<p>LadyDi— It is amazing how you can make statements without any basis in fact! How can you expect to have people take your position seriously when it distorts reality to such an extent?</p>
<p>
You have provided no serious evidence to support such a statement except some apocryphal story from “back in the day, there was one professor at Harvard”! Was that before or after the three little pigs story? Then you trot out some story about your DH, a former grad student at Harvard who apparently had a great interaction with a highly distinguished prof., who was “attentive, willing to give tons of time” to your DH but would give none to his undergraduate students? So, in short he is a great teacher but not to undergrads! Please, spare us! If your DH had been an undergrad at Harvard and provided first hand experience maybe your story would be more believable. Make that post on the Harvard or MIT boards and you will be laughed at! </p>
<p>It may surprise you, but there are generations of students at leading research universities who can attest to exceptionally positive experiences with faculty. I would argue that the majority of full tenured professors at leading institutions enjoy teaching undergraduates. Typically, the more distinguished, the more they like it, especially when the student body includes many of the smartest kids around. The professors have already accomplished everything they can in the field and now they are building their legacy with the next generation. This is why at MIT, the most senior faculty is generally put in the front lines to teach introductory classes to the latest crop of undergraduates. There is a special chemistry that develops between a master who wants to pass on his knowledge and bright, young minds enthusiastic to learn. It does not matter if it is in a class of 10 or 100. How could places like MIT or Caltech produce more PhDs per capita in the science fields than any other institution of higher learning if the students did not have excellent relationships with the faculty? By interacting with the best of the best, learning from them, researching alongside them, undergrads acquire the skills necessary to pursue advanced work. </p>
<p>I know that I will fall in the same trap of using anecdotes to make a point but at least it is based on recent evidence. My D is now a senior in neuroscience at MIT. Her department while relatively small in numbers (about 50 faculty, 200 undergrad and grad students, 180 researchers and post-docs) boasts the largest neuroscience lab in the world, 2 Nobel Prize winners and over 20 National Academy members. As an undergrad she has been doing research since sophomore year working directly for one of the leading professors alongside postdocs and grad students, will have her name on a major paper, was in a class of eight taught by a Nobel laureate, had three senior professors recommend her for graduate school. There is simply no way her experience could have been replicated anywhere else. There have been many challenges along the way, but interacting with faculty was never one of them! Among her friends, her experience is more the norm than the exception. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now, that’s doozy! This has been debunked on these boards for years by people with specific knowledge of the facts. But, I assume searching through the voluminous threads covering the issue is just too much work. There is no such thing as students at Harvard (or HYPSM) receiving much of their learning from non permanent faculty. The only exception has been for some intro. language conversation classes. This horse is long dead!</p>
<p>You obviously have a strong bias in favor of LACs and that’s fine. But please, if you are going to try to argue why they may be a better choice for some, try to advance the positives of such a choice, but don’t make up up stuff about institutions you know little or nothing about.</p>