<p>Just a question Rabban - how much experience with higher level social sciences do you have?</p>
<p>A lot, and when I say a lot, I mean A LOT!!!</p>
<p>"And, as between top RUs and LACs, the latter regularly outpoll the former in terms of alumni satisfaction as measured by percent who donate after graduation"</p>
<p>Ya got to be careful here, that % donation number is carefully cultivated at some places, moreso than others. I roomed with a guy at the Ibank who spent all day with his class list for his high-profile school, for weeks on end, drumming out the support. God forbid his school would get beaten out by archrival in donation $ and %. And this was back a long time ago, when there was less emphasis on these #s than now.</p>
<p>Some schools do not engage in this cultivation/management game to the same extent. And some schools, by virtue of their mission and profile, have less wealthy alumni -eg higher proportion of academics, musicians, public interest lawyers, etc, as opposed to corporate lawyers and investment bankers. There is undoubtedly a pronounced wealth effect on charitable giving; one does not give as much, or as frequently, when one does not have as much to give. This does not necessarily mean their alumni are less satisfied with their education.</p>
<p>"I, for one, much prefer multiple outcome measurements; what do BA/BS graduates of the various schools attain?"</p>
<p>I think one can consider these as well, but not without also considering the breadth and depth of course offerings, research opportunities, etc, actually provided by the individual institutions. Reason: the capabilities and orientations of the students entering the institution already may predispose them towards certain outcomes. The issue is how well the institution itself furthers these goals, and adds value along the way. The outcomes provide some circumstantial evidence, but one ought not seek to avoid looking at what the school itself actually offers. Beadth and depth of upper level courses actually offered each semester IS relevant, IMO.</p>
<p>Moreover, unfortunately good data on outcomes seems to be unavailable. There is good data on PhDs, but the PhD degree is only one desireable high-level outcome out of several. The WSJ study on feeder schools to certain professional schools is too limited in scope.</p>
<p>Sakky:</p>
<p>You can't redefine arbitrarily what a LAC or a RU are. A research university offers programs up to a PhD level, LACs do not. The definition is pretty straightforward and universally applied. The fact that some RUs and LACs share similar characterstics such as undergraduate or a liberal arts focus is irrelevant. It does not change their category. So, again but whatever criteria top RUs will beat top LACs. </p>
<p>By the way I never suggested comparing Caltech with Amherst for PhD productivity. HYP are more relevant comps and do conclusively better. </p>
<p>I am confused by statements that Harvard does not pay enough attention to its undergrads. Isn't Harvard College an independent school within Harvard University with the sole mission of furthering the goals of its undegraduates?</p>
<p>I do agree with Monydad that a more detailed study of second tier RUs such as Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn compared to the top LACs such as Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore and co. may be more relevant.</p>
<p>"By the way I never suggested comparing Caltech with Amherst for PhD productivity. HYP are more relevant comps and do conclusively better".</p>
<p>Once again, I don't know where "conclusively better" comes from. You keep saying stuff like that, but I'm not seeing the same charts you're looking at.</p>
<p>On this chart:
<a href="http://web.centre.edu/ir/student/OverallBaccOrigins.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://web.centre.edu/ir/student/OverallBaccOrigins.pdf</a>
for the most recent period, Yale is listed #10, Princeton #11, amherst #21, Harvard #25. Out of the thousands of higher ed, institutions in the US, I'd say these are all pretty high. Six of the nine schools listed above Yale are LACs.</p>
<p>Now I have some other issues with these %phd lists- because the PhD degree is not the terminal degree of choice for many programs at diverse universities. I think they understate the true comparative scholarly environment of a number of universities.</p>
<p>However, the data such as it is does not in and of itself seem to support these claims about "conclusively better", in any manner than would convince me, at least. You seem to be relying on data to make this claim, and it's apparently not the data I'm looking at.</p>
<p>"Isn't Harvard College an independent school within Harvard University with the sole mission of furthering the goals of its undegraduates?"</p>
<p>Yeah, but like many of the research U's its faculty probably also teaches in the graduate school, and it's likely that the latter is where their proverbial bread gets buttered, for the most part. Therein lies the problem, at many research U's, as far as the undergrads are concerned.</p>
<p>"I do agree with Monydad that a more detailed study of second tier RUs such as Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn compared to the top LACs such as Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore and co. may be more relevant."</p>
<p>Comparing the NEXT 25 or so schools in each category might be even more interesting.</p>
<p>Harvard faculty are appointed to one of its schools; e.g. Business, Law, Med, or Arts and Sciences (Faculty of Arts and Sciences). The latter includes the College and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. There is no appointment to an "independent" College. However, I will continue to contest monydad's opinion that this represents a "problem" for undergrads at many research U's. On the contrary, research-oriented undergrads benefit from a robust graduate program. Please be specific with respect to what you base your opinion on - is it anything other than your experience many years ago and pure speculation? Vs. my own 30+ years (egad) career in an experimental science? Which included working in a lab for all 4 UG years?</p>
<p>The opinions I've expressed on this thread are hardly original to me. You will find similar sentiments echoed right on CC by numerous others, who arrived at their own views without my influence. You will even find them echoed by others on this very thread.</p>
<p>My own views are formed by my own direct experience, the experience of others who I know well, and what I've read and heard over the years.</p>
<p>I could list the various reinforcing examples, both personal, from CC, and elsewhere, but they are ubiquitous; there's not really a point..</p>
<p>Few people will be in the position of actually experiencing undergraduate education, as a student, at a wide number of different colleges and/or universities. Also, times do change.</p>
<p>I do agree that, at the very upper levels,active research can add value. It can also subtract. I well remember the class in grad school where the Prof went on for days about the details of his own minute research, which was completely tangential to the core subject of the class he was supposed to be teaching. I am in complete agreement that, for a prospective scientist, undergraduate research opportunities can be highly valuable. Where these are available and accessible.</p>
<p>That's why I, once again, urge anyone who this impacts to directly investigate the actual situation, at the present time, at the various schools that interest them.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>"And, as between top RUs and LACs, the latter regularly outpoll the former in terms of alumni satisfaction as measured by percent who donate after graduation"<<</p> </blockquote>
<p>Ya got to be careful here, that % donation number is carefully cultivated at some places, moreso than others.[snip]And some schools, by virtue of their mission and profile, have less wealthy alumni -eg higher proportion of academics, musicians, public interest lawyers, etc, as opposed to corporate lawyers and investment bankers. There is undoubtedly a pronounced wealth effect on charitable giving; one does not give as much, or as frequently, when one does not have as much to give. This does not necessarily mean their alumni are less satisfied with their education.<</p>
<br>
<p>We're talking about Harvard (44%), Yale (45%), Stanford (39%), Penn (40%), Duke (44%), Columbia (35%), Dartmouth (50%), Cornell (35%), WUSTL (38%), Northwestern (29%).</p>
<p>Not a hippy school among them. All outranked by Wesleyan (51%) (!!!) Source: USNews&World Report 8/28/06</p>
<p>monydad: Ah. So I now feel empowered to speak authoritatively regarding career training in the field of investment banking based on the experience of my classmates 30 yrs ago, what I have picked up at cocktail parties, tailgating and at college reunions, and most useful of all, what is posted on CC boards.</p>
<p>Although I do concur with your recommendation that applicants investigate the actual situation at the various schools that interest them.</p>
<p>JW: that would be "hippie". A hippy school is one for someone with a large pelvis.</p>
<p>drb: please state for the record here how many times, over the last five years, you have personally tried to get an undergraduate research position for yourself at each of the top 50 colleges.</p>
<p>Then tell me how many other posters on this thread have done so.</p>
<p>IF we were to limit ourselves to this exercise, without use of what we've directly experienced and/or observed that may have some color but is not dispositive to the above first paragraph, then there would be no posts on this thread.
Or maybe if you were to answer the first paragraph in the affirmative then you can post alone.</p>
<p>"most useful of all, what is posted on CC boards."
Evidently you agree my posts meet CC standards, with basis disclosed. As with all other CC posts, people may evaluate it as such. And your statements and perspectives as well.</p>
<p>johnwesley: my main point is one should use caution about relying on these stats generally, based on the what I observed. But this opinion is borne out of my one direct experience that I directly observed a long time ago, and only for that one school, so I guess evidently some would say that I should not feel "empowered" to voice my opinion about it!!!</p>
<p>You are correct; if we were to limit ourselves to discussion of our own personal experience, this forum would be a lot less busy and we would all get a lot more work done. My point is simply that I believe you consistently overstate the potential for a negative UG experience in a research-focused (vs. teaching-focused) environment. And I posit that, as an academic investigator who sees productive UG students from my own and many other institutions, I have more insight into this than you. Is it possible that research opportunities may be limited, and that some research professors are inattentive? No doubt. But my EXPERIENCE is that there are large numbers of UG in research laboratories where they are being mentored by investigators who are enthusiastic about their participation. </p>
<p>Inasmuch as a student interested in a career in investment banking would be well-advised to weigh your opinion far more than mine (as the latter is based on anecdote and hearsay), I would suggest that, in the unlikely event that any research-oriented student is actually reading this thread, he/she should give more consideration to my opinion, as it is based on 30+ years as a student, fellow, and now professor in academia.</p>
<p>As you say, YMMV.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I note from your post #110 that, despite this guy's best efforts, his school has been overtaken by archrival in alumni giving, and this gives me some satisfaction. I didn't like the guy, or many of the other representatives of his school that I had to share air space with for quite some time.</p>
<p>"But my EXPERIENCE is that there are large numbers of UG in research laboratories where they are being mentored by investigators who are enthusiastic about their participation. "</p>
<p>And since this EXPERIENCE is not identical to the more relevant criteria detailed in the first paragraph of post #112, all readers will recognize that this EXPERIENCE, while a potentially highly relevant data point, is not dispositive either.</p>
<p>And it certainly differs from My EXPERIENCE. And apparently that of others such as Sakky described on an earlier post (eg #42)on this very thread. Oh wait I can't reference that. it's hearsay and anecdote. And from CC, no less.</p>
<p>"On the contrary, research-oriented undergrads benefit from a robust graduate program."</p>
<p>An honest opinion.</p>
<p>"Please be specific with respect to what you base your opinion on - is it anything other than your experience many years ago and pure speculation?"</p>
<p>As opposed to current experience and pure speculation? I think both of you have valid experience, and don't need to resort to insults. This "my experience is better than your experience" is lost on the rest of us (at least on me).</p>
<p>Some undergrads thrive on the small classes, personal prof attention and undergrad research opportunities an LAC offers; others prefer to be on a large RU campus where more advanced research is being done in a more grandiose environment. Each kind of school is better for each kind of student; there is no "one size fits all" better, so why continue arguing about it?</p>
<p>Monydad:</p>
<p>I would not use such a narrow definition of research .</p>
<p>I would argue that more than future scientists would benefit from an active involvement in undergraduate research, particularly professionals such as engineers, as well as premed, prebusiness and prelaw students. </p>
<p>Medical students will have little opportunity to perform research once they enter med school unless they are one of the rare few that pursue an MD/PhD track. Increasingly law schools and nearly always business schools require some professional experience and a research experience in the social sciences or economics is often highly valued. It is a means of applying your knowledge to a specific real world question and subject the results to third party review. </p>
<p>Even for students with no interest in going to grad school or professional school, a research experience can be extremely valuable. At Princeton, for instance, it is at the core of the senior thesis and it is often required for honors programs at top universities, whatever the field.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>On the contrary, research-oriented undergrads benefit from a robust graduate program.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>This has been my daughter's experience. She is currently an undergrad at Harvard, and last year she had no trouble getting a research internship in a prominent professor's lab. The professor actually holds an appointment from the Medical School, but he has undergrads, grad students, and med students all working in his lab. She e-mailed the prof to introduce herself and express an interest. He immediately invited her down to the lab for an interview, and a short while later he offered her a spot. It just wasn't that hard to find a UG research opportunity. According to my daughter her experience is not unusual; there are plenty of opportunities for UGs who want to do research.</p>
<p>Excellent; we seem to have enough evidence that UG research opportunities at RUs are at least as good as those at LACs, if not better. The top schools in each group are all excellent. Is the only area where LACs have a distinguishing outcome feature that of future PhD production? Even this has partly to do with self-selection and curriculum style.</p>
<p>Monydad #92. One of the best posts I have ever read on this entire forum. Maybe the best. </p>
<p>The sample must be representative of the population. </p>
<p>Thank you. ::bows::</p>