<p>poetgrl, that is a 2005 article based on a purported 2004 poll.</p>
<p>My S is currently taking a psychology class at Harvard taught by Daniel Gilbert, and according to him, it is “amazing.”</p>
<p>^^Are you sure? How could that be, whatever? They don’t teach at Harvard or Yale. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I think the assumption is that we’re comparing decent state universities, usually the state flagship, versus top privates. Not Western Middle State U of Nobody’s Town Junior College versus a top private :P. Not knocking on junior colleges since often that’s an economic, not intellect, thing. But you get my point. </p>
<p>I think there might be some discernable difference in lower-level course engagement. I disagree that there would be a difference in any other aspect.</p>
<p>If you want to pay for Harvard for the difference in your “CORE” classes, well, so be it. Haha.</p>
<p>Every year Harvard, Chicago, Yale, etc. graduate very gifted young Ph.Ds and produce many post-docs. Many are searching for jobs in a very very tight market. Where do most end up teaching? You guest it, at those state universities and LACs who are eager to hire them. I have friends who sit on faculty search committees from many schools at many different levels, the number of well trained applicants from top schools has never been greater. These are the folks who will be doing groundbreaking work, know the literature, and most eager for the help. Further, they can write those very important letters to those colleges from whence the came for their students. One can get a splendid education from top faculty even at a tier 3 school.</p>
<p>Well, in terms of the whole faculty debate, let’s not forget that brilliant does not always equal “good teacher”, anyway.</p>
<p>
I would agree IF getting a “splendid education” was entirely dependent on faculty quality. For better or worse, it is not. Ironically, this is most true for the humanities and social sciences where tier 3 schools often have better teachers but lower-quality courses in comparison to math/science at the same school–the job market for humanities Ph.Ds is atrocious, but course quality also depends far more on student engagement.</p>
<p>I once took a 4-person English 101 class at a tier 3 local private. Discussions were lackluster, to say the least, although the personal attention from the professor was great. My high school AP English Lit class is 30 kids, which makes discussions a little difficult to manage; however, it remains altogether more interesting and engaging.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simply not true. I know for a fact that graduate students in my field teach a lot of the undergraduate courses at the Ivies and tippy top schools and they all hire sessionals as well. Moreover, most students and their families aren’t even aware of who is teaching what-- would not know a full professor from an associate from an assistant. </p>
<p>At top schools you are also hired almost exclusively upon your research record. You also don’t get promoted or tenured on your teaching record. No one tests out your teaching ability and while a bad job talk involving your research might suggests you would suck in the classroom, it otherwise is not relevant (and I happen to be a professor in a field that extremely teaching sensitive!). I know, I write external letters of recommendation for people at this schools regarding their promotion!</p>
<p>And across the board you get great teachers and not great teachers, at every institution.</p>
<p>I took waterlogged’s comment regarding “private colleges” to mean LACs, like a Pomona, or even a Dartmouth, where there are no grad students. In the case of Pomona, it is certainly true.(they value teaching- can’t say that it’s always “great”, but I doubt that it’s poor in very many cases.) I believe he was contrasting that with the larger privates, which I assume he meant the Stanfords and Ivies, which he says are probably more like the state flagships( in that research is vital and would have more grad student involvement.) Maybe I’m wrong, but I took his comments to mean that. </p>
<p>I agree, starbright-- There are certainly great and not so great teachers at every institution. I will say again that my D never had a course during her entire four years at Yale that was taught by a graduate student. She actually took courses with them as a fellow student in graduate seminars during her final two years, as did the all of the serious undergrads at her college. </p>
<pre><code>Now, as a graduate student in the social sciences at another private university, my daughter is looking forward to teaching next year after she passes her general exams. What she means by “teaching”, however, is being a section leader for a professor- she will be leading a classroom of students coming from a lecture by a professor who is an expert in the field ( associate, assistant or tenured, but definitely a PhD) who is actually the instructor for course. She would be leading the discussion group of 20 or so students who were part of the 100 students in a weekly or twice weekly intro course, taught by that professor. She will in no way actually be teaching the course, as in creating the syllabus and giving the lecture, although the experience she’ll gain by leading small sections will be invaluable if she decides to teach after she completes her degree. I think this is fairly common at both public and private research universities.
</code></pre>
<p>The whole argument of public vs private is pretty silly, imo, as the range is wide for both types. Again, it’s about fit, and what type of environment your own student will thrive in.
I do object to blanket false statements like “Harvard and Yale don’t teach,” or even “you can get just as good an education at a public U as a private one.” It depends on which public U, and which private you’re talking about, and it depends on which student you’re talking about. As a parent, you need to know your kid and know if the extra money is worth it- sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t.</p>
<p>Good point moonchild. I have a knack these days for misreading posts and sometimes entire threads. I think I agree with everything you write (though my referring to teaching by grad students, I meant actually running the classes-- and even as section leader, I can bet you a million bucks who is doing the grading…actually I think grading and feedback is sometimes more important than the classroom time, but no one realizes how everyone farms out their grading to students, especially at top schools where labor is very affordable and grunt work of grading isn’t “worthy” of a professors’ time). Tell all your kids to ASK their professor who does the grading…they will be surprised. </p>
<p>My reaction is more to generalized statements that simply just don’t hold water when you get up close to them. I’m neither pro nor con private/public, LAC/big, teaching/research instititutions. I’ve been at them all. My soapbox is, at its core, about this giant profit-making industry that sells sells sells parents and kids on which school to apply to, which to attend, which to donate to. And as with all industries selling products, they work very very hard to convince you that their product is different, better, bigger, faster and ooooh so selective! “Selectivity” is king…yet it just tells you lots of HS kids have been talked into going there. Just like X brand jeans appeal more to teens…despite being the same, with a different label, at walmart. Of course the counter argument si you get such a better education with ‘your own people’…can’t be among the dumber masses. Well sure, okay a school with open enrollment is different than one with 10% acceptance rate…but the difference between ‘rank 1’ and ‘rank 13’ is just nonsensical in terms of the classroom and very much depends on the prof, the major, elective or general, class size and so on. No doubt we can hold up two schools at opposite ends of a 4000 college continuum and agree one has more bang for the buck than the other…but I can not emphasize enough how all this hype and marketing and selling has created complete myths of apparent differences between schools. Moreover, the differences ‘within schools’ is often greater than across them. It depends upon so much on the student, the area of study, and so forth. </p>
<p>i would also argue you can get ‘better’ profs at either LAC or research school. On one hand, those doing primary research bring something very special to the classroom. Especially in the sciences, they aren’t just teaching the material but creating what is taught. My experience is- contrary to the myth- some of the best overachieving researchers are also equally overachieving in the classroom. On the other hand, LACs in many fields end up with the faculty that couldn’t get research oriented jobs (since status in a field is, regardless, related to one’s research and people are coming out of resaerch oriented grad school…so often if they end up at a teaching oriented school its often not by choice, because the teaching load is much higher). On the flip side, LAC profs are hired with more focus on what they’ll bring to the classroom, and because they get a lot more kudos and rewards for teaching well and are not as torn between teaching and research, they can devote more to their students. Interestingly in my field we actually have a society and annual conference devoted to teaching in our field. Interestingly the people that attend, and take teaching VERY VERY seriously are not people from famous LACs, nor the hotbeds of research, but instead schools most of you have not heard of. </p>
<p>My other soapbox is to drill down. Ignore the noise, recognize most of it is marketing pure and simple, avoid the controlled messages, and investigate on the inside. Drill down and collect the data you care about, not someone else’s ranking system. So much on the web! Especially within department. As for data, numbers percentages, not hearsay, stories, platitudes. Email professors and meet with them. Email students who run the society of X that your student will mostly likely belong to. Avoid the admissions people, skip the tour and spend time talking to students in the departments of interest, hang out in the hang outs. Skip the ‘guest lecture’ they will assign you to (the best profs are the ones on that list so completely biased), and instead email profs teaching the largest intro section of a course one is likely to take in freshman year and hold that course constant on your visits (e.g. go only to psych 100 classes, or math 100 classes). </p>
<p>And while we all talk about fit, it really is more than this culture and that culture, big small, private public. Lots of mythology that may just not apply to a particular student-- again it depends. Want to go to grad school in sciences? Look for the best place that offers undergraduate research opportunities where faculty actually publish, and if possible, at a school reknowned in its field so you get great letters of recommendation that open doors (getting both of these can be tough so the first is the most critical). Need mostly the best network because you plan to work in X state upon graduation? Go to the regional school where everyone graduates from. Care a ton about luxurious facilities, dorms, gardens…that one is obvious. Need highest possible GPA and can’t get into a grade inflated top school, study the data on gradeinflation.com. Want prestige for the community? Go to school X ranked in the ‘first tier’ of USNWR. Want to go to x, y, z professional schools…look at where their students did their undergrad. And so on.</p>
<p>
QFT! I’ve especially found a lot of overlooked, useful information through close reading of online course catalogs and registrar pages.</p>
<p>I do think that information sessions and tours can be useful, especially for the “gut” aspect of the decision, but one should regard everything from a critical vantage point.</p>