utrollinbrah? wrote:
Not true. Comparing the curriculum of say, Computer Science at Berkeley (EECS) vs. a Cal State or even a lower UC like UCI is massive. The rigorousness of these programs at Berkeley (which is more competitive than most of the Ivy Leagues due to lack of grade inflation) is huge when compared to most other schools.
We are talking about education not competitiveness.
Fof wrote:
dnsnsnnsn wrote:The engineering and sciences at Berkeley are better than 99% of other programs.
Based on what? Quality of science and engineering are two subjects that are least likely to be dependent on where you go to school.
Total nonsense. You could say that may be true for lit or poly sci, but the facilities are top notch at these research programs. It is actually very dependent on where you go. The big research bucks bring the big talent.
All of the engineering programs at U.C. Berkeley are in the top five in the nation, with the exception of the Biomedical Engineering (10th).
It's not just US News - which ranks Cal at 3rd after MIT and Stanford - there are many mass surveys that rank the quality of science and engineering as among the best in the world (1st and 3rd, respectively):
http://www.shanghairanking.com/World-University-Rankings/University-of-California-Berkeley.htmlI suspect you haven't attended these programs.
It's like saying "well every team is just as hard to get on and stay on as Oregon . . . running is the least dependent on where you go to school."
Nonsense.
And as an undergrad, almost all of these resources and professors are not accessible to you.
that is . . . wrote:
Fof wrote:Based on what? Quality of science and engineering are two subjects that are least likely to be dependent on where you go to school.
Total nonsense. You could say that may be true for lit or poly sci, but the facilities are top notch at these research programs. It is actually very dependent on where you go. The big research bucks bring the big talent.
All of the engineering programs at U.C. Berkeley are in the top five in the nation, with the exception of the Biomedical Engineering (10th).
It's not just US News - which ranks Cal at 3rd after MIT and Stanford - there are many mass surveys that rank the quality of science and engineering as among the best in the world (1st and 3rd, respectively):
http://www.shanghairanking.com/World-University-Rankings/University-of-California-Berkeley.htmlI suspect you haven't attended these programs.
It's like saying "well every team is just as hard to get on and stay on as Oregon . . . running is the least dependent on where you go to school."
Nonsense.
Nope. You're wrong.
You can't at all say that for subjects like lit or poly sci. Those are subjective subjects. Math, science, and engineering are not.
Having top notch research facilities in order to attract big talent is irrelevant to the conversation we're having here. Undergrads aren't doing big budget research. We are talking about undergraduate education. Having or not having a particle accelerator at your school doesn't determine how well you will learn elementary Calculus.
US News, mass surveys, and the Shanghai rankings are also irrelevant to this conversation. Those are ranking universities not undergraduate programs (yes I'm aware there are rankings for undergrad programs but that's not what you have provided). Furthermore, they are surveys. Surveys are opinions not fact nor scientific. If you even bother to read the criteria of these ranking systems, you'd see that there is very little if at all anything to do with ranking the actual education and ability acquired at these schools.
Your running analogy makes no sense. A more sensical version of your failed attempt at a relevant analogy would be "some teams are harder or easier to get on than others, but your actual success in improving is not very dependent on which team you get on". That is correct.
Your problem is that you are confusing or refusing to separate entry standards, prestige/reputation, and the actual education. Two of these things are dependent on where you go. The other isn't.
Your suspicion is incorrect. I've attended and currently do research at one of these high ranking programs.
sadfasdfadsfads wrote:
And as an undergrad, almost all of these resources and professors are not accessible to you.
Yeah you definitely didn't attend.
I started doing undergrad research in my 3rd year. Published my senior year. Had access to all sorts of stuff not available to most university students. Lot's of my friends did research there too.
Got into grad school in that same lab. Most from Stanford and MIT as well as a handful of others, as well as lot's of internationals. Great experience.
And how do you not have access to professors? you just walk into their office hours. I did that plenty.
I have taught at other universities and while all engineering programs are tough, the ones at the top 5 are much more demanding and make you an extremely hot commodity in the hiring market.
sndnsbs
Then you must attend a shitty program by your logic.
Why must I? Exactly what logic are you talking about? I gave an explanation not an argument. Do you not know what logic is?
sndnsbs wrote:
Fof wrote:Undergrad is undergrad
Yup.
High school is high school.
A company is a company.
A race is a race.
Look, I attended the local jc and got a much better education that I would I had attended MIT.
Two things being equal does not make all other two things equal.
Why are you telling me about your jc experience? You are supporting the explanation that I'm giving not yours. Do you not see that? Even besides you, I know several other people who indeed did learn jiust as much in their jc classes as those that took the college versions of those same classes. Thanks for the support.
sndnsbs wrote:
I guess they didn't teach sarcasm at your university.
Maybe if it was lower ranking you would have learned more.
There are rankings for a reason bozo. Don't tell us that MIT is the same quality of education as an online program.
You have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't say those rankings exist for no reason. I also didn't say that MIT is the same quality as an online program. That makes you the bozo. Try rereading this thread.
No, they didn't teach sarcasm at my university. I've never heard of sarcasm being taught at any university. Are you saying that sarcasm is a class at lower ranking schools?
Fof wrote:
dnsnsnnsn wrote:The engineering and sciences at Berkeley are better than 99% of other programs.
Based on what? Quality of science and engineering are two subjects that are least likely to be dependent on where you go to school.
The ARWU Top 100 are on par with each other. I meet with our staff and email staff at comparable schools to author one-of-a-kind mid terms and finals at the beginning of the term. The tests are harder at the Top 100. I have experience teaching as a part timer, Micro Bio, Engr Math, Physics, graduate Math, etc. at HS, JC, state schools, UC extensions, Top 100, etc.
Retired Bio Med wrote:
The ARWU Top 100 are on par with each other. I meet with our staff and email staff at comparable schools to author one-of-a-kind mid terms and finals at the beginning of the term. The tests are harder at the Top 100. I have experience teaching as a part timer, Micro Bio, Engr Math, Physics, graduate Math, etc. at HS, JC, state schools, UC extensions, Top 100, etc.
What kind of classes did have exams not specific to the prof? I've never heard of that.
Also, don't you think the top 100 is stretching it a bit? University of Missouri is on par with Harvard and Princeton?
Regardless, congrats to Stephanie!
Honestly good for her and great for Cal now they have a 2 women team instead of just one Knights.