<p>^ It’s indicative of the time faculty has available for one-on-one mentoring, for tailoring instruction to a student’s specific strengths and interests.</p>
<p>It’s not “better.” It’s different – and it purely depends on which kind of environment the student feels more comfortable in. That’s what “fit” is.</p>
<p>I’m really glad I bailed out of this thread before it diverged into “life of the mind,” because having gone to a university, I have no life and only a very small mind…</p>
<p>But I’m warning all of you that this thread could go on for weeks more. There are three college topics that the parents vigorously disagree on, and we argue each of them at least three or four times a year:</p>
<ol>
<li> LAC vs. University</li>
<li> Admissions boosts and scholarships for athletes</li>
<li> Fraternities and sororities.</li>
</ol>
<p>Enjoy.</p>
<p>coureur – The real question is are you back with just this one post? Or will you soon be posting again regularly as this thread finds its way into the 500s? It’s a dangerous game you are playing, just one more post. Can you resist the siren song of this temptress? We shall soon see.</p>
<p>Sure, at a LAC, there is zero chance that you will be taught by a graduate student. However, there is some chance that you will have be taught (or at least your p-sets corrected and graded) by an undergraduate, same as at a university. And there is a greater chance than at HYPSM that you will be shut out of some classes. When I posted about S1’s experience, some posters advocated various strategies to get into a needed class. It’s not an exception to the rule–it happens with frequency at many if not most LACS. That is one of the downsides of emphasizing small classes and small faculties. If S1 had had a choice, he would have rather exchanged places with S2 who took classes that had 100+ students because S2 took the classes he wanted, even if they were large, whereas S1 ended up having to take a class in which he had little interest and in which he really struggled. At Commencement, S2 told one of his profs that the class he took with the prof was one of his favorites. it was not in his major, and the class had 100+ students in it.</p>
<p>Again, Marite, it depends on the school and the individual courses/department. At the research uni where I teach, the students are often locked out of classes. My D, at an LAC, only got locked out her first semester – for five days, and then she got in. Much does depend on class size versus demand. For instance, a very popular class capped at 25 will lock students out while one capped at 100 usually doesn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The myth of the TA teaching is an enduring one. D1 upcoming junior at MIT has never had one, not even in language classes. Most intro courses are actually taught by the most senior faculty who truly enjoy teaching undergrads. Some professors have reached such cult status their classes are among the most popular on youtube. </p>
<p>Except for a few intro science classes, most classes are 20 or less, in the humanities often 10 or less. With fewer undergrads than the smallest Ivy, MIT lavishes resources on its students. The non-science departments at MIT are actually among its hidden gems. MIT may have fewer humanities and social science departments than a school like Harvard, but those they do have are all very deep and among the highest ranked in the country including philosphy, linguistics, economics, anthropology and political science. Even the history department has a faculty of more than 20 not counting emeritii. D1 who was as accomplished a writer and linguist as she was a scientist was initially worried she would not be able to satisfy her interests outside of science at MIT. While she may cross-register for some art history classes at Harvard senior year, so far she has not felt any need, with plenty of high quality options on site. Last semester she took an advanced Creative Writing class taught by a Pulitzer prize winner. They were 3 students in the the class! She is getting as much of a liberal arts education as one could get anywhere else with the added benefit of leading edge research in her chosen field.</p>
<p>Yes, momwaitingfornew, it depends, doesn’t it? And even with the caveats, the impression one gets from your posts is that students are better off at LACs because they will be taught by profs. Yes, they will, but not necessarily by the profs they wanted to study with, being shut out of classes. It happened to S1 in his last semester, and the class was in a category required for graduation (a new requirement that was passed while he was studying abroad). Now, why was he not alerted the semester before instead of after he’d already, and at some pains, made out a schedule? There was a newsletter announcing the new requirement but it was not published close enough to the time for S to keep that in mind. Oh, the wonderful LAC advising system! S2 got a transcript every semester that not only showed what course he had taken but also what requirements he still needed to fulfill. No nasty surprise, unlike his brother who found himself in a class he really did not want to take. Apart from that, S1 had a good education with good profs.
I’m not knocking his LAC. I’m just using my two Ss’ experience to warn against generalizations, even when they come with caveats.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Argh. Don’t people read my qualifiers? I specifically said that in reality, the only difference that most students would see is size and philosophy. And “a greater chance” does not equate with “a great chance.” If you go back and read my posts, you’ll see that I advocate “fit” over an absolute LAC v. research university approach. I value a “liberal arts education” without it having to be at an LAC. It all depends on what the student wants and likes. What I <em>don’t</em> like is choosing a school based on earning potential.</p>
<p>Heck, I graduated from an Ivy, and took post-bac classes at two other Ivies. I wouldn’t trade my education for anything; I loved every minute. But it isn’t for everyone. </p>
<p>And for the record, at one of those “extra” Ivies, I was indeed taught by a grad student, so I know it happens. Not in every class – not by a longshot – but depending on the department and the school, you could get assigned to a grad student section.</p>
<p>“The myth of the TA teaching is an enduring one.” </p>
<p>At MIT, in this case.</p>
<p>“It’s not “better.” It’s different – and it purely depends on which kind of environment the student feels more comfortable in. That’s what “fit” is.”</p>
<p>It’s better. There are also issues that are better at the big U. We have beaten this so to death; we’re making generalizations about the advantages of the big U and those of the LAC, and there will be exceptions to each generalization for an individual student, but we can acknowledge the overall advantages of each.</p>
<p>coureur (and I know you’re lurking) you forgot racial preferences.</p>
<p>Of course, at mid-sized and large universities, you can and very probably will get assigned to a section led by a TF. But that is not being taught by the TF. My S took a tutorial entirely designed and taught by a graduate student. There was no prof in sight. That was different from being in a TF-led section. But there was no difference in quality between that tutorial and the 2 persons-independent study he undertook with a star prof who is known for his rapport with students.</p>
<p>Having learned what happens at LACs where there are no graduate students, I don’t think it’s that much of a blessing. How carefully can a prof who has a total of 110 students (in two classes) read response papers, midterms, finals, term papers? Chances are the prof will not assign weekly response papers (though my S had them in several of his classes). Indeed, I’m not even sure how much writing the prof will encourage the students to do if that means reading 110 essays in a very narrow time frame. Granted, that prof was a victim of his own popularity, but still. And as for the classroom experience, how much discussion can there be in a class of 40+ as opposed to sections capped at 20? </p>
<p>When I think about my Ss’ experience, there is a greater difference in the non-academic side between LACs and mid-sized research universities (I can’t speak knowledgeably about student experiences at large universities). On the academic front, I’m not convinced that LACs have an edge over mid-sized universities. S1 chose his LAC on the basis of non-academic criteria. S2 chose his university with academic criteria uppermost. He took some classes that had over 100 students entirely by choice (though to fulfill gen ed requirements, but there were several alternatives); otherwise, the size of his classes was on a par with the size of the classes his brother took.</p>
<p>good points- alot depends on what you are looking for.
If you are interested in a two-seater, with decent gas mileage, and possibly a luggage rack, you are not going to be test driving tanks, that get 15mpg & won’t fit in your driveway.</p>
<p>If you are primarily interested in a field that overlaps ( like the sciences) and aren’t yet confident in the course you want to go down, it makes sense to get a broader base of study- biology for example, instead of astrobiology, and take courses in the fields of biology, chem and physics, instead of only going further into bio because you may decide to do research into quantum microscopy later & that physics coursework will be useful.</p>
<p>Now maybe you know you want to do astrobiology so you attend a larger university where you can take those courses and can even dorm with students in teh same dept.
Cool, except maybe those courses are not exactly convenient. At our flagship U for example- a friend of D’s had classes at 8am& 9pm ( as well as a couple in the middle)
Makes for not so much free time, if you are having to hang around campus and you don’t have a car. Not so bad if you live on campus- but D’s friend was under 18 and she lived at home with her parents.
( and again, even with a large school, courses conflict & it may be so large they don’t have a prof until the first day of class * provided they can get their work visa*)</p>
<p>D was able to have a good relationship with her advisor, until * his visa* ran out. Still I doubt if she had any courses with only three students- personally I would not consider that a plus, because I think you need a certain size to get a good discussion going and if the instructor was really that wonderful, what a pity that other students didn’t utilize that resource.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I believe that URMs, with their unique perspectives and added diversity, should be given a bigger admissions boost and more Nobel-quality research opportunities at LACs than recruited athletes or low-income whites get - provided they agree to avoid joining fraternities due to those useless organizations’ riotous ways. </p>
<p>(There, all four in one blow.)</p>
<p>^^ I disagree (let the bloodbath begin).</p>
<p>^^ Isn’t there enough of it in Iran? :)</p>
<p>How many hours wasted on this idiotic OP?</p>
<p>MIT posts all its lectures on youtube. There is a LOT of horrible non-interactive lecture-style large-class teaching going on there. Plus old professors who think they are funny, but are not.</p>
<p>Coureur –
You also forgot “is it worth it” (full ride/better fin aid vs whatever higher “ranked” school the applicant got into or is considering)</p>
<p>Let’s gang up on Coureur for all of the repetitive, circular threads that weren’t listed in post #463.</p>
<p>(Just joking, of course. …)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You forgot to mention that all LAC’s should offer athletic scholarships just like the Ivies should so that they can reach the pinnacle of uber-university experience epitomized by Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame and (sometimes) Northwestern and Rice! Because who doesn’t love a tailgate and a crowd of thousands? Surely LAC and uni boosters can agree on that!</p>