are private schools really better?

<p>Re post #56 ^^^^,</p>

<p>Pretty interesting to look at data on faculty salaries, but I think tk21769 mischaracterizes the data in post #56 by calling it “average salaries for full professors.” The source from which the data is drawn (stateuniversity.com) say it represents “average full-time faculty salaries.” There’s a big difference. </p>

<p>Many* full-time faculty *are associate professors or assistant professors; the latter are almost invariably paid less than “full professors”. And because the mix is different at different schools, comparing average full-time faculty salaries at institution A with those at institution B may be very misleading. Some schools do a lot of entry-level and junior lateral hiring; their faculty will be on average younger and less well paid. Other institutions do very little entry-level hiring, preferring to hire only mid-career (or sometimes even very senior) people whose careers and reputations are already well established; those schools will have higher average salaries because their faculty is on average older, more senior, and more heavily weighted toward (highly paid) full professors, with fewer assistant and associate professors.</p>

<p>Better data, which allows you to compare full professor salaries to full professor salaries, associate professor salaries to associate professors salaries, and so on, is collected by the American Association of University Professors, and made available online by the Chronicle of Higher Education. Here’s just a small sample:</p>

<p>2010-2011 average full professor salary</p>

<p>Harvard $193.800
University of Michigan $146,900
Middlebury College $120,100</p>

<p>Now it looks like Harvard has a distinct edge, but keep in mind these figures aren’t adjusted for cost of living. According to a pretty reliable cost-of-living comparison calculator, you’d need to earn $257,586 to have the same purchasing power in Cambridge, MA that you get for $146,900 in Ann Arbor, mainly because housing is almost triple the cost in Cambridge. Of course, most Harvard faculty can’t afford to live in Cambridge anymore, but there’s still a big cost of living differential in Boston (53% more expensive than Ann Arbor) or surrounding towns. Bottom line then, while Harvard definitely pays more, once you consider cost of living the salaries are pretty competitive.</p>

<p>Middlebury, VT is 14% more expensive than Ann Arbor, so that Middlebury College salary, already 22% lower than the Michigan salary in nominal terms, is even further eroded by a higher cost of living. </p>

<p>LACs generally do have a lower pay scale than research universities, but that also may not be a head to head comparison. The AAUP data excludes medical school salaries, but I believe business school and law school salaries are included, which would tend to skew average salaries somewhat higher at universities with those schools. So, for example, Brown, which doesn’t have a business school or a law school, comes out with an average full professor salary of $150,700, lowest among the Ivies.</p>

<p>Michigan’s average full professor salary is right in the ballpark with many private research universities in addition to Brown, e.g., Carnegie Mellon ($138,900), Notre Dame ($146,800), Boston College ($149,900), USC ($151,000), Vanderbilt ($151,300), Rice ($155,200), Dartmouth ($157,700), Cornell ($157,800), and Georgetown ($158,900). HYPS are higher, but as previously noted they are also in higher cost-of-living areas.</p>

<p>With few exceptions, LACs are a distinct notch lower: Reed ($106,800 average for a full professor) and Claremont McKenna ($145,200) represent the low and high ends of the range for the most selective LACs, with most somewhere around the Middlebury level (about $120K).</p>

<p>@tk21769,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>US NEWS RANKING</p>

<p>First Year Experiences</p>

<p>Orientation can go only so far in making freshmen feel connected. Many schools, such as those below, now build into the curriculum first year seminars or other programs that bring small groups of students together with faculty or staff on a regular basis.</p>

<p>In spring 2011 we invited college presidents, chief academic officers, deans of students, and deans of admissions from more than 1,500 schools to nominate up to 10 institutions with stellar examples of first year experiences. Colleges and universities that were mentioned most often are listed here, in alphabetical order.</p>

<p>Source: Source: [First</a> Year Experiences | Rankings | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/first-year-experience-programs]First”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/first-year-experience-programs)</p>

<p>Excerpt:</p>

<p>"Ohio State also plans to unveil a voluntary “second-year experience” program in fall 2013 that officials said would be the first of its kind nationwide. As part of the experiment, 2,000 sophomores will be linked to 100 faculty “fellows” and staff members for academic support, career exploration and leadership opportunities while living in dorms.</p>

<p>“About 50 percent of students do not interact with faculty outside the classroom. That’s huge,” Adams-Gaston said."</p>

<p>Source: [Home</a> sweet dorm? | The Columbus Dispatch](<a href=“http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/04/29/home-sweet-dorm.html]Home”>http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/04/29/home-sweet-dorm.html)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Do these figures include salaries for full professors in graduate schools (law, business, medicine, etc.)?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ah! Good catch … and I agree there’s a difference.
Just how significant a difference (and other implications) I suppose would depend on careful measurement and adjustment of just the kinds of factors you cite, and more.</p>

<p>Reading through this thread, I find myself once again, disappointed. I thought the point of going to college is to get educated, which includes having experiences that help individuals mature and prepare for their adult lives. But it seems the point of a college education (according to many posters here) is to gain admittance to a highly-rated graduate program - to do what? Make money? Turn around and get one of those high-paying jobs at a top-rated university? When does the merry-go-round stop?</p>

<p>It’s often noted that professors send their kids to LACs. I’m so happy my two kids are attending great, small LACs with reputations for offering outstanding undergraduate educations. When and if they want to go to graduate schools, they will be well-prepared for the challenge.</p>

<p>Sparkeye, I hear Gee is a front runner to become Berkeley’s new chancellor.</p>

<p>^^ Thanks for the update, UCB!! Well, never say never! lol But if Gee turned Cal down once before back in the 90s, I am pretty certain that he should have no problem doing it again. Unless of course…, if Berkeley is willing to pay him more than either Vanderbilt or Ohio State, which I strongly doubt that will happen given Cal’s current budget… </p>

<p>Although he is certainly a very close friend of Yudof, there is simply not enough support both at the state or local level in California compares to Ohio imho.</p>

<p><a href=“Eugene Register-Guard - Google News Archive Search”>Eugene Register-Guard - Google News Archive Search;

<p>

</p>

<p>Here’s what the Chronicle of Higher Education says: “The figures cover full-time members of each institution’s instructional staff, except those in medical schools.” So I assume that means it does include the salaries of law and business faculty, which as I noted in my previous post would tend to skew the average salaries somewhat higher at schools with law and business schools, e.g., at Harvard and Michigan as opposed to Middlebury and other LACs. </p>

<p>But even given that caveat, it’s hard to get a clean apples-to-apples comparison. According to the AAUP/Chronicle data, Harvard has 1,991 full-time faculty; Michigan has 5,587, or nearly 3 times as many. Yet Harvard has a bigger law school and a bigger law faculty, around 50% bigger in each case (their law school student-faculty ratios are almost identical); so the high salaries of Harvard’s law faculty would have a bigger impact on Harvard’s overall average than would Michigan’s, because at Michigan law faculty represent a much smaller percentage of the school’s total faculty. I believe Harvard’s business school faculty is bigger, too, but even if it were the same size the salaries of Harvard’s business faculty would have a bigger impact on university-wide salary averages because business faculty represent a much larger fractional share of all Harvard faculty.</p>

<p>You’d really need to do a discipline-specific comparison to get a clear idea how salaries at various schools stack up from a competitiveness standpoint, and to my knowledge that data is not available. The Chronicle does tells us, though, that at the full professor level across all schools, law professors make on average 59.5% more than English professors; business professors 50.9% more; economics professors +41.2%; computer science professors +28.4%; engineering professors +25.2%; physical scientists +16.8%. So schools that are dominated by the humanities (as many LACs are) may not be as far behind in subject-specific salaries as the overall averages might suggest.</p>

<p>“Sparkeye, I hear Gee is a front runner to become Berkeley’s new chancellor.”</p>

<p>I doubt this will happen UCB, unless Urban Meyer decides to fire him! ;-)</p>

<p>^^ Interesting read on a Michigan President! :p</p>

<p>[Sunday</a> Times-Sentinel - Google News Archive Search](<a href=“Sunday Times-Sentinel - Google News Archive Search”>Sunday Times-Sentinel - Google News Archive Search)</p>

<p>and this</p>

<p><a href=“Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search”>Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search;

<p>:)</p>

<p>

Some differences may be overstated, but so far I’m not seeing clear evidence that my own (admittedly dated) personal experience, anecdotal reports, or class size data is all a mirage. I don’t think this is demonstrated by the number of PhD students per faculty in top engineering programs (which may be able to conduct large classes more effectively than some other programs). Admittedly, research imposes many demands on professors’ time; these demands presumably do compete with undergraduate focus at all these schools (but surely not equally where classes are significantly smaller). </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>At the private university I attended, I never had introductory classes with 100s of students. That was years ago, but still, look at the comparisons in post #44. There are clear, well-documented differences in average class sizes between top private and public universities (Summary: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size-4.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size-4.html&lt;/a&gt;). Big state universities like Michigan and Berkeley do have many upper level classes in specialized subjects with smaller enrollments. That’s very much to their credit, but it also inflates the percentage of small classes, notwithstanding reports of huge enrollments in classes at the very important intro levels, where foundations should be established.</p>

<p>

I don’t consider it pandering for professors to lead discussion classes, grade essay-based tests, or provide terse but thoughtful comments on a few student papers per term. That’s what I got as an undergrad. That’s what I assume some undergraduates are still getting at peer private schools (certainly at LACs … and I would hope at the Ivies too).</p>

<p>

There are far easier ways of making money than getting a PhD. There are a number of hurdles along the way. </p>

<p>Hurdle #1 Getting into graduate school </p>

<p>Competition ranges from about 10 applicants per spot for some STEM fields to over 100 applicants per spot in the most selective humanities fields. Bearing in mind the self-selection and often highly qualified nature of applicant pools, those are not good odds. </p>

<p>Hurdle #2 Finishing your PhD</p>

<p>Only about 50% of students actually finish their PhDs; many drop out due to stress or finding something they consider more lucrative/worthwhile. While it’s possible to finish a science PhD or something with limited coursework in 5 years, many students take longer. 10 years is not uncommon in the humanities. Balancing coursework, research, teaching, comprehensive exams, qualifying exams, and a dissertation is stressful, and that holds even more true for those trying to keep a decent social life or (I really don’t know how) have kids. </p>

<p>Hurdle #3 Finding a job</p>

<p>Only a fraction of PhDs will find any job at all in academia - and a smaller fraction still will get the well-paid tenure-track jobs. The US produced 64,000 PhDs in 2010, but HigherEd reported only about 26,000 faculty jobs…one can easily do the math. Taking biology as an example, a mere 15% (!) have found tenure-track jobs within 6 years of getting a PhD. The post-doc route isn’t safe either; only about 20% of those in biology get a post-doc position. Competition for jobs in history last year ranged from 34 per job (Middle Eastern) to 95 per job (US). Keep in mind these job statistics are for ANY jobs in academia, which includes one-year visiting professorships, low-paying adjunct positions (as low as $2000 per course), and other non-permanent faculty. Yes, you can get a job outside of academia in some disciplines (e.g. econ or engineering), but the outlook in many fields is still not good, and many PhDs end up getting jobs they could’ve gotten with a BA. </p>

<p>If you want job security and a decent salary, become a plumber or nurse. A PhD, not so much. People do it because they absolutely love their fields and, after apprising themselves of their options, couldn’t see themselves do anything else.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Based on Berkeley’s own salary data, Gee makes more than 3 x that of Birgeneau, and 2 x that of Yudof. I don’t think it will happen… Plus this is not the 90s, UC presidency is a hot seat even for the most experienced President in the country, so I believe he will choose to end his legacy at the Ohio State.</p>

<p>Source: [President</a> and provost salary data](<a href=“Berkeley News | Berkeley”>Berkeley News | Berkeley)</p>

<p>tOSU is crazy to pay the man that much. His previous experience was at Brown (where apparently he wasn’t well liked) and Vandy. Why pay him about $1 million more in total compensation than the nearest competitor?</p>

<p>I was just chiding you. You can keep the overpaid bow-tie wearing blowhard.</p>

<p>^^^^Gee was the head of tOSU once before too. They love him there.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Tk,
For reasons I’ve been trying to explain but you don’t seem to be hearing, the hawkette-produced “class size index” you link to in post #71 gets it exactly backward. Hawkette weights the percentage of small classes 3 times as heavily as the percentage of big classes, but in fact, it’s the percentage of big classes, not the percentage of small classes, that determines where students, on average and in the aggregate, spend the bulk of their time. And on that score many elite private universities (unlike LACs) are actually very similar to some of the best publics.</p>

<p>Let’s try this again with another example. MIT’s most recent Common Data Set says only 38 of its 877 classes have 100+ students, and only 75 have 50-99 students. That sounds pretty good, right? Especially when you go to the other end of the chart and see that a whopping 288 MIT classes have 2-9 students, and another 261 classes have 10-19 students. So that’s 113 large (50+) classes, and 549 small (<20) classes. Or, if you like, 12.9% large classes, and 62.6% small classes. So naturally you’d think that MIT students spend far more time in small classes than in large classes, right?</p>

<p>Wrong. Each of the 100±student classes has, by definition, at least 100 students in it. That’s at an absolute minimum of 3800 students in any given semester registered for a class with 100 or more students. At the other end of the scale, those 288 classes with 9 or fewer students have, by definition, at most 9 students apiece. That’s an absolute maximum of 2592 students in any given semester registered for classes of 9 or fewer students. </p>

<p>Hmm . . . at least 3800 student registrations in extra-large (100+) classes and at most 2592 student registrations in extra-small (<10) classes. So clearly, MIT students are spending far more time in very large classes than in very small classes, even though MIT has nearly 8 times as many very small classes as very large classes. And the disparity is almost certainly greater than that, because some of the 100+ classes have more than100 students, and some of the 2-9 student classes have fewer than 9 students. If the average class size of a 100+ class is 125, and if the average size of a class in the 2-9 student range is 7, then MIT students are spending well over twice as much time in very large (100+) as in very small (<10) classes.</p>

<p>The disparity is not as great between classes in the 50-99 range and classes in the 10-19 range, but if you do the math you’ll see it’s likely that MIT students are also spending more time in medium-large (50-99) classes than in medium-small (10-19) classes. There are a minimum of 3,750 and a maximum of 7,425 student registrations in MIT classes of 50-99 students. In comparison, there are a minimum of 2,610 and a maximum of 4,959 student registration in classes of 10-19 students. If we take the midpoint of those two ranges, we’d estimate there are 3,785 registrations in classes in the 10-19 range, and 5,588 registrations in classes in the 50-99 range.</p>

<p>Bottom line, adding together the 2-9 and 10-19 figures on one end and the 50-99 and 100+ figure on the other end, it’s clear that students at MIT are spending far more time in large (50+) than in small (<20) classes, even though only 12.9% of MIT’s classes are 50+. At the end of the day, MIT’s percentage of large classes is not so very different from UC Berkeley’s (14.7%) or UVA’s (15.4%). </p>

<p>I don’t mean to suggest there’s no difference between these schools. MIT does have a higher percentage of small classes; but what that means is not so much that MIT students spend less time in large classes (they do, but only by a little) as that when they aren’t in 50+ classes, UC Berkeley and UVA students are somewhat more likely to be in classes of 20-49 students and MIT students are somewhat more likely to be in classes of <20 students.</p>

<p>But those marginal class size differences pale in comparison to the difference between LACs and research universities. Here are the percentages of 50+ student classes at some leading LACs: Williams 2.9%, Amherst 3.0%, Swarthmore 1.6%, Pomona 1.3%, Middlebury 2.8%, Bowdoin 2.6%, Carleton 0.6%, Wellesley 0.8%, Claremont McKenna 1.5%, Haverford 0.3%. Many of these are an order of magnitude less than the percentage at MIT, which is far more similar to that at Berkeley or UVA than to the top LACs.</p>

<p>If you want small classes, go to a LAC. If you think you’ll avoid large classes by going to a private research university, in many cases you’ve been duped. Some are better than others; Yale at 7.0% and Chicago at 4.7% are still high relative to the top LACs, but you can reasonably expect to spend more time in small than in large classes at those schools. Not so MIT, or Stanford (12.7%), or Princeton (11.2%), or Johns Hopkins (11.4%), or Carnegie Mellon (11.2%); and certainly not Cornell (18.6%, higher than any of the top publics).</p>

<p>Re: #71 and class sizes</p>

<p>There is no point in making generalizations about public versus private schools and class sizes, because there are numerous exceptions, and the information is often readily available for a specific school by looking at its on-line schedule of classes.</p>

<p>Also, the major and courses one chooses will have a big effect on how big your classes are. For example, at Berkeley, a freshman taking general chemistry, introductory economics, introductory psychology, and (non-honors) freshman calculus will find some of the largest classes on campus. But another freshman taking honors math and honors physics will find relatively small classes for those subjects. It is likely that at any school, popular majors (e.g. biology, economics, psychology) will have the largest class sizes, as will introductory courses needed by several majors (e.g. math, chemistry).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>To add to your point, note that it is likely that some of those larger courses are those which nearly every student has to take, due to the course being in MIT’s General Institute Requirements. For example, 18.02 (multivariable calculus) has a lecture and 23 recitations for fall 2012. MIT’s schedule does not list the size and enrollment limit of the lecture and recitations, but unless there are fewer than 5 students in each recitation, that is one of the >100 student classes. A more theoretical version, 18.022, is offered, but it has only 4 recitations along with its lecture, indicating that it is not as popular as the basic version. An even more theoretical version, 18.024, does not seem to have any schedule listed for fall 2012.</p>

<p>[Fall</a> 2012 Course 18: Mathematics](<a href=“http://student.mit.edu/catalog/m18a.html]Fall”>IAP/Spring 2024 Course 18: Mathematics)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not even looking at hawkette’s “class size index”. I’m looking at percentages of < 20 and > 50 (which is reported in the CDS files for individual schools), and at the pattern of selective, private schools clustered in the top 2/3 of hawkette’s list, state universities rounding out the bottom third. This tends to hold whether we’re looking at < 20 or > 50 (<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size.html&lt;/a&gt; distributions without the hawkette “index”).</p>

<p>You seem to think anyone who doesn’t believe you’ve had the last word on big classes v. small classes is just too thick to understand your compelling arithmetic. Well, you do present an interesting argument about the implications of large classes in the overall distributions. But, for purposes of this discussion, I don’t think you’ve presented a good closing argument that private and public universities are pretty much the same in how this plays out. For one thing, there just isn’t enough precision in the CDS numbers. All “100+” distributions presumably are not created equal.</p>

<p>Let’s suppose that at 2 schools, all students enroll in 5 classes for exactly 8 semesters. The numbers in the following tables represent hypothetical class sizes.</p>

<p>School X<a href=“60%%3C%2020,%20%2010%%20%3E=50”>/u</a>
…S1…S2…S3…S4…S5…S6…S7…S8
Class1…10…10…10…10…10…10…10…10
Class2…10…10…10…10…10…10…10…10
Class3…10…10…10…10…10…10…10…10
Class4…25…25…25…25…25…25…25…25
Class5…50…25…50…25…50…25…50…25</p>

<p>School Y<a href=“40%%3C%2020,%20%2020%%20%3E=50”>/u</a>
…S1…S2…S3…S4…S5…S6…S7…S8
Class1…40…40…40…40…19…19…19…19
Class2…40…40…40…40…19…19…19…19
Class3…200…200…40…40…19…19…19…19
Class4…200…200…40…40…40…40…40…40
Class5…200…200…200…200…40…40…40…40</p>

<p>I think bclintonk would make much of the fact that, even though School X claims only 10% of its classes are “big” … in fact, fully 27% of aggregate student time (4x50=200 small-class “registration units” out of 740 aggregate “registration units”) is spent in “big” classes. Now, that may be significant from the registrar’s perspective, but from the individual student’s perspective, so what? S/he is still spending only 1 class per year (1 in 10 classes) with 49 or more other students.</p>

<p>Another thing to observe is how the aggregate percentages understate the relative badness of school Y. The “big” classes are really big, the mid-sized aren’t small, and they are all front-loaded in the foundational first two years. In the student’s major, classes are small enough for the professor’s personal attention. But virtually all of the important general education courses are too big for much discussion, written assignments, and essay-based testing with significant feedback from the professor.</p>

<p>Do these two tables accurately represent class size distributions at, say, Ivy League schools v. “public Ivies”? I really don’t know. The CDS data is not precise enough to tell. So it’s important to go visit schools and talk to students to assess the reality of each school behind the reported numbers.</p>