<p>dstark: I appreciate the democratic values you bring to this discussion. I probably shouldn't be on this thread because I'm not a numbers person so the charts just don't do much for me.</p>
<p>I have known people with IQ's of 200 + off the charts who were not the least stimulating to talk to. My own father had an IQ of 170 but he was emotionally sentimental and superficial and not an intellectual, although he was demonstrably brilliant. I can guarantee that he never read good literature or philosophy. Perferred Chaikovsky to Bach and thought Anthony Adverse (a pot boiler) was the best novel every written.</p>
<p>My ex-H scored 800 on any and every math and science standardized test he ever took. He was frustrated that I consistently out performed him in most of our classes in college.</p>
<p>As for undergraduate teaching, to me it's disingenuous to ignore LAC's on the thread, and I have to affirm I've seen really awesome teaching going on at the community college I teach at by many of my colleagues. As I walk the halls and over hear lectures I am proud to be there. Our classes are capped at twenty-five, we have attendance requirements and grade all our own papers. We earned our PhD's at the same places as our more ambitious colleagues at more prestigious institutions. And I dare say the population we teach is more challenging, so I would gladly test our teaching skills and strategies against any faculty population in the US.</p>
<p>(PS we also teach high school teachers, so we do have some graduate teaching.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many have commented extensively elsewhere about the dedication of resources and faculty at research universities to graduate programs at the expense of undergraduate students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd say there were many posts. Not so sure about many posters. I always wonder about these kinds of vague references; they sound so definitive but what's behind them?</p>
<p>I'm surprised you put much stock in the original survey about "great classroom teaching" because you've spoken elsewhere about the inability of the surveyed to know these things, or to be objective when asked to evaluate their peers and competitors.</p>
<p>mythmom,
Here are the rankings of LACs for Best Classroom Teaching in the 1996 Best Colleges issue of USNWR. It is really just a limit on how much material I can find time to evaluate. If someone wants to pick up the cause of the LACs and do the research, then I'd love to see their results. </p>
<pre><code>LACs
</code></pre>
<p>1 Carleton
2 Swarthmore
3 Williams
4 Grinnell
5 Amherst
6 Earlham
7 Haverford
8 St. John's
9 Colorado College
10 Davidson
11 Oberlin
12 Pomona
12 Wellesley
14 Bowdoin
15 St. Olaf
16 Bryn Mawr
16 Macalester
18 Bates
18 Middlebury
18 Reed
21 Kenyon
21 Spelman
23 Smith
24 Sewanee
25 Centre</p>
<p>eg1-
The teaching at Cornell is generally excellent. As busy as the professors are, they are energetic, sometimes inspirational, lecturers. Lots of interesting demos, thought experiments, anecdotal stories, humor, discussions about cutting-edge issues. Bad teachers were very rare and even they are still pretty good. They are in their offices a lot and readily accessible to undergraduates who seek them out. Taking a class and doing well is a good way to land an assistantship in a lab.</p>
<p>Hawkette--you have mentioned the 1996 classroom teaching opinion survey about 6 times in the past two days alone. Yet each time I or anyone else writes that it is just an opinion survey, extremely similar to the PA, and you have grave reservations about the PA, you basically say that you don't really think the 1996 survey is that valuable. Why then do you keep mentioning it, why do you use it as a basis for anything? I should note that the same academics who you think are biased and petty were responsible for a 12 year old survey that you appear to take as gospel (even though in your next post you will of course deny it has any value and then you will mention it again within the next day or so).</p>
<p>Your view of academics has not changed. I know that because you recently posted that Tulane has received a lower PA because "the academics are paying the school back for its sacking of some tenured profs in the wake of Katrina."</p>
<p>If you truly believe that they are that petty and judgmental, then why do you continually cite the 1996 survey?</p>
<p>Point was not to disparage Harvard, but they are used to being ranked #1 in everything. For them to be listed in high teens, but even worse, behind BC, would be intolerable publicity. </p>
<p>I guarantee they would be leading the charge of a boycott.</p>
<p>dstark,
I read the NYT article that you linked to about the experiences at three colleges. I would have preferred a broader geographic sample, but there are some good points therein. I agree with most of the message of the article and especially its closing thought about seeking out colleges that provide the right balance and then living that balance when the student gets to campus. This is a theme that I have repeatedly stressed to students in their college search process (great academics, great social life, great athletic life, etc) and for which others have accused me of being anti-intellectual. </p>
<p>IMO if one truly pursues a college search that looks at the full undergraduate experience, then the universe of great colleges is quickly seen to be quite large rather than the tight circle as so often portrayed on CC (not to mention in the academic world). The folly of the prestige-driven approach is revealed, particularly as it relates to the establishment colleges that are profiled in the article. The importance that the graduates of these colleges placed on the rankings or the prestige after graduation was less than half what it was at the time of college application and matriculation Nonetheless, I'm confident that these students, like most college students, were happy with their experience. Explicit, aggressive regrets are rare among any alumni group. But who knows how many students might have a chosen a different (and perhaps happier and more individually fulfilling) path had this prestige-focus not dominated their thinking at the time they were applying to colleges. </p>
<p>Re the standardized test comments, the Amherst dean's quote was, </p>
<p>"SAT scores are important if you are a person who has had a lot of opportunities in your life. For people who have had fewer opportunities, SAT's are going to be less important for that person."</p>
<p>and </p>
<p>"If you tie admission strictly to S.A.T. scores, you're going to end up with a very wealthy student body."</p>
<p>Again, I don't see this as being at odds with the NACAC survey. Standardized tests are one data point out of fifteen. Relative to the other factors, standardized tests either ranked 2nd or 3rd (after grades in college level courses which the Amherst dean also said was the most important consideration). I know that you object to my frequent posting of this data, but standardized test scores are the sole, standardized data point that we have for evaluating student body quality and they have a history of high correlation to the strength of other parts of an application.</p>
<p>hoedown and midatlmom,
There is one HUGE difference between the 1996 Best Classroom Teaching ranking and the PA rankings. We know what the former is measuring. That clarity says volumes. You can argue about the validity of the rankings that were done in 1996 and definitely about their usefulness twelve years later, but I don't think you can claim that they can be misinterpreted for what they were trying to rank. </p>
<p>My question at the outset was whether we can extrapolate those 1996 rankings to some extent by looking at other data, eg, Faculty Resource rank, that might have a large influence on the experience that students will have in the classroom. Do you have a view on this? Do you have a better way to look at this question if you are trying to evaluate the quality of classroom teaching at a college?</p>
<p>There's another HUGE difference between the PA survey and the college teaching survey, btw. </p>
<p>The PA survey is still very much in use, part of a ranking formula published in a magazine with circulation in the millions. It's still widely seen, enormously influential and its detractors are justified in at least questioning its validity because of its impact. The college teaching survey has ceased to exist; it is dead and buried as far as mass publication is concerned. No one knows about it. It was news to me until Hawkette brought it up the first time. If she chooses to bring it up six, eight, ten times on CC, so what? It's a discussion point, nothing more.</p>
<p>I think that 'faculty salary' may ACTUALLY be a measure of what percent of faculty are full-time vs. part-time, and what percentage are adjuncts. Many of the schools we've looked at have as high as half of their professors as adjuncts. These professors might be less available to your student, less 'in the know' about campus resources available to your student, and maybe even less committed to teaching. I'd be concerned about a school where faculty salary was quite low, because to me it would indicate the absnece of many full-time, committed faculty.</p>
<p>
[quote]
From experience, I can tell that there are schools with very small classes AND lots of resources. Why wouldn't research funding for undergrads, internship programs, career services, free/cheap private tutoring services, etc) not be more plemtiful at schools that ONLY have undergraduates but well-funded programs?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If they only have undergrads AND they have lots of resources, bully for them. I think it was a great help to my education, for a number of reasons, to have grad students around. I think it was a great help to my education to be at a research university. Certainly, my experience with departments was that the large departments, which often had the large classes, also tended to have better resources for their students.</p>
<p>jazzymom,
Actually, credit should go to sybbie for the Best Teaching Rankings. Like you, I knew nothing about them and had never heard them discussed or even mentioned on CC until she provided the information. Granted, it is old data and its usefulness is limited, but it does introduce a different, perhaps more student-relevant, way of looking at colleges and evaluating the nature of the undergraduate experience they provide.</p>
<p>For me, the Best Teaching rankings were also useful in confirming the impressions that I have personally and have read about here and elsewhere for colleges that are described as undergraduate-friendly, eg, Dartmouth, Brown, W&M, Rice, Princeton, etc. In addition, the 1996 rankings identified several colleges that I have frequently described as great undergraduate college choices that have historically had less national prestige. Recently, many of these Top Teaching Colleges have seen marked improvement in their student quality and are now competing more and more successfully with the historical powers for top students across the USA, eg, Notre Dame, U Virginia, Emory, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Wake Forest, U North Carolina, Wash U, Georgetown, Tufts. I had long perceived these colleges as having strong teaching reputations and this 1996 survey reinforces this view. The question now is whether this classroom teaching excellence is still the case and, absent another survey, are there other clues we can use to help us answer that question.</p>
<p>jazzymom--I guess the reason I don't like the disconnect between Hawkette's reasoning vis-a-vis the PA survey and the classroom excellence survey is because (a) I actually do have a lot of respect for many college administrators and it disturbs me when people who wouldn't be in a position to know assume that they are petty and judgmental (aka Hawkette's comment about Tulane) and (b) if your position about college administrators is that their opinions are fatally flawed, then regardless of what question you are asking them, logically you must discount their answers--i.e., you shouldn't say that their opinion is valid for the question they answered the way you wanted them to, but not valid for the question you didn't like the answer to.</p>
<p>I also feel that fundamentally, these discussions are just being overwhelmed by lots of useless reworking of the data. If there are kids and parents who are only interested in prestige, then they can go to USNWR and check ratings and apply to the top 10-15 schools from that list. While they might be losing out on some terrific schools, no one on this board is necessarily going to convince them otherwise. For the other parents and students out there (who are I believe the vast majority of people), they are looking at fit, location, programs offered, costs, sports offered, number of students etc., which I believe are infinitely more important than average SAT scores (which favor the wealthy), alumni contributions (which favor private schools) and endowments (which favor already wealthy schools).</p>
<p>There are literally hundreds of schools these days that are filled with top-notch teachers, wonderful facilities and interesting academic programs. Rather than spending hours debating whether there's a way to prove that Wake Forest is as good as Cornell, or Rice is underrated compared to University of Pennsylvania, I think that we should speak about the strength of individual schools (whether they are Cal State or Harvard) and not try to endlessly compare them to come up with new lists and rankings.</p>
<p>"Rather than spending hours debating whether there's a way to prove that Wake Forest is as good as Cornell, or Rice is underrated compared to University of Pennsylvania, I think that we should speak about the strength of individual schools (whether they are Cal State or Harvard) and not try to endlessly compare them to come up with new lists and rankings."</p>
<p>Well said, Midatlmom!</p>
<p>I find it odd that some people who object to the USNWR ratings seem to be in search of a "better" ranking, when it's the concept of ranking itself that gets in the way. Of course, prestige matters to some degree, but a student who doesn't properly fit into that school environment won't likely be in a good position to use the institutional leverage. More likely, he will be miserable and therefore never reach his potential.</p>
<p>My problem with the USNWR Faculty Resources ranking, besides the fact that Faculty Salaries makes up too high (IMHO) a percentage (35%) of that ranking, is USNWR adjusts Faculty Salaries for the local cost of living (COL). So rural schools where the COL is low get their ranking bumped up, whereas urban schools with a higher COL get penalized.</p>
<p>For instance, Pomona, located in urban and high COL Los Angeles County, has the 2nd highest faculty salary of any LAC, $117,340
according to AAUP (old 2005 data), yet is ranked 8th in overall faculty resources. Williams, located in rural and low-cost Williamstown, has the 9th highest faculty salary at $111,476 yet ranks 4th in faculty resources. Presumably William's "COL adjusted" salary is higher than Pomona's which helped bump up their overall faculty resources ranking.</p>
<p>This is somewhat counterintuitive, since faculty salaries are arguably a surrogate for attracting/keeping higher caliber faculty, yet locations with a high cost of living are inherently more attractive, since people are willing to spend more $$ in order to move to / stay in these locations.</p>
<p>In my line of work, salaries are actually lower in major cities than in rural areas - companies have to increase salaries to "lure" employees to the less attractive (and low COL) rural areas, whereas many will go to the big cities and take a pay cut "just to be in the city".</p>
<p>With all other things being equal, I think more people, including professors, would prefer to live in city like LA than a rural area like Williamstown, hence I'd tell USNWR to do away with the COL adjustments. And reduce the impact of faculty salaries overall on the faculty resource ranking (certainly less than 35%), since I agree it's probably not that great a surrogate of teaching quality anyway.</p>
<p>"There is a difference between pointing out something is inaccurate, and coming up with different rankings that are also inaccurate. That's what you do."</p>
<p>The 31 Consortium of Financing of Higher Education (COFHE) schools - which includes all the Ivies, top LACs, and selected other privates - actually administers a survey every five years to students (at least 50% of the student body) to assess their perceptions of academic quality and quality of campus life. The schools themselves DO use them for comparative purposes. But they aren't released publicly, though sometimes they are leaked. In the last survey, H. ranked 27th, which was all over the Boston-area papers. But I doubt that much of anyone cares.</p>
<p>I really don't buy that relative salary is a function of area attractiveness. I recently read that it takes $85,000 in New York to live like $55,000 in Chicago. I have spent time in both cities and certainly would not prefer NY over Chicago. I would prefer Williamstown over smoggy Claremont even without the cost advantage. COL has more to do with housing and taxes which tend to vary for lots of reasons few of which have much to do with the QOL.</p>