<p>Did you go there? If not, the experiences of those who did are going to be a good deal more credible to me than those of a book (even the Fiske book).</p>
Your use of “better” in reference to the quoted post is inaccurate. I was discussing selectivity rather than academic quality.</p>
<p>I was not attempting to prove that Chicago was more selective than the others; I was proving that it was not less selective. Of course, using SAT scores is not extremely useful for Chicago admissions, as it puts little weight on them.</p>
<p>Contact with professors at any top university is tricky. Cal other publics seem to always be targeted on CC, but the fact is, professors at private research universities such Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, MIT and Stanford are just as hard to pin down. Those universities have anywhere from 7,000-15,000 graduate students and each professor is responsible for raising their own research funding, overseeing research projects, publishing major papers and guiding their 3-5 PhD students through their thesis. If you guys think that those profs are going to provide undergrads any sort of individualized attention, forget about it. </p>
<p>This said, most professors at top research universities, including Cal, teach undergraduates and they all have office hours weekly when students may drop by for one-on-one sessions if they have any questions. Of course, once students reach advanced level courses (Juniors and Seniors), classes tend to be more manageable and getting to know one’s professors is definitely possible. </p>
<p>In short, if one wishes to have close contact with faculty, research universities (private or public) are not ideal. For professor attention, one would be best served attending a Liberal Arts College such as Amherst or Williams.</p>
<p>Who is contributing more “prestige” to the university: the Nobel prize winning professor or the sheltered kid who finally scored 2400 on the SAT after four prep sessions? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Plus undergrad at Berkeley is different than smaller privates… but nothing to laugh at.</p>
<p>Class of 2012 matriculated UG profile was:</p>
<p>Math 650-770
Cr 630-730
This is unsuperscored unlike most privates and thats a class of about 4500 students</p>
<p>Plus 99% top ten percent of class.</p>
<p>20% acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Plus:</p>
<h1>3 UG Business School</h1>
<h1>2 (tied) UG Engineering School</h1>
<p>And you can talk to professor I was just at office hours for a professor today and I doubt its any more accesible at Harvard, Stanford or any other private. At Berkeley you just have to put the effort to meet the professor, which is probably how it is any university.</p>
<p>Are you telling me that undergrad students aren’t concern about or don’t actually do researches? What kind of college is that that does not let their students conduct researches?</p>
<p>There are many fine laboratories and research opportunities at liberal arts colleges. Reed College, for example, has the only undergraduate run nuclear reactor on their campus (under the psychology building).</p>
<p>This might be of interest to those interested in the topic of LACs and science education. These is a balanced article on the subject by Nobel winner Thomas R. Cech.</p>
<p>i’m not telling you anything. however, i was very intrigued at this concept of “areas that contribute to the betterment of the world”, perhaps you can expand on that notion – for the betterment of the CC community.</p>
You simplify the matter quite a bit, but generally I believe the quality of the student body contributes a lot more to the prestige of the university than the quality of the faculty. Without it’s accomplished students, Harvard would be nothing. It’s the math olympiad winners, the peace activists, the student leaders and the science geniuses that make Harvard incredible in my mind, not its Nobel Prize winning professors.</p>
<p>Professors are professors. They come and go from school to school in order to better fulfill their academic goals. When I think of BF Skinner, I don’t think “Harvard professor”. I think “award-winning psychiatrist” and “pioneer of the field of behavioral science”. If someone is so accomplished to be a Nobel prize winner, then his/her actions speak louder than a silly degree. In Skinner’s case, his achievments trump his Harvard pedigree. </p>
<p>A school like Harvard has a stellar reputation because employers and grad school adcoms know that its students are phenominal. Since most people don’t have international accolades like a Nobel Prize, their degrees act as litmus tests. A Harvard grad will be assumed to have a more highly advanced skill set than a Wichita State grad and rightfully so.</p>
<p>Let’s invert the question a bit: If Harvard’ student body were to be replaced with Berkeley’s student body, then would its reputation be the same? Absolutely not! It would drop because Berkeley students are much less accomplished. Even if Harvard had inferior professors, they would still be more than qualified to teach most classes because the material is the same and you don’t need a Nobel Prize to teach Intro to Economics.</p>
<p>Berkeley and Michigan are not top 25 schools.</p>
<p>I’d take the time to point out all the problems with that logic (edit:to clarify, I’m referring to ring of fire, another post got put inbetween), but it should be readily apparent to most people that read it.</p>
<p>Is Vanderbilt actually better than Michigan or Berkeley at anything besides education and maybe a handful of other small programs?</p>