@Creekland : Eh I guess the visit thing helps, but what about multi-section courses which are common at the intro. Level in STEM. The prospective student would then have to know about the heirarchy of quality and rigor in said dept. and choose accordingly to get any real information meaning that the student needs to.do.the research (that is really care) before hand. The syllabi and materials of said instructors in conjunction with a strategic visit is the best for STEM.
@juillet : I suspect that size differences influence mainly intro. And intermediate courses in something like CS as well as social sciences and it “could” impact the syllabi. If you wanna be efficient with grading in a large lecture (BTW, even MIT and Princeton have that for intro. Courses in STEM), you won’t put very complex homeworks in the syllabus, or you may test differently. However in upper divisions bets are off as sizes shrink at almost any school. At that point, if two schools are overall a high caliber, regardless of any selectivity differences(and then STEM student credentials and stats at most highky ranked universities are higher than average and super compressed so may not mirror the differences between the overall selectivity of two schools if it exists. If UCLA’s best self select into CS, some of the differences in statistical credentials will close between it and MIT) rigor differences cannot be predicted. It will come down more to institutional and specifically the department’s culture with regards to undergraduate teaching (if there is one).
This makes it hard to predict any trends. There are special darlings like CMU that are on some other stuff and folks know of that, but honestly most schools don’t market the reality and details of undergraduate education because it doesn’t sell as well as research based prestige or really any type of prestige regardless of how it was gained. Often the teaching environment is the last on the mind of prospectives and we just accept anything from rankings and marketing material as a proxy for a gauge of academic and teaching environment when in reality it takes a lot of work for ANYONE to truly assess it and whether or not it is a fit or will optimize learning for whoever. There are simply very little standards for a lot of undergrad. Programs and a lot of freedom for instructors and departments to do whatever within reason.
I recommend folks doing these STEM (at least those who don’t assume that “I know my education will be great because this school is ranked x overall”…so more academically serious folks) degrees or comparing programs to start at departmental websites to feel it out initially, look for coursework online or something, and generally get enough info. To make an informed class(es) or departmental visit if possible. Some STEM programs may be under-rated or under appreciated for undergrads and some that glitter won’t be gold necessarily.
When I started comparing life sciences materials between top ranked schools, there seemed like therw was no rhyme or reason to trends in rigor and anything was possible no matter the relative rank. Whenever I was surprised, I had to research underlying issues such as the history of the school and those departments actively seeking reform of curricula (was it discussed in on and off campus publications? Did the schools seek a grant for reform? Etc). It takes a lot. Far more than many HS students in their last year or really anyone who doesn’t care that deeply about teaching and education to do.