<p>Okay Alexandre. Heehee. ;)</p>
<p>BBall87, no, I wouldn't consider Cornell a state school though it does have some "public" colleges.</p>
<p>Go Rutgers :P.</p>
<p>Globalist, actually I think many of the graduate & research polls are pretty much in agreement. The most highly regarded grad programs normally receive the greatest amount of research funding. Love it or hate it, a highly regarded grad program normally = a highly regarded department. The polls that rank the top research institutions are usually based on the "breadth and depth of academic programs" or endowment. Here's one research poll:</p>
<p>In my opinion, it matters far less how highly regarded a school is EVERYWHERE and more how highly regarded it is in your area of interest. I go to Brandeis which has well developed English, science, and Judaic Studies departments, my areas of interest. If you're an engineering major, would you discount Caltech because of its lack of strength in the humanities? That would be silly. I didn't really care about the history or the music department because I'm not a history or music major or minor. Therefore, when choosing a college, the most important department to look at is the one (or ones in my case) that you're interested in.</p>
<p>On small classes: As I said, I attend Brandeis, which is very small, only 3100 undergrads. Therefore, most of my classes are also pretty small. The biggest class I will ever take is organic chemistry, which is starting out with 130 people. Intro physics was 70, computer science 50, and many classes I'm taking/have taken are under 20. The classes with under 20 have been the most amazing of all of these courses. By no means did I feel spoon-fed. In fact, these courses made me think the most because only in small classes can professors challange your ideas up front. In lectures I often felt spoon fed because there was little room for discussion-- I just wrote down and studied what the professor said. Obviously, this was not the case in all my larger classes, but true in more of them than the very small ones.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the same time UM and UW have somewhat hastily intoduced all sorts of special small classes for first years
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think Michigan's LSA introduced its 15-student freshman seminars in 1978. Hasty? LOL</p>
<p>In 1995, when I was a Junior at Michigan, I took a class with 5 other students and 2 professors! Roughly 50% of my classes at Michigan had 15-25 students.</p>
<p>According to the "Michigan Record" First Year Seminars did not become widely available until around 1994.</p>
<p>And the Michigan Daily from 1998 backs this up</p>
<p>So we're talking 10 years ago they were widely available? That still doesn't seem like something sudden or hasty. They introduced them in 1978, took about 15 years for them to really expand it, but for the last decade they've been offering them--I dunno, doesn't feel hasty to me.</p>
<p>I think it's true that every so often big universities get a bee in their bonnet about "the undergraduate experience." It seems to go in cycles. They do a task force, make some changes and some nice initiatives, and while those go on the the nest year's emphasis is on something else like interdisciplinarity. Or the humanities. Or the status of women. Or the junior faculty. And then after a few years it's time to refocus attention on undergraduate education again. I've never had the sense of a panicked, abrupt, "Oh no! Students are figuring out we're a RESEARCH UNIVERSITY! It's hurting the rankings! Let's start caring about undergrads PRONTO!"</p>
<p>I meant it more as they got on the better undergrad bandwagon as demand for new PHD's really started to fall off and they had to widen their franchise to include a higher quality undergrad experience. Also I think there was a dip in HS grads during that period so competition for top students became greater.</p>
<p>Miriam Boo, we're talking about undergraduate education here. Just because a school has a great graduate program does it mean that its undergraduate program is as great. Many research-oriented professors give more emphasis and time to their research and graduate students than undergrads. </p>
<p>If you're an undergraduate and the graduate department at your school is highly ranked but you don't get the attention and education you deserve, does that ranking really matter to you? Yeah, you can say that you attend a Top 10 school in your field, but are you really getting a great education? </p>
<p>Also, what type of education do you think kids from schools like Amherst, Swarthmore, and William & Mary are receiving? Those schools aren't research powerhouses, but they're awesome colleges. Plus, I would argue that the education that those kids receive are as good or perhaps even better than those at large research institutions where students just get lost in the mix.</p>
<p>Personally, I would like to hear about your educational experience and why you like to quote research rankings when colleges' main (and original) purpose is to teach?</p>
<p>Your assumption that the current "main" purpose of colleges is to teach is not really correct when it comes to the major research universities. Most now spend more on research than on instruction as that is where the money is. Even at a medium level research university like UVa the spending on research now exceeds the amount spent on instruction by nearly 20%.</p>
<p>Sure, you can spend money on research. I'm not against research. In fact, over 1/2 of undergrads at UVa conduct their own research. </p>
<p>I'm saying that enhancing research shouldn't come at the expense of good instruction. If I'm a student at a school that has stellar research professors who help to raise the prestige and rankings of my college, but they don't teach undergrads or if they do, they do it only because they're forced to and thus don't give their undergrads (like myself) any true attention, how is this situation benefitial to me? I'm paying for this class, but I'm not getting my money's worth because to that college research money is more important.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm saying that enhancing research shouldn't come at the expense of good instruction. If I'm a student at a school that has stellar research professors who help to raise the prestige and rankings of my college, but they don't teach undergrads or if they do, they do it only because they're forced to and thus don't give their undergrads (like myself) any true attention, how is this situation benefitial to me? I'm paying for this class, but I'm not getting my money's worth because to that college research money is more important.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One of level, I'm with you completely. I get what you're saying, and you are right in that some universities' reputations are increased by their research faculty. You're also right that sometimes those research faculty don't have much contact with undergrads or a strong commitment to undergraduate instruction. There's an irony there, we all see that.</p>
<p>But I have to nitpick with you about some of your statements. You seem to suggest that instruction suffers "at the expense of" research and that getting "your money's worth" would mean you get direct access to those research faculty. But this suggest that your tuition dollars are being diverted towards research. They're not. Your money isn't really paying for much of those research professor's salaries. Universities can afford those big sexy brains because of research dollars and hefty donations, all of which flow more freely when you have those big stars and prestige (it's a cycle). They're not buying them with your tuition check. And for that reason, a cold eye would say it's unreasonable to assume you're "not getting your money's worth" if you aren't being taught by those faculty.</p>
<p>When you're weighing your options and deciding between a research university and another sort of college, this should go into the equation. One shouldn't assume that one gets to be cosy with senior research faculty. You have to be clear-eyed about that. That's not what your tuition buys you. </p>
<p>What DO you get for your money? Why do some students think the prestige makes the college worth the cost?</p>
<ul>
<li>Access to some of those great resources that those research dollars make possible (libraries, labs, tech infrastructure, for example).<br></li>
<li>Access to the resources made possible by big donors who gave because it's a prestigious place (physical plant, financial aid, etc)
*Also, at a state school, access to resources made possible by $$ the state, who generally recognizes that research Us have a different budget model and may fund them better (on a per-student basis) than other state schools</li>
<li>Associated prestige, for being affiliated with a school recognized as an research great (Whether or not you were ever taught by Nobel prize winner, some people will admire you for simply being admitted to and attending the same institution.)<br></li>
<li>Access to gifted junior faculty who were attracted to the school by the prestige of their senior research colleagues</li>
</ul>
<p>That may not be enough for some people, and that's fine. But it doesn't all come down to whether top researchers are making time for undergrads.</p>
<p>Gourman Report is MESSED UP..........and it's rather stupid.</p>
<p>Hoedown,</p>
<p>No, I'm not saying that students' tuition $$ are being directed to research. How do you get that from what I wrote? </p>
<p>I'm talking about students getting their money's worth by having professors that are interested in teaching, engaging, and enlightening them. You see, what schools need to do is to clarify their usage of these rankings (though I really doubt they will.) I think it's unfair to high schoolers applying to schools if certain colleges are trying to claim that their departments are Top 10 (based on research rankings while those departments have a reputation for mediocre teaching), plus flaunt that they have such and such Nobel Prize professors though they rarely teach undergrads. The reason why you find students complaining about these schools in college publications and on the web is because while they're getting "access" to all the great things you mention above, the access they desire most is to great professors and excellent teaching.</p>
<p>Here's an except from something that I posted months ago. Because I don't want to start a war with alumni from that school, I've deleted the school's name. (Hoedown, I think you're VERY familiar w/ this school.)</p>
<p>According to the recent edition of the book "Choosing the Right College: The Whole Truth About America's Top Schools":</p>
<p>"The University of *** is a research institution, and as one student says, 'teaching always comes second after getting published.' This student charges that although professors dutifully hold office hours and teach the obligatory lecture courses, 'in reality, they largely couldn't care less about the classes they're teaching.' Another students says that the quality of instruction, from both faculty members and graduate students instructors is uneven. 'They know what they are talking about, but do not know how to present it in class.' Students also warn of difficulties getting into upper-level courses, which often fill up quickly. 'You practically have to beg, borrow, and steal to get into any 400-level classes,' says one student. Lectures are generally given in the German style: professors read [to] them and students take notes, often in one of the world's largest lecture halls, Chemistry 1800."</p>
<p>It goes on to say...</p>
<p>"An article in the *** Review charges that *** has 3 types of courses: (1) legitimate courses in which professors are there to teach, and you are there to learn, (2) courses that faculty members teach because they have to, though they would prefer to be doing research, and (3) courses in which professors ar primarily there to politically indoctrinate their students...at *** there seems to be a disproportinate number of type-2 and type-3 classes."</p>
<p>At least at UVa, all the top professors from political pundit Larry Sabato, to history professor and NAACP chairman Julian Bond, to Pulitzer Prize winner and 2-time poet laureate Rita Dove, to the Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences Ed Ayers (who was awarded the title of "Professor of the Year" last year by the Carnegie Foundation for his commitment to excellent teaching) teach undergrads, and teach them well.</p>
<p>Globalist, Michigan does not have those problems. The paragraphs below to not ring true. I never had trouble getting into a 400 level class. In fact, I have never had to change my plans or schedule because like 99% of Michigan students, I always got the classes I wanted. Not once in my 4 years have I been locked out of a class. </p>
<p>And by the way, Chem 1800 seats 350 students. In fact, no auditorioum at the University of Michigan seats more than 350 students. That hardly qualifies it as "one of the World's largest lecture halls". The person who wrote this passage is either disgruntled or an impostor. Just look at the comment he makes about the "types of classes". Please!!! There are no politically motivated classes at Michigan. And tell me, how can a university that has over 200 buildings and over 10,000 rooms has just one classroom that is used "often". Do you know that one average, Michigan's classes are about the same size as UVA classes? </p>
<p>This was obviously written by an ignoramous. The book you have is complete excrement and I find it insulting. </p>
<p>I personally thought that most of my professors at Michigan were very dedicated to teaching. Yes, they cared a lot about their research too, and they will not appologize for it. That is why Michigan is one of the top 10 universities in the nation. Without such a commitment to research, Michigan would not be as respected. But that does not mean professors at Michigan do not enjoy teaching. </p>
<p>What I find amazing is that 1), "all professors at the University of Virginia" love teaching and 2) that the quality of instrcution can actually be measured. Many people in this forum seem to think they can measure the quality of instruction.</p>
<p>Good work Alexandre for outing your school! I wasn't trying to point a finger at Michigan. That's why I omitted the name. I was trying to give an example of how a highly-ranked school can have its detractors among the student body who feel that they are playing second fiddle to their professors' research.</p>
<p>One can always find some detractors
"I transferred to UVa in the fall of my second year, after having a fairly rough time at my first school (a very prestigious small, liberal arts college). I am from Virginia, and perhaps I am being a school snob, but I felt that (in general) the undergraduate student body was slightly greater than average in intelligence. I also felt that many were close-minded...maybe a better word is ignorant - in terms of overall mentality and morals rather than intelligence. Although you will find this at most schools, I felt that the students were especially self-segregating. The social scene (to me) appears to fall into two main categories: jocks, greeks or geeks. This limits "fun" things to do to fraternity/sorority parties, bars, or house parties. It is much too "Varsity Blues" for me, but I guess if that is what you are in search of, then you would have fun here. The city itself had a surprising number and variety of restaurants and bars, considering its location and size. The classes are astronomical in number (even higher level classes stll had over 100 students), many classes were taught by TAs, and even when I had a real professor, they were inaccessible outside of class, even immediately following lectures for a quick question. My dean and supervisor were probably the most helpful to me during my attendance, though this does not say much - the dean actually DIScouraged me from taking upper-level courses, saying I was "overambitious", while my supervisor sang me high praises and offered little substantial advice to my classes. I think the only true benefit I gained from my experience at UVa was to put everything into perspective for me - I only learned to truly appreciate my first school for what it was. Needless to say, I transferred back."
"Honestly, this place is full of snoody jerkoffs. I honestly cannot take another year in this place. My first year was horrid. My parents decided for me taht I should try my second... but if anything it has gotten worse and worse. I have had horrible experience with faculty and my professors have been absolutely NO help. That is if I ever saw my professors after the first day. Some of them I have actually never seen because well they are off on their own snotty research."</p>
<p>" was accepted to the college interterested in majoring in Physics but was interested in engineering school. I left the college after my 1st semester and entered the E-school and choose Computer Science as my major. </p>
<p>Almost all the courses, including 400 level courses, had 50 or more students in them. Entry level courses had as many as 100 students in them. Teachers were lecturers and had little time for their students. Some teaching assistants were helpful, but others had little interest in the students. This is not a program where you interact much ith your teachers. Many people minor in computer science and my impression was that this really drained the resources away from people majoring in it. </p>
<p>The eSchool seemed to be a gigantic grading machine. Everything was about "The Curve". After each test, the professor would draw a histogram on the board indicating where students grades occur then drew vertical lines showing where the A's B's C's D's and F's were. The lower the median on the curve, the higher your grade! My grades from all the courses I took in the college were straight A's, including graduate level biology courses, 3 years of japanese, and grauduate level french courses. My grades in eSchool were B average, even with studying maniacially. It's a very competative program. Everyone is smary and most everyone studies long hours.</p>
<p>At first I was excited about learning. But in this competative environment it is hard not to shift focus to getting good grades. And when that happens, it becomes difficult to find joy in the experience. I think the program really promotes this focus on grades. </p>
<p>90% of the time, teachers taught directly from books. Very few interesting projects or activities. </p>
<p>I found it difficult to participate in activities outside of eSchool while maintaining good grades. The Curve.</p>
<p>eSchool examples:
Calc class- In the college, students can buy an answer book listing answers to all the questions in the calculus book (to help prepare for exams). In the eSchool, the teachers include homework completion as part of the students grade, so they don't want to allow students to have access to the answer book. Must go to see the teaching assistant to get access to this book.
Friendliness - In a writing class I took in the college, the prof invited all the students to visit his home and to have dinner with him and his wife. I can't even imagine the eSchool teachers offering this...
Physics vs CS- In the college, physics majors get a special intro class taught by heads of physics faculty. They are eager to have you join the major and spend time preparing lectures that include interesting experiments. Teaching assistants are excited to share discussion with students. In the eSchool, the intro CS class had 150+ students, was taught by an associate professor, with time-challenged teaching assistant. No teacher-student interaction.</p>
<p>As for the program itself, the "Computer Science" program was too bland when I took it. Many people getting a degree in this program intend to become professional software developers, like I am now. But the program offered little in this area outside of general knowledge about operating systems, what a computer language is, etc. Most of the challenge of the program I found was the core weed out classes in mathmatics and physics, which are pretty much useless to me in professional life. I wish the program could have offered more instruction related to software development.</p>
<p>My advice to potential computer science majors at UVA is to:</p>
<p>1) find out how the program has changed in the past 10 years. If you want to get into the software industry, find out what the department is doing to help you to this goal?
2) Consider going to the college and minoring in CS. You get the best of both worlds. Take only the CS courses you really want and skip all the other eSchool requirements. Downside - no CS degree at the end. Frankly, even though many jobs require a CS degree now, few of the best programmers I know have them. What a waste of time for a piece of paper?
3) Business school offered degree in MIS too. Take a look. Back then the MIS degree was behind in terms of the programming skills (COBOL was their language of choice...) whereas the management oriented skills were more useful once you graduate, whereas the eSchool taught C and C++ and the more technical courses on higher level CS topics but threw in useless math and science requirements. Have things changed? The split between MIS in the BSchool and CS in the eSchool is kind of arbitrary IMO... The best might be to take the eSchool tech classes and the BSchool MIS classes and throw out the eSchool's math and engineering classes?
4) Make friends. Some people in the program are nice. Find them and hang on. CS majors are geeks to begin with and this program doesn't help any... Keep your eyes open for smiles. "</p>
<p>Leave it to Alexandre to find a ranking that puts umich at number 3...hahaha</p>
<p>"UVA is no more a "party school" than Duke, Dartmouth, Michigan, Penn or Cornell."</p>
<p>I can't speak for the others, but UVA <em>certainly</em> has more parties than Duke.</p>