Berkeley... Is it that good?

Colleges & Universities University of California - Berkeley
61

<p>Shyboy13, nobody ever said that just because a person is a great researcher means that he necessarily can’t teach. </p>

<p>However, what is true is that the more a school tends to emphasize research - to the point where tenure decisions and career reputation is made by research - the more that teaching tends to become neglected. The reality is that Berkeley is a school where professors tend to care far more about their teaching and to some extent their graduate-school teaching than they do their undergraduate teaching responsibilities. The fact is, there are a lot of professors at Berkeley teaching undergraduate classes who make no bones about the fact that they really don’t want to be doing it, they’re only doing it because they’re obligated to do so. They’d rather be back at the lab. </p>

<p>The fact is, most people in the world are really good at only one thing (at most). Very few people are really good at two completely different things. And the fact is, teaching and research really don’t have very much in common. The latter involves brilliant insights and tenacious stamina to discover something. The former involves charisma and communications ability, as well as the ability to empathize with people who aren’t as smart as you are, or in most cases aren’t as motivated as you are. Only a rare few people have both such skills. Population statistics dictates that if an organization tends to emphasize one, the other tends to suffer. This is why Justin Gatlin can win the 100m dash Olympic Gold medal but isn’t necessarily a great marathon runner. </p>

<p>It’s really a matter of population statistics. Are there some rare people in the world who have both skills? Of course there are. But that’s like saying that because I know somebody who smokes 2 packs a day and lived to be 100, so then smoking must not be dangerous. In general, the more that a school emphasizes research, the less that same school will be able to emphasize good teaching. Just like it’s very hard to find somebody who can run sprints really fast and also run marathons really fast. Do such people exist? Sure. However, if your organization emphasizes running sprints, then you will inevitably end up with guys who can run sprints really well, but are probably not so good at running marathons.</p>

62

<p>"Well, I don’t know that I can agree that Caltech is the best school for science types. That’s a pretty strong claim. Case in point - look at the Intel Science Talent Search winners (formerly known as the Westinghouse competition) and look at how many of their winners indicate that they want to go to Harvard, with MIT a close second. Caltech and Stanford make their appearances, but not as much as Harvard and MIT do. And you hardly ever see Berkeley. But the point is, if Caltech really is so good for hard-core science types, and I think we would all agree that Intel STS competitors are hard-core science types, then why don’t more of them want to go to Caltech?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/63sts/winners.asp"&gt;http://www.sciserv.org/sts/63sts/winners.asp&lt;/a&gt;"&lt;/p&gt;

<p>No way. Ryna Karnik is an Intel STS winner? I was in her physics 61 class last quarter and I beat her on two midterms. Woo hoo! The only physics I ever took was AP Physics in high school, and I got a 3 on E/M. So these Intel kids aren’t as superhuman as you may think. They’re fallible!</p>

<p>By the way, this is rooster08. My screen name doesnt work for some reason.</p>

63

<p>I never said they were infallible.</p>

<p>But my point is this. Whether they are infallible or not, the fact is, you know and I know that they are probably going to be able to get to attend their first choice of college, or at least, they are more likely to get it than most HS seniors will. And apparently, that first choice usually is Harvard or MIT, with a smattering or other schools (i.e. Stanford, Princeton, Yale), but only occassionally Caltech and certainly almost never Berkeley. So whether these people are infallible or fallible or whether they are right or not in desiring certain schools as their first choice, but not others - none of that is relevant. What is relevant for the purposes of this discussion is why is it that these people, who I think will all agree are science/techie types, want to go to Harvard and MIT, but not so much Caltech or Berkeley? And more to the point, that means that Berkeley and Caltech need to work harder to make themselves wanted, such that in the future, all these Intel STS winners, and all the other techie types for that matter, will start listing Berkeley and Caltech as their first choices.</p>

64

<p>Intel STS winners aren’t Gods or something. In fact, they are no smarter than the rest of the students I have seen at Stanford. The smartest person I have encountered before is, ironically, a recruited football player who is a computer science major. </p>

<p>I guess my point is that having Intel STS winners at a school is so trivial that it doesnt even matter. Who cares if Harvard has 90 percent of all STS winners? It doesn’t necessarily mean that Harvard has a stronger student body.</p>

65

<p>Again, I never said that the Intel STS winners were infallible. That’s not the point.</p>

<p>The point is that you have to ask yourself why these Intel STS winners want to go to Harvard or MIT? Why don’t they want to go to Berkeley or Caltech instead? That’s the REAL question. The issue is not how good the Intel STS winners are, the question is where do they want to go, and why do they want to go there? </p>

<p>Look, whatever you might think of the Intel STS winners, I think we can all agree that all of us would have liked to be one of them. Does that mean that they are infallible? Again, of course not. However, I know I would have liked to be one. I’m sure you would too. Who wouldn’t? After all, who doesn’t want to win a prize that ranges from 25k to 100k? Hey, if you don’t want the money, you can always give it to me. </p>

<p>Furthermore, let’s put the money aside. If nothing else, it makes your college application look stronger. I don’t think anybody will dispute, all other things being equal, that a guy who wins the Intel STS has a better chance to get admitted into his first choice of school than a guy who doesn’t. What that means is that, fair or not fair, the schools see it as a positive. The upshot of that is that these winners know they have a better chance of getting into their first choice. And that first choice, according to their own words, tends to be Harvard, and MIT with a close runner-up, but rarely Caltech or Bekeley. And you have to ask why that is.</p>

<p>The real issue is that, whether it’s fair or not fair, Harvard and MIT are simply more coveted as end destinations than are places like Berkeley and Caltech, even amongst the science cognoscenti. That’s not to say that everybody will choose Harvard or MIT over Berkeley or Caltech. But the majority will. I can’t find the article right now, but lately an article came out that showed that Caltech loses more students to MIT than vice versa - in the sense that students who are admitted to both will usually (not always, but usually) choose MIT, such that Caltech has to fight back by offering big scholarships. Happened to several people I know - they only chose Caltech over MIT because Caltech gave them big scholarships and MIT didn’t - however, if that wasn’t the case, they would have gone to MIT. And I think very few people are going to dispute that anybody who gets into both Berkeley and Harvard for undergrad is almost certainly going to choose Harvard unless that person wants to use in-state California tuition status to save money. </p>

<p>So then the real question is why is that? Why don’t Caltech and Berkeley (especially Berkeley) possess greater desirability? Why shouldn’t Berkeley and/or Caltech be the #1 choice not just for the Intel STS winners but for everybody else?</p>

<p>The question is not about who has the better student body. The question is why are certain schools more desirable than others? Whether Intel STS winners are infallible is not the issue. The issue is why do more of them desire to be at Harvard or MIT than at Caltech or Berkeley?</p>

66

<p>Has nothing to do with the quality of the students. Harvard is ultra-name brand, its more selective, and it has a smaller student body which means less competition, less crowding. Plus, Natalie Portman used to go there, so I can see why people would flock.</p>

67

<p>“The question is not about who has the better student body. The question is why are certain schools more desirable than others? Whether Intel STS winners are infallible is not the issue. The issue is why do more of them desire to be at Harvard or MIT than at Caltech or Berkeley?”</p>

<p>Ahh Sakky, why asked the obvious question, even when it sounded rhetorical :)? Harvard and MIT have better brand names. I thought however, for techie/science people, Caltech follows right behind Harvard and MIT, not Princeton, not Yale (not sure abt Stanford)</p>

68

<p>Who cares if Harvard has Natalie Portman (actually, Harvard HAD Natalie Portman, because she graduated last year)? Caltech has…umm…let me think…err…OK,never mind. </p>

<p>However, I should point out that Harvard doesn’t really have a small student body. Harvard is actually quite a large school. Harvard has 6500 undergraduates, and about 20,000 total students (grad + undergrad). MIT isn’t all that small either, it has about 4000 undergrads and about 10,000 total students. Stanford has about 6600 undergrads, and about 15,000 total students. Compare that with Caltech, which really is tiny, with only 900 undergrads (yeah, I didn’t miss a zero, it’s really only 900), and only 2200 total students. The point is that if we REALLY want to talk about who has the smaller student body, Caltech really takes the cake. Caltech is without a doubt the least populous elite research university in the country. So if people really wanted to be at a place with the least crowding, then they should all be trying to get into Caltech, right?</p>

<p>Here are the numbers, so you can go see for yourself. Replace “hxxp” with “http”
hxxp://<a href=“http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide/students/stu14.html”>www.news.harvard.edu/guide/students/stu14.html</a>
hxxp://web.mit.edu/ir/pop/students/enrollment.html
hxxp://<a href=“http://www.caltech.edu/at-a-glance/”>www.caltech.edu/at-a-glance/</a>
hxxp://<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/facts/undergraduate.html”>www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/facts/undergraduate.html</a>
hxxp://<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/facts/graduate.html”>www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/facts/graduate.html</a></p>

<p>Now, to rtkysg, now we’re getting somewhere. Harvard and MIT have better brand names. So now the next question is, why is that? </p>

<p>Now, as far as for techie/science people, I’m not sure that Caltech really follows right behind Harvard and MIT. If that really were true, then that should be reflected in the Intel STS desired first-choice schools, right? The point is that you rarely see Caltech being mentioned, even by people who are undoubtedly interested in tech. That’s not to say that Caltech is a bad school - on the contrary, Caltech is without a doubt an integral member of the HYPSMC elite. But you gotta admit, there are a lot of people who have simply never heard of that place, and even those techies/science types who have heard of it often times prefer to go elsewhere, whether that’s because Caltech has a reputation for being too hard, or too geeky, or whatever. I do see places like Princeton, Stanford, even Yale mentioned more times than Caltech when it comes to STS winners (admittedly Yale doesn’t come up too often, but still, more times than Caltech). At the very least, if nothing else, then it seems that Caltech has an image problem. </p>

<p>But that’s beside the point. The real point is, what about Berkeley? Why isn’t Berkeley a magnet for all these techies? Why aren’t all these students who dream of being techies all naming Berkeley as their first choice for undergrad?</p>

69

<p>"Now, to rtkysg, now we’re getting somewhere. Harvard and MIT have better brand names. So now the next question is, why is that? "</p>

<p>I think it is no longer a secret that the East Coast takes the cake when we’re talking about prestige and supremacy. It is of no coincidence that the White House and Wall-Street belong to the East Coast. MIT has traditionally had more funding, more rich people than Caltech. Rich people on the East Coast would undoubtedly donate to MIT and Harvard rather than to Caltech, don’t you think? Even for the STS winners, the well-rounded Stanford comes into mind after Harvard and MIT. I think you shall agree with me that in terms of faculty, academic, resource and environment, Caltech is no lesser than MIT and Harvard, although Caltech generally does not have many “development case” admissions of those billionaires’ son/daughter.</p>

<p>If Caltech with its strongest student body in US couldn’t claim the crown from East Coast side, how would Berkeley, a public school, full of mediocre students, even compete. On the other hand, if Caltech, and also Berkeley are located in East Coast, things may be completely different. Berkeley’s name may even come out more often than Stanford :)</p>

70

<p>rtkysg</p>

<p>In case you didn’t know, half of the 6% growth of the entire United States in the late 1990’s came from Silicon Valley. Its time to let the best be the best without any silly political games. With no bias. Because with institutionalized bias when it comes to promoting efficient economic growth, our country will fail.</p>

71

<p>West Side,</p>

<p>I was merely explaining the root of the East Coast biased prestige, and even until now, it still remains that way.</p>

72

<p>Half of the growth of the entire US in the late 90’s probably did come from Silicon Valley. On the other hand, at least half of the tech recession of the early 2000’s also came from Silicon Valley. I say that not simply to proffer a rejoinder, but to point out that if you want to take credit for the good, you gotta also assume the blame for the bad. lLet’s face it. To say that you were a Silicon Valley dotcom entrepreneur is to invite scorn and pity nowadays, rather than the awe and jealousy of yester-year. You want the glory when things go well? You gotta also be willing to take the blame when things go badly. </p>

<p>Now, to rtkysg, I think we may be re-treading old ground that we covered back in the old CC forum. Basically, I would argue that prestige is a far more pliable concept than a lot of people seem to think it is. The best case in point is Stanford, which not that long ago, really was a no-name regional backwater of little consequence. For the first half of its existence, Stanford was a weak school, and during that time Berkeley was far and away the best school in Norcal. It really wasn’t that long ago in history that Stanford had little prestige. Stanford wasn’t born elite, it became elite through stellar management. </p>

<p>Also, I’m not quite sure that I can entirely agree with your characterization of the competition between MIT and Caltech. You seem to be saying that MIT has the benefit of age and ‘old-school’ prominence that Caltech does not. I don’t know about that. It is true that MIT is about 25 years older than Caltech. However, the history seems to suggest that Caltech became a highly prominent research university years before MIT did. For the first half of its life, MIT was basically a vocational school of little prestige. However, by the 1930’s, Caltech had already established itself as one of the premier leading research lights in the country. Let me put it to you this way. By the late 30’s, Caltech could count 3 Nobel Prizes among its current faculty (Millikan, Morgan, Anderson). I haven’t been able to verify this yet, but I believe that at that time, Caltech could count more Nobel Prize winners among its faculty than any other American school at the time. Harvard did have 3 winners, but TW Richards died in '28. Keep in mind that before WW2, the US was not a science/tech superpower and most Nobel Prizes were won by Europeans. Also keep in mind that at the time, Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League were still slowly transitioning themselves from the upper-crust gentlemen’s finishing schools that they used to be into the research powerhouses that they are today. MIT faculty wouldn’t get its first Nobel Prize winner until either 1944 or 1968 (depending on whether you want to count staff members of the MIT Radiation Lab as bona-fide MIT faculty members or not). The point is that Caltech quickly established itself as arguably the premier place in the US for big-league science research before MIT had become prominent. It was MIT looking up to Caltech, not vice versa. It was WW2 and subsequent gigantic Pentagon-directed defense spending (i.e. the RAND corporation) that spurred MIT to tech greatness. </p>

<p>I also don’t think that the MIT/Caltech schism has anything to do with funding. Funding and rich donors do explain Harvard to some extent. But MIT? I have my doubts. As of 2002, Caltech had a $1.3 billion endowment, whereas MIT had a $6 billion endowment. Hence, on a per-capita basis (Caltech has ~ 2000 students, MIT has ~10,000), it’s basically a wash. </p>

<p>Let’s face it. Neither Caltech nor MIT really attract the truly rich. Truly rich people are going to send their kids to Harvard where they’re going to major in something easy/creampuffy and basically get 4 years of finishing-school (just like in the old days) so that they can then come out and be ready to run daddy’s (or mommy’s) company. MIT and Caltech are for those people who haven’t quite made it yet and who are therefore willing to work hard to try to establish themselves.</p>

<p>Now obviously the above paragraph was a sweeping generalization. But I think you get my point. If you’re truly rich, you probably don’t want to have to put up with the ridiculous workload that either MIT or Caltech will throw at you. Why should you work that hard, if you don’t have to? Hence, it will always be true that places like Harvard will have more rich donors than the 'Tutes will.</p>

73

<p>Hmm, I haven’t checked the history until that far. Hence in this case, when and why MIT has become more prominent than Caltech. Does it have anything to do with marketing? Or MIT expands itself to a broader field of expertise such that it attracts more customer? </p>

<p>Also during the WWII, MIT’s reputation soared to the sky thanks to its MIT Radar Lab which was significant during the war, while Caltech only aimed to put people on the moon. Perhaps since then, military has taken MIT as its golden boy, and certainly with the support from military, the brilliant scientists were brought to MIT to do military projects, accumulating the prestige of the school. Do you think it is a possible reason?</p>

74

<p>Well, in answer to your first question, it ALWAYS has to do with marketing to some extent, but then that just elicits a different question - presuming that MIT simply outmarketed Caltech (and I don’t think it’s quite that simple, but let’s presume that’s true), then why didn’t Caltech do a better job of marketing ? It’s not like Caltech never knew about the power of marketing. George Hale (one of Caltech’s early Trustees) specifically brought in guys like Millikan because he knew that by doing so, he would be able to market Caltech as one of the leading lights, if not THE leading light of American science. By the late 30’s, as I said before, Caltech was arguably the most prestigious school in the US for science research. Clearly Caltech was well aware of the power of marketing and used it to startling effect.</p>

<p>The point is that I think it is indisputable that Caltech had a significant headstart on MIT when it comes to both substance and style. True, MIT is about 25 years older than Caltech, but I think that extra time didn’t really help MIT much at all. After all, in the year 1900 (when Caltech was 9 years old), MIT was in such financial distress that it almost merged with Harvard (the horror!). Caltech established itself as a major research center before MIT did, and Caltech was already experiencing its first golden age of Nobel-after-Nobel before MIT had ever really gotten off the ground. </p>

<p>I think your second paragraph contains the real truth - it is precisely MIT’s ‘special arrangement’ with the Department of Defense that supercharged its growth. Ever since WW2, MIT has been heavily heavily associated with national defense and with the military-industrial complex. </p>

<p>But it’s not like Caltech didn’t have a hand in defense expenditures as well. JPL was founded in the 30’s specifically to study rockets, and was obviously heavily involved with not only the Space Race, but with the development of missiles and jet-fighters. Until the late 50’s, JPL was basically a military research center, and of course the Space Race/ Race to the Moon was one of the most extensive and expensive science research projects in world history, of which Caltech benefitted enormously (hence contributing to Caltech’s ‘2nd’ golden age). </p>

<p>Hence, you can’t really say that Caltech did not benefit from military expenditures at all. However, MIT almost certainly benefitted significantly more - which elicits the question, why is that? MIT did indeed become the golden boy of the Pengaton, but why couldn’t Caltech have done that?</p>

75

<p>Sakky. Nice analysis. It probably has more to do with politics than anything. washington DC, and the center of the entire US supposedly being on the east coast.</p>

<p>Which brings us back to the case of regional bias. I consider Cal Tech > MIT as a research institution in the sciences. Sure MIT has social sciences now too, but if you want to compare MIT as a complete school, its social sciences are inferior to Berkeley’s, while their sciences are about the same.</p>

76

<p>“MIT did indeed become the golden boy of the Pengaton, but why couldn’t Caltech have done that?”</p>

<p>Do you have the answer for your question? I would think that there should be some important figures in MIT then who were handling such cases better than Caltech people, and probably MIT’s location in the east coast benefits it since I believe many political figures rises in the east.</p>

77

<p>rtkysg, Do you personally like Caltech better than MIT? Most, but not all, people like their undergraduate school better than their grad/professional school.</p>

78

<p>Hmm, yeah shyboy, Caltech is warmer hehehe … anyway MIT gals are better than Caltech gals, they’re not talking about ‘jet’ or ‘engine’ during party … :)</p>

79

<p>Are the Caltech girls the reason why you hung around the History and Sociology departments at UCLA? I saw you creeping around over there with your Caltech sweatshirt on that had not been washed in months! I actually studied at Caltech a few times hoping someone left some extra inteligence lying around so that I could find it and shove it in my ear hoping it would find its way to my brain. No one ever did though. I guess you guys are greedy.</p>

80

<p>"I saw you creeping around over there with your Caltech sweatshirt on that had not been washed in months! "</p>

<p>Hey, this is insulting. Anyway, no, we bought UCLA T-shirts and put them on to approach the UCLA girls. :)</p>