<p>Before you get to that pie in the sky, you would have to recruit professors who (1) CARE ABOUT undergraduate education, and (2) HAVE THE SKILLS FOR “creating a cohesive curriculum, selecting appropriate material, pushing students to acquire knowledge and skills through assignments and projects, and facilitating discussion and engagement with the material among your peers.”</p>
<p>^ as I said, “To that end, most research profs are more than capable.” You don’t think most profs are able to create a curriculum, select material, create assignments, facilitate discussion, etc.? It’s not rocket science. Except when it is. ;)</p>
<p>My following analysis may not apply to everyone, but here it goes: I love small class sizes. In my AP Spanish class, it’s great because it’s NOT a lecture - it’s a discussion. There are 10 of us and it is GREAT. My favorite class. I sit right up front, where I can make eye contact with the teacher and I don’t even have to raise my hand in order to comment. I love the relaxed structure of it and I hope the same situation occurs this fall at Beloit, a top 50-or-whatever LAC. The most-abundant class size is 2-9 according to Princeton Review.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I hated my ANT 204 class at the local state uni. The prof went to UMich for undergrad and he was very intelligent and knowledgable, but the structure of the class was horrible. The class had about 40 kids in it, the prof never knew our names. He only knew mine because I kept emailing him haha. 20% of the grade was based on “participation,” which meant that if we showed up, we got full points. No one asked questions, no one actually dicussed. It was him just talking the whole time. I wasn’t sure if it was a lecture because it wasn’t in a lecture hall, but I think it was structured more like a lecture even though we didn’t get a discussion portion. The kids did not seem too interested in anthro - kids fell asleep, etc. They all complained after the first exam that he should curve it by 10% - even though ALL of the exams were open-book and super easy haha. I did not have to study much to get an A - my AP classes are much more difficult in comparison.</p>
<p>My friend took Calc 2 at the same uni for dual enrollment and hated it. Got a 99.2% in the class without trying and didn’t learn anything. He’s super smart in math though - enough to get a perfect score on the ACT math and SAT subject math. He’s going to UMich and I’m super happy for him. It’s a bummer that he got rejected from MIT and Harvard, though.</p>
<p>The anthro prof really was a neat guy and he did not recommend going to a large school for undergrad at all - he even bashed his Alma Mater. He went to Wayne State for grad school because they offered courses in Hatian Creole and because it was close. The only thing I didn’t like was that he was always in a hurry to leave the class - I think he wanted to go out and smoke tbh.</p>
<p>
Well, no. Most professors at LACs and regional/master’s universities simply teach more courses to account for this. </p>
<p>For example, the standard teaching load at my sister’s LAC is 4/4. Here at UCLA, profs can get by with teaching two or even only one (!) course each quarter. </p>
<p>
Classes with 50+ students:</p>
<p>Amherst 3%
Bowdoin 3%
Middlebury 3%
Williams 3%</p>
<p>Chicago 5%
Dartmouth 8%
Duke 6%
Northwestern 6%
Tufts 5%</p>
<p>Georgia Tech 23%
UCLA 22%
UCSD 34%
UT Austin 25%
Wisconsin 19%</p>
<p>There will always be outliers. Harvard Mudd has 8% of its classes with greater than 50 students, a percentage far higher than Wake Forest (3%). UNC and Stanford share the same percentage of classes over 50 students (13%). Some LACs have even smaller courses - Davidson has no classes over 50 and only 3 over 40. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, blithely ignoring that a difference in class sizes between small private and large public universities can exist - often quite a big difference - is highly questionable. </p>
<p>I have done case studies of this before:
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why doesn’t it happen? Why is the typical class, of whatever size, simply a lecture?</p>
<p>Creating a curriculum, creating materials, creating assignments, and facilitating discussions may not be rocket science; but neither are they simple intuition, and virtually no college professors have ANY training in how to design and develop effective instructional materials. Some figure it out on their own, fairly well, but they’re the minority. The majority never do, most because they never really try, because (1) it takes more time than simply dusting off last year’s lecture notes, showing up for an hour, and honking (aka “spray and pray” instruction - spray it out and pray somebody gets something from it), and (2) why should they bother when what they’re motivated do (and incentivized for) is research, not teaching. The latter is less an issue at LACs, where you’ll find SOME professors who are dedicated to teaching, more so at research universities.</p>
<p>
This is something that has been changing in recent years. Since the academic job market is becoming so glutted with applicants, colleges increasingly have the opportunity to pick candidates who excel in both research <em>and</em> teaching. Some of the recent PhDs in my department have said that including student evaluations in their job applications helped them get jobs. The bigger emphasis in the hiring process at universities is still on research, though. </p>
<p>As a TA, I’ve had to take three courses so far on how to teach. They’ve covered things like how to develop a syllabus, how to run a discussion, how to lecture, how to write exams, how to hold office hours, how to develop and grade writing assignments, etc. If I ever wanted to TA outside my own department, I’d have to take yet more courses, since each department has its own training regimen for new TAs. </p>
<p>
At least for intro classes, this is admittedly true and probably my biggest complaint about the classes for which I TA. It’s clearly not an effective means of education. The proliferation of laptops has made this even worse…looking around me the other day in lecture, I counted ONE person actually taking notes. Everyone else was on Facebook, writing emails, chatting online, etc.</p>
<p>I do think there is a time and place for lectures, and even most LACs use them at least at the introductory stage. There is only so much you can do to present organic chemistry as a seminar! A lack of interaction with students is much less excusable. Some departments (especially the sciences) use “clickers” to enforce student involvement, but I really don’t think it’s a good substitute.</p>
<p>I think it’s a bad idea to turn this into yet another university vs. LAC debate, however – keeping the debate to public vs. private universities and public vs. private LACs is more along the lines of what the OP was asking, I think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s encouraging that there is at least an attempt to improve the situation.</p>
<p>UW Madison has a dept dedicated to faculty teaching improvement and development</p>
<p><a href=“https://tle.wisc.edu/[/url]”>https://tle.wisc.edu/</a></p>
<p><a href=“https://tle.wisc.edu/teaching-academy[/url]”>https://tle.wisc.edu/teaching-academy</a></p>
<p>
No, only two privates can match Berkeley’s faculty achievements, academic breadth and depth.</p>
<p>At the undergraduate level, there are easily 20 colleges that are as good if not better than Cal. At the graduate level, it is peerless in many fields. At the professional level, it is top 10 so it depends on what stage of your educational path you are on when considering these public schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What more “training” do they need than to have a bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD, not to mention plenty of experience as TAs (where they often help to develop the class curriculum), sometimes as teachers, and as postdocs? Do they need to go back to ed school and get a teaching degree for them to be able to design a curriculum on a topic?</p>
<p>I disagree that they’re in the minority. If that were the case, you’d be hearing a lot more about poor curricula. But you don’t. In general, curricula are quite good.</p>
<p>It might also depend on the caliber of the university. The more competitive the university, the more likely its professors are going to be good at what they do. As warblersrule mentioned, the current state of academic jobs is such that the most competitive spots are likely to be filled with someone who’s both a great researcher and a great instructor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No doubt, public flagships (not just Berkeley) do attract excellent faculty. More at issue is the level of engagement between faculty and undergraduate students at top public v. private schools. </p>
<p>We’ve already discussed class size, which has important implications for the level of engagement in discussions and lectures. What about research activity? At top public v. private schools, how do opportunities and the level of student engagement compare?</p>
<p>I’ve heard that LAC profs choose LACs to work at because they like the atmosphere better…it’s certainly not for the pay.</p>
<p>Most of the discussion here has more to do with the “research university model” versus “LAC model” of school. Each type has its on advantages and disadvantages, and neither is best for all students. Public and private schools come in both types.</p>
<p>Of course, there are also other models, such as the “bulk undergraduate model” (non-flagship state universities that do not have high research activity and probably some less selective private schools that do not have high research activity), the “lower division and then transfer model” (community colleges), and the “two year degree or certificate model” (community colleges) which are probably what the majority of college students attend.</p>
<p>Some chose an LAC, most don’t get an offer from a top R-1 school and settle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dunno, maybe salary offers have something to do with these choices?
Here are examples of average salaries for full professors in a few sectors of the college market. Selective private LACs are not at tippy top salary levels, but they do appear to be competitive (at least for full professors). </p>
<p>Source: stateuniversity.com, for 2011</p>
<p>Top-ranked Private Research Universities
Harvard $144,414
Caltech $143,446
Princeton $140,277
Chicago $132,113
Yale $129,719
MIT $126,610
Columbia $126,417
Penn $124,679
Stanford $122,508</p>
<p>California Public Universities
UCLA $121,306
Berkeley $117,867</p>
<p>Private LACs
Harvey Mudd $105,555
Williams $104,627 (more than Dartmouth or Vanderbilt)
Wellesley $101,423
Pomona $101,399
Swarthmore $101,099
Smith $100,708 (more than JHU or Tufts)
Wesleyan $94,243
Colby $94,109</p>
<p>Midwestern Public Flagships
Illinois $93,206
Minnesota $92,855
Michigan $91,668 (less than Middlebury)
Wisconsin $91,037
Indiana $90,757</p>
<p>Directional State Universities
UMass - Dartmouth $84,004
UWash - Tacoma $82,626
UMaryland - Baltimore Co. $82,074</p>
<p>It’s a well-known - perhaps unfortunate - reality that if a prof can’t get a tenured position at a university, they end up at an LAC, which is seen as a last-resort option for most researchers.</p>
<p>This is not true at all. Most people who want to be at an R1 university would be miserable at an LAC because the focus is on teaching and mentoring undergraduates, and would likely choose an R2 or even go into industry before going to an LAC. Most people who end up at an LAC want to be there. Positions at the top 100 or so LACs in the country are very competitive, especially in the humanities, where you may be competing with 100-200+ other applicants for one spot. It’s certainly not the case that if you can’t get a job at a university you can just slide into an LAC position.</p>
<p>Most LAC professors do research, as it is required for tenure and promotion, and LAC professors are also hired on the basis of their research. At the top schools, they come from prestigious graduate institutions. I randomly picked the first LAC off the top of my head (Macalester, currently ranked #25) and went to the psychology department (my field) to see where the professors come from. Michigan (#3 in psychology), Minnesota (#8), UCSD (#17), NYU (#29), UCI (#29), UIUC (#7), Michigan again, Rochester (#50) and University of Colorado at Boulder (#29). So these are professors who are, for the most part, coming from the top 30 psychology programs in the nation.</p>
<p>^ none of what you said disproves my point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, that’s fine - people at research universities like them more than LACs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, positions at LACs are competitive… but not as competitive as the positions at research universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that it was “easy” - just not as hard as getting a position at a top research university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. But their research quality can’t even compare to that of most research universities. For example, a top computer science program at a LAC is nowhere near a top CS program at research universities, in terms of research quality (even when you adjust for size).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given how competitive academic jobs are, this really isn’t surprising… people who went to elite universities often do end up at LACs. Nothing new there.</p>
<p>Academics build their name doing research so most of the most motivated will go to a place with better research even for less pay in the near term.</p>
<p>tk, it is not about public vs private, but rather LAC vs research university. Professors at research universities will interact with undergrads only as much as their time allows. Professors at major research universities do not have the time to pander to undergraduate students’ needs. </p>
<p>Just a quick look at top Engineering programs shows that faculty at private universities have just as many responsibilities to research and graduate students to keep them from effectively looking after undergraduate students:</p>
<p>PhD students per Faculty:
Stanford: 8.1
Caltech: 6.1
Cal: 6.0
UCLA: 6.0
Southern Cal: 5.4
UCSD: 5.2
Texas-Austin: 5.0
Carnegie Mellon: 4.8
Johns Hopkins: 4.8
Harvard: 4.7
MIT: 4.7
Purdue: 4.7
Cornell: 4.6
Northwestern: 4.5
Columbia: 4.4
Georgia Tech: 4.4
UIUC: 4.4
Wisconsin-Madison: 4.4
Michigan: 4.2
Princeton: 4.0</p>
<p>Faculty at those schools are among the most highly published. </p>
<p>The average research expenditure per faculty member is in the range of $500k-$1 million. Not only are they responsible for the proper execution of their research, but they are also usually responsible for the continued funding of their research, which involves a lot of shuttling back and forth to sponsors of their research.</p>
<p>Given the above information, I it is clear that faculty at major research universities, public or private, have very little time for undergraduate students. I do not think Faculty at those Engineering programs have much time for undergraduate students.</p>
<p>Intro level classes at both private and public research universities will run in the 100s, particularly in popular Social Science majors (Econ, PoliSci and Psych) and premed courses. Whether a lecture hall has 250 or 500 students makes no difference. Either way, the professor is not going to interact with undergrads. At more advanced levels, most majors at private and public universities will attract a limited number of undergrads and classes will be small. Popular majors, whether at private or public universities will remain relatively large, even for advanced-level classes.</p>
<p>In short, the benefits of smaller classes and more faculty attention at elite private research universities is a mirage.</p>