<p>Well, sort of. I have made comments to a couple of profs who I know are on the “serious about teaching” side. There really is a divide between the professors about the teaching, at least that is the rumor among the grad students. One of the profs said they have to sort of thin out the material because there is a “tail” in the class that according to some profs would be better off in other majors (in other words, these ones are smart in other ways but are dragging the bright ones…)
The department has to admit anyone in UCB, maybe that is the issue. Whatever the case, if it were severe, there would not be a way to hide things.
I would label the situation right now as sub-optimal. Super smart kids will still graduate from the program looking super-smart. But they could have also been given bigger plates.</p>
<p>Interesting thread. OchemE. </p>
<p>Besides UCB, Stanford and Princeton, which ones on the list in post #8 do you think are overrated? </p>
<p>Which one’s do you think provide the best undergrad preparation for biomolecular?</p>
<p>OChemE, I mentioned the Big Ten and Texas schools (UT-Austin, A&M, Rice, Tech) are more process focused because they are the main suppliers of engineers to process and industrial companies based in Texas and the midwest. I didn’t mean that as a slam.</p>
<p>You mentioned kids got job offers to elite companies like Exxon, Shell, Dow, etc…I say it’s because those companies are based in Texas (or in Dow’s case, Delaware, which is near Penn State). Most companies aren’t going to go very far to recruit talent, especially when good programs are available right in their backyard. The hiring is regional. Not because kids are smarter or better prepared. Exxon-Mobil has one refinery in California - and it’s in Southern California. They don’t target Berkeley for recruiting.</p>
<p>Here is Berkeley’s survey of ChemE grads and job positions/grad programs. Not that bad…<a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/ChemEngr.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/ChemEngr.stm</a>
I’m sure it compares well to other top chemE programs.</p>
<p>It’s fine if you think Berkeley is overrated…many, many here do and it’s a frequent hot topic.</p>
<p>OchemE,
Like ClassicRockerDad, I’d be interested in hearing which schools you think do the best job of preparing undergrads in this field. I realize this is a subjective thing, but I actually think CC readers could benefit from hearing the perspective of people in your position, GSI/TAs in top grad programs who are in a position to compare their own recent undergrad experience with what they see at their current institution, and to compare notes with other grad students who did their undergrad at other institutions.</p>
<p>OP – my takeaway from your (as you admitted) multiple, unrelated thoughts of your first post is this:</p>
<ul>
<li>Berkeley doesn’t have the budget to give the same teaching/feedback focus to undergraduate chemical engineering students as many other schools, some peer-ranked, and some ranked well below UCB in USNWR.</li>
</ul>
<p>When you step back, it’s really all about resource allocation. Apparently per your post, UCB does not allocate much resource to undergrad ChemE students. Resource = professor/TA labor hours per student. Those labor hours are measured in # of students/Professor/TA, quantity and quality of graded assignments (with feedback), etc., and quantity of mid-term exams with useful feeback about progress in the course. In other words, for the undergraduate, it’s a big-ass, public, underfunded institution relying more on a self-service (cheaper) model of education delivery than many other schools lower ranked.</p>
<p>I can’t tell you how many peers in CA I run across in business whose kids are admitted into UCLA or Berkeley or UCSB, etc. and instead enroll in smaller, more undergraduate focused colleges or universities, usually much lower ranked in USNWR. Often the cost is comparable with merit or other scholarships, but often not. Often turning down UCB or UCLA means the parents pay more, and apparently happily so, in order to provide for their child less of a self-service, you’re on your own environment. The self-service model really boils down to – “we can’t (or won’t) afford to give you much quality time.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Beautifully put DunninLA!</p>
<p>Of course this is an especially huge concern for a parent considering paying full price OOS tuition. I would have to have my arm twisted pretty hard to pay OOS tuition for a University of California school, but so far, I don’t have quite the same bad vibe of say University of Michigan, which seems very well funded. I don’t know how the funding is at other top publics, but it’s a topic of discussion that interests me.</p>
<p>“I say it’s because those companies are based in Texas (or in Dow’s case, Delaware, which is near Penn State).”</p>
<p>Uhh UCB, Dow is headquartered in Michigan. You might be confusing it with another company that startes with a “D.” ;-)</p>
<p>Notice how highly regarded the University of Delaware is for graduate chemical engineering. I’m sure this is a direct result of it being located in the same state as "D"upont.</p>
<p>^ You’re right, rjk…my mistake.</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad,
Fair enough, but I still want to emphasize that they are not process focused. They try to do it all- theory, process, etc. which is why the program is so damned hard (partly), and also why our grads end up all over the place- from oil companies to Genentech to accenture to bio-based grad programs like the one right here at UC-Berkeley.</p>
<p>The UCB program isn’t terrible, and they don’t deserve to lose their accreditation. I think they don’t deserve the No. 2 spot- More like No. 15. That’s not bad. In fact, it is good!, even though they could do better if they (1) staffed more GSI’s and (2) upped the workload (note that (2) requires (1)).</p>
<p>I will be back to answer more posts, but I am in lab right now and don’t have the time. Later this evening I will.</p>
<p>Good…I was going to say Berkeley’s graduate chemical engineering program might not be that good enough to keep you busy since you’re posting away worried about poor undergrads.</p>
<p>Losing accreditation would probably hurt you more than it hurts me. I graduated when it was accredited…but let’s stop with the hyperbole.</p>
<p>With more funding, the department would be able to fund more grad students
…and ironically help undergrad education in the process, as you have suggested.</p>
<p>^^ Cute remark, but I work 80 hours a week. I also enjoyed teaching, and plan to GSI again if they’ll let me, even though I already paid my dues. So yes, I do worry about the ‘poor undergrads.’</p>
<p>ClassicRockerDad:</p>
<p>I don’t know any that are over rated other than the ones I talked about really.</p>
<p>It all depends on what you are looking for in a Chem E program. If you want to get a degree where you are going to end up practicing chemical engineering (designing plants, coming up with creative new processes that use less energy, require fewer or no toxic intermediates, etc), I would not recommend Stanford. Berkeley does have a design class, and a controls class although its pretty light from what I hear.</p>
<p>If you are looking for a program that is heavily focused on process, and only that (with basically the bare minimum on the theory), seriously don’t even look at the top 20 schools. You might also find better luck at the non-research schools. There is a ranking for these schools as well, but I don’t know anything about those schools.<br>
To throw a random school out there that I know for fact is a very hands-on, chemical engineering practice type school, Oklahoma State. Or random schools in Texas and the lower Midwest that aren’t in the top 20. A lot of these schools staff former industrial chemical engineers who have done process design as a career.</p>
<p>If you are looking for schools that go really light on the processing side and focus mostly only on the theory and the biochem side, I would go for UCB, Stanford, and from what I have heard, the Ivy League. If you want to be swamped with everything, pick some other research school.</p>
<p>There may be plenty of exceptions to what I have said above, as well as schools to add. I’m just writing from what I have heard.</p>
<p>^I’ll add to that that when visiting Northwestern it did not seem like they were overly focused on processing either. In fact the chair of the department personally told me that she they don’t and that they thought they offered the lightest course load on this issue until I came along and proved her otherwise!</p>
<p>DunninLA’s post hits the nail on the head.</p>
<p>I think the root of the problem is the ratio of GSI’s to students, because the GSI’s don’t have the time to do the grading, etc. There could have easily been 4 GSI’s in that class of 100. And our contract tells us we can only put in 20 hours a week!! </p>
<p>I don’t honestly understand where the budget issue comes from. Are they that strapped for cash that they can’t man a course with an extra GSI? Or is it that the GSI’s adviser would rather have the GSI doing research instead? The ChemE department brings in a LOAD of outside funds. You can see it in the profs’ salaries. The lowest tenured faculty in the department makes close to $200k a year. If there’s enough money to pay the profs that much there should be enough to up the staffing of courses with GSI’s.</p>
<p>The reason I was so surprised when I started to observe the undergrad chemE program first hand is I also went to a great big public research university, a great school but not with the name brand appeal of Berkeley. I figured all big public schools are the same, and if anything this name brand number 2 program will be even harder than the one I had.</p>
<p>^ the big money at Berkeley isn’t being spent on undergrads, simple as that.</p>
<p>If the department felt it important, they could easily establish the budget to supply the employees (professors or TAs)necessary to provide more meaningful feedback, interaction, and mentoring for the undergraduate (especially lower division) ChemE students.</p>
<p>However, a large Research Institution is not a Tutor (a la Cambridge) an LAC, or small University. Isn’t it telling that the most apt descriptor for Berkeley (and UCLA, UCSD, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc.) is INSTITUTION?</p>
<p>^^^ right, but what had me so stumped when I came to UCB is I myself (and a large chunk of the other grad students) came from “UCLA, UCSD, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc.” and we unanimously agree that the work load and level of depth at the Cal classes is very much less than what we had. (and the classes are way understaffed compared to what we had, which you read in the original post) Yet, we also came from big research institutions so we were really miffed. We figured things would be better at Cal if anything because of its reputation as an elite school.</p>
<p>None of my chemE class was light and easy. Sometime I wished that were the case. One example was the polymer class; the solution keys for the weekly problem set were about 15-20 pages long. I also remember the chemE labs which lasted all-day every Thursday (9-5) and the data analysis/write-up in the form of technical reports to mangers took another 15-20 hours a week. We had eight of those in a quarter (10 weeks). </p>
<p>I remember once I asked one of my profs who graduated from U of I (undergrad/masters; PhD at Stanford) what the difference was between U of I and Northwestern. He didn’t mention anything about the workload; he just said the quality of students is higher at NU. My peers and I thought the program was rigorous enough; I can’t imagine other programs at the higher-ranked state Us could be any harder than ours; otherise, it seems to me it be too difficult for most of them since the range is wider in terms of caliber of students.</p>
<p>
Maybe Stanford/Princeton grads you talked to are more critical and have higher standard/expectation? Maybe students at schools like Minnesota are of significantly lower caliber to begin with and so whatever thrown at them seem so challenging to them?</p>
<p>Also, what you said about grade inflaton and hand-holding doesn’t apply to chemistry and chemE at Northwestern. For example, half of the class in organic chemistry get C+ or below even though professors say something like “you guys did pretty well”. I saw that you got 770 on GRE Q and you graduated first in your undergrad major. For reference, I got 800 on GRE Q and I was merely average and got 2 Cs in orgo at NU. Perhaps you haven’t given a fair comparison.</p>
<p>I really appreciated reading your post and found it quite informative. I am researching various undergraduate chemical engineering programs and would like your opinion on what institutions you feel would be desirable for an incoming freshman in the areas of NJ, NY, PA, DE, CT? </p>
<p>Most Sincerely;
Alexandra (highly-invested mom)</p>
<p>@UCBChemEGrad: The OP is clearly trolling. You shouldn’t waste your time with him.</p>