<p>re: handholding....on a campus tour of a NE LAC, the guide mentioned that she was sick and missed a class for two days straight, and the prof called her dorm to inquire about her....</p>
<p>That sounds like a plus to me...that there is that type of community where faculty take the time to care about their students</p>
<p>Fairwind, it most certainly is a plus...and a minus. It is a double edged sword. Same with research insitutions. One can say that at a LAC, the faculty is committed to teach undergrads and that the school pays very close attention to the students. Taken to the extreme, and it can easily happen, students are pampered too much and never really develop real-worl survival instincts. At large universities, like Harvard or Cal, students are sometimes ignored and the faculty has very little time for undergrads, but this forces students to take initative, be self-starters and work with ambiguity.</p>
<p>In short, neither system is perfect. That is all I was saying.</p>
<p>Thanks bluebayou, at least I understand the point now. Though I couldn't help but think the prof. was calling because the course had a limit on unexcused absences.</p>
<p>I recall now that one of my daughter's classes was invited to the profs. house for dinner at the end of last semester.</p>
<p>The general impression I get from these examples is that perhaps the undergrads here are treated more like grad students are at the bigger schools. Or at least that's more like how I was treated at grad school. I remember the contrast between grad school and my experience as an undergrad at the same place was quite stark. All these profs. who were distant when I was an undergrad all of a sudden became human.</p>
<p>My daughter's class sizes this semester are: 15, 12, 6, 30, and 8.</p>
<p>In my mind there is a huge difference between a class of <20 and a class of 30+. In the larger classes you are more confined to lecture format. There is less discussion, and the discussion there is must be distributed among all the questioners. IMO there tends to be fewer papers given, with less commentary/ feedback on each one, since papers are time-consuming to grade. At the bigger schools, in the bigger classes, the papers will frequently be graded by TAs, not professors. One is far more likely to skip class in the larger classes also, and come to class unprepared.</p>
<p>The smaller classes can be more demanding, even given the same subject matter, because students have to come to class prepared and more graded work may be required of them.</p>
<p>I still remember our Bryn Mawr tour where the guide said that students could take some courses at Penn, but it was frowned on since typically the same course at Bryn Mawr or Haverford would require more work, such as additional papers.</p>
<p>The experience of sitting in a huge lecture hall, listening to a Prof. on a podium lecturing in Biology to 1,000 students, is forever ingrained in my mind. I might as well have just stayed home & read the textbook. Whatever the alleged "pampering" level may be, I think my daughter is getting far more for our money, in terms of quality of direct product provided, than I got. Just my opinion.</p>
<p>counterpoint to the idea that more classroom discussion is a good thing:</p>
<p>Student discussion should not be the dominant method of instruction in any undergraduate class except seminars. Some discussion is beneficial for developing critcal thinking and communication skills. However, the dominant method of instruction should be the instructor teaching students- imparting expertise and knowledge to students. Discussions have their place but are educationally inefficient. Furthermore, discussions might be monopolized by the more vocal students who do not necessarily have the most to share. Sometimes personality conflicts can cause hard feelings. Do parents pay thousands of dollars to have their children talk to each other at college? I think they implicitly pay for faculty to impart their knowledge and judgement to their children. Note that I am referring to the dominant method of instruction in any particular course. I wonder whether discussions are a way for lazy faculty to teach.</p>
<p>collegehelp pointed out, "Some discussion is beneficial for developing critical thinking and communication skills."</p>
<p>I quite agree. It's not possible to get this in large classes . In smaller classes it's possible, but by no means mandatory if that format is inappropriate for the particular class/subject. </p>
<p>An inappropriate quantity/ quality of discussion is, well, inappropriate. I have no personal experience to suggest that an inappropriate amount of discussion necessarily occurs in smaller classes, although I can see where this potential problem can only occur in such a setting. My focus is more on the achievement of the level of discussion that I feel is desirable. I have to trust the professors to structure the format of their classes appropriately, but it's nice to know they have the option of employing a discussion format if it is in fact appropriate.</p>
<p>In classes where the dominant method of instruction is the instructor teaching students, in my experience there frequently is still some time devoted to addressing questions. In this case I would think it would be nice to know that your questions are ones that will be addressed, versus the questions of myriad others among the 1.000 students sitting in the lecture hall.</p>
<p>Monydayd, you must have had a horrible experience. I have never been in a class with over 250 students...and about two thirds of my classes at Michigan had fewer than 30 students. One does not have to go to a LAC to have a great education. One of my classes at 6 students and it was taught by two world class professors. The majority of my Junior and Senior classes had fewer than 25 students. Only 5 or 6 (out of more than 40) classes had over 100 students...and probably another 10 or so had between 40 and 70. The remaining classes all had fewer than 40 students.</p>