Is UC Berkeley or the University of Richmond better for undergraduate teaching?

The biggest practical tradeoff is scale: Berkeley gives you a far larger academic ecosystem with exceptional faculty and course options, but Richmond is much more intentionally built around small classes, closer professor access, and undergraduate attention. If your main priority is day-to-day teaching experience, Richmond usually has the clearer edge. Berkeley can absolutely offer outstanding instruction, but the classroom experience is less consistently personal because of its size and research focus.

At Richmond, undergraduates are the center of the institution. You are more likely to have smaller discussion-based classes earlier, know your professors personally, and get direct mentoring without competing with large numbers of graduate students. That matters if you want frequent feedback, easy office-hour access, and classes where participation is a real part of how the course runs.

At Berkeley, the upside is academic depth. You can learn from world-class scholars, and in many departments the strongest upper-division courses are excellent. But introductory classes are often much larger, and access can depend more on your initiative, the department, and whether you seek out smaller seminars, office hours, or research opportunities.

Another practical point is who teaches you. Richmond is more likely to have faculty whose roles are heavily focused on undergraduate instruction. Berkeley has many brilliant professors, but at a major research university their time is divided among research, graduate advising, and large institutional responsibilities.

For undergraduate teaching and professor access specifically, I would pick the University of Richmond over UC Berkeley. Richmond is better aligned with the kind of close, teaching-focused environment you are describing.