<p>I think there can be a disconnect between what professors assign and what students actually do, and how long professors think something will take, and how long it takes students in reality. </p>
<p>I am also not entirely convinced that hours is the correct unit of measuring student effort. The number of hours doesn’t consider quality of hours. In my own experience transferring from a less selective U to a top tier LAC, that I do a lot less busy work. For instance at my old school, I had online economics problem sets. I think I spent more time fighting the silly program than learning econ. Also, “smart,” well prepared students may need less time to do excellent work than their peers, and highly selective schools have a large concentration of these kinds of students. Moreover, student effort may not need to be consistent over time to reflect the same amount of work. Students these days don’t necessarily have to go to the library to read the course packet, or even do research. Writing papers is so much easier and faster on computers. Also, since my professors are easily accessible by email, a quick message can save me hours of work. </p>
<p>I think Wellesley, at least, is just private with its data. For instance, Wellesley never responds to the New York Times’ blog “The Choice” call for acceptance statistics. The college “knows” its a “good” school, and doesn’t feel the need to prove itself. </p>
<p>Obviously my experience is just n=1. My gut feeling is that there is a difference between liberal arts schools and research U’s/ Ivys.</p>
Where did you get that? I don’t really expect exam questions to be that different for one course to another, though I hope the answers to them are better at Harvard than at the local community college. </p>
<p>My sons went to medium size research university for these reasons:
They wanted to go to colleges that were bigger than their high school.
They wanted top programs in their field (comp sci and international relations)
They wanted the opportunity to take advantage of people in the graduate schools.
They wanted to be near a city.
They enjoyed a mix of small seminars and larger lectures.</p>
<p>As for study time? My comp sci guy spent 20 hours a week, just for one class some terms. My younger son also seems to be working pretty hard. He studies at least 10 hours a week for one class, and seems to have frequent papers to write.</p>
<p>If indeed, RUs “care less about undergraduate education” than LACs, per Sop 14’s Mom, and if that means that students there spend less time doing the things that research shows leads to people learning more, then there is a trade-off between going to a RU and and LAC.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is evidence that those assumptions are true, BTW. I was just responding to Sop 14’s Mom.</p>
<p>Well, I can tell you why the Ivies don’t participate. They do their own senior survey…and have been doing it for decades. When this survey began, they decided that it (1)wasn’t as good as the one they already administered and (2) would cause a “break” in the data, meaning that survey results after the date it was used and before it was used wouldn’t be comparable. </p>
<p>After reading the questions, I think they are in many instances, idiotic. YMMV. </p>
<p>For example, this survey thinks that study abroad is crucial. I don’t. In fact, I think most study abroad programs are not particularly valuable. I almost laughed when I read the excerpt from Juniata College about how it has instituted 2 to 5 week trips abroad for its students. That allegedly makes attending Juniata a much better experience. </p>
<p>Making sure all of your students do an internship is also high on the list. Most states require student teaching for certification. So, if you have a lot of ed majors who do student teaching, you are a better college than one with fewer ed majors, because more of your students do an “internship.”</p>
<p>I don’t think rigor in exam questions tells you that much about how much students learn–although their answers might. Furthermore, if they have the same exam at Harvard and and XYZ State University, and 75% of the Harvard students get an A, vs. 30% of the state U students, what does that tell you? Some folks will say that it means that Harvard has terrible grade inflation, while others will tell you that a higher percentage of Harvard students mastered the material.</p>
<p>It tells me that the students are being evaluated with equal rigor, and that therefore the A at XYZ State is worth just as much as the A at Harvard - assuming the grading scales are equivalent, which you would have to investigate further to determine.</p>
<p>This reinforces, I think, the point I’ve made before, to widespread derision: the very high graduation rate at most highly selective colleges really has nothing to do with the quality of the education an individual will get there - at least not without a more in-depth analysis of academic standards. Why do so many people not complete their degree at XYZ State, while virtually everyone does at Harvard? Could it not be that the courses are being taught with equal rigor and the expectations for students are the same, but that because Harvard admits a higher caliber student, almost everyone can pass, whereas only the hard-working and most-qualified at XYZ can? And if that’s the case, does it not imply that a student who works hard can get just as good an education at XYZ as at Yale?</p>
<p>Scoff away - but it’s an explanation that is consistent with a lot of data that shows for a motivated student, going to a more prestigious school doesn’t mean a better education.</p>
<p>Everyone to their own opinion - but studies have shown (at the institutional level) a statistically significant correlation between high scores on the factors measured by the NSSE and better results on a number of metrics, including the CLA, MCAT, LSAT, GMAT, and GREs.</p>
<p>According to its Office of Institutional Research, there is a report available on the 2008 NSSE survey. The argument that the NSSE makes about keeping that data from the public is that public access might provide an incentive for students to answer less than honestly. Given the nature of the questions, I think that may well be disingenuous, but I see the point.</p>
<p>Having worked on a couple of large psychometric sample studies, these NSSE studies look like they are too broad to be really useful for anything more than an approximate gut feel. The questions are vague and allow too much room for variance in already subjective categories.</p>
Maybe, but he still has to go to classes in which 70% of the students are less able than he is. I think that will affect the learning environment, but it may be harder to show that. His lecture classes may be OK, but his seminars won’t be so hot.</p>
<p>Okay, just asked son, Arabic is expected to take 12-14 hours a week just for homework - ds, not being good at it, spends even longer. No wonder he feels stressed out!</p>
When reconnecting with high school classmates, I’ve found that my assessment (based on high school performance) of who would be most ‘able’ to handle college academics was not very accurate. YMMV, I suppose.</p>
<p>As the parent of twins, one at an LAC and one at a university that is roughly 4x the size of the LAC, the answer’s obvious - because different kids prefer or spark to different environments. Really, no other reason is needed.</p>