<p>Even though Berkeley does not have a major named “neuroscience”, it has large and well respected biology, psychology, and computer sciences departments, as well as a cognitive science major. Presumably, students interested in that subject can find the courses and research opportunities to fit while majoring in one of those subjects.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In some areas, it is strongly favored to go to different schools for undergraduate and PhD education. Indeed, the Berkeley chemical engineering department is explicit about this, and believes that other chemical engineering departments have similar preferences: [UC</a> Berkeley, Dept of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering](<a href=“http://cheme.berkeley.edu/grad_info/faq.php]UC”>http://cheme.berkeley.edu/grad_info/faq.php)</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus, I agree that neuroscience (under the name of neurobiology) is offered at berkley. My point was that the program is focused on a graduate more than an undergraduate level, and extremely bio heavy, whereas it seems the OP’s daughter may be leaning towards a more balanced to psych heavy program. It is also not what berkley is “known” for. Berkley is a fantastic school, and I wouldn’t say otherwise. Just for this OP’s particular needs, it may not be the best choice for her daughter.</p>
<p>This is surprising, that they actually make it policy not to take on grad students who did their undergrad at the same school. </p>
<p>I’ve run into that cognitive sciences major somewhere else recently…definitely of interest.</p>
<p>I don’t think I have made, or really understand, the distinction between grad school and professional school, something to keep in mind when reading advice.</p>
<p>Any specific thoughts on Emory’s Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology undergrad program in Atlanta? or …these schools: Davidson, Furman, Wake Forest, Agnes Scott, University of Miami, Florida State, Wellesley and Smith? These are all smaller or mid size and have neuro and a variety of other majors, and are on our list to possibly visit this summer. (along with a couple that have already been mentioned on this thread).</p>
<p>Emory’s program is excellent and the school is pouring money into the program. NBB is one of the most popular majors and there are research opportunities aplenty. Agnes Scott’s program (don’t have much familiarity with it) seems to be more general biology focused, although undergrads can, and frequently do, take courses a nearby Emory or research with some of the professors.</p>
<p>Within the biological/medical community, Emory has an outstanding reputation, and people who “should” know it, respect the school. Outside of the geology and physics departments at Oklahoma (which Emory either lacks entirely or is weak in), virtually every professor I’ve spoken to immediately recognized that Emory=quality academics. If professors in the middle of the heartland at a mid tier state flagship recognize Emory, so too do grad schools.</p>
<p>Btw, like you I share some skepticism that grad schools don’t rank the quality of the research a school, and the undergrad conducts, highly. The top geoscience grad schools seem to be dominated by graduates from excellent research universities, far more than would be expected if school prestige played no part.</p>
<p>I agree with some of neuromajor’s comments and disagree with others.</p>
<p>[ul]
[<em>]Taking science and pre-med classes in college doesn’t have to be “cutthroat.” Good people tend to find themselves surrounded by good people. My friends, who have matriculated at many great schools (including MIT), have decidedly positive things to say about their alma maters. When I was in college, we would help each other out when it came to learning concepts, completing problem sets, and doing labs. Students competed against the inanimate “curve”…not each other. A subtle but important difference.
[</em>]UC Berkeley has a group of fantastic neuroscientists. Mu-ming Poo is in the department. He does some incredible work on synaptic plasticity (BDNF, etc.). Yang Dan is an HHMI investigator and full professor at UCB who works on visual processing. Dan Feldman (sensory processing and plasticity) and Marla Feller (assembly of retinal circuitry) left UCSD to go to UCB. They are great with both undergrads and grad students, and their research is top-notch. Good people.
[<em>]The San Diego area is very strong in neuroscience. Lots of people in the neuroscience community have ties to the area. Many researchers have done post-doctoral fellowships with eminent scientists at the Salk, UCSD, Burnham, and TSRI which served as springboards for their own careers.
[</em>]It’s perfectly OK to do Ph.D. training at the same institution you attended for undergrad. I have yet to sit on an admissions committee as a student rep and hear: “We shouldn’t accept this student because he/she went here for undergrad.” That being said, many students choose to go elsewhere to study different things in grad school. It’s nice to test unfamiliar waters and live in another part of the country for grad training. Students go wherever the most interesting research is. It’s not unusual for a grad student to choose a program so that he/she can work with one particular professor.
[li]The information regarding the contrived library wars between Berkeley and Harvard is pretty funny. Sounds like a UCB undergrad having some fun with the college tour crowd. The Crimson Key Society does the same thing at Harvard. It’s how college students amuse themselves. :-)[/li][/ul]</p>
<p>
Who are these “admissions friends” of which you speak? Good admissions committees will recognize talent when they see it…regardless of where the student matriculated for undergrad. In addition to the colleges you listed, the UCSD Neuroscience grad program has admitted students from a variety of other colleges/universities: Univ of Arizona, Duke, Princeton, UCSD, Case Western, Rice, UNC, UCSB, etc. Please don’t think that one must graduate from the “short list” in order to be accepted at a top-notch neuroscience grad program. That is simply untrue.</p>
<p>FYI, a grad student could join the Biomedical Sciences program at UCSD and get essentially identical training in the same neuroscience lab as a grad student formally enrolled in the Neurosciences grad program. Happens all the time.</p>
<p>All of the schools you listed are major research universities that receive massive funding for the biological sciences. What academics consider prestigious and what the general public considers prestigious are often entirely separate things. For instance, University of Arizona is seen by many as a fairly good school, certainly not a top tier institution, but it enjoys a stellar reputation in the geology world.</p>
<p>I agree with this. It’s very commonly stated on CC and elsewhere that you can’t or shouldn’t get your undergrad and grad degrees at the same school. But I’ve personally known so many successful exceptions to this “rule” that I can’t see how this notion ever got so widespread.</p>
<p>I can tell you when my neuro interested kid considered schools (he just finished his freshman year of college) Furman’s department was quite small without as much to offer as other schools on his list. As an LAC, they were still attractive to him, and since he mainly wants pre-med, he still kept them on his list - until their financial package came (it was horrid). Later he visited another school on his list - U Rochester - and is happily working in labs (2) there this summer after finishing his freshman year there. He loves the school. They offer neuro, brain & cognitive, & psych as options for majoring with oodles of research opportunities. If you want to stay close to Florida, they are likely too far away for your consideration, but I added his thoughts about them just because of the vast difference in offerings. It’s definitely worth it to compare.</p>
@coureur:
You know, I’ve read a great deal of questionable advice doled out on this website. There must be something about the anonymity of the medium which emboldens people to speak with authority on a subject…even when they have very little real experience. Baseless statements/opinions gain momentum and are repeated. It’s like a really bad game of telephone.</p>
<p>My impression is that the majority of CC posters are high school kids or parents who helped one or more children navigate the college admissions process. At times, these people will speak with great authority, even though their data set consists of an “n” of one or zero. For what it’s worth, I don’t think that they have any ill-intentions.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I’ve read posts from a handful of very helpful, reasonable site participants: (1) high school kids who went on to college/grad school and (2) very knowledgeable parents who are active as alumni interviewers or college admissions consultants. It’s a mixed bag.</p>
<p>In terms of sources, this information isn’t supposed to be public so I won’t name names, but two sit on the admissions committee for graduates at UCSD and one at UCI (formerly at UCSD, moved due to external family reasons), and are family friends, and this information came up in informal conversation, not hard-fact released data. However, as others have indicated, a school would rarely release such data. I’m certainly not saying that they won’t take great students from any school, and indeed they do take many from all over, including their own campus. The point I was making is that if a school is well known and regarded within the neuroscience community (which may as whenhen mentioned not be the traditional top schools), the admissions committee knows the quality of the education the applicant received, and can be more confident that the applicant would be prepared for graduate course load. It’s similar to when a business hires an applicant, coming from somewhere like UPenn’s Wharton school of business program shows that business that the student could weather a highly regarded education and have the skills needed for success at the company. Of course, many students can and do go on to prestigious neuroscience graduate or PhD programs from a school not traditionally known for that strength. But those students tend to have done exceptional things in their time during undergrad. The point is, when an admission committee knows and respects the program, it can make it easier to judge the applicant’s performance in said program. Maintaining a 4.0 somewhere like Caltech is impressive because the program is so hard, and can boost an applicants status. That all being said, I agree the OP’s daughter should make a decision on fit over any other factors, if she’ll succeed and thrive in a program that’ll give her the best chance at graduate school more than being miserable at a school on a graduate committee’s short list. A last thing to factor is undergrad research opportunities, if a school is known for neuroscience they often have numerous neuroscience labs with funding, making those opportunities more abundant. I second the comment about Emory and Duke being highly regarded for their programs (they slipped my mind when I was school listing). Columbia just announced a $200 million dollar endowment for a new building and program, and they seem to be shifting focus to catch the neuroscience popularity/importance wave. </p>
<p>Last point about Berkley. I like and respect the school, please don’t misinterpret my comments otherwise. It does have a great program with well known and brilliant individuals. My point was that it tends to be more graduate-focused. UCSD does as well, but because of the community there are a ridiculously high number of neuroscience labs in the san diego area, which makes undergrad research opportunities abundant. While they assuredly exist at Berkley, they are more prominent and easier to get at UCSD for this SPECIFIC field. Additionally, the OP was looking for a collaborative, learning for learning’s sake type of environment. The quality of instruction and rigor of work is extraordinarily high at Berkley, but there does tend to be more of a GPA focused environment. Some people thrive and are pushed to succeed in this format, but it isn’t for everyone (just like LACs aren’t for everyone). But for this particular OP, it may not be the right fit. But considering it’s the same application for all the UCs, I’d certainly say it’s worth applying to both UCSD and UCB (and maybe UCLA or UCSB to boot) because the only loss is an additional $70 application fee. If the OP’s daughter was accepted, she could decide for herself if Berkley was the right fit, who knows all of my perspective on her wishes could be wrong and she could thrive there.</p>
<p>I really do appreciate all the great advice and info…even where it conflicts! The conflict just shows that it is something to consider. Not everything is black and white, or true of every school (or every department), but may be true of some.</p>
<p>On the grad school issue, I just wanted to point out that in ucbalumnus’s post there was a link that led to this statement on UC Berkeley’s website “Although nearly all of the best chemical engineers are Berkeley graduates, this department, like most other top chemical engineering departments, feels strongly that its undergraduates are better served by pursuing graduate studies in a new and different environment. Thus, unless you have obtained a degree elsewhere or have substantial industrial experience since you graduated from Berkeley, we will not admit you to the department for graduate work.”</p>
<p>Whenhen, When you said
were you refering to the list of schools I asked about, or the schools someone else had suggested? Thank you for your input on Emory too! It looks like you attended their Oxford campus? I may have more questions about that option. ;-)</p>
<p>Creekland, Thank you for the info on Furman. I suspected that to be true, but it just keeps sneaking onto our list. U Rochester sounds nice, but does seem so very far away. Never say never though.</p>
All of the schools he listed either receive a great deal of funding for the bio/neuro sciences (eg Duke and Case Western) or are very close to other institutions that receive enormous biological funding (for instance, Rice is right next to the Houston Medical Center). I don’t believe they’re representative of the idea that a motivated student from just about any school can get into elite grad schools. In my opinion, although the cream may rise to the top, there has to be liquid already present for the rising to occur. The liquid in this case are the extensive research opportunities and rigorous academics that all of the schools he cited provide to their undergrads.</p>
<p>Oxford unfortunately offers only one NBB specific course. It’s expected that students will knock out their basic science courses before moving onto the main Atlanta campus to pursue their NBB degree. That’s why I didn’t initially recommend the Oxford route when I discussed Emory’s NBB major. I’ve known continuees (Oxford graduates who moved onto the main campus) who’ve pursued that path, but I wouldn’t recommend it for a student who’s interested in grad school. There are other reasons as well, but I don’t feel like elaborating on them since I need to get back to my apartment.</p>
<p>I’m just going to address a few comments in this thread…
There’s no need to divulge names, but I do feel you may have misinterpreted what your family friends meant by a “short list.” The applicant pool for neuroscience grad programs each year is sufficiently small that each candidate can be individually evaluated, regardless of undergrad institution. Many applicants end up working as lab techs for one or more years, so their undergrad institution might matter less than you think. For these reasons, I suspect that any sitting member of the UCSD Neuroscience grad program admissions committee would be hard-pressed to say that an applicant must come from one of your “short list” schools in order to be accepted.
I agree with this statement for the most part. I find it kind of funny that, of all the wonderful undergrad institutions out there, in your previous post you chose to include Swarthmore, Harvey Mudd, and Pomona on your “short list.” Those are great schools, for sure, but they really don’t have a foothold in the neuroscience community on account of the lack of independent, graduate-level neuroscience research. To my knowledge, for years the UCSD Neuroscience grad program didn’t have anyone from those schools matriculating. With regard to assessing the ability to handle the “graduate course load”…with few exceptions, the only graduate coursework that really matters is what happens in the lab. The graduate-level courses at UCSD and other neuroscience programs are typically: (1) not that much work, (2) not conceptually difficult, and (3) informative and useful.
Columbia has had an incredible neuroscience department for quite some time. Eric Kandel, Larry Abbott, and Rene Hen are there. I’m a big fan of younger investigator Fiona Doetsch’s work, too.</p>
<p>Look, I’m going to say this again, if you’re a high school student, choose a college that offers the environment (intellectual, social) and opportunities that you value. Take things one step at a time. Matriculate at the best school that’s the best fit for you. Things will work out. Don’t get ahead of yourself and gameplan for a specific grad school program on a career trajectory that, in all honesty, you probably won’t pursue.</p>
<p>Furman is indeed a nice school. That’s what kept it on my guy’s list even though they didn’t have much in neuro (they do have more than some schools). But again, he’s pre-med too, so where he went wasn’t really as much of an issue. Finances cut Furman. They were the only school that expected my high stats guy (or us) to pay more than 30K for his education… He had far better financial choices. Interestingly enough, he almost didn’t apply to URoc (weather). He decided to add them between Thanksgiving and Christmas because their research options intrigued him. He now considers that the best decision he almost didn’t make! He enjoys the research he’s doing and will contemplate whether he wants his Plan A (med school) or Plan B (research) or even if he wants to try to combine the two.</p>
<p>FWIW, Pittsburgh was his second choice as it’s also quite good with neuro and offered a bit of $$. He preferred URoc due to the campus (URoc has one - Pitt is urban), size (URoc is smaller), and the kids he met (URoc kids talked about and enjoyed research - Pitt kids talked about sports and the city). The latter, of course, could be quite subjective depending upon what kids he met, but that’s how it was for him.</p>
<p>Of the schools talked about on this thread, he considered all in the Eastern half of the US that offered merit aid. He did not consider those that did not (Ivies, etc) or western schools. </p>
<p>He liked Emory, but cut them when they required SAT II tests which he never did. They were the only school that required them (he was a homeschooler) and he didn’t want to take them just for one college. The rest didn’t care as he had other substantiation of grades (AP/DE in addition to his high ACT). It was easier to cut them from the list. If that’s not an issue for you, definitely consider Emory. He’d be mad (playful mad) at me for suggesting them as their inflexibility left a strong distaste in his memory AND they’re a competitor school to URoc, but eh, such is life.</p>
It’s representative of the well-known fact that graduate admissions varies tremendously by field. It <em>is</em> extremely frowned upon in my field to attend the same college for both undergraduate and graduate degrees, and my undergraduate advisor very frankly informed me that they’d throw my application in the trash if I applied. (I didn’t.) In other fields, it’s very common to attend the same university. It all depends.</p>
<p>Regardless of whether inbreeding is frowned upon or not, I think it is often a good idea for people to attend different universities. Each department has its own approaches and philosophies, and it’s good to be exposed to different things. </p>
<p>In any case, it would be absurd to pick an undergraduate college based on where one wants to do PhD work. That is premature in the extreme.</p>
<p>
I’m pretty familiar with Davidson but less so with its neuroscience offerings than biology or chemistry. It’s a great college with a nice campus in an upscale but nice town. Students are very friendly, the science profs I met were great, and the lab/research facilities are very impressive for a LAC. (Much nicer than anything I had as an undergrad at Duke, I might add…)</p>
<p>Very true. That’s another thing that PO’d him. All other schools he was interested in treated him like a normal student (a normal student with super high stats & AP/DE not just “mommy grades”). Emory didn’t. He got the impression they wouldn’t be friendly to homeschoolers. This would not apply to kids from other schooling situations - but if he had gone to our local ps, he wouldn’t have had the stats to get in, so we all make trade offs. </p>
<p>Fortunately, there are plenty of good schools out there and MOST are homeschooler friendly, so he was fine. He was just irked that they would differentiate and not see the forest due to all the trees… (and no other school did, so it stood out). If other schools he potentially liked wanted/required SAT II tests, they required them of all students, not just homeschoolers. But even then, once he eliminated those without merit aid, no other school required them and flat out told him the substantiation of grades he had was plenty.</p>
If that’s not an issue for you, definitely consider Emory. He’d be mad (playful mad) at me for suggesting them as their inflexibility left a strong distaste in his memory AND they’re a competitor school to URoc, but eh, such is life.</p>