<p>Yeah for a small group of students this might be the case. I have taken a couple of graduate classes as an undergraduate myself, and I can say that the content difference is not that significant- just that at the graduate level you are expected to apply the principles to perform research, and you read the primary sources from which your condensed textbook got their information from.</p>
<p>Someone with a solid foundation in teh basics from an undergraduate point of view does not even require all those hardcore graduate classes. </p>
<p>Idiot TAs are everywhere, and it does not have to do with the quality of graduate students. Moreover, at the smaller and less-research intensive schools- TA are less frequent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thats usually the claim. Most times its the content than the person who writes it that matters. Not everyone works with superstar in faculty. Infact well-known is quite relative.</p>
<p>Sefago, I took 6 graduate courses at Michigan. My ties to the faculty were so strong that I got into two twop 15 graduate programs with a 3.5 GPA. My experience was by no means unique. Not many undergrads chose to take graduate courses as I did, but of the 3.5+ students who did, virtually all of them were accommodated.</p>
<p>Furthermore, even undergraduate classes were taught taught in a similar fashion and by the same faculty. In other words, Economics 401 and 601 were taught by Hal Varian and both had a very similar syllabus. 601 simply had more math in it.</p>
<p>Does Harvard still have its History and Literature major? I believe that was Caroline Kennedy’s major, IIRC. It was reputed to be extremely rigorous (since it covered two disciplines). Sounds like a dream major to me, actually.</p>
<p>I personally dont believe that taking graduate classes could be of significant benefits. I know a couple of people from LACs who got into top 5 math PhDS without any graduate classes. They just ahd the basics and classy research by applying the basics. They had specialized in number theory and cryptography, topology e.t.c without even taking advanced classes based on just reading all teh research in their field based on working close to faculty.</p>
<p>However, I did not say that undergraduates are impeded from taking graduate classes. i said very few are really interested in that route anyways.</p>
<p>Personally, I think a thorough understanding of the basics is better than an average understanding of your field even though you went indepth. Smart students who understand the basics can learn difficult material in less time than those who have depth but dont understand that depth really well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are kind of repeating what I said. Graduate classes are no different from undergraduate classes except you get to (In my field at least) read a lot of research papers and get more depth into the theory.</p>
<p>For example, I have noticed that most foreign professors I have met kind of get worried when they see my transcript- its full of liberal art classes, and less science depth than they would expect. But I easily transition through fields- engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, economics- because I know the basics and thought process behind it. So the difficult concepts are really not that difficult at all.</p>
<p>A well-rounded liberal arts degree where you get down to the thought process behind a field, and you understand the concepts underlying that field and knowing how to apply them is IMO superior to depth.</p>
<p>“A well-rounded liberal arts degree where you get down to the thought process behind a field, and you understand the concepts underlying that field and knowing how to apply them is IMO superior to depth.”</p>
<p>In other words sefago, every single university is identical and equal and all that matters is the individual. As such, university quality is a non-entity. I would not disagree with that notion. But if you are going to talk about a packing order, then the quality of the faculty and of the courses offered to students will inevitably surface and play a role.</p>
<p>Not all schools go through the critical thinking route of assessment. For example, a lot of community colleges have classes in which multiple choices are the norm for some subjects.</p>
<p>Duh . . . how the curriculum for the basics is set up is important, and how the students are tested plays a very important role in how much your critical-thinking skills are tested. </p>
<p>Or are you claiming that the biology test given to havard students is the same as that given in your local CC? If it is I would wager that Havard would even be more grade inflated than it already is. </p>
<p>Lots of factors come in. I would consider the undergraduate curriculum and the opportunity to do independent work (yes graduate classes sometimes count but their absence does not preclude an excellent education) to be the most important part of an undergraduate education.</p>
<p>Not the amount of research in the school :)</p>
<p>Westchester Community College offers its Honors students the opportunity to do independent work, I believe. It has small classes, all taught by profs with no TAs.
In some courses exams are multiple choice, others there are short answers and essays, I think that varies by the courses and the professor.</p>
<p>I hear you sefago, and I agree. But then you do not believe in rankings because the primary component in your definition of academic excellence cannot be measured. How can one rank testing efficacy or teaching quality when the delivery of those rankings are impossible to monitor or even quantify. Remember, we are not comparing Harvard to a CC, we are comparing the top 50 or so private universities, top 50 or so LACs and top 25 or so public universities. At those schools, testing and teaching styles will not vary much and the quality of the output (quality of students’ education) will depend greatly on the quality of the input (effort and initiative).</p>
<p>Not necessary. If you are talking of teaching capabilities of professors yes, but if you are talking of research capability of the professor then this does not play that significant role except in upper-level classes. I would agree that graduate classes do benefit extensively from the research experience of a professor since he/she knows about what is happening currently in the field.</p>
<p>Teaching and Reserach are not easily merged. Nearly all faculty talk about the tug between teaching and research. You usually have to pick one- be a great teacher or a great researcher.</p>
<p>Its the eternal problem of American academia- if the true definition of a university is the German research University model or the Socratic Liberal Arts Model.</p>
<p>Again, we agree that teaching and research are not easily merged. But again, that means that you cannot differentiate between say Harvard and Cal or Chicago and Columbia or Cornell and Penn etc… Those are all universities equally committed to research and as such, are equal to each other.</p>
<p>^ you are speaking in absolute terms. Not all these have the same balance of undergrad/grad. Some schools are heavily skewed towards one. LACs, Dartmouth, Brown, Georgetown, Emory towards one, Major public research universities towards the other. Havard, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, Duke and Penn are more balanced than these schools so these are why everyone agrees they are top schools</p>
<p>sefago, only a very naive person would say that Chicago, Columbia, Harvard and Stanford are more balanced than public universities. Look at the facts for a minute:</p>
<p>1) Spending on research per factuly is at least as high, if not higher, at schools like Chicago, Columbia, Harvard and Stanford than it is at schools like Cal</p>
<p>2) Production of faculty award winners at schools like Chicago, Columbia, Harvard and Stanford is as high if not higher than it is at the public elite</p>
<p>3) Major papers published per faculty member is at least as high, if not higher, at the private elites than it is at the public elites</p>
<p>4) Department rankings (probably derived by a mix of the above three points) at Chicago, Columbia, Harvard and Stanford</p>
<p>5) The number of graduate student / faculty member is as high at Chicago, Columbia, Harvard and Stanford as it is as the public elites</p>
<p>And that is why everyone who is educated agrees that there is no difference between the top public universities and the top private research universities.</p>
<p>Reread my post. I said balanced meaning they provide both. There is a reason why these school are considered highly in the world. Now, what i would like to be shown is that these universities do not offer strong undergraduate program. i claimed they have a balance.</p>
<p>Does this include the medical/law and business schools. You know things become confusing when you include that into the graduate mix, because faculty for this are not usually the same as undergraduate faculty.</p>
<p>sefago, I forgot, you admitted to having a bias against public universities. At any rate, this is a thread about the Ivies, I suggest we return to the thread’s original topic.</p>