Best Undergrad Teaching

College Search & Selection
21

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree. But how do we recognize a commitment to undergraduate teaching? How do we know the US News list has any objective basis? I can speak best for my own alma mater (Chicago) by listing the things that signify to me its commitment to undergraduate teaching. For all I know, some other schools are even better in this respect. So other parents, students or alumni can weigh in on the strengths of those schools. But I believe Chicago has an unusually strong commitment to undergraduate teaching because:</p>

<p>(1) Chicago pays its faculty very well. By highest full-time faculty salaries, Chicago ranks 6th, behind Harvard, CalTech, Penn, Princeton and Yale ([Top</a> 500 Ranked Universities for Highest FT Faculty Salaries](<a href=“USA University College Directory - U.S. University Directory - State Universities and College Rankings”>Top 500 Ranked Colleges - Highest Full-Time Faculty Salaries)).
(2) Chicago keeps undergraduate classes small. Only a very few other national universities do this as well, although some of the top LACs no doubt are even stronger on this score. (<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;)
(3) Chicago keeps course content lively by encouraging discussion of challenging primary source material. Textbooks are rarely used. Classroom seating usually is arranged in a circle, not in rank and file facing a whiteboard and lectern. The prevailing teaching style is Socratic. Some schools accomplish similar goals by emphasizing internship and research opportunities.
(4) Chicago rewards undergraduate teaching. Chicago’s annual Quantrell Award is believed to be the nation’s oldest award for undergraduate teaching ([Llewellyn</a> John and Harriet Manchester Quantrell Awards for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching | The University of Chicago](<a href=“http://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/quantrell.shtml]Llewellyn”>http://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/quantrell.shtml)). It is highly prized by the faculty and has been granted to some of the school’s most distinguished scholars, such as Nobel laureate James Cronin and former university president Hanna Gray.
(5) Chicago maintains a Center for Teaching and Learning to mentor faculty in course design and instruction ([University</a> of Chicago Center for Teaching and Learning](<a href=“http://teaching.uchicago.edu/faculty/facworkshops.html]University”>http://teaching.uchicago.edu/faculty/facworkshops.html)).
(6) Chicago does not maintain separate undergraduate departments, per se. All undergraduate faculty are appointed to “The College”; this discourages parochial loyalties and fosters interdisiplinary collaboration. The original campus academic buildings, housing the divisions of the Humanities, Social Sciences, Physical and Biological Sciences, are physically connected to emphasize this collaboration.
(7) Chicago empowers its faculty. Chicago does not hire retired generals or political celebrities as university presidents. The university president is always a distinguished scholar. Long-time Dean of Admissions Ted O’Neill was a philosophy professor. Because the faculty (not professional administrators) run the university, key decisions are driven by academic considerations as well as the bottom line. The College maintains a strong tradition of faculty control over course content and requirements. Curriculum is not left entirely to the whim of individual professors; “Core” content is debated continually by the faculty as a community ([The</a> Knowledge Most Worth Having - Google Books](<a href=“The Knowledge Most Worth Having - Google Books”>The Knowledge Most Worth Having - Google Books)). Every academic year begins with an “Aims of Education” address to the college, to promote shared reflection on the purposes of a college education from the perspective of a distinguished professor ([The</a> Aims of Education Address (for the class of 2006)](<a href=“http://www.ditext.com/abbott/abbott_aims.html]The”>The Aims of Education Address (for the class of 2006))).</p>

<p>These are a few things that characterize Chicago’s approach to undergraduate teaching. Many other good schools (as different as Brown, Reed, Harvey Mudd, or St. Johns) take a different tack, but each promotes a principled, shared understanding of what they are doing and why they do things the way they do. Preference for one or another academic style (along with setting, size, climate, etc.) is a big part of what we mean by “fit”.</p>

22

<p>on what basis does USNEWS decide about the teaching?</p>

23

<p>Surprising that in a discussion of ranking of undergrad teaching no one has yet posted those for LACs:</p>

<ol>
<li>Carleton College</li>
<li>Davidson College </li>
<li>Grinnell College </li>
<li>Williams College<br></li>
<li>College of Wooster </li>
<li>Oberlin College </li>
<li>Macalester College </li>
<li>Swarthmore College</li>
</ol>

24

<p>^Yay…Carleton FTW!! :slight_smile: Nice to end my night on a positive note (since I leave in a day! ONE DAY!)</p>

<p>But on a more serious note - in response to an earlier poster - I’m not surprised at all to see Virginia on the list of universities. I visited on the accepted student day for the honors program students, and all day I remember various people emphasizing that while other universities want their professors to focus on research first, UVA wanted them to focus on teaching first. At first, I thought it was a gimmick, but the class I attended was excellent and all of the students gave the same rave reviews of their teachers. My dad and I were both really impressed.</p>

25

<br>

<br>

<p>I think it is taken for granted that LACs have a strong commitment to undergraduate teaching. The harder problem is to separate the sheep from the goats among national universities.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Good question. It appears to me that it is based entirely on an opinion poll of college administrators, with very loose criteria. Or only one criterion (“commitment” to teaching, leaving it entirely up to the repondents to determine how that is indicated).</p>

26

<p>tk: You make a very good point. One of the things I remember reading about/discussing (sorry, no source, can’t remember it/them) is that oftentimes “experimental” charter schools perform better than their public, district peers (despite having roughly the same mix of kids). This seems to be true both for charter schools that have students creating mostly projects and doing hands-on learning, like getting internships, and schools that emphasize technology and novel teaching methods. It seems like one of the reasons is choice: parents have to sign their kids up for a specific charter school, meaning they’re making an informed decision of where that kid should be. Furthermore, simply by having a distinct philosophy, and having teachers and administrators who believe in said philosophy, it seems you tend to get more successful programs.</p>

<p>So Brown’s unique philosophy (students have little external pressure, and are given the privilege and responsibility of designing their own course of study), while rather different from Chicago’s, isn’t “better,” just better for certain people.</p>