Before you pick a school.....think about this

<p>Excerpts from an interesting article:</p>

<p>"If you’re the parent of a high-achieving high school student prepared to spend whatever it takes to send your kid to an Ivy League college, authors Claudia Dreifus and Andrew Hacker have some unlikely advice: Don’t do it.</p>

<p>Dreifus, a New York Times writer and an adjunct professor at Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, and Hacker, a veteran political science professor at Queens College in New York, spent three years interviewing faculty, students, and administrators and crunching statistics for their book, Higher Education? How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids — And What We Can Do About It. Their finding? That many of America’s colleges and universities — especially the elite — aren’t worth their tuition and serve faculty over their undergrads."</p>

<p>"2. Research universities are no place for undergraduates.</p>

<p>Professors at big research universities are often more interested in doing research and working with graduate students than teaching your child because their prestige (and their university’s) depends on publishing. So they tend to host huge lectures and then foist undergrads off on teaching assistants who may or may not be supervised. “At Harvard, we ran into students who said they never had a professor who had enough of a relationship with them to write a recommendation for grad school,” Dreifus says. How to avoid that? Go to a school that’s completely dedicated to teaching, like a four-year liberal arts college with little to no research. “Look for seminars where 15 to 20 people sit around a table,” Dreifus says. “The big question we want parents to ask: Is this a place that’s about developing my child’s mind?”</p>

<p>"4. The star professors touted in college brochures probably won’t be teaching your kid.</p>

<p>Universities and colleges are increasingly relying on underpaid, part-time instructors to lead undergraduate courses. Contingent teachers, including paid-by-the-course adjunct professors, now do 70 percent of college teaching, up from 43 percent in 1975. (The elites aren’t immune: At Yale, the figure is 70 percent.) Most adjuncts don’t even have an office on campus, and because they make on average only about $3,000 a course, they often teach at three or four different colleges. “It’s hard to be a great teacher and to be there for your students when you’re juggling that many jobs,” Dreifus says."</p>

<p>"5. The college’s best professors may not even be on campus.</p>

<p>Though they get their summers off and breaks during the school year, tenured faculty at many universities are encouraged to take frequent sabbaticals. What will that mean for your undergrad? At Harvard, where senior professors get a sabbatical every three years, 10 of the 48 professors in the history department — more than one in five — were off doing research in 2010/2011. During a recent year at Williams College, another school with a great reputation, a third of the professors in the religion department were on leave. If you choose a school that gives its faculty a lot of time for research, your son or daughter might find that his or her senior-thesis adviser is on sabbatical in Tuscany."</p>

<p>"6. Don’t be seduced by the luxuries they show you on the tour.</p>

<p>Today’s students get suites, private bathrooms, and food courts with chefs that make sushi and Dijon chicken, not to mention jumbo Jacuzzis and five-story climbing walls. It’s all part of an extravagant amenities race that’s helping to push up tuition rates. “When we sneaked in on parent/student tours across the country, we were shocked at the number of questions parents asked about amenities,” Dreifus says. “A college doesn’t have to look like Club Med. In fact, I’d say you should be suspicious if a school has a lot of amenities. When a college has every kind of plaything, that tells you something about its priorities.”</p>

<p>"9. Going to an elite university does not guarantee success.</p>

<p>To prove this point, Hacker and Dreifus tracked the 900-odd students who graduated from Princeton in 1973 to see if the school was delivering on its promise “to prepare students for positions of leadership,” whether in business, public service, or the arts, which Princeton administrators claim as their goal. “We were very disappointed,” Hacker says. “There were only a handful of recognized names in that class of 900. What that tells us is simply this: In America, if you put your talents to their best use, by the age of 35 or 36, you’ll be passing people from Princeton, no matter where you went to school.” Sure, the authors acknowledge, a designer degree might help you get into medical school or law school at Harvard, Stanford, or Yale. That’s a nice bonus if you can pay the full sticker price, they say, but not enough of an edge to saddle your child with many thousands of dollars in debt."</p>

<p>I know this article probably doesn't give the whole story about research unis, but it may be something to think about. I'm sure there are many exceptions. Find the whole article at: 10</a> Things Every Parent Should Know About College | Reader's Digest</p>

<p>It starts with an intro about Ivy League schools, then makes sweeping claims about “research universities,” and then backs them up with a bunch of points that start with “At Harvard” or “At Yale.” They really need to be clear about the scope of this criticism.</p>

<p>lol I think they’re generalizing to research unis in general, with particular emphasis on Ivies. :)</p>

<p>Sounds like these guys had an idea that would sell books, and spent three years manipulating data to make their idea sound truthier. This one is pretty funny:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The way it’s written, they give the impression that 70% of classes at Yale are taught by professors making $3000 a course and juggling three to four jobs! They’ll probably sell a lot of books, but I don’t think these are the sort of people who can be trusted to give well-reasoned, objective advice.</p>

<p>^ I don’t know about Yale specifically, but at most universities (as opposed to LACs), the impression they give is totally correct. I know it sounds absurd, but it’s true.</p>

<p>It is true that most professors at research institutes spend more time with grad students rather than undergrad… it shouldn’t be news either.</p>

<p>So what is the percentage at Yale?</p>

<p>What you could do is take a <em>cluster sample</em> (looks like stats DOES come up in real life) of a Yale dept. that is representative of the whole school and count the number of adjunct profs.</p>

<p>EVERYONE HAS TO NOTE ONE THING! The college you go to doesn’t determine if you succeed or don’t. Yes, getting into an Ivy will make it easier for you to get a job with all the prestige that comes along with it. But if you go to an Ivy for an English major and become a public school english teacher, maybe that huge debt wasn’t worth it (I am saying this job doesn’t pay too well often times and the field isn’t really Ivy exclusive, many people from many colleges can get this kind of job). There are a lot of things to take into account including where you want to go and what is required to get there. </p>

<p>You can go to a half decent university…do GREAT…and get accepted to Harvard med school for graduate training.
You can go to a half decent engineering school and get a job that will make you between 50-100k during your working life, I don’t know many engineers(unless they end up as exec’s or do some crazy research stuff) making much more than 100k during their careers. I don’t know if an MIT education will help you earn more (Though I don’t know for certain). But an MIT grad who is bold enough and ambitious enough can certainly transcend these general numbers with the education behind him/her.</p>

<p>The point of this is…you can go anywhere and be successful if you work hard enough, that is what the American Dream is about. The Ivy education is a privilege that makes that dream easier to achieve, but according to this study, far too many people that attend these universities dismiss their work ethic when they get admitted. But, I don’t know the true accuracy of it.</p>

<p>I realize that definitions aren’t the same nor are the time periods, but according to IPEDS there are a lot more part-time instructors at Yale than reported in its Common Data Set. </p>

<p>The CDS lists 817 full time instructors and 11 part time instructors which is what is reported on the US News site. However, in the IPEDS report for 2009, it lists 407 part-time primarily instruction, non-medical staff which is not the same as the reported 1459 graduate assistants. If you exclude the grad assistants, the part-time account for 26% of the non-medical instructional faculty. If you add the assistants as part-time, the number goes up to 61%.</p>

<p>Now these numbers say nothing about the number of classes being taught by full-time compared to part-time and there are areas where part-time instructors may be the norm such as music?</p>

<p>And who knows which numbers to actually use? IPEDS also lists 2,170 full-time, 610 part time and 1,459 grad assistants by primary instructional function/occupational activity. I don’t pretend to understand the differences or why the numbers between the CDS and IPEDS aren’t even close (but am trying to figure it out). If anyone is more experienced working with IPEDS, I would appreciate an explanation.</p>

<p>[IPEDS</a> Data Center](<a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Facsimile.aspx?unitid=acaeabb2b4af]IPEDS”>http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Facsimile.aspx?unitid=acaeabb2b4af)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If the accuracy of this quote about Harvard is any indication about the accuracy of this advice in general, it’s terrible. Well, okay, actually the principles of the advice seem sound–look for colleges where a student’s mind is developed. Good stuff. Be suspicious of too many amenities. Probably great. Try to avoid colleges where there are too many TAs or adjuncts doing too much teaching. (That figure on Yale’s adjuncts has got to be totally misleading as well.)</p>

<p>However, the claims they make about which schools fail those tests and which satisfy them are baloney. When I read that quote about the seminars to look for, my eyes nearly jumped out of my sockets in surprise. The idea that a 15-20 person class would be considered small? This semester, I took a distribution requirement science class, and three classes more or less related to my major (none advanced, all covering wildly different subjects). My “large” lecture class had a little less than 25 students, and my other three had 11 (lecture), 10 (seminar capped at 12 but enrollment was less), and 6 (lecture/seminar hybrid). Nor was I being purposely obscurist in my course choices, nor did I actively seek out small classes. It just happened, and that was totally normal. And while I’m sure students who don’t have faculty to ask for recommendations by graduation exist here, I’m not sure that they could exist among students writing thesises. I’ve been part of the category of students who can ask at least one full professor for a detailed and specific recommendation since freshman spring (and did, in fact, for summer opportunities); graduating without that seems absurd, given (a) a thesis or (b) not somebody from a huge department intent on doing the minimum classwork in order to devote more time to extracurriculars or whatever.</p>

<p>Here’s some data to back up my class size thing, from USNWR:</p>

<p>Less than 20 students per class / % more than 50 students per class</p>

<p>*) Tufts 75% & 4%

  1. Columbia 76% & 8%
  2. Northwestern 75% & 7%
  3. Yale 75% & 8%
  4. Penn 74% & 7%
  5. Harvard 75% & 9%
  6. Chicago 72% & 4%
  7. Stanford 74% & 11%
  8. Princeton 73% & 10%
  9. WashUStL 73% & 9%
  10. Duke 70% & 5%
  11. CalTech 69% & 8%
  12. Rice 68% & 7%
  13. Emory 68% & 7%
  14. Vanderbilt 67% & 6%</p>

<p>Class size is definitely a problem some places. Holding down the bottom of the list are:</p>

<p>UCSD 44% & 30%
UC Davis 35% & 28%
Georgia Tech 40% & 22%
Florida 41% & 20%
Illinois 38% & 19%
UCLA 53% & 20 %</p>

<p>So while you should watch out for class size, watch out for too many TAs, don’t trust their judgments against any specific university. Between research universities, I feel like the authors pick on Ivies misleadingly to show they aren’t elitists just taking on the state flagship schools, but, unfortunately, state schools with less money sometimes can’t afford such luxuries. (Their comment about priorities is interesting, though. The best dorm food I’ve ever seen was at one of the “party” UCs, and I’m pretty sure it would rank near the bottom of the class size thing…) But the authors aren’t clearly pro-LAC either, hating on Williams in the full version of the article. (And to be pro-LAC would be a strange position for authors trying to emphasize value-for-cost, since while top LACs give about as good aid as tippy-top research universities, the aid less selective LACs give falls off rather quickly as one drops down the rankings.) Although mostly they are? Since they tout state honors colleges as the ideal solution, being LAC-like at much less cost. But they end by approving students who turned down HYPetc. for state honors colleges as the kids who made the best choices, because it’s cheaper. Here’s the thing they can’t seem to wrap their head around, though: for a lot of students at the very best of the best schools, a state honors college would probably not actually be cheaper. Vs. TakeyourmoneyprivateU, yes, that’s a wise choice, obviously, but that’s not the example they argue against: they argue in favor of turning down Harvard for the honors college at ASU. That’s still a tenable argument, but pretending that represents a $40k/year difference for every student who makes that choice is grossly inaccurate.</p>

<p>The conclusions they draw pull a bunch of different ways (pro-public, anti-public, pro-LAC, anti-LAC, anti-elite, anti-less-than-elite), but I think their overall point is: here are some flaws that can negatively affect your student’s college experience, and the elites are not immune. (Although their portrayal of how bad things are at some specific colleges is vastly misleading.) Their point would have been much better served if they made that clear up front, and made it clear that all types of schools can suffer these flaws. For the sake of their argument, I would have liked to see lists of schools they thought were affirmatively good and bad at these things. I would probably have disagreed, but it would be nice to be clear on what I’m trying to argue against.</p>

<p>That quote makes me laugh. So their advice is if you want to go to grad school, go to an undergrad ‘with little or no research’? Good luck with that.</p>

<p>I’m often on CC arguing for avoid ‘elite’ branding nonsense, and that you can get a great education at tons of places. But even I think this book sounds dumb.</p>

<p>Call me a professor-snob, if you will, but being an adjunct professor or at Queens College does not exactly put you in the center of the industry nor suggest you are qualified to comment on what it takes to get onto grad school.</p>

<p>Just another set of authors looking to sell a book.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The CDS figures usually completely exclude counting TAs or TFs who “assist” in a course, fudging the numbers of what kind of contact time students will have with the mighty profs. </p>

<p>I read the book the OP discusses and found it pretty accurate based on my experiences in attending and teaching college and the experiences of students I know today.</p>