<p>OchemE, why don’t you voice your concerns to the chairman of the undergrad ChemE program? If your true intentions are meant to be helpful…</p>
<p>It’s a lot more complicated than that. I and others voiced concerns in the class that the ChemE GSI’s have to take before teaching. I also discussed concerns with the Lecturer who taught the class I GSI’ed for, when he decided to remove large sections of material from the syllabus early on. But, with only two GSI’s, I guess I couldn’t blame him. I’m not going to list specific prof’s names, but one in particular is into making sure work isn’t “too demanding” because if it is, the students will just cheat. It’s like his excuse for making sure the grading isn’t “too demanding” either.
There seem to be two sides of profs, where one side is into doing as little as possible as far as teaching goes and another side that takes it seriously. Recently it seems like the first side is winning. When a professor from the first side is the chair, going and complaining to him isn’t going to be helpful when teaching isn’t even his priority anyway. The professors aren’t stupid. Certainly they must know that the students are not getting 100% of what they are smart enough to handle.
And besides, it’s not like Cal’s program is garbage. It’s just over-rated. Smart students, but over-rated program.</p>
<p>Haven’t people commented before that Berkeley has a pretty massive gap between the graduate and undergraduate programs? This might just be a problem at this one school, not all elite schools.</p>
<p>^^^ I have heard that, but I don’t think it is 100% true for all the programs, like I said not for Chemistry.</p>
<p>OchemE, it sounds like your complaint is regarding one class Prof that you GSI’d for…I wouldn’t extend that to the entire program. </p>
<p>I found Berkeley’s ChemE program to be more theoretical and more focused on research oriented biomolecular engineering…more physical and theoretical chemistry based. </p>
<p>Other Big Ten and Texas schools were more industrial and process engineering focused…primarily due to the strong process industries in their backyard.</p>
<p>No, like I said, this post is based on information from myself and from other grad students who have GSI’ed in other courses and and commented on those experiences. The post is not based on only one class that I GSI’ed for. I focused on that class because it was my own first-hand experience.</p>
<p>Also, you clearly know absolutely nothing about Big Ten schools and UT Austin (what you have lumped together with all “Texas schools” apparently). These schools are also very theoretical and also very biomolecular in curriculum. Most of the departments are actually called “Chemical and Biomolecular” or something along those lines. The difference is (1) they go way more in depth with the math and the theory and (2) they don’t water down the industrially important classes like Process Control and Design because they require so much on the theoretical end.
That’s part of why the programs are so demanding. If you can provide me with a bibliography of everything you read to come to your conclusion, I will gladly stand corrected.</p>
<p>Other Texas schools, and many southern-Midwest schools in general, would beat out anyone in the top 20 rankings when it comes to preparation for the process industry. In that case, there are a myriad of schools I haven’t even listed that would put many better-known and higher-ranked schools to shame.</p>
<p>I did my undergrad in chemical engineering at stanford and I also nabbed a masters along the way in which I interacted with students of different universities. I also interacted with a lot of students during my graduate school visits. </p>
<p>I’m a bit confused on how you define ‘better’. Are stanford grades inflated compared to schools like caltech (the other school I have experience in as I’m getting a PhD there)? Yes they are. Is that a bad thing? I sure as hell didn’t think so! Are the classes easier? No-they’re just completely different from those in other schools. </p>
<p>Schools cater for the students that they have. Most stanford cheme undergrads don’t want to spend hours learning how to use programs to simulate plants and cooling towers. Quite frankly most of us never considered that as a possible career option. We learn more theoretical things and they try to give us a better breadth of knowledge. Hell more of my friends are in med school right now than in industry! </p>
<p>Also Stanford’s aim is to give their students a more ‘liberal arts’ education than other schools. I really appreciated the breadth of classes that I took which I could not have taken if my schedule was completely saddled with cheme classes (as it stands cheme is the largest major on campus). My friends during my masters at stanford came from all over the place. Were some brighter than me? Hell yes. Did I feel any had a advantage from their undergraduate career? No. </p>
<p>In short my main point is that comparing stanford cheme with Penn state’s cheme isn’t possible because their aims and goals are vastly different.</p>
<p>Not to mention, people who go to truly industry/process-focused undergrad programs that emphasize little on theory tend not to go to grad school, and they tend not to have the background that theoretical/biomolecular grad schools are looking for (on average). If the schools that I listed were process schools (and they are not), then PhD programs would not be flooded with them anyway.</p>
<p>I have a lot more friends that did MBA’s or med school than grad school. What’s your point?</p>
<p>"In short my main point is that comparing stanford cheme with Penn state’s cheme isn’t possible because their aims and goals are vastly different. "</p>
<p>I suppose that is why there are so many Penn State grads doing PhD’s. I refer you to paragraph 2 of my last longer post.</p>
<p>And if the chemical engineering program is geared towards generating graduates who don’t enter chemical engineering careers, then what the hell is it doing masquerading as a chemical engineering program anyway?</p>
<p>My point is that stanford cheme is not concerned with teaching industrially important classes because on average ~5% of the 20 students (ie one student really) in each class goes into industry. Why should we learn these classes if we are not intrersted in them? I agree if you want to go into industry don’t do cheme at stanford. if you want to go to med school, grad school, mba or go into start ups come to stanford.</p>
<p>"Why should we learn these classes if we are not intrersted in them? "</p>
<p>Because when you finish school, you will get a degree that labels you as a Chemical Engineer.</p>
<p>I really should have thought of a different title for the thread…
I don’t think that the ‘elite’ schools’ programs are bad. I just think that some of them are over-rated. Not mega-over rated, but over rated nonetheless.</p>
<p>Also, so we are comparing apples to apples, I find this to be true for the theoretical based courses, which are common to the big ten, UT, etc AND UCB, stanford, etc. Let’s forget the process classes. The biochem, transport classes, etc. They are watered down at UCB. That is what I have found. It isn’t that they are unacceptable. Just over-rated.</p>
<p>And I am one. One however that is interested in other parts of the large and inclusive major that is Chemical Engineering. I did take some industrial classes but it wasn’t a focus of mine. Here’s a little secret: not everyone who holds a degree in something has the knowledge of everything in that field. My friend is an EE. He has a certain concentration (computer architecture). How much does he know about signals? Some but not very much. Does that make his degree a fake? Is he an impostor? Hardly. I’m a chemical engineer but my focus wasn’t industry related learning.</p>
<p>^^^ With this said, I’m going to further revise the statement I made in bold earlier, and limit it to the school where I and my peers have had first hand experiences with teaching:</p>
<p>I feel that Berkeley’s ChemE program is ranked higher by US News than other programs at not-so-name brand schools with more demanding theoretical and biochemistry-based courses.</p>
<p>^
Also, so we are comparing apples to apples, I find this to be true for the theoretical based courses, which are common to the big ten, UT, etc AND UCB, stanford, etc. Let’s forget the process classes. The biochem, transport classes, etc. They are watered down at UCB. That is what I have found. It isn’t that they are unacceptable. Just over-rated.</p>
<p>fair enough Ocheme. I’ve never been really taken (or TA’ed) ChemE undergrad courses except at stanford so I can’t compare really. I’ll let others who know more about UCB cheme hash it out.</p>
<p>Superwizard, fair enough. I want to get off the process-related tangent because it is an extra thing that the schools do that emphasize theory AND process. So, I posted the last bold statement.</p>
<p>Since the thread title is charged, and I don’t want to come across as saying the STUDENTS are over-rated, I want to add that the STUDENTS are up to par with the ranking. When I was a GSI, I noticed a larger portion of what I would consider really smart kids, compared to my own school. In terms of numbers let’s say if that was 10% super smart in my class, it would be more like 15-20 here. The kids are capable of doing more, and what they are doing is certainly good, but, could be improved if the faculty cared more about teaching.</p>
<p>^ That’s what I thought. 
Your complaint is about the teaching, which is always a fair and important complaint!. And I’m sorry, did you say you brought this to the Department Head? And did you bring it to the Dept’s attention as a group? (You said other students are also unhappy about the quality of the program – meaning, teaching.)</p>
<p>Just like lots of high school math teachers care much more about math than about teaching, there are some engineering profs that are also not cut out to teach. I’m a great fan of research U’s, and Berkeley in particular, but research should not replace instruction.</p>