized over teaching. That's just the nature of the beast. That's the law of averages.

Now does that mean that there aren't some truly exceptional people who are both great teachers and great researchers? Of course not. But that's not the point. The point is that there are far more successful specialists than there are successful generalists. Look at the Olympics - for every one athlete who will compete successfully in multiple events that are vastly different, there are 3 or 4 athletes who just compete in one event or events that are almost exactly the same as each other. Being a great swimming star doesn't imply that you're going to be great at fencing or archery.

It all gets down to basic population statistics. When you choose to emphasize something, you tend to get more of it and less of the things you are not emphasizing. Most people cannot be great at multiple disparate things. Some can, but most cannot. By the same token, this is why the LAC's rarely have great researchers. The LAC's

I think this discussion is breaking down to an argument over statistics. I never said that Berkeley won't have any good teachers. What I said is that it will have proportionately less than a school like UVA that emphasizes teaching more. Berkeley and UVa are basically peer institutions, however the former tends to emphasize research over undergraduate teaching to a greater degree than the latter. Simple logic would then dictate that the former would have better researchers and worse teachers. It's like saying that smoking is dangerous, but that doesn't mean that every single smoker is in bad health. It just means that those who smoke tend to suffer from bad health more often than those who don't smoke. Less doesn't mean zero, it just means less.

The reality is that while individual Cal profs might or might not be good teachers, they aren't really incented to do so. Tenure recommendations place very little weighting on teaching evals or teaching awards, and place a lot of weighting on research prominence. This is why you get the spectacle of bad Berkeley teachers winning tenure and then hanging around the department offering bad teaching for decades. Furthermore, undergraduate teaching at Berkeley is often times seen as distracting scutwork that pulls profs away from their research. Again, does that mean that every Berkeley prof treats undergraduate teaching this way? Of course not. But it does mean that quite a few do. This is why you end up with profs who deliberately choose to put no effort into their teaching - i.e. the spectacle of profs reading the textbook word-for-word for the entire lecture. A lot of them just don't care about undergraduate teaching - they know full well that bad teacher evals will mean little or nothing to their career.

By Calbears2007 (Calbears2007) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 04:05 am: Edit

I would agree with Sakky on this issue. I have been at Cal, and I know that Cal's professors are A LOT more research oriented than teaching oriented. Yes, there are some good individual teachers teaching undergrad courses, but in general, on average, the professors are not good teachers, and this is made worse by the extremely large lecture classes.

Therefore, regarding the question of Berkeley vs. UVa on BioE, it really depends on what you want from the school. If you want better teachers who can help you more on your studies, then you should look into UVa. However, other people might be really research oriented and want to get a head start on research as an undergraduate. In this case, that person will also want to consider the research of the professors at Berkeley. Personally, I do not mind the large class size and the poor teaching quality. Even though it would be good to have better teachers, in the case of bad teachers, it will only mean that I will have to learn how to self-study and be on my own (something that could be important later on). However, both schools will have its ups and downs. Berkeley might be a bit more well known in the field of engineering, but don't let that be the only reason for choosing Berkeley if you really liked UVa.

By Apacolypse (Apacolypse) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 04:21 am: Edit

I can personally vouch that in general UVA professors are excellent teachers. In order to get tenure at Virginia, you have to be a good teacher. In fact, the Carnegie Foundation honored Ed Ayers (the Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences) as the best professor in America.

http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2003/21/ayers_ed.html
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/POY/2003POY.htm

If a top administrator is also deemed a superb teacher, that says a lot about UVA's priorities. Dean Ayers' emphasis on stellar teaching can only encourage his fellow professors to excel in the classroom. Isn't the main purpose of a school to teach its students?

By Cornellgrad02 (Cornellgrad02) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 11:44 am: Edit

Look...I'm done arguing on this topic...my original post made zero, read zero reference to teaching ability...simply to the scope of the schools offerings. Sakky and I agree in that you don't necesarilly have to attend a school to compare them, but I would caution that statement is not true when it comes to teaching. Teaching, and learning are vastly personal enterprises. I can count numerous classes where I thought a professor was fantastic and my friends thought the prof was terrible. Now comparing offerings...number of courses, number and types of departments, money invested in facilities, these are indeed comparisons that can be made having never set foot on any campus and much MUCH MUCH less subjective than something like teaching...There's no arguing that Berkeley offers more breadth and depth regarding number of departments and types of courses offered...but there is certainly an argument about the quality of teaching (thus this thread). My own frame of reference, though slightly removed (go ahead and attack me Sakky if you would like) is that everyone in my family dating back to my great grandfather has attended Cal (call me biased as well) and all my statements regarding teaching quality are being made only after I have asked them of their own personal experiences. Lastly, since people are so good at putting words in my mouth, notice that I have NEVER said anything bad regarding UVA's teaching (or good for that matter) because you're right...when it comes to the quality of teaching at UVA, I have absolutely no, zero, frame of reference...but I can pick up a course book from both UVA and Berkeley and compare course offerings (a qualitative statistic since you seem so number obsessed). Sakky and others, I'm sure you've heard the maxim "correlation does not equaly causation," well, as far as I'm concerned, research and teaching are not correlated and there is certainly no causal relationship...so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Lastly, you just seem way to passionate on this issue...your glasses are fogged over so to speak...I tried to be civil and tone down the rhetoric in my last messages, even going so far as to actually offer the original poster some advice that doesn't involve us bitching back and forth...but clearly, you're a bit too worked up to even recognize that and instead are overly concerned with preceived attacks on yourself.

alright (it's monday too so I have to get back to work)

cheers,
cornellgrad02

By Sakky (Sakky) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Ahem, I'm the one who's worked up on the issue? I beg your pardon, but I was not the one who felt the need to resort (and to continue to resort) to personal attacks and censorship. To repeat your quotes, you told me to "get lost" and "please leave". From that, I simply gather that you don't want me to post anything. I never tell you or anybody else that they can't post what they want. You, I, and everybody else have the right to post our opinions.

Furthermore your statement that school teaching is a personal experience and therefore cannot be compared without actually attending various schools is still a threshold that's too high to reach. All the college guides compare various aspects of various colleges, including their teaching. But like I said, there isn't a person in the world who will attend every school in the country. So where does USNews and Fiske's get off in saying that the teaching at Amherst is better than the teaching at, say, Southwest Missouri State?

However, I do agree that teaching is a personal experience. But even that is a matter of population statistics. Smoking is a personal experience, but the chances of you getting cancer from smoking is a matter of population statistics. You said it yourself - while you might have enjoyed a certain prof, your friends (as in friends plural) said he was bad. Therefore, if those statistics hold true for the whole class, then it is likely that that prof is a bad teacher in the sense a random person would probably not enjoy that prof. No guarantees of course, but the odds are not in your favor. It's like saying that just because you smoke, that doesn't mean that you're going to get cancer, but do you really want to take that chance?

Finally, let me demonstrate the supposed lack of correlation vs. causation. If you go to a gym, you should not be surprised to find that the guys you find there are going to be bigger and stronger than the average person in that town. On the other hand, you will probably find that those same guys are probably not as intelligent and studious as the same guys in that town. There are exceptions of course, but the general rule holds. On the other hand, if you go to the library, you will probably find that the average person there is more intelligent and studious, but perhaps less physically strong than the average person in town. Again, exceptions exist, but the general rule holds. That's the way population statistics works. When one factor of a particular population is emphasized, the other factors tend to decline.

And it has nothing to do with correlation vs. causation. We aren't performing forensics here. We aren't interested in why these things happen, it only matters that it happens. The fact is, the more a school emphasizes research, the less important teaching becomes (and vice versa). It's the correlation itself that is of interes.

Finally, let's talk about your contention that Berkeley has greater offerings in regards to number of departments and courses. Uh, for the purposese of this discussion, so what? The OP was asking for BioE or BME undergraduate information. So what does the OP care if Berkeley has all these different departments in the humanities or offers all these courses in art history? And even if we restrict ourselves only to the department at hand, breadth of courses in an undergraduate engineering department is greatly overrated. The fact is, undergraduate engineers throughout the country take mostly the same classes. Only a few senior-level electives will be different. This isn't like graduate school where, I agree, breadth of courses is indeed quite useful. Undergraduate engineers have very little flexibility about what they can take and as a result benefit very little from breadth.

By Cornellgrad02 (Cornellgrad02) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 12:59 pm: Edit

I'll say it again Sakky, I appologized for my earlier words in my more recent posts...you certainly have a way with twisting words around to fit your arguments (e.g. my saying friends instead of friend is semantics, not to be taken as a sample size...sheesh).

And because I haven't said this in the past...I think college rankings are totally bogus, and I think rating the quality of teaching for an entire university is even more ridiculous...

I would certainly agree that I think certain schools are better than others (for my criteria...that's why I suggested the original poster actually talk to profs). I think you can only talk about offerings at individual schools...everything else is water under the bridge...and honestly, I think we could both agree that anyone in the sciences (which I took note of in the original post) is going to receive impersonal treatment and large classes with uninterested TAs teaching sections at any large university, whether it's UVA, Harvard or Berkeley.

please...go back and take my words to heart....I suppose the basis of my whole argument is that I don't think there's enough to go on to say that school A offers better teaching than school B...I think that's painting the picture with too broad a brush. And please dont say anything else about statistics...I know enough about statistics and populations to know I need some tangible evidence before I start believing stuff like "it's simple population statistics." That's not a rip on you per se...I would say that to anyone...I'm very suspicious of stats from anyone unless I actually see numbers and test stats. Plus, as I've already said, I think teaching is subjective enough that stats would be worthless anyway.

again...I said we should agree to disagree. Hopefully the original poster will do what I suggested and write to some profs...they'll respond, I'm confident. So, feel free to respond, but you don't have to (since I really didn't say anything new).

alright.
cheers,
cornellgrad02

By Rtkysg (Rtkysg) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 01:12 pm: Edit

err.. just another point of view to sum up

In Teaching and Research, correlation MUST exist, but causation MAY /not exist. Although Sakky's general rule holds, it still meets certain limitation in its very existence. A Simple example is to compare the upper-bound in teaching and research. In teaching, actually there's a common measure and threshold to value 'good' teaching, that is to deliver the course to the student effectively; while, in research, such bound does not exist. Simply said, a professor, while maintaining his good teaching standard, may delve in his research finitely deeper. Hence, heavier research does not necessarily imply lighter teaching, although some concessions exist, e.g. Nobel Prize winner may opt not to teach. For most cases however, I would argue that cutting his research attention may not result in better teaching, especially if a professor likes to procastinate.
At Cal especially, I heard many of professors are unwilling to teach in the first place, hence a newly admitted professor would follow in the same environment. To underline the disparity, MIT profs. and Cal profs are about equal in their research prominence, however in teaching, MIT gives a much better resolution.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 01:40 pm: Edit

Teaching is obviously not the only issue I was getting at. That was a sideshow that got blown up all out of proportion. But it is a general truism that a school like Berkeley that does not emphasize teaching will, unsurprisingly not have a whole lot of great teachers, and other schools that emphasize teaching will tend to have lots of good teachers. This is why the LAC's, for example, have earned such a reputation for strong teaching, and rightfully so.

But there is clearly more to it than that, and this gets back to what I said in my first post in this thread - research prominence is only one piece of what makes a school strong, and when we're talking about undergraduate education, that piece is a relatively minor one. Far more important are things like teaching, as well as support services, camarederie, and the like. It's no coincidence to me that significantly fewer Uva students as a percentage of the student body drop out/leave the school without a degree than do Berkeley students. It's no coincidence to me that the undergrad alumni giving rate to Virginia is far far higher than that at Berkeley. Simply put, Virginia undergrad students seem happier with their college experience than do Berkeley students - that's why less of them leave and that's why more of them give back.

None of these factors "proves" that Virginia is a better undergraduate school than Berkeley. Indeed, like I've said, Berkeley has several unique strengths of its own that it brings to the table. In particular, for those undergraduates who really do get into heavy research, Berkeley is clearly the better choice. But as has been said before, these are all indicators of the kind of school that Berkeley and Virginia are. Neither is inherently better than the other, but they are each better at different things. Berkeley is more prestigious, offers more opportunities for research, and probably has better physical facilities. On the other hand, Virginia tends to have better teachers and tends to offer a warmer undergraduate experience.

By Calbears2007 (Calbears2007) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit

"my original post made zero, read zero reference to teaching ability...simply to the scope of the schools offerings." (Cornellgrad)

Well, if you talk about the school's offerings, I think the issue of teaching is very relevant...

By Calkidd (Calkidd) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit

Machu Princess: It's true that in the long run, your undergraduate major doesn't count. But it does matter a good deal for getting that critical first job, if you want to do engineering. For people who are management oriented (i.e. want to get engineering BS then move into management after awhile, possibly getting an MBA), a straight degree in mechE, chemE or EECS would be more useful. Most of the BioE people in my class that got jobs in industry had internships or worked as TECHNICIANS for around $40k a year; most of the people with mechE, chemE and EECS degrees worked as ENGINEERS and pulled in closer to $50k. Over time (or if you choose the graduate school route)this evens out.

By Blee (Blee) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 03:41 am: Edit

Something I've learned during my debating days:
You can back ANYTHING up with logic. Therefore, arguing hardly proves anything.

Now let there be peace on the CC boards. (I only read the first ten or so posts; I'm not going to bother reading those long essays that you people seem to enjoy typing up)

By Alk331 (Alk331) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 12:13 am: Edit

That uninformed statement about UVA being a LAC cracked me up. Who is this guy??? I'm sorry, but I think you should do a little research or have firsthand knowledge before you start making such opinionated statements.

/end rant

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 02:17 am: Edit

Who are you referring to, alk331?