<p>Afan -- remember that many TA's don't want to teach -- they either have to as part of their program or to make money. Professors, generally speaking, want to teach as it is their chosen profession. But there is an important distinction here. Professors who go to a college or university with a focus on undergraduate learning, like Brown, Dartmouth, or an LAC often want to teach more than a professor who goes to a college or university solely to do their own research. It goes back to what that Pomona professor told me in a previous post of mine. </p>
<p>The number of TA's teaching means little in terms of quality. </p>
<p>And the data on faculty quality? How was that found? Reminds me of the Princeton review rankings, which are based on a survey of like 20 students or something. That's why they change so much from year to year. As we have, uh, heard before, I think the only way to really know faculty quality is to "extensively visit for 2-3 days and talk to a lot of faculty and students" (lol)</p>
<p>I think the language is harsh on Siserune. Perhaps shows a strong bias toward the large research university model, but that is not unusual.</p>
<p>Advanced undergrads can end up taking several graduate courses, but this might mean 5 or 6, not 30 or 40. Some of the very top universities in pure educational fire power at the graduate level (like Caltech) have a relatively limited number of courses available to undergrads. At Caltech, the options available to undergrads are limited by the extensive core. Similarly, Chicago has much smaller chemistry grad programs than does Berkeley, but it sends a substantial number of students on to doctoral degrees in the field.</p>
<p>I agree with you. Grad students vary in how much they want to teach. Those headed for research careers usually find that, no matter how much they like it, teaching detracts from their research. So not teaching is usually a better career decision.</p>
<p>The NRC survey is much more comprehensive than the Princeton review nonsense, but still subjective. I included it to show how these observations related what are generally regarded as top programs. Studies have shown that these rankings tend to favor large programs and those with at least some superstars.</p>
<p>It is certainly a misleading oversimplification to declare that having grad student TA's makes the education better, or worse. It definitely makes it different, but relative value depends on too many other things.</p>
<p>This large number of advanced courses is really only advantageous to those who are planning to take them (obviously). Most undergrads take advanced courses only in one or two departments, and, since they are undergrads, they often have to take a large number of introductory courses. Having many different intro courses in the same field is not that useful, especially to those who are going further in the discipline.</p>
<p>If you can take only 5 or 6 advanced courses anyway, then it matters whether 5 or 6 are all there are, or if they can be chosen from among 15 or 20. However, it is difficult to believe that choosing your 6 from among 40 is any better than choosing your 6 from among 20. In both cases, there is a large excess of courses available over the number one could take.</p>
<p>But the claim is that somehow Brown has less courses available...it really doesn't. I would claim that past a certian point, it hardly matters how many options you have because you can't even come close to that many. </p>
<p>I guess it's all a matter of priorities. Would you rather choose from 100 courses taught by graduate oriented, research focused professors, or choose from 20 from undergraduate oriented professors? I'm not saying one is better than the other (though it's probably clear which I would choose), it just matters what you want.</p>
<p>The proportion of students on TA's and RA's actually varies quite a bit, even among top programs. I would be careful about generalizing about how many of the grad students are participating in teaching simply from the size of the program.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The proportion is the wrong number; of course that varies according to the amount and source of grants, time to completion for the PhD degree, proportion of master's degree students, and lots of other things. </p>
<p>What does not vary much (if at all) among programs is that incoming grad students are required to teach for at least one year. That's not only true for chemistry, with teaching usually starting in the first year of enrollment; similar requirements hold in most other fields of study. This is part of what I meant by the school exacting a "quota of teaching from that ... pool" of grad students.</p>
<p>For teaching beyond the basic requirements, departments do not shrink the number of sections, classes or office hours if they get more grant funding and can support more grad students as RAs that year! What happens is that basic teaching needs (i.e., before taking account of course oversubscription) are filled first and then RA money is allocated from grants and university-internal sources.</p>
<p>The proportion of RA versus TA is all but meaningless for this question, it reflects departmental wealth and many other things not related to the net effect of the grad students on the labor force for teaching.</p>
<p>So when all is said and done, siserune, what are you suggesting? What are you getting at? Because I think I know where you're going with this, but I'd rather not lead you to a dark place of "laughibly bad argument".</p>
<p>See, I don't even know where you're going, but then again I'm an art student who's had a few too many concussions playing rugby...</p>
<p>Or maybe that lack fo graduate students here at Brown has just given me an inferior education and I can't seem to grasp these mind bogglingly profound and complex arguments. </p>
<p>Either way, if someone is literally required to teach, it does little to improve the quality of education. There are endless numbers of bad TA's out there. That's why everyone wants a professor instead of a TA. While there of course many exceptions to this rule, as I have previously noted, the real measure here should be the ratio of professors to students, not TA's to students or professors and TA's to students. I'd frankly say that any top LAC has both of us (any research university) beat on this measure.</p>