<p>^ Based on opportunities after graduation (career placement, salary scale, etc.), academic prestige (all ranked in the top 30 in most league tables), quality of teaching, spending on student and quality of faculty and students.</p>
<p>None of which have any verifiable effect on the quality of the education delivered. You could look it up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems like you totally missed the point.</p>
<p>^ Really? If I’m an employer, why would I hire someone academically unequipped? </p>
<p>The fact that graduates of the Ivies are almost always “first in line” at most top companies’ doors says a lot about the quality of teaching at those schools. Don’t you think?</p>
<p>Here’s the link that was posted, how about you read the piece again:</p>
<p>[The</a> American Scholar: The Disadvantages of an Elite Education - William Deresiewicz](<a href=“http://theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/]The”>The American Scholar: The Disadvantages of an Elite Education - <a href='https://theamericanscholar.org/author/william-deresiewicz/'>William Deresiewicz</a>)</p>
<p>Are you suggesting then that graduates of the Ivies learn less compared to grads of other schools? Which schools teach/deliver better instructions than the Ivies? Are graduates of, say, Rice or Vanderbilt, learn more during their undergraduate years than those of, say, Princeton?</p>
<p>There are benefits for bright students from learning side by side with other bright students. Ivy League schools have an abundance of bright students, but they can be found in many places. </p>
<p>One of my elementary school classmates from the small town where I grew up holds an endowed chair at an Ivy League school; another is the CEO of a pharmaceutical company, with numerous drug patents to his name. (Neither of them went to Ivy League schools as undergraduates, by the way.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may or it may not. To the extent this is true, it may reflect treatment effects (quality of education per se), or it may reflect selection effects (cherry-picking applicants who would have been about as successful, in these terms, wherever they went).</p>
<p>With respect to financial success after graduation, the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest that such effects are selection effects, not treatment effects.
[Revisiting</a> the Value of Elite Colleges - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-elite-colleges/]Revisiting”>Revisiting the Value of Elite Colleges - The New York Times)</p>
<p>Of course, there are other kinds of success besides financial success. I don’t know that anybody has tried to assess the comparative advantage (if any) of “elite” schools in teaching students how to read a book, how to make a well-reasoned argument, how to make good use of leisure time, how to live a purposeful life, etc.</p>
<p>What tk said about selection effects.
And I’m not “suggesting” that graduates of elite schools learn less - only pointing out that copious evidence establishes that they don’t learn more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting article and research. It calls into question the whole Ivy-madness that seems to obsess students and parents. Despite the data to the contrary, there’s still a wide-spread, if misinformed, belief that the Ivies produce better outcomes for students. Is this driven by the sweatshirt culture we live in where people want to wear a Harvard, Princeton sweatshirt as some sort of message to others?</p>
<p>^ That’s part of it. But there’s a genuine misconception that because these colleges are prestigious and expensive, they must be something special. That misconception is understandable - it’s fueled by the media, and not only USNWR (though that is by far the worst offender) - even though there are years of solid research showing that those emperors indeed have no clothes.</p>
<p>I also suspect that there are some people without the ability to understand the difference between selection effects and treatment effects. And there are certainly some who simply choose to ignore the evidence, no doubt from a variety of motives.</p>
<p>Don’t kid yourself - this “ivy madness” is still a drop in the bucket. The vast majority of hs seniors pick based on cost and closeness to home, and simply don’t dream of wearing an ivy or similar sweatshirt.</p>
<p>This is like version 572 of the exact same conversation. There are people who are obsessed with Ivies for prestige reasons, and there are others who prefer to pooh-pooh them. They are very good schools, but they are luxury goods that you don’t absolutely need to succeed in life. As annasdad has reminded us (again), your success depends more on you than it does on what college you attend. But some people find that the luxury of going to school with a lot of very smart, accomplished, and motivated students is worth the expense. And it’s really worth it if you get a big discount in the form of financial aid.</p>
<p>I’ve spent quite a bit of time around Ivies: attended two, taught at a third, know lots of Ivy faculty in my field and in some other fields, have spent time at scholarly conferences and workshops at all but one, etc. In my opinion, they’re excellent schools, top to bottom, without question among the best in the nation and in the world. But having said that, I think as a group they’re a little overrated in the minds of the general public and here on CC.</p>
<p>Contrary to public myth, students at most of the Ivies take a lot of large classes, a lot of the teaching is done by TAs, and faculty are by and large more interested in their own research than in undergraduate teaching. At Princeton and Brown, 10% of the classes have 50+ students, and if you do the math you’ll see that means students are probably spending as much or more time in large (50+) classes than in small (<20) classes. That’s because each large class is, by definition, large, and has a lot of students, while each small class is, by definition, small, and has only a few students. It’s really the percentage of large classes, not the percentage of small classes, that dominates here; US News’ ranking system is just plain wrong on this, placing greater weight on the percentage of small classes. At Cornell, 18% of the classes have 50+ students; that’s a higher percentage than at most of the top publics. Harvard, Penn, and Dartmouth, all in the 8-9% range, are not especially great on this score, either. Yale and Columbia, both around 6%, are better, but if you want small classes you really should attend a LAC; most have 3% or fewer large (50+) classes, some far fewer than that. At my D1’s LAC, Haverford, only 0.3% of the classes are 50+. </p>
<p>I sometimes wonder where the top LACs would come out if US News ranked LACs and research universities together. By some key measures, a top LAC like Williams has it all over most of the Ivies. Just for fun, I compared some basic data on Williams, Dartmouth, and Brown—the latter two being Ivies with reputations for being especially undergraduate-oriented. Williams has a better faculty-student ratio (7:1, compared to 8:1 at Dartmouth and 9:1 at Brown), more small classes (70.5% <20 students, compared to 59.5% at Dartmouth and 68.3% at Brown) and far fewer large (50+) classes (3% at Williams, 8% at Dartmouth, 10% at Brown). Williams also has a better peer assessment score (4.7, compared to 4.3 at Dartmouth and 4.4 at Brown, though concededly it’s a different peer group), but a slightly lower HS counselor rating (4.5 at Williams, 4.8 at both Dartmouth and Brown, though I attribute this partly to HS counselors being as irrationally gaga about Ivies as the general public). They have similar freshman retention rates (97% Williams, 98% Dartmouth and Brown) and 6-year graduation rates (95% Williams and Dartmouth, 96% Brown). Williams has a higher percentage of full-time faculty (96.2%, compared to 91.9% at Dartmouth and 92.9% at Brown). And Williams has a far higher endowment-per-student, about $856K per student at Williams, compared to $556K per student at Dartmouth and $287K per student at Brown. To put those figures into perspective, at a 5% annual payout Williams’ endowment would produce $42,800 per student per year, while Dartmouth’s would produce $27,800 per student per year, and Brown’s a more modest $14,350 per student per year. That’s just an enormous difference.</p>
<p>Dartmouth’s and Brown’s entering class stats are slightly higher: middle 50% SATs are 1360-1570 at Dartmouth, 1330-1530 at Brown, and 1310-1530 at Williams. And Brown has a few more incoming freshmen who were in the top 10% of their HS class, 93%, compared to 90% at both Dartmouth and Williams. The slightly higher stats and much lower admit rates (9% at Brown, 12% at Dartmouth, 19% at Williams) I attribute to the Ivies being overrated.</p>
<p>Oh, and for what it’s worth (not much, I suspect, but US News counts it), Williams has a higher alumni giving rate of 57%, compared to 49% at Dartmouth and 36% at Brown.</p>
<p>Based on all this, I suspect Williams might actually come out ahead of Brown and very close to Dartmouth in a unified LAC-research university ranking. Which may be one reason US News keeps them separate. And in most of the factors that relate directly to the quality of an undergraduate education—student-faculty ratio, class size, percentage of faculty who are full-time, endowment-per-student—Williams seems to have clear advantages over either of the Ivies, which as I say are excellent schools—just not clearly head and shoulders better than many other fine schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems to me, since the research shows that one of the relatively few metrics that affects student achievement is the frequency of student-faculty interaction, that large classes, TA-taught classes, and “faculty [that] are by and large more interested in their own research than in undergraduate teaching” would weigh heavily against rating any such places as “excellent schools, top to bottom, without question among the best in the nation and in the world.” At least, that is, if one is assessing excellence on the basis of how good a job they do in teaching undergraduates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re singing Pizzagirl’s song! And we’re in agreement!</p>
<p>I can only speak in detail about Yale, but I don’t think the size of class issue is as big a deal as suggested. In my (and my son’s) experience, TAs don’t typically teach, per se–they lead discussion sections. The professor does the lecturing in the large class. Some of those lectures are really great. Can you get lecturers that good for small classes at an LAC? Maybe, maybe not. Also, again in my experience, those large classes were often surveys outside the major–like the giant (and excellent) art history class I took. In my major (English), there were few large classes for majors, and plenty of very small ones. I guess there were some TAs or “instructors” who taught sections of foreign language and math. How do LACs manage to keep classes like that small?</p>
<p>
Except that I think they’re well worth the money, if you’ve got it. You may think it’s silly to buy a new BMW when your used Yugo will get you from place to place, but others simply place value on different elements of the experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lecturing isn’t teaching. Leading a discussion session is teaching, or at least when done well it can be. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>– Pascarella and Terenzini, 101-102</p>
<p>You don’t like Pascarella and Terenzini? Fine. The literature actually abounds with support for this view. One example, of many:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>– Journal of Engineering Education, July 2004 (<a href=“http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Prince_AL.pdf[/url]”>Teaching and Learning STEM)</p>
<p>M.I.T. has bought in:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?_r=1[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?_r=1</a></p>
<p>And students are not actively involved when they’re sitting and passively listening to a lecture. By definition.</p>
<p>The problem, of course, is that active learning takes more professorial time - a lot more - than simply the spray-and-pray lecture approach. Not to mention, designing effective active learning requires knowledge and skills not developed in most PhD programs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I do think it’s silly to spend a lot of money on a fancy car; but if I had unlimited disposable income, and if I had a kid who got into and wanted to go to a pricey, prestigious school, I’d pony up the cash. Hey, I like to brag on my kids as much as the next guy; but that doesn’t mean I’d delude myself by thinking that they’re getting a better education than they would at someplace far less prestigious and expensive.</p>
<p>And the real problem I have with the Ivy-worship - indeed, with the “top college”-worship - is that so many people who can’t easily afford the big price tag are deluded into thinking their kids futures and happiness depend on them going to the most expensive and prestigious school they can get into. Hang out on the FA forum, and see all the threads along the line of “How can I borrow $30,000 a year without a cosigner so I can go to <name of=”" college=“”>" or “My parents only make $60,000 a year and I have a $15,000 bill from my dream school for the first semester that’s due next week. How can I pay it?”</name></p>
<p>Yes, I know that some of the very top colleges have made commitments to make themselves more affordable, and for that, they should be commended. But there are still far too many students and families who dig themselves into financial holes because of the myth that prestige correlates with educational quality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I know exactly how that works. Been there and done that from both sides of the podium. “Leading a discussion” is teaching. It’s what TAs do at all research universities. It’s what tenured and tenure-track faculty do at the graduate and advanced undergraduate level in research universities. It’s what tenured- and tenure-track faculty do even in into-level classes at LACs. </p>
<p>But why is it that for so many people on CC, TA-led discussion sections are a negative at public universities, but a non-issue or even a positive when exactly the same thing happens at an Ivy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Been there & done that, too, again from both sides of the podium. Again, same question: why is it that a large lecture class is a bad thing at a public university but a good thing at Yale? For the record, I took only a small handful of large lecture classes as an undergrad at Michigan, but those I took were outstanding–all taught by top people in their field who were brilliant lecturers, easily the equal of the people who were doing exactly the same thing at the 3 Ivies with which I’ve been associated. In my major, every class I took was small and taught by a tenured or tenure-track professor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it’s a bit of a loaded question because by and large most classes at LACs aren’t taught in that kind of lecture format; they’re more interactive. More typical would be a pure professor-led discussion class, or perhaps what you might call mini-lectures punctuated by discussion. The skill set demanded of the professor–and the skill set demanded of the students—would be quite different. Are the professors well qualified to guide undergraduate students through that material? Well, yes, at least at my daughter’s LAC they’re truly outstanding. And they understand teaching undergrads to be their job #1. My D1 wanted to attend a LAC; I’d have been more inclined to send her to a research university. But having seen the education she’s getting there, I’m absolutely convinced it’s at least as good if not better than that she would have gotten at any research university in the country. Bar none. </p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>Low student-faculty ratios.</li>
<li>Faculty teach only undergrads, not grad students.</li>
<li>Because faculty research is less emphasized (though it’s certainly an important part of what goes on at top LACs), more faculty time goes into undergrad teaching. I imagine at some, perhaps all LACs this translates into faculty teaching more undergrad courses per year, and LAC faculty don’t get as many research leaves or research grant-sponsored buyouts from teaching obligations…</li>
<li>Because LACs don’t try to span as many disciplines, they can concentrate faculty resources on the subjects they do teach. Yale has a terrific 5:1 student-faculty ratio based on total faculty and total students (graduate + undergrad). But with its faculty trying to cover the waterfront across many disciplines, it actually has proportionally less faculty relative to the number of students in some high-demand core disciplines, like math and the more popular foreign languages. So, for example, with 11,701 students (grad and undergrad), Yale lists 54 mathematics faculty. That’s a lot of mathematicians, but it translates to approximately 1 mathematician for every 217 students at Yale. My daughter’s LAC, Haverford, has almost exactly 1/10 as many students as Yale, 1,177 to be exact; but it has roughly 1/5 as many mathematicians (10), for a ratio of 1 mathematician for every 117 students–or almost twice the faculty resources per student in this core discipline. And remember, a lot of those mathematicians at Yale are going to be doing some or all of their teaching at the graduate level in any given semester, and student/faculty ratios tend to be much lower at the graduate level. which means that the student/faculty ratio at the undergrad level will be that much higher to balance it out. They just don’t have enough math faculty to each the more popular intro-level math classes in 20- to 25-person faculty-taught sections, like the intro-level math class my D1 took at her LAC last semester.</li>
</ol>
<p>Similarly in foreign languages. Yale’s French department lists 10 regular and 2 emeritus faculty, then a bunch of “lecturers” and “lectors” who I take it are in non-tenure track or adjunct positions. It’s always difficult to know with emeriti how much they actually teach, but let’s give Yale the benefit of the doubt and count them as full-time. Haverford, with 1/10 the students, lists 3 tenured or tenure-track faculty and one “instructor” (who I again assume is non-tenure track); that’s it. One-tenth the students but one-fourth the French faculty, all teaching exclusively undergrads. It only stands to reason that Haverford has the faculty resources to have even intro-level French taught mainly by tenured or tenure-track faculty, while at Yale the comparable courses will mostly be covered by lecturers, lectors, or grad students. Of course, Yale offers a wider variety of languages, including no doubt some low-enrollment ones where student/faculty ratios are better. That’s the trade-off. But if you want to study one of the core liberal arts disciplines, you’ll have smaller classes and get more faculty attention at Haverford than at Yale. </p>
<p>And Yale, I’d again emphasize, is better on that score than most of the Ivies, with a phenomenal student-faculty ratio and just over half as many large classes as Princeton or Brown, and one-third as many as Cornell.</p>
<p>annasdad, does the research indicate whether it matters whether that engaged learning is with a TA or with a professor? Is a Harvard graduate student or an East Michigan assistant professor likely to be a better teacher?</p>
<p>bclintonk, I don’t really disagree with what you say–I’m sure that at a place like Haverford, you do get much more direct interaction with professors. As you note, there are tradeoffs. But I think annasdad would say that you don’t need to go to Haverford, either–that a less selective LAC would be just as good. Right?</p>