<p>No,
But ARTHUR (sorry of error) did his work at NIH and Stanford and their is a large majority of leading biochemists that trained under him</p>
<p>I’m kind of with PrincessDad on that one. One of the reasons I wanted MIT so badly was because of the people who were teaching there - and that the access to them was open. The people responsible for cutting edge things were also teaching the classes, not the TA’s.</p>
<p>I recently watched the documentary on the start of Google where so many of the initial staff were from Stamford. Sometimes its about critical mass of brain trust.</p>
<p>You can excel from anywhere. A lot of well known leaders in business and government aren’t products of well-known schools.</p>
<p>Still – the opportunity to work with those who invented the process (my sister, for instance, studied under Doc Edgerton and her love of photography just soared after that) is compelling.</p>
<p>Not the be all and end all, certainly. But most wouldn’t turn down the chance if offered.</p>
<p>But
Pauling was not the “best” teacher. He said read the textbook and come to discuss. He then told why he did certain things, etc. If one is the type of student that can learn from the text and does not need a lecture, then Stanford is the place to be.</p>
<p>If one learns better from a lecture with a great teacher, the Stanfords and Harvards are not the place to be.</p>
<p>That also holds for boarding schools where the teachers are not required to “be teachers”. Most know their subject well but few have been “trained” as teachers</p>
<p>Have you looked into modern-day “teacher training”? I much prefer intelligent people, with good degrees in the area of study, and common sense.</p>
<p>But most college teachers these days must have good degrees in their field of study–even at a community college in my state, you must have a masters in your subject area field, not in teaching or education. At pretty much every four-year school, a doctorate or end of the line professional degree is a minimum requirement for employment. So given the basic qualifications, I’d take a passionate teacher at a small school over a brilliant academic more invested in his/her research than in teaching. The best, of course, is a teacher who invests time in both undergraduate students and research…something found most often on college campuses with limited graduate programs.</p>