Choosing a College for Classroom Teaching Excellence: Can we judge quality in 2008?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>In the issue of USNWR Best Colleges 1996 (published 9/18/95), in recognition of the widespread public concern about the quality and effectiveness of teaching on the nation’s campuses, US News for the first (and only) time asked presidents, provosts, and deans of admission to select the schools “where the faculty has an unusually strong commitment to undergraduate teaching.” Here is the ranking that they published of the Top 25 national universities for “tops in teaching.”</p>

<p>1 Dartmouth
2 Brown
3 W&M
4 Rice
5 Princeton
6 Stanford
7 Duke
8 Miami U (OH)
9 Notre Dame
10 Yale
11 U Virginia
12 U Chicago
13 Emory
13 UC Santa Cruz
15 Vanderbilt
16 Boston College
17 Harvard
18 Northwestern
19 Caltech
20 Wake Forest
20 U North Carolina
22 BYU
22 Wash U
24 Georgetown
24 Tufts</p>

<p>There were nine national universities that were ranked in the Top 25 in that year, but which were not recognized as “tops in teaching.” Those were:</p>

<p>MIT
Columbia
U Penn
Cornell
J Hopkins
UC Berkeley
Carnegie Mellon
U Michigan
UCLA</p>

<p>I wonder now if these rankings from 1995 are applicable today. My first thought was that 1995 is ancient history and thus the 1995 rankings have low utility today. But then I wondered if there are other factors that could be considered for their impact on the classroom teaching experience and how they have changed over time. I concluded that the USNWR Faculty Resources rank, or more precisely the change in this number from 1996 to the just-published 2008 issue, might be provide some clues to the current quality of classroom teaching and an institution's improving or declining commitment to faculty resources. </p>

<p>I evaluated data on 31 colleges. 22 of them were voted in the Top 25 in the 1996 USNWR teaching excellence ranking (do not have data on Miami of Ohio, UC Santa Cruz and BYU). I also looked at the data for all 9 of the colleges that were not recognized for classroom excellence. Here is what I found:</p>

<p>The changes in Faculty Resources Rank broke down pretty cleanly into three groups:
a. SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT (11 colleges that saw their Faculty Resources Rank improve by 5 or more places over the 1996-2008 period);
b. MAINTAIN POSITION (12 colleges that saw either a modest gain or modest loss, +3 to -3, in their FR Rank during the 1996-2008 period;
c. SIGNIFICANT DECLINE (8 colleges that saw their FR rank decline by 5 places or more over the 1996-2008 period). </p>

<p>The most important observation is in the SIGNIFICANT DECLINE group of 8 colleges. Six of these eight colleges were NOT recognized in 1995 for classroom excellence, yet over the intervening 12 years, these colleges did not commit enough new resources to faculty to improve their competitive position. The eight schools were:</p>

<p>2008 FR Rank , 1996 Classroom Excellence Top 25 , 1996 FR Rank , Change in FR Rank from 1996 to 2008 , College</p>

<p>14 , NO , 9 , -5 , Cornell
22 , NO , 17 , -5 , Johns Hopkins
69 , yes , 63 , -6 , Boston Coll
38 , NO , 31 , -7 , UC Berkeley
42 , NO , 35 , -7 , UCLA
38 , yes , 31 , -7 , Wake Forest
20 , NO , 3 , -17 , MIT
69 , NO , 45 , -24 , U Michigan</p>

<p>While it is impossible to draw absolute and definitive conclusions from this data, it is logical to conclude that the relative classroom teaching level of the six colleges (Cornell, Hopkins, UCB, UCLA, MIT, U Michigan), that were NOT recognized for classroom excellence in 1996, probably also did NOT improve in the period from 1996 to 2008. If a new classroom teaching survey were done in 2008, one would expect that they might again have difficulty making the Top 25. </p>

<p>A second observation of these six colleges is that all are considered powerhouse institutions for graduate study. Many have commented extensively elsewhere about the dedication of resources and faculty at research universities to graduate programs at the expense of undergraduate students. </p>

<p>As for the remaining two colleges (BC and Wake Forest), these are known as predominantly undergraduate focused institutions and would still be strong candidates for a teaching ranking. They have never had high FR ranks, but their relative strength has likely declined over the past 12 years. It's anyone's guess whether this would push them out of the Top 25 in any new survey of classroom teaching excellence. </p>

<p>For the MAINTAIN POSITION group, I thought it was interesting that 10 of these colleges were ranked in the Top 12 in 1996 and they all continued their commitment to Faculty Resources at a high level. Here is that group of colleges:</p>

<p>2008 FR Rank , 1996 Classroom Excellence Top 25 , 1996 FR Rank , Change in FR Rank from 1996 to 2008 , College</p>

<p>3 , Y , 6 , 3 , Duke
10 , Y , 12 , 2 , Vanderbilt
7 , Y , 9 , 2 , Wash U
15 , Y , 17 , 2 , Rice
10 , Y , 12 , 2 , Emory
25 , Y , 26 , 1 , Tufts
3 , Y , 3 , 0 , Princeton
13 , Y , 12 , -1 , Stanford
3 , Y , 2 , -1 , Harvard
2 , Y , 1 , -1 , Caltech
9 , Y , 6 , -3 , Yale
6 , Y , 3 , -3 , U Chicago</p>

<p>For the SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT group, several things were noteworthy. First, three of the top four were public universities. In a period of large state budget cuts, these state universities continued to make a strong commitment to faculty resources. Second, all three of the publics are located in the South (W&M, U Virginia, U North Carolina) and their improvement in FR Rank was very, very strong. </p>

<p>Third, three schools (U Penn, Columbia, CMU) show a disconnect between their high FR ranks in the past and their inability to make the 1996 Top 25 for classroom teaching excellence. Especially in the case of U Penn (and secondarily Columbia), which is the number one ranked national university for Faculty Resources, I would expect this gap to remedied in any new classroom teaching survey that might take place today. </p>

<p>2008 FR Rank , 1996 Classroom Excellence Top 25 , 1996 FR Rank , Change in FR Rank from 1996 to 2008 , College</p>

<p>46 , yes , 63 , 17 , W&M
36 , yes , 52 , 16 , U Virginia
15 , yes , 30 , 15 , Dartmouth
50 , yes , 63 , 13 , U North Carolina
38 , yes , 45 , 7 , Georgetown
18 , yes , 25 , 7 , Brown
10 , NO , 17 , 7 , Columbia
7 , yes , 12 , 5 , Northwestern
21 , yes , 26 , 5 , Notre Dame
1 , NO , 6 , 5 , U Penn
17 , NO , 22 , 5 , Carnegie Mellon</p>

<p>There are undoubtedly many more insights that can be gleaned from this data and I look forward to the contributions of others in helping understand better the nature of the classroom experience at some of America’s top colleges.</p>

2

<p>Maybe you can answer your question by polling academics in an opinion survey.</p>

<p>How is the 1995 survey any different (in terms of methodology) from the current PA survey, which you disdain?</p>

<p>What are "faculty resources"? Money?</p>

3

<p>I don't know why I'm bumping this up, because I'm sorta hoping this thread will die the quick death it deserves. It's nice that you want to let everyone know the details about faculty resources, hawkette, and I do think that resources are important, but they are definitely not the whole story as to good classroom teaching. And I appreciate the fact that you have been trying to identify schools with the best undergraduate classroom experience.</p>

<p>However, going back to the 12-year old one-time opinion survey and using it as any sort of basis for this discussion seems ridiculous and inconsistent with your stated position that academic opinion surveys are not particularly valuable. I am also convinced that Cornell, Michigan, Berkeley etc. have very good undergraduate teaching, although like many larger schools, I'm sure that they have their share of classroom duds as well. Many of their departments are internationally recognized and don't forget that many undergraduates at these schools are either taking graduate courses, being taught by the same professors as graduate students and/or most importantly, getting the opportunity, as undergraduates, to do research with some of the top names in the field.</p>

<p>I am completely flummoxed though about why you need to post these constant threads. Sometimes, I think that you are fooling us all and rather than being an employed adult you are a graduate student with enormous amounts of time on your hands.</p>

4

<p>The problem AGAIN, with your analysis, is its bias towards examining the USNWR rankings and the so called Top 25. There are literally hundreds of colleges in the United States, many of them undergraduate-centric, where teaching is the primary focus (cf. research) and the "quality of education" by that measure is phenomenal. Hundreds. In other words, TOO MANY TO REALLY LIST. So how does one discern what is "best college" for my kid if the criteria for that family is "quality of education measured by the quality of teaching faculty who are not distracted or focused upon research or graduate work?" My response is at it always has been:</p>

<p>People have to put all their criteria, which is subjective to them, on a piece of paper, and list the items that are most important to them. Presuming teaching quality is at or near the top, the other factors may be size, location, public or private, sports, dorm quality, program quality, and many other factors. For some people, that may or may not include their alleged ranking in USNWR or other system of ranking. For our family, we largely ignored the USNWR rankings and looked to outstanding resources such as Barrons, Petersen's and Fiske for our preliminary review and list of colleges where we had an interest. Geography had a play in that....meaning, my D had no interest in going to school further north than New York and no interest in going to school in Florida and no interest in going to school further west than St. Louis, and not likely interested in going to school in Chicago. That meant a quadrant from St. Louis to New York and then down to approximately Atlanta and some parts of South Carolina. We then examined the schools in that region using Barrons system of rankings: Highly selective and very selective and most selective. We looked at the published SAT scores for a cursory view to see where she fit: 25th to 75th percentile and made a rough judgement on likelihood of being accepted. We then looked at programs and all sorts of other factors, including a SIGNIFICANT factor of faculty credentials and teaching acumen/reputation. Its okay to attend a research institution so long as the majority of faculty were teaching scholars and not research scholars. We narrowed our list down to 20, then 10 schools. She applied to one with rolling admissions, and 6 or so regular decision. We kept 2 schools as safety schools and which had relatively late application deadlines in our pockets for emergency, in the unlikely and unfortunate case of being rejected by all the others. We collected our acceptance letters as they rolled in and their financial package/scholarship offers. We visited many schools before we applied. We visted as many as feasible during Spring Break last April who accepted her. We did yoeman's work on the culture of each schoo, the strength of faculty and programs and the student body ....looking for her (subjective) BEST FIT. Then she made her decision. We gave her our comments and soft advice along the way, mostly weighing pluses and minuses at each of the "accepted" schools. The USNWR rankings were reviewed for curiosity sake and had little if ANY effect upon her decision. The decision was easy for her. The ONLY thing that pulled at her heart strings along the way was knowing where her friends were going and they were begging her to join them....this occured at ONE school: Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina. We hold Furman in VERY high esteem. Its an outstanding institution with incredible programs, a warm and engaging faculty who focus on teaching. Its a superb feeder college to graduate and professional schools. But in the end, the factor that pulled at her heart strings was also the factor that convinced her to go elsewhere: she simply wanted a new experience further from home, away from high school friends, and where she had an incredible offer and opportunity in New York.</p>

<p>I do COMMEND you in attempting to measure the quality of "the classroom experience" because that is in the end WHY we are sending our kids to college.....not the exclusive reason but what should be reason number one. But I am not a friend of the USNWR rankings....mostly because people fixate on the National University rankings...and only secondarily to Liberal Arts Colleges..and often completely ignoring schools that are in regional master's degree rankings which are SUPERB schools. It is as if the only schools that matter are the top 25 national universities and MAYBE a handful of the LAC's. Wrong! I recommend that parents and students spend very little time on the USNWR rankings...except as a cursory review to glean where their student stands approximately on the admissions stats so they can determine academic fit and likelihood of admission.....but ONLY as a preliminary cursory review. And parents, students, teachers, counselors, and consultants would be much better served looking at schools in many categories, not just the top 25 national universities and LAC's, because the perfect fit for your student may well be another school. </p>

<p>I also agree with you that 1996 data is outdated and likely not of much value. It has some level of value in the "curiosity box" for comparison.....but again, I view rankings as problematic (I can't use other terminology for fear of "offending" some people who are sensitive about their interest and support and focus upon the Top 25 and elite schools.)</p>

<p>If the goal and purpose here on this website is to help people navigate the college admissions process with sound logical and HELPFUL advice, so they can find the perfect fit college for their kid (or themselves) then I am all for providing a broad spectrum of information and some anecdotal first hand experience.</p>

5

<p>UCBChemEGrad,
Faculty Resources is the USNWR category that represents 20% of their ranking. It is allocated as follows:</p>

<p>Faculty Resources (six factors comprise this score)
% of classes with fewer than 20 students (30%)
% of classes with more than 50 students (10%)
Faculty Salary (35%)
% of profs with highest degree in their fields (15%)
Student-faculty ratio (5%)
% of faculty that are full-time (5%)</p>

<p>As for your comment about money, I would also expect there to be a relationship between money and high FR scores as schools with money have the ability to hire more professors, provide more and smaller class sizes, pay their professors better, etc. Bucking this thought, however, are the three publics (W&M, U Virginia, U North Carolina) which materially increased their FR rank while a major source of funds (their states) were cutting their funding. Regardless, I do think that Faculty Resources rank is an important measure for telling prospective undergraduates about the nature of the classroom experience that they will see when they get to a campus. </p>

<p>midatlmom,
I hope you will reread my post and see better the spirit in which it was composed and the word choices that were made. I don't see this as being any kind of definitive statement about teaching quality and I actually agree with your skepticism about the current application of 1996's results with the world of 2008. </p>

<p>I am hypothesizing about whether the rise or fall of an institution's Faculty Resources rank has an influence on the quality of the classroom experience. This classroom teaching experience was measured in 1996. Do you agree that an institution's commitment to Faculty Resources has some impact on the classroom experience and do you think that trends viewed over a 12-year period have any significance in how this is measured and might provide some insight into the quality of classroom instruction today? I don't mind you saying "no, it has no value." That may be your opinion, but I'd like to understand how you reach that opinion and if you have an alternative suggestion for how to measure this.</p>

<p>Finally, I wish I were a graduate student. I'm not, but all of this research is making me think that maybe I would like to go back to school. But there are bills to pay and so it's off to work I go each day. :) </p>

<p>friedokra,
I agree with a lot of your comments, particularly about the false limitations of my analysis and its focus on the most highly ranked national universities of USNWR. Two reasons: 1) this is a lot of work and frankly, there is only so much time and energy I have to commit to CC. If you want to build on this and do the work for the next 30 or more colleges, then I look forward to the results; and 2) the teaching excellence rankings were only done for 25 colleges in 1996. There was one done for LACs if anyone wants to look at that (I can provide the list if anyone wants it) and wants to do the work.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
Faculty Resources (six factors comprise this score)
% of classes with fewer than 20 students (30%)
% of classes with more than 50 students (10%)
Faculty Salary (35%)
% of profs with highest degree in their fields (15%)
Student-faculty ratio (5%)
% of faculty that are full-time (5%)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I imagine larger salary may give a professor more job satisfaction and more desire to teach rather than research...but I'm skeptical.</p>

<p>These faculty resource factors favor smaller, wealthier private universities that can pay their professors larger salaries. </p>

<p>Berkeley is on a campaign to increase endowment funding to pay profs more, and keep them from leaving to richer schools. I imagine UCLA and Michigan are doing the same.</p>

<p>However, a $30 billion dollar endowment (like Harvard) grows much more than the $2.6 billion dollar endowment of Berkeley. The rich get richer.</p>

<p>I don't understand class size as a factor...these are young adults, not grammar school kids that need close contact nuturing.</p>

7

<p>I think a question about the quality of teaching at the undergrad level is valid for cc, but I'm not sure USNWR has any valuable insight into that question. I can only speak in a very limited fashion about 3 of the schools on the list: Georgetown, Cornell, and MIT. I visited all as a high school senior when trying to decide where to apply/enroll, and I was very impressed by the classes I sat in on at Cornell and MIT. The Georgetown classes I did not find as stimulating. I ended up at MIT, and my brother ended up at Georgetown. (This was back in the late 80's, so REALLY ancient history.) I felt the education I got was excellent. I also felt that undergraduates were very well supported, with tutoring services widely available. I felt that the system was set up for us to be able to learn and succeed. My brother, on the other hand, wanted to be a bio major, but he was not interested in pre-med. He was miserable in the weedout classes. He took a calculus class without a textbook! I couldn't believe he was expected to learn with just a book of problems. I advised him to GET himself a textbook, even if the class did not use one, but he ended up changing majors. I really think they set things up so that many would fail and drop out of the traditional pre-med majors. I was shocked, as at the time I thought all schools wanted their students to do as well as possible in their chosen fields of interest. I guess I was just spoiled.</p>

8

<p>UCBChemEGrad,
I agree with you on the issue of faculty salaries and how that plays to the advantage of the schools with the most money and thus the greatest ability to hire the best faculty. This does not, however, always translate into great success in the classroom, as evidenced by colleges like BC and Wake Forest (and Miami of Ohio, UC Santa Cruz, and BYU). None of these are known as being wealthy schools while some of the schools not included in the 1996 Best Teaching Results were quite wealthy, even back then. </p>

<p>As for the class size issue, you and I are in greatly different camps here. Beyond the greater proximity to the key individual (the professor) that a smaller size class can bring, it also facilitates greater interaction among students. I personally believe that one learns enormously from one's fellow students and I greatly value the opportunity to learn in smaller setting. </p>

<p>I also think that there is an inverse relationship between class size and the importance of the academic ability of one's classmates. The larger the class, the less it matters. If I have chosen a school with great students, I want an environment that actually fosters interaction among these intelligent minds. If anything, I wish that USNWR would increase the weighting that it assigns to class sizes.</p>

9

<p>^ I agree with you that they should weigh it more for smaller class size. Also, yes, it is easier to interact in a smaller classroom versus a large lecture hall. At Cal, the large lecture hall classes had smaller breakout "discussion" sections that were helpful.</p>

<p>I also think they should reduce the faculty salary weighting.</p>

<p>Props to U Virginia, U North Carolina-Chapel Hill and W&M for improving.</p>

10

<p>eg1,
I think your post highlights the fallacy of making black and white judgments about schools that either are or are not on the Top 25 for Teaching Excellence. Not every student's experience will be the same and undoubtedly, there are exceptions at both types of schools. This goes to the issue of investigation and visits and understanding what you are in for as part of the college search process and ultimately finding the right personal fit. Too often students make cursory examinations of what they will encounter and this can sometimes lead to unhappy surprises like you detail above. For the record, Georgetown's 2008 FR rank was 38th (Cornell is 14th, MIT 20th). These aren't great differences, but how an institution chooses to spend its money is more important than actually calculating how much money they have.</p>

11

<p>eg1,</p>

<p>
[quote]
I was shocked, as at the time I thought all schools wanted their students to do as well as possible in their chosen fields of interest. I guess I was just spoiled.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To be absolutely fair, and I say this as a recent MIT alum, there are majors at MIT that do weed-outs and treat their students, or at least, all but the top quarter or so of their students, badly, as well. Physics comes to mind, and to a lesser extent (and in slightly different ways), biological engineering and aero/astro. My own department (brain & cog sci) was fine, and certain other departments (like ocean engineering before it got reabsorbed into mechanical, and nuclear engineering still) have very good reputations in this regard. What was your major at MIT?</p>

<p>This actually relates to the thread as a whole and not just to eg1, because it illustrates that particularly at a large school, factors like teaching quality, size of classes, and treatment of struggling students, vary widely by department.</p>

<p>I actually think that treatment of struggling students is a big part of classroom teaching excellence, but I don't know how you'd measure that quantitatively.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
I don't understand class size as a factor...these are young adults, not grammar school kids that need close contact nurturing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The advantages of small class size in college include getting to know professors well, which is very helpful if one wants to find a research lab or research project while an undergraduate, being able to ask questions of the professor on the spot instead of during office hours, enjoying the benefits of the commentary/discussion of one's fellow students, and the incentive to make sure one gets one's rear to class because the empty desk will be noticed. Those are very valuable contributors to undergraduate education.</p>

<p>I have two bachelor's degrees in two fields from two very large public institutions. I've enjoyed, or hated, as the case may be, more huge lecture classes than most. Some were interesting, even enlightening, but all could have been handled just as well by video or by some other distance-learning mechanism. </p>

<p>Class size is absolutely a legitimate criterion for judging the quality of instruction. (Obviously not on its own, but as one aspect of the undergraduate experience.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
I imagine larger salary may give a professor more job satisfaction and more desire to teach rather than research...but I'm skeptical.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Malcontents take their dissatisfaction into the classroom. It isn't so much a matter of preferring teaching over research if they are paid well relative to those at other institutions, it is more a matter of overall job satisfaction. </p>

<p>
[quote]
These faculty resource factors favor smaller, wealthier private universities that can pay their professors larger salaries.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you think full profs at Univ. of Michigan are paid more poorly than those at smaller, wealthier institutions? I think not, in general. Faculty salary is all over the place, depending on the field, but in general, those at well-known publics do pretty well.</p>

<p>from post 1:

[quote]
14 , NO , 9 , -5 , Cornell
22 , NO , 17 , -5 , Johns Hopkins
69 , yes , 63 , -6 , Boston Coll
38 , NO , 31 , -7 , UC Berkeley
42 , NO , 35 , -7 , UCLA
38 , yes , 31 , -7 , Wake Forest
20 , NO , 3 , -17 , MIT
69 , NO , 45 , -24 , U Michigan

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This list includes some schools not known for stingy faculty salaries.</p>

13

<p>Small classes can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, I think they're more conducive to learning in the classroom than large lecture classes, and certainly to classroom discussion. On the other hand, large lecture classes probably mean a large department, and that this department has lots of resources (research funding for undergrads, internship programs, career services, free/cheap private tutoring services, etc) and is valued by the school culture. And large lecture classes tend to have discussion/recitation sessions anyway.</p>

14

<p>The literature that I get from Berkeley says top profs are paid 20-30% more at Harvard, Stanford, and MIT. </p>

<p>Midmo, I said higher pay was about job satisfaction. I just don't think a large cohort of professors are so dissatisfied with their pay that they take it out on undergraduates.</p>

<p>Besides, studies show a boost in pay only affects performance temporarily.</p>

15

<p>jessiehl, sometimes a large lecture format reflects a large demand for a course that is required for many majors, but that does not mean the department is large. In particular, I am thinking about economics--required for a vast array of majors--and biochemistry--required for premeds, nursing students, etc. In both of these examples, the departments themselves are not necessarily large.</p>

<p>I see no double-edged sword for small classes taught by regular faculty. All other things equal, professors are to be preferred--for their experience, their knowledge, their connections. As for recitation sections taught by graduate students, I had few (not none, but close) that were worth the time.</p>

16

<p>Hawkette, do you work for USNWR? :) They must appreciate all the publicity you try to give them.</p>

<p>Are you in public relations? :)</p>

17

<p>dstark, there must be a story behind all the happy faces. I wish I knew it. (Imagine a happy face here.)</p>

<p>I hardly think Hawkette's posts reflect well on USNWR's system. I certainly take them with an even larger grain of salt now than I did a year and a half ago when I first looked at one of their rankings.</p>

<p>There really are people who take the USN system seriously. One of them called my H to chastise him for "allowing" our son to attend a school that is barely in the top 20. His D is, of course, attending one of the High Ivies. Mind you, we do not live in a part of the world where many people go Ivy, but this guy just figured any kid with a record like my son's should be at least trying to get into one. I don't waste a lot of time feeling sorry for people like that, so to some extent I don't care if Hawkette is successful in her attempt to poke holes in the methodology.</p>

<p>I think the discussions are interesting, nonetheless. Except when people get into a snit about Hawkette's "ulterior motives". That part is annoying.</p>

18

<p>Midmo, I was taught that knowing a person's motives helps you understand his/her argument better. </p>

<p>The person who chastised your husband is a loser.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
jessiehl, sometimes a large lecture format reflects a large demand for a course that is required for many majors, but that does not mean the department is large. In particular, I am thinking about economics--required for a vast array of majors--and biochemistry--required for premeds, nursing students, etc. In both of these examples, the departments themselves are not necessarily large.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Good point. I guess I'm used to a system with relatively few majors, where outside of classes required for everyone, large lecture classes in the lower levels normally do mean a big department. Biochem's an exception (required or recommended for half a dozen majors), but the bio department (a big department) has other large lecture classes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I see no double-edged sword for small classes taught by regular faculty. All other things equal, professors are to be preferred--for their experience, their knowledge, their connections. As for recitation sections taught by graduate students, I had few (not none, but close) that were worth the time.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>All other things equal, absolutely.</p>

<p>In general, my recitation sections were where I actually learned the material. There were a few really bad ones, but I had fewer bad grad student TAs than I did bad lecturers.</p>

<p>A good teacher in a small, discussion-oriented class can be a joy. A bad teacher in such a class is horribly painful. The disparity, in my experience, is much greater than with good and bad lecturers of large classes. Small classes need good teachers for the benefits to really show up.</p>

20

<p>The moral of the story is CAVEAT EMPTOR!</p>