Mark a survey and Inform Staff
Please do not overuse -- this is just intended to notify SR staff of probably invalid surveys. We will not "edit" or censor existing valid surveys.
| Existing Review Notes: Administration: Peer Review:
Statistical Analyzer: |
| Survey (Identifying information hidden.) |
ADKEY: Anywhere: Charac: ContactOk: Csalary: Gender: GoingWell: HigherED: Intelligence: Motivation: Position1: Position2: Position3: Position4: Position5: Position6: Preparedness: Professional: Relevance: Reputation: ReviewLevel: Satisfied: Ssalary: StartingJob: StillInField: UContrib1: UContrib2: UContrib3: UContrib4: WhereURNow1: WhereURNow2: WhereURNow3: WhereURNow4: WhereURNow5: WhereURNow6: WhereURNow7: WhereURNow8: Year: Valid Email Address The problem I had with Berkeley is that they put too much attention on their graduate (chemistry) program (which is not surprising because they are consistently ranked #1), and not enough on their undergraduate program. I had a hard time finding a professor who would accept me into his/her group to do undergraduate research. I ended up not having any undergraduate research experience at Cal (thankfully I interned at a company so I had research experience to show when I applied to grad school). Basically just from completing all the course work required for the BS degree, I left Berkeley feeling somewhat inadequate in my training and not entirely ready to join the industry as a BS chemist. I went to UCLA for my PhD, and from my interaction with the undergrads there, mostly as a TA, I got a pretty good impression of their chemistry undergraduate program. Their program is much more comprehensive and I feel that the chemistry undergraduates there get a much more well-rounded education. The professors are also more enthusiastic about taking in undergrads into their group.Basically, if I get to do it again, knowing what I know now, I would have gone to UCLA for undergrad, and then apply to Berkeley for grad school. |
