How hard is it to get into UCSF med school from Berkeley?

[CalX]

<p>Diogenes, the main difference between Berkeley undergrad today vs 25 years ago is that 25 yrs ago USNWR was marginal. The concepts of introducing metrics like graduation rates and alumni donor rates were inconceivable.</p>

<p>Undergrads today actually have it better than 20 years ago. Back then, you weren’t even guaranteed dorm housing your freshman year. Clark Kerr was a high school for the blind and deaf, Foothill, Wada and many other dorms didn’t exist. Graduation rates were quite a bit lower, the grading was significantly tougher and the administration less service-oriented. Yet Berkeley UG was ranked top 5. It seems that class sizes have gone down a bit as well, somehow. Berkeley UG would still be ranked in the top 5 if we went with Gourman Reports and other pure academic ratings instead of the metrics introduced by USNWR.</p>

[ZepoLM]

<p>Thanks for all of the input</p>

[DRab]

<p>

Though it is true, that Berkeley professors do have more nobels than many Ivy League schools, such as Yale, and though some nobel-winners do teach undergrads, in general not many do.

</p>

<p>How does this compare to other schools? </p>

<p>

Some are great. Some are not so great. And it is difficult to switch out from the bad TA’s who determine your grade since so many classes at Berkeley are impacted.

</p>

<p>I think in many cases it is quite easy to switch sections. Lower div labs can be hard to switch out of, and some humanities and social science courses can be hard to switch out of, but I think in many cases it is pretty easy, really, and many GSIs will work with you if you simply talk to them.</p>

<p>

And classes are, in general, large so you may not notice much of a difference between a good TA and a bad one anyways.

</p>

<p>I think that’s a dubious claim.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

As well, you don’t see the larger subtext here, if Berkeley has more Nobels who go there as grad students or as faculty, it’s in good part due to the intellectual environment that the school fosters. Berkeley is a global intellectual pole. That’s much more of a spontaneous cultural manifestation than administrative PR excellence. Other schools have more money yet they have a hard time prying top Berkeley faculty away.

</p>

<p>I agree that Berkeley is a great place for GRADUATE school, especially for one’s PhD. In fact, I have always recommended that people should consider going to Berkeley for their PhD. It’s the undergrad program where the problems lie. After all, like I said, just because somebody is a great researcher doesn’t mean that he’s a good teacher. I’ve encountered numerous brilliant researchers who are terrible teachers. Bad teaching is liable to DIScourage undergrads from pursuing a subject, not encourage them. </p>

<p>Having brilliant researchers around is great for PhD students because what those students need most of all are lots of strong ground-breaking research projects to choose from. However, what undergrads need are good teachers. Some of the best teachers I have had have been some of my high school teachers, and none of them were brilliant researchers. Frankly, I believe some of them would have done a better job teaching certain college classes (especially the intro classes) than many profs do now. For example, I know quite a few people who have frankly said that their high school calculus class was better taught and better run than the Berkeley calculus classes, to the point that they wished that it was their high school math teacher who was teaching them Math 1AB or Math 53. </p>

<p>

It’s ridiculous to state that applicants to Berkeley graduate engineering dept don’t bother applying to Stanford because they don’t think Stanford would accept them. Stanford graduate engineering rep isn’t better than Berkeley’s. A lot of Berkeley engineers look down at Stanford as too “softcore” a school (not the same dynamics with MIT, which is respected.)

</p>

<p>Huh? Read what I posted again, and you will note that I said that the Berkeley grad engineering department actually has a LOWER admit rate than Stanford does, which may indicate that the Berkeley grad engineering department is more selective. The point of this is that USNews credits Berkeley’s grad engineering with high selectivity (thus moving them up the rankings). Hence, it seems to me that Berkeley is getting a pretty good deal from USNews, when you look at the graduate rankings. </p>

<p>

Berkeley UG has poor PR. They need to do what Haas has done, use practical measure that can improve many of their USNWR metrics, but they don’t. Some of the problem is arrogance, the admin looks down on that kind of marketing and feels it shouldn’t do anything because “it is Berkeley”. Schools with smaller names try harder in terms of selling/packaging themselves to HS students (see USC).

</p>

<p>I am less concerned with Berkeley’s supposedly poor PR than about Berkeley’s actual problems. Why should there be students who have trouble getting the major they want? Why does Berkeley trap some engineering undergrads into majors they don’t want? Why should transfer students be allowed to skip over notorious weeders? Why should Berkeley continue to condone a hardened core of students who don’t go to class and don’t study for weeks at a time and are basically majoring in drinking and partying? </p>

<p>Look at it this way. If Berkeley were able to fix its problems, then Berkeley would have a higher quality educational product. It is always easier to market a product that is of higher quality. For example, Toyota in the 1960’s used to be a laughing stock of poor quality. Then Toyota vastly improved the quality and reliability of its cars. As a result, Toyota has become synonymous with extremely reliable cars, winning the JD Power quality rankings year after year after year, to the point that when consumers think of high reliability in cars, they think of Toyota. If Berkeley could improve the quality of its offering, then Berkeley would have a better story to communicate to the world.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Undergrads today actually have it better than 20 years ago. Back then, you weren’t even guaranteed dorm housing your freshman year. Clark Kerr was a high school for the blind and deaf, Foothill, Wada and many other dorms didn’t exist. Graduation rates were quite a bit lower, the grading was significantly tougher and the administration less service-oriented. Yet Berkeley UG was ranked top 5. It seems that class sizes have gone down a bit as well, somehow. Berkeley UG would still be ranked in the top 5 if we went with Gourman Reports and other pure academic ratings instead of the metrics introduced by USNWR.

</p>

<p>Yeah, well, the fact is, higher education in general has gotten better in the last 20 years. Graduation rates in general have risen, grade inflation has taken ahold at most schools. </p>

<p>However, I don’t recall ever seeing Berkeley in the top 5, even 20 years ago, simply because, honestly, that would mean replacing one of HYPSM. It’s hard to fathom that Berkeley undergrad was good enough to surpass any of HYPSM even 20 years ago, and I am quite sure that the cross-admit data would show that HYPSM was beating Berkeley even in those days. </p>

<p>I believe the highest I ever saw Berkeley was maybe #8 or so. </p>

<p>

Berkeley UG has poor PR. They need to do what Haas has done, use practical measure that can improve many of their USNWR metrics, but they don’t. Some of the problem is arrogance, the admin looks down on that kind of marketing and feels it shouldn’t do anything because “it is Berkeley”. Schools with smaller names try harder in terms of selling/packaging themselves to HS students (see USC).

</p>

<p>Ok, have it your way. Even if you are right and it’s all a matter of bad PR, that just demonstrates a certain lack of responsiveness of the administration, in that the administration is simply not interested in helping the undergrad program. And that gets back to something I’ve said in other posts - that the Berkeley administration just doesn’t really care very much about the undergrads, preferring to lavish its attention upon the graduate students. But that means that Berkeley is a very good place to go for graduate school, but less so for undergrad. It’s still pretty good, but certainly not as good as it could be.</p>

[DRab]

<p>The administration is not so monolithic as you speak about it, sakky, and not so apathetic. For instance, I know for a fact one particularly responsive member who implemented or improved many programs, from the freshmen/sophomore seminars and discovery courses to a new advising system (advisors and peer advisors going to the units/foothill area on a certain scheduled basis every week to improve advising). What about the new housing? While Berkeley’s administration in general certainly could be more responsive, I think it’s unfair to portray it as almost completely unresponsive.</p>

[DlOGENES]

<p>Though CalX is right that many of the metrics USNews uses seem a little archaic, many are things people want out of college.</p>

<p>Alumni Contributions is a good proxy of how strong the alumni network is and the ease with which you can get a job through networking alone.</p>

<p>The quality of your peers and selectivity of your institution do increase the overall quality of your experience because people learn mostly through socialization.</p>

<p>These are 2 areas which Berkeley is very weak in, and I think its spot at around 20 is still quite an accomplishment with these handicaps.</p>

<p>But there are still failings, and one shouldn’t discount them as some sort of USNews methodology nonsense.</p>

[unlimitedx]

<p>Random thought: I would say if Berkeley received more funding, the university would use all/most of the funding to maintain/further improve the quality of the graduate programs rather than improving the undergrad.</p>

[DRab]

<p>I disagree. i think it would be spread around in different areas, some to undergrads, some to grads, some to building stuff, some to outreach, etc.</p>

[sakky]

<p>Drab, I never said that the administration never does anything at all.</p>

<p>But to me, one of the biggest symbols of the unresponsiveness of the Berkeley administration is the problem of impacted majors. I can understand that in certain years, certain majors might get impacted because of unusually high demand. But that’s when the administration is supposed to shift resources to alleviate that impaction for future classes. That has not happened - in fact, the impaction has become worse.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example. 10 years ago, the only L&S major that was impacted was CS. Anybody in L&S who wanted to major in econ was allowed to do so. Anybody who wanted to major in psychology was allowed to do so. Anybody who wanted to major in Mass Comm was allowed to do so.</p>

<p>Now, all of these majors (and others too) are impacted. If things keep going like this, in the future, we will have many more majors that are impacted. </p>

<p>I don’t understand why Berkeley can’t just increase the number of available spaces in those majors. Why is this such a problem? To find the resources, Berkeley can just take resources from the unpopular majors that have very low student demand. Or just shut down those majors entirely. Why not? Berkeley shut down all of the mining engineering and petroleum engineering undergraduate programs for lack of student interest, despite Berkeley’s long tradition as a prominent mining school (as demonstrated by the names of the Hearst Mining Building and Hearst Mining Circle). I think that’s perfectly fair. If more students want to study Civil Engineering and not petroleum engineering, then it is entirely fair that Berkeley shift resources from PetE to Civil Engineering. By the same token if lots of Berkeley students want to study a certain major in L&S (like econ or CS) , then Berkeley ought to shift resources to that major. </p>

<p>But that’s just one example. Obviously Berkeley has lots of things in its undergrad program that can and should be improved. Does the administration sometimes do helpful things? Sure. But it needs to be doing a whole lot more. </p>

<p>This is why I suspect that unlimitedX is largely right. I suspect that even if Berkeley were to magically get a huge pot of money, they probably wouldn’t spend much of it to improve undergraduate education, instead devoting the lion’s share to the graduate programs. The real issue to me is not the lack of money, it’s really the lack of an administrative culture that values the undergraduates.</p>

[op_city]

<p>Although this has nothing to do with your overall point Sakky, but I would have loved to have my high school math teacher for Math 1A and Math 1B. My professor for Math 1A in particular was just terrible. Winning a noble prize doesn’t automatically make you a good teacher.</p>

[DRab]

<p>I agree, winning a Nobel doesn’t make you a good teacher. I never took (nor intend to take) Math 1A or 1B. However, my high school calc teacher was a jerk, so I’d at least roll the di at Berkeley to find someone better. But me, I stalk ratemyprofessor.com and wouldn’t even consider taking it with anyone with below average reviews (if there were more than 2 or 3).</p>

[sakky]

<p>Ratemyprofessors - now there’s an interesting website. Interesting because I see that professors that were known to be bad 10 years ago are still there, and current students are STILL ranking them poorly.</p>

<p>For example, take the infamous math professor Hun-Hsing Wu. Before ratemyprofessors.com existed, heck, before most people had ever even heard of the Internet, Wu was known at Berkeley as a bad math prof. I look at ratemyprofessors.com, and unsurprisingly, he’s still known as a bad math prof. In other words, nothing has changed at all.</p>

<p>But that’s precisely what is sad about the situation. A long time ago, Wu was teaching lower division math courses, and doing it badly, as evidenced by poor teaching ratings and a strong reputation among the students as being a bad teacher. Years later, the math department is STILL having Wu teach lower division courses badly. In other words, Wu has been providing poor math teaching to undergrads for at least a decade now, and probaby a lot longer than that. </p>

<p>Seriously, what’s up with that? It’s one thing for a department to let a new guy try to teach undergrads. If it turns out that he teaches them badly (as evidenced by the teaching evals), then you just send in some other guy to teach it next time. But it’s quite another thing to have your undergrad classes be taught by a bad teacher over and over again. In the case of Wu, he’s a bad teacher, the department knows he’s a bad teacher, and in fact, the department has known it for at least a decade now. But they keep sending him out there to teach undergrads anyway.</p>

<p>In fact, it actually gets worse. In Spring 06’, not only was Wu teaching undergrads, he was actually teaching one of the special fresh/soph seminars (Math 39). For those who don’t know, these fresh/soph seminars are those special small seminars designed to provide a limited number of Berkeley undergrads with a small and intimate academic experience with a Berkeley prof and to alleviate Berkeley’s problems with impersonality and coldness. I happen to believe that these seminars are a fantastic idea - but only when run by profs who are good teachers. There’s no point in creating a highly personal and intimate seminar class if the teacher is bad. In fact, I would say that it’s actually counterproductive to do this - that you’d be better off not having these seminars at all than having them run by bad teachers. Yet who did the Math department decide to have teaching its fresh/soph seminar in the spring? Wu. Come on, what’s up with that? That’s almost like a slap in the face. You have a prof This just tells me that the Math department really doesn’t take undergrad teaching seriously at all. The purpose of these seminars is to inspire undergrads by demonstrating to them the wonder and joy of a particular discipline in a highly intimate environment, yet the math department decides to have its seminar taught by a prof who has a long-standing reputation as a bad teacher. </p>

<p>If this is the way that Berkeley runs its undergrad teaching, then I have to ask - why even have prof evals at all? By prof evals, I mean those sheets that students fill out on the last day of each class in which the profs get rated for their teaching effectiveness. Why even have these evals, if bad teachers still end up teaching undergrads anyway? Seriously, if nothing is going to change via these evals, then why even do it? In the case of Wu, all his bad evals have apparently not changed a thing.</p>

[DRab]

<p>sakky, do you know how freshmen and sophomore seminars are creaeted each semester? A faculty member applies to teach it, as far as I know (as in not because a departmet make him or her), voluntarily. Now L and S allowed him to it, sure, but it’s not as if they ran to him in particular begging him to teach seminars.</p>

<p>Then you expand to the math department. Then the university. “The way Berkeley runs its undergraduate teaching . . .” I really am not sure what that means in this context. As far as I’ve heard, prof evaluations are used primarily to hinder or help advance salary increases- profs with terrible evaluations get raises at a much slower pace than those with positive evaluations. I bet they have some influence on tenure as well. In addition, many departments (most notably the college of engineering) release some of this data to students. Could Berkeley (its departments and administration) hire and fire based on these? Sure. Could they do even more than that, or more than they do now about 'em? Sure. But this is a small thing, perhaps indicative or more, but clearly not in any self-evident manner. Do I think you could find other examples of undergraduates not being the first thing on some, maybe even many aspects of Berkeley? Probably. Do I think every prof and administrator has undergraduate teaching as their primary or sole idea at any moment? No. Do I think this is true at Harvard or Stanford? Also a big no. More there than at Berkeley? Depends. Do I think that because X does something Berkeley should? No, sakky, I don’t, but lets look at things in perspective.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

sakky, do you know how freshmen and sophomore seminars are creaeted each semester? A faculty member applies to teach it, as far as I know (as in not because a departmet make him or her), voluntarily. Now L and S allowed him to it, sure, but it’s not as if they ran to him in particular begging him to teach seminars.

</p>

<p>You just stated the problem right there - the math department let him do it. The math department knows Wu is a bad teacher, and in fact, has known it for at least a decade. A conscientious math department would not have a guy like that to teach a lower-division seminar. Like I said, it’s probably better to simply not teach a lower-division seminar at all than to have it taught by somebody that you know is a bad teacher. </p>

<p>

As far as I’ve heard, prof evaluations are used primarily to hinder or help advance salary increases- profs with terrible evaluations get raises at a much slower pace than those with positive evaluations. I bet they have some influence on tenure as well. In addition, many departments (most notably the college of engineering) release some of this data to students.

</p>

<p>As far as the tenure issue is concerned, the problem comes when a guy already HAS tenure (as Wu has). You can’t revoke tenure to a guy who already has it. And you can’t fire a tenured guy for bad teaching. After all, tenure by definition means that you can’t be fired without cause, and sadly, bad teaching is not considered to be ‘cause’. </p>

<p>The salary/promotion issue is also I believe untrue, at least as far as the math department is concerned. Math salaries and promotions are based almost solely on research acumen. And besides, even if the salary issue was true, it hardly matters. As I have said on other posts, the fact is, prof’s in the technical disciplines tend to get the bulk of their pay from side consulting work. Even if a prof were to be docked some of his professorial pay, it would hardly matter compared to the kind of money he could make off that side work. </p>

<p>

In addition, many departments (most notably the college of engineering) release some of this data to students

</p>

<p>This is the only instance where I can see that the prof evals could be valuable, and where ratemyprofessors.com is also valuable, because the information allows students to avoid bad profs. The problem is that most departments refuse to release this information to students (which is where ratemyprofessors.com steps in), as if they have something to hide (which, in many cases, they do). It also doesn’t alleviate the problem of being forced to take a class with a bad prof simply because he happens to be teaching the class that is next on a sequence of classes that you have to take in order. For example, if you’re a chemical engineering student, you HAVE to take ChemE 140 in your sophomore fall semester, and then you HAVE to take ChemE141 in the upcoming spring, if you want to graduate on time. These courses are only taught once a year, and they are the gateways to the rest of the ChemE courses. So if they happen to be taught by bad profs at the time you need to take them, you’re screwed. </p>

<p>The REAL solution is for a department to prevent bad teachers from teaching required undergrad classes. Heck, I admit that I would have probably preferred to have my high school calculus teacher be the one to teach my lower division math courses. </p>

<p>Now, I agree with you that other research universities also often times don’t really care about teaching. But that just leads to one of my other points that I have made here on CC which is that people ought to have more respect for the elite LAC’s. All of my personal experience with bad teaching at research universities has given me great respect for the LAC’s. Good teaching really is a gift that not all people have, and good teaching really does influence how much you can learn from a class and how inspired you will be about a particular subject. Few things can kill student enthusiasm faster than bad teaching can.</p>

[DRab]

<p>Bah, deleted post. Oh, well. I forget most of it, but the ending parts were about my reading ratemyprof.com for a handful of elite LACs (Pomona, Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, Vassar, Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd), and found plenty of average and negative professorial reviews, and was unsure how this compared to Berkeley. These sites have fewer reviews, and some (such as Amherst) appear to have much fewer negative profs. I end with this- the highly educated and the rich seem to know and respect LACs enough, and many find out about them in high school or during the college admissions process. The rich also seem to respect them enough (yes, the rich are often also the highly educated). I think society as a whole could respect them more, but that some respect LACs enough- some more than enough.</p>

[twilightzer0]

<p>I thought acceptance rate into UCSF from Cal was like 20%. I remember reading that somewhere on another thread, and I don’t recall anyone contradicting the stats there. I’ll try to dig it up again. </p>

<p>Anyway, “how hard is it” really depends on you. If you can succeed at one place, you’re likely to at another as well. If you can’t…well try harder.</p>

[sakky]

<p>I’m contradicting it. It’s not even close to 20%.</p>

<p><a href=“http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm#ucsf[/url]”>http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm#ucsf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[twilightzer0]

<p>Yes, but as this thread has gone over like 50 times, those are based on student responses. Those likely do not reflect the actual acceptance rates.</p>

[DRab]

<p>I bet it isn’t 20%. I bet what is accurate is that 20% (I thought it was more?) of UCSF is comprised of former Berkeley students.</p>