Comprehensive Ivy League v. non-Ivy League Thread

College Search & Selection
101

<p>


</p>

<p>Tarhunt, be realistic. You know that TAs rarely, if ever teach the actual classes, only separate discussion sections and side labs. And at most places even top faculty are required to teach at least one course. Large research universities like UT even go out of their way to reward good teachers with "academies of distinguished teachers", recognition awards, etc. Undergraduate teaching may not be as intimate as a smaller private or LAC, but its not swept under the rug either. Especially for the students who genuinely are interested in learning. Again, the honors programs/colleges at large public schools like UT address the concern that's been raised here about the average student at these schools being less academically oriented. A student in Plan II, at UT for example, will be surrounded by Ivy caliber peers, yet have direct access to the star faculty and world-renowned resources that only a world-class research university can provide.</p>

102

<p>
[quote]
Again, the honors programs/colleges at large public schools like UT address the concern that's been raised here about the average student at these schools being less academically oriented. A student in Plan II, at UT for example, will be surrounded by Ivy caliber peers, yet have direct access to the star faculty and world-renowned resources that only a world-class research university can provide.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As much as I like UT, I don't think even the students at Plan II are Ivy Caliber. They may share the same test scores, EC's, but remember, in the Ivies, that is including many legacy admits, athletes, and URM's. My only worry with someone choosing Plan II over, say, Princeton or Yale is that there are a greater number of students than those in the Plan II program who are equivalent to the "top-Ivy" level, whereas at UT, there may be fewer.</p>

<p>But I don't think UT's being a research university is a strike against it at all. Many research universities are fabulous; a lot just depends on the career that you want to enter. I often find that kids from UT and other large public schools are very self-sufficient and self-motivated.</p>

103

<p>JWT:</p>

<p>
[quote]
First is the reality that a lot of people admitted cannot meet the required academic standards. These students that fail out or drop out are a result of the institution maintaining academic integrity in the face of lower selectivity. While UT by state law cannot be as selective as other schools, it does not by law have to graduate everyone it admits.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you have any research to back up these claims? Please understand that, everywhere I have ever lived, the local state U is "among the best in the world" and, if not enough students are graduating on time, it must be because "the academic standards are so high." And yet, when I actually teach in these schools, whether on the permanent faculty or as a guest, I find that the story is pretty much the same everywhere. Standards vary widely depending on the quality of the student body. The lower the quality, the more we have to dumb down the material and the requirements.</p>

<p>Do you have any proof of your claims? I suppose that a grade curve that is skewed well under that of other schools would be evidence for your assertion that the students couldn't cut it, but not that the school is any "harder" than any other school. </p>

<p>As far as the "institution maintaining academic integrity," do you have the sense that departments spend a lot of time, both inter and intra, working on this sort of thing? They may at some of the LACs. That wouldn't surprise me. But at the vast majority of large institutions, I'd venture a guess that the amount of time devoted to some sort of standards is just barely more than zero.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sadly, this is true at a lot of public schools, where weeding is intense.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>These schools exist? Where? There was a time when a very few schools had the idea that it was their duty in life to admit more freshmen than they could actually absorb and then "weed them out." Those days are long over. I don't know of a single institution anywhere that doesn't want to graduate those it admits. Do you have any proof that UT or, for that matter, ANY other public school in the country is a place where "weeding is intense"?</p>

<p>JWT, you seem to have this idea that large, research-oriented institutions spend a lot of time working with faculty, among departments, and between departments on instruction. It's not the way it happens. If there are standards at all for given courses, they're usually very loose. The idea that there is some sort of master plan for these behemoths is a myth.</p>

104

<p>
[quote]
Tarhunt, be realistic. You know that TAs rarely, if ever teach the actual classes, only separate discussion sections and side labs. And at most places even top faculty are required to teach at least one course.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't mean to be realistic. That's why I used the word "hypothetically." It was a sort of modified approach to reducio ad absurdum to introduce the idea that there are things other than faculty reknown that contribute to a "good" education. Unfortunately, it fell flat because pateta doesn't appear to know the technique. Not surprising.</p>

<p>As for TAs teaching only sections, I find that completely untrue in most places. It is very common to find grad students teaching writing courses, entry-level or entry-level-plus-one English courses, entry-level philosophy, etc. The large science, psych, econ, etc. classes that can run 500 students or more are typically taught by a tenured professor. Not that it matters. Those classes are so elementary that they could be taught by practically anyone with a bachelor's degree in the subject. In fact, I've suggested (and only half in jest) that we simply video a tenured professor for those classes and project it on the lecture hall screen. It would be just as effective. In fact, we could allow students to watch it from their dorm rooms, thereby relieving them of the odor from the guy next to them with questionable hygiene habits ;-).</p>

<p>As for star faculty being required to teach at least one course, this is both true and untrue. It really depends. First off, it depends on just how much of a star we're talking about. If the person is really famous, teaching in most places is purely optional. Having office hours is purely optional. If the person is one step down from that, he/she may be required to teach a single grad-level course. It really, really varies by school, department, and political acumen.</p>

<p>Not that it matters all that much. If one MUST teach an undergrad course, and one finds teaching undergrads galling, then one can get one of those 500 student lecture courses that require minimal work.</p>

105

<p>I am not sure I see what is wrong with having a fifth-year grad stduent teaching a writing course or even a seminar in his/her specialty--may be quite an experienced teacher at this point, with several years of TA experience in sections prior to getting own course. This has nothing to do with region in any case. Large universities, including prestigous flagship state universities, have a lot of grad students and some are great teachers and some are not, just as some long-term and well-known full professors may be wonderful teachers and others not. There are people who really like to teach; some of them end up as profesors at LACs, and some don't. Being a tenured professor does not automatically translate to being a good teacher.</p>

106

<p>mattmom:</p>

<p>Read the thread. The issue at hand is whether a faculty that researches and publishes a lot make for an inherently better school than one that doesn't do as much research and publishing. One of the issues is just how much undergrads really have contact with said faculty.</p>

<p>This makes the TA question relevant.</p>

107

<p>Comprehensive list, not necessarily in any order:</p>

<p>Duke
Georgetown
Emory
Rice
Johns Hopkins
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest
Davidson</p>

<p>Note: I'm including MD and DC more for the cultural similarities than the geographic.</p>

108

<p>Change Davidson to Wustl and you have my list from before, only i matched them up with real ivy schools.</p>

109

<p>Georgetown and Hopkins may be south of the Mason Dixon line, but does not have the same southern feel of Vandy, Emory, etc. I live in MD and have gone to camp in North Carolina with a ton of people all over the south. MD is nothing like the rest of the south. We are moer Mid Atlantic. Also, is St. Louis more Mid West or more southern? I really don't know, but if the NFL and NHL say that St. Louis is in the west/central and not the south, I don't know if WUSTL has the southern feel of Duke, Vandy, Emory, etc.</p>

110

<p>Duke and Emory have less of a southern feel. Vanderbilt is very southern.</p>

111

<p>
[quote]
I'm including MD and DC more for the cultural similarities than the geographic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As a Northern Virginia native who goes to school in the South, I have to say, I don't see the cultural similarities.</p>

112

<p>Clendenenator--</p>

<p>All states "used to own slaves." Slavery was not outlawed in many northern states until well into the 1800's.</p>

113

<p>redcrimblue:</p>

<p>True, but the terms "slave states" and "free states" grew from the Missouri Compromise and was very commonly used from then until, through, and after the Civil War. The term is useful and specific.</p>

114

<p>Yeah, I used the exact words, "every state once owned some slaves." So I don't see why I need the explanation.</p>

115

<p>I must have missed that intervening post. I apologize.</p>

116

<p>I'd go with 1) Emory or 2) Duke. Maybe I'm biased because my sister went to Emory. :p</p>

117

<p>When I think of Ivy Leagues, I think Harvard, Yale and Princeton are the big dogs. Brown, UPenn, Darthmouth, Cornell and Columbia don't seen to be as prestigious. Stanford and MIT are more at the level of HYP than any of the other five ivy leagues.
If I had 1-8, 1 being hardest Ivy to get into, 8 being easiest, this is how the list would look like in my opinion.</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>UPenn</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
</ol>

118

<p>I'm surprised. Cornell being the easiest IVY?!</p>

119

<p>I'll say Brown is a tad harder than Penn. They are all very prestigious anyways. Columbia should be above Dartmouth.</p>

120

<p>Just so you know...Columbia had the highest rejection rate of ANY school last year. Even Harvard. Although, to be fair, their acceptance rate went from 9% to 11% when certain programs were overlooked. Regardless, you might want to rethink that a bit.</p>