<p>The first year of Chem PhD at Duke was a review from undergrad @ William & Mary. I was very well prepared</p>
<p>"For example, many of the intro foreign language courses at Harvard are completely taught by TA's. Harvard freshman calculus is also often times taught by TA's."</p>
<p>That is pure propaganda.</p>
<p>At Harvard, language courses have to be taught by native speakers, some of which have temporary Teaching fellow positions. Hardly your typical TA.</p>
<p>High school level math for students catching up to college level can be taught by grad students (many of which are amazing). College level math classes are all taught by professors. </p>
<p>Freshman creative writing classes may also be led by authors who are not professors. </p>
<p>Nobody disputes that LACs can provide excellent preparation for grad school. That is not the point. The point is that at a major research university you can start being involved in frontline research as an undergrad, if you so wish. </p>
<p>At many research universities, It is also generally easier to skip the intro level classes and jump into higher level classes, even graduate level classes. Many LACs are very skimpy with AP credits and make it virtually impossible to skip intro level calculus, physics, chemistry or bio.</p>
<p>Interesting discussion, thanks. One minor point - the Caltech as small peer group concept is a bit of a red herring, as Caltech is one big peer group. The question I raised was more specifically regarding the experience of being in a small peer group on a campus where the majority of students have other interests.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"For example, many of the intro foreign language courses at Harvard are completely taught by TA's. Harvard freshman calculus is also often times taught by TA's."</p>
<p>That is pure propaganda.</p>
<p>At Harvard, language courses have to be taught by native speakers, some of which have temporary Teaching fellow positions. Hardly your typical TA.</p>
<p>High school level math for students catching up to college level can be taught by grad students (many of which are amazing). College level math classes are all taught by professors. </p>
<p>Freshman creative writing classes may also be led by authors who are not professors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I hardly see how this is a cogent response. Your prior quote was </p>
<p>
[quote]
I frankly do not know of any large, research oriented institutions where the material for a class is taught by TAs/RAs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And so I gave you an example of one that did. You didn't say anything in your prior post about TA/RA's that were native language speakers, or make any exception to beginning math courses or creative writing courses. In short, you gave no caveats at all. You simply asserted that you didn't know of any large research,oriented institutions where the material for a class was taught by TA/RA's. I gave you an example.</p>
<p>Come on, cellardwellard, I don't want to be overly combative, but I think you should just concede that what you wrote in post #16 was simply too strong of a statement. There are indeed large research universities that use TA/RA's to teach certain classes. There's nothing wrong with conceding that point. I have sometimes made statements that, in retrospect, were too strong. We've all done it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Nobody disputes that LACs can provide excellent preparation for grad school. That is not the point. The point is that at a major research university you can start being involved in frontline research as an undergrad, if you so wish.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And again, I would ask - just how useful is that? As has been pointed out by others, the LAC's seem to be highly successful in getting their grads into PhD programs, despite the fact that they don't seem to offer opportunities for front-line research. Like I said, I am sure there are some former UCLA undergrads who did front-line research and who would have liked to have gone to Caltech to get their PhD's, but didn't get in because Caltech admitted somebody from a LAC instead. </p>
<p>For example, consider the people who got PhD's at Caltech in 2005. More of them did their undergrad at Amherst (2) than at UCLA (1). Note - you don't count the guy who did his MS at UCLA. I'm just talking about undergrad here. There was also one guy who came from Swarthmore and one guy from Williams. So the combination of AWS beat UCLA by 4 to 1, even though UCLA has 4 times the number of undergrads that AWS have combined, and UCLA is a local school (hence UCLA grads are more likely to apply to and matriculate at Caltech for grad school than are grads from AWS, many of which will prefer to head off to places like Harvard or MIT). </p>
<p>So the supposed lack of frontline research at AWS evidently didn't hurt those students very much, as they still went to finish their PhD's at Caltech. That is, unless you want to assert that Caltech was stupid for admitting such supposedly unqualified students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
At many research universities, It is also generally easier to skip the intro level classes and jump into higher level classes, even graduate level classes. Many LACs are very skimpy with AP credits and make it virtually impossible to skip intro level calculus, physics, chemistry or bio.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would hardly state this as a generalization. Many research universities are also extremely skimpy when it comes to AP credits. Caltech, for example, rarely gives credit for AP tests, preferring to use its own (extremely difficult) placement exams. The assignment of AP credit seems to vary from school-to-school, and I am not aware of any data that would suggest that one can generalize between LAC's vs. research universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the Caltech as small peer group concept is a bit of a red herring, as Caltech is one big peer group. The question I raised was more specifically regarding the experience of being in a small peer group on a campus where the majority of students have other interests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I didn't know about any necessary stipulation that the 'the majority of students have other interests' in your previous post. I just thought you were talking about smallness in general, and I was just pointing out that not all research universities are large. Caltech in particular is smaller than most LAC's.</p>
<p>Sakky:</p>
<br>
<p>For example, consider the people who got PhD's at Caltech in 2005. More of them did their undergrad at Amherst (2) than at UCLA (1). Note - you don't count the guy who did his MS at UCLA. I'm just talking about undergrad here. There was also one guy who came from Swarthmore and one guy from Williams. So the combination of AWS beat UCLA by 4 to 1, even though UCLA has 4 times the number of undergrads that AWS have combined, and UCLA is a local school (hence UCLA grads are more likely to apply to and matriculate at Caltech for grad school than are grads from AWS, many of which will prefer to head off to places like Harvard or MIT).</p>
<br>
<p><a href="http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/05/phd.pdf">http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/05/phd.pdf</a><</p>
<p>Heck, there were as many Caltech Ph.D recipients with baccalaureates from Bowdoin, Bates, Pomona, Wesleyan, Wabash, Williams and Swarthmore (1 each) as there were from Chicago, Case-Western, Carnegie-Mellon and Stanford (!!!).</p>
<p>Sakky:</p>
<p>There is a big difference between a TA or RA , which typically designates a student and connotes some lower level of skill as compared to a professor and a Teaching Fellow or author who can bring direct knowledge or experience and who is a professional in the field. </p>
<p>The absence of TA/RAs is often brought up as a distinguishing factor in favor of education at LACs as opposed to research universities and my main point is that this is a red herring.</p>
<p>The PhD graduation rate is also another red herring. It brings nothing to the discussion on the quality of research in the undergraduate setting. If PhD programs recruited on the basis of published research, results would be very different. </p>
<p>As far as the ability to skip introductory courses and get AP credit it does appear to correlate with the size of the institution. Departments with significant depth and breadth are often more willing to let their students opt out of the introductory material. Smaller institutions have more of a one size fits all approach to their curriculum and are much less likely to let an underclassman take the more advanced courses. If they did, what would the student do as a junior or senior when he has completed most of the departmental offerings? At larger institutions students can take graduate level courses if they wish and even qualify for a simultaneous BS/MS degree or graduate in three years. </p>
<p>Caltech is not really a counterexample as it smaller size makes it in many ways akin to a LAC even though it does offer PhD programs.</p>
<p>Sakky: for someone who does not wish to be overly combative, you are pretty combative. With respect to any "stipulations" regarding peer groups, please note that my post #13 was not trying to address whether LACs or unis are better preparation for grad school, but rather what the experience is for students at LACs where the resources for science education are quantitatively (NOT qualitatively) less and the sizable majority of students have interests elsewhere.</p>
<p>An additional point: as someone involved with graduate school admissions (in an experimental science), I can guarantee that a student substantively involved with "front-line research" at State U will be given the same consideration as a student from a LAC, and more so if the latter has done no research at all.</p>
<p>JW - I counted at least 3 Stanford grads in the Caltech PhDs. However, the list is impressive with respect to the diversity of UG experiences represented.</p>
<p>drb - sorry about the slight to Stanford. I also missed one from Middlebury.</p>
<p>cellardwellar - there are enough red herrings flying back and forth on both sides to fill a small fishing vessel. The biggest one being, the idea that anyone -- at research unis, or LACs -- is really going into basic scientific research to the extent they were a generation ago. I don't think so. I think the average American bio major is just as likely to wind up performing cosmetic surgery for a living as they would examining stem cell lines.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is a big difference between a TA or RA , which typically designates a student and connotes some lower level of skill as compared to a professor and a Teaching Fellow or author who can bring direct knowledge or experience and who is a professional in the field.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Teaching Fellows are graduate or doctoral students with teaching responsibilities. Teaching Assistants and Teaching Fellows are one and the same thing, with the title being the sole difference. </p>
<p>However, since you are so interested in using differences to support your arguments, could you please highlight the differences between Caltech and Harvey Mudd, especially when it comes to the quality of UNDERGRADUATE education in math and sciences?</p>
<p>A couple people on CC bring up MIT as if what goes on there is typical of anything else. As if all these CC kids are deciding between whatever LAC vs. MIT. AS if the options available to MIT students are made equally available to everyone else. As if the decision process for MIT students, or subsequent career paths, are largely relevant to th huge masses of humanity who, quite frankly, are not likely to be entertaining MIT as an option.</p>
<p>Just a couple points:</p>
<p>"In the end, nothing beats doing research in a major institution as an undergrad or grad student as far as sheer excitement and challenge."</p>
<p>If so, a student should seek to attend a school where it is likely that an undergraduate will have such opportunity. There are school engaged in such research where active participation is largely restricted to graduate students. Or only a select few undergraduates, chosen at the whim of the prof. The vast majority of undergrads at such schools are offered no such opportunities.There is no reasonble basis to assume, going in to one of such schools that you will be one of the lucky few offered such opportunity.</p>
<p>"You actually CAN work in the lab of a Nobel winner on some advanced research as an undergrad.."</p>
<p>Maybe at MIT you can. I would not assume this is generally the case. I was actually so fortunate as to take two classes from a future Nobel winner myself, and even got a recommendation letter from him. I have no idea what this letter said, though- since, though I got A's in both these classes, the guy did not even know who I was.</p>
<p>"The point is that at a major research university you can start being involved in frontline research as an undergrad, if you so wish. "</p>
<p>ANd, once again, I believe this probably very much depends on the policies and practices at the individual major research univerisities. I do not beleive it should be assumed, as a blanket matter.</p>
<p>"Many LACs are very skimpy with AP credits and make it virtually impossible to skip intro level calculus, physics, chemistry or bio."</p>
<p>I haven't observed this as a blanket statement in our own college searches. It seems to me thta it varies more based on individual school policies rather than size/category of school. My own daughter is at an LAC, placed out of all her intro courses and got credit for them as well. Including calculus and chemistry. In contrast, at the Columbia intro session they said they would only give a maximum of one semester's worth of credit for APs, no matter how many you had taken.</p>
<p>This is not to say that I don't see any advantages to universities vs. LACs. I just don't think research opportunities are ubiquitously one of those advantages. To me, the advantages are more uniformaly likely to be: i) undergrad course selection; ii) availability of advanced & grad courses- for when you do place out of the intro courses; ii) enough peers in your major to have a reasonable cohort without being claustrophobic, and ensuring that courses will actually be offered; iv) being able to find out what life is like after undergrad (eg by talking to grad students), to make better decisions about the hereafter; v) in many cases, more recruiters on campus, so more exposure to job opportunities and what may be "out there".</p>
<p>Of course, LACs may have counterbalancing pros. Again, on a case by case basis.</p>
<p>The other thing I would say about extensive undergrad research is that it can possibly take away from breadth of exposure to the various broader areas in a field. Depth over breadth. I've read some academics criticize some of the undergrad research-focused schools on this basis.</p>
<p>The summary above (items i-v) is a good one with respect to the potential advantages of a research uni. I'll also note that I have never heard of formal obstacles to undergrad research, and even top-flight labs are accessible. Indeed, UG students are generally welcomed because a) most scientists are enthusiastic about mentoring young scientists (often because they were mentored themselves) and b) they are cheap. Also, these opportunities do not exist solely at the MITs of the world - the top 5 NIH-funded medical schools in 2005 included U.Washington and UCSF. The problem is more one of awareness. Navigating the opportunities in a large grad-student-oriented research department requires motivation and savvy, since, unlike a LAC, the resources do not exist primarily for the benefit of an undergraduate.</p>
<p>"even top-flight labs are accessible"
"Indeed, UG students are generally welcomed "</p>
<p>Not at my schools they weren't, oh so many years ago. I said except for a select cherry-picked few, but actually I'm just hedging when I say that- because, truth is, I didn't personally know, or even hear about, anyone who got such a gig there. That's what the grad students were for.</p>
<p>I don't make global statements though, because I can't speak with complete authority even about my own institution.</p>
<p>Glad to see others feel less inhibited.</p>
<p>I feel "less inhibited" because I have colleagues all over the country with undergrads in their labs, I see undergrads presenting their work at conferences, I evaluate applicants to grad school who have done research as undergrads, and I review cv's from investigators applying for faculty positions and grant proposals that list publications they authored as undergrads. The opportunities are there, although, as I said previously, it requires a motivated student.</p>
<p>Based on my own personal experience, admittedly very limited, I believe in at least a number of cases it's highly likely that for every undergrad presenting their work at those conferences there are ten more from that same institution, in that same major, who had no such opportunity, though they may have wanted them.</p>
<p>IMO, a prospective student would be ill-advised to just assume they will get such opportunity as an undergraduate simply because the university does research. They also have grad students. It may be more or less likely at the various individual schools. If this is important I think an applicant would be well advised to look into the actual situation at a particular school, to see how realistic it really is there that they will be among the chosen few (or, if it's the case, the many) undergrads that will get opportunities to present these papers, etc. I believe it is by no means a sound a priori assumption, without investigation.</p>
<p>YMMV.</p>
<p>Monydad:</p>
<p>Granted many of my comments on research accessibility to undergrads were derived from personal experience at MIT. Now with a daughter interested in neurobiology research and applying to a number of colleges I have had an opportunity to review in more detail UG research options at over a dozen large research universities and LACs. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Not suprisingly, access to UG research strongly correlated with overall research budgets. At places like Johns Hopkins, MIT, Harvard, Yale, UCLA, opportunities were virtually limitless. Most facilities were well organized to assist UGs with their research options with full time staff, web sites etc... If the project of interest was in a separate department, independent lab or professional school such as the med school, it could require some coordination if the research was to be for credit as opposed to paid research. It was nearly always one or the other. </p></li>
<li><p>As per drb's comment, I never found any discrimination against UGs performing research. If anything, at many institutions, there is deliberate policy to get more UGs in research. There often appeared to be more opportunities than students, and many labs had unfilled positions. Some positions required basic knowledge of lab procedures and equipment something that could easily be acquired with minimum training. Unsollicited inquiries may often lead to successful positions particularly if the work is for credit. Some institutions also have funds for UG student initiated research projects. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>In regards to schools offering AP credit, the more generous programs tended to be at research universities. HYPSM allow up to a full year of credit. Only JHU was stingy with non-science credits. LACs were more spotty. Amherst and Willams have a policy of granting no AP credit whatsoever. Even advanced placement is very limited. Swarthmore seems to be one of the few top LACs with generous AP credit policies. Pomona allows for a maximum of 2 AP credits out of 32. Midllebury 5 out of 36.</p>
<p>xiggi:</p>
<p>You are incorrect. At Harvard a teaching fellow is not a student. They are generally professionals with a specific expertise such a foreign languages or creative writing. I stand by my point that there is no such thing as students teaching college level courses at Harvard (or any other HYPSM or equivalent institution). This horse has been beaten to death on opther boards. </p>
<p>In regards to the difference in the quality of undergraduate education between Caltech and Harvey Mudd I am only familar with Caltech for which I have a lot of respect, so I can't really answer that question. I would guess the cross-admit rate strongly favors Caltech which only addresses the issue of perceived quality. </p>
<p>If the definition of quality of education, particularly in science, includes access and study of primary source research material (as opposed to textbook driven learning), and to the extent Caltech undergrads avail themselves of the opportunities they have at their disposal, I don't think there is much doubt they receive a better scientific education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are incorrect. At Harvard a teaching fellow is not a student. They are generally professionals with a specific expertise such a foreign languages or creative writing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dweller, there are times that a bit of knowledge is extremely dangerous. While I could suggest to post your "gem" about the nature of Teaching Fellows on the Harvard board, I would hope you would simply check this little link or visit the Bok Teaching Fellow center at Harvard. Here are a few excerpts from the Teaching Fellow Handbook available at </p>
<p>
[quote]
*Teaching fellows must be registered as full-time resident students in the Graduate School * and making satisfactory progress toward their degree. They teach part-time as part of their training toward the doctorate or, in exceptional cases, toward a masters degree.</p>
<p>Usually, no *graduate student * may hold a teaching fellowship for more than four academic years
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Should I continue in illustrating what the differences are between professors, lecturers, preceptors, instructors and ... teaching fellows? You are obviously confusing TF and preceptors!</p>
<p>As a parting note, I believe you'd find it interesting to read about Harvey Mudd as well as one thing or two about the administration of Harvard. Unfortunately your current understanding of the issues discussed in your latest post is as lacking as your definition of the quality in scientific education. It's not too late to complete your purportedly authoritative research of dozens of schools! </p>
<p>PS I shudder at the thought of the board where that poor horse was beaten to death by a bunch of donkeys.</p>
<p>"If the definition of quality of education, particularly in science, includes access and study of primary source research material (as opposed to textbook driven learning), and to the extent Caltech undergrads avail themselves of the opportunities they have at their disposal, I don't think there is much doubt they receive a better scientific education."</p>
<p>Please, don't make me go into this. Can someone else do it this time?</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is a big difference between a TA or RA , which typically designates a student and connotes some lower level of skill as compared to a professor and a Teaching Fellow or author who can bring direct knowledge or experience and who is a professional in the field.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The difference tends to be only in 'name'. For example, when graduate students are assigned to teach clasess, they are often times given the title of 'Teaching Fellow' (or equivalent title) for that particular semester. Then after their teaching stint is over, they revert back to their former status. Heck, I have heard of one person who has basically oscillated between the roles of 'Teaching Fellow' and 'Research Assistant' every semester, depending on her assignment is in that semester. </p>
<p>So whether it's TF, TA, or RA, often times, it's just a name. As Shakespeare once asked, "What's in a name?". </p>
<p>
[quote]
The absence of TA/RAs is often brought up as a distinguishing factor in favor of education at LACs as opposed to research universities and my main point is that this is a red herring.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I doubt that this is as much of a red herring as you seem to be implying. The truth is, many research universities do indeed have 'teachers' who really are nothing more than glorified graduate students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The PhD graduation rate is also another red herring. It brings nothing to the discussion on the quality of research in the undergraduate setting. If PhD programs recruited on the basis of published research, results would be very different.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now THIS I can't agree with. How is it a red herring? I am simply showing that the students from the LAC's seem to do pretty well in terms of getting into (and completing) elite PhD programs. </p>
<p>You have asserted that undergrads at the major research universities have opportunities to do cutting-edge research and LAC students do not. I am asking what good is that? After all, presumably the students who are interested in research tend to be the ones who want to get their Phd's. So even if it's true that research university students do more cutting-edge research, if that doesn't translate into getting into better PhD programs, honestly, who cares? What does it matter if you have lots of publications as an undergrad, and then not get into the PhD program that you want ? Like I said, I am quite sure that there were plenty of UCLA undergrads who would have loved to have gone to Caltech to get their PhD's, but didn't even get admitted because Caltech decided to admit somebody from a LAC instead. </p>
<p>Hence, you have to ask what is the real benefit of all of these research opportunities at these research universities? I doubt that there are many undergrads who want to do research just for the sake of doing research. They do it because they are trying to advance their careers. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as the ability to skip introductory courses and get AP credit it does appear to correlate with the size of the institution. Departments with significant depth and breadth are often more willing to let their students opt out of the introductory material. Smaller institutions have more of a one size fits all approach to their curriculum and are much less likely to let an underclassman take the more advanced courses. If they did, what would the student do as a junior or senior when he has completed most of the departmental offerings? At larger institutions students can take graduate level courses if they wish and even qualify for a simultaneous BS/MS degree or graduate in three years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I am with monydad on this one in that I have not seen any convincing evidence of any correlation between the size of the institution and the ability to skip out of classes. This seems to be a school-by-school decision. You ask what would a student do as a junior who has completed all requirements? My answer - he could just graduate. Why not? Lots of students want to graduate in less than 4 years, whether we are talking about a LAC or a research university. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Caltech is not really a counterexample as it smaller size makes it in many ways akin to a LAC even though it does offer PhD programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, that is ** precisely ** why it is a counterexample, because it shows that not all elite research universities are large. Other examples would be places like MIT, Princeton, and Yale - each with only about 4-5k undergrads, which is really not that big. Even Harvard has only 6000 undergrads. These are not exactly huge undergrad programs we're talking about here. </p>
<p>What these examples demonstrate is that the link between research universities and large undergraduate population size is not as strong as it may seem. In fact, I would say that there is a strong qualitative difference between a truly huge school like the University of Colorado (which was mentioned here in passing) which has over 24k undergrads, and a school like MIT that has only 4k. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky: for someone who does not wish to be overly combative, you are pretty combative. With respect to any "stipulations" regarding peer groups, please note that my post #13 was not trying to address whether LACs or unis are better preparation for grad school, but rather what the experience is for students at LACs where the resources for science education are quantitatively (NOT qualitatively) less and the sizable majority of students have interests elsewhere.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am going to be 'combative' when I think somebody is wrong. Somebody said that they are not aware of a single research university that uses TA/RA's to teach classes, and I gave the premier example of Harvard. Whether they are called TA's or TF's at Harvard is irrelevant as it's just a name. You can call it anything you want, but at the end of the day, they are still TA's. </p>
<p>But secondly, I understand that you are simply trying to illustrate the difference in education between the 2 schools. However, I am trying to illustrate a different point - namely, what is the end result of the differences in education. I think it's safe to say that people don't just go to college just for the sake of going to college. They go to college in order to advance their careers. Hence, I am demonstrating that going to a LAC seems to be no obstacle towards getting into a topflight PhD program.</p>