@Dawala282 *And no, your comparison will not include Emory (or lots of private research universities): I and many others have had the EXACT same experience and it is partially because introductory and intermediate STEM course sections at Emory are substantially (most may have 200+ in a general chemistry course for example, but Emory has about 100 in the largest sections, and half of the sections cap between 70-85. General biology’s ceiling is 96. Physics is the big one coming in at 170, but this was done to free up physics faculty to teach electives and before that change was made, it had a cap of about 90) smaller than most research universities (I believe including Tufts, but may need to look it up). In addition, the lecture track at Emory is ultra strong and heavily employed at those key “weedout” courses. You are more likely to end up with an instructor whose only job is to teach and mentor undergraduates. Biology and NBB is actually a particularly special case, because even beyond the general course, they break many of the intermediate courses into smaller sections that focus on primary literature reading (discussion sections) which allow close contact with professors and TAs. Also, Emory heavily employs undergraduates as the principal TAs for many STEM courses. They facilitate classroom activities and run problem solving sessions as opposed to graduate students. I would imagine Tufts may have a similar set-up but am not sure.
Also, in general, one must be careful with anecdotes, because if I say: “Emory is undergraduate focused because this was MY experience”…others exactly like me can come out and cite similar experiences from similar sized schools. I’ll bite: My freshman organic instructor taught in a lecture hall but makes lots of group activities and problem solving exercises. He also plays sports (there is a sporting event each semester with the current cohort of students versus a team composed of former cohorts. He also does this when teaching his sophomore courses) with the whole class as well as individual students. He will also take students out for lunch and mentor them as groups and individuals. There is another very popular ochem instructor with a similar reputation for high rigor as well as mentoring (but lesser so intentional team based learning). Some of the general chemistry instructors are this way as well as several general biology instructors.
So I think if we cited these as “undergraduate focused” we are conflating personalities with infrastructure that leads to the empowerment and activation of undergraduates. In terms of an “undergraduate focus” the paragraph I wrote above is much more important than this one and I can tell you that not many near peers of Emory or Tufts have the things I mention in that paragraph. Most research private schools do not employ undergraduates beyond 1 on 1 tutoring or grading. They only let graduate TAs run problem solving sessions. They damned sure do not have primary literature discussion sections attached to several classes (in fact, there are a couple of top 20s where hardly any primary lit. reading takes place before upper level seminars). Students at other schools are not as empowered or treated with the best possible education because of the infrastructure.
If Tufts has that infrastructure, it should be the focus and basis of claiming to be more “undergraduate focused” not “my professors are really nice and really like to get to know undergraduates”…okay, but how do they do to teach, empower, and influence the values and development of undergraduates? How do today deliver there course beyond just “average” (lecturing with minimal active learning, a focus on memorization, etc). For example, Dr. Spell, a biology teacher at Emory and several others use case studies and student centered activities/problem solving exercises beyond clickers/learning catalytics in their introductory courses as opposed to just lecturing and flipping through slides to be memorized by students. That is more undergraduate centered and more beneficial for learning the material than just a slide show with some clicker questions and then meeting them for tea. A primary literature based discussion section is better than a recitation (whose goal is often that, you just have some material re-lectured, have a quiz, or have some problems that should have been done at home worked on in a setting where attendance is mandatory…helping undergrads. read primary lit is helping them do deeper learning and get a true exposure to a field…the stuff done in recitations is primarily hand-holding and spoon-feeding to ensure folks achieve the basics. Which model is serious about talented and ambitious undergrads? Does it matter if my TA takes me out to lunch if they “stick to the basics”…maybe as a friend, but not an educator).
BTW, Psyche is an anomaly at Emory because it is a 2 semester sequence like bio, chem, physics, and ochem. There is one more similar to AP that you can AP out of and then the other which is “bio-psychology” . Both professors are excellent, but one only teaches from an experimental perspective (as in writes up data tables and then uses Socratic Method to ask students about their meaning in the context of the material he taught) and will look significantly different from other schools. The other is younger guy who uses the textbook more, and incorporates a significant amount of active learning. You sat in classes at very large schools that were probably lecture based and went slide by slide. Just by happenstance, for 1/2 of the psychology sequence at Emory, this isn’t the case, so you can’t assume. For example, I used to assume HYP had the same STEM curricula as other elites at the introductory level…they really don’t, especially Harvard.
Either way, this has gone off the rails. The OP should go to Tufts simply because it has an engineering school (though Tech or BU would have been viable options).
*I am just trying to get folks, when they market their school or make certain gimmicky claims, to understand what type of evidence supports that claim and what does not. Like: “facilities are nicer” does not support claim that: “undergraduate program in area is better” and “professors are nice and really care about contacting and supporting students” does not necessarily indicate an “undergraduate focus”. Usually there is infrastructural evidence of quality and “undergraduate focus”. I can be at one of the biggest and most insane research universities that would admit they do not necessarily focus on undergraduates, and I bet tons will end up with the “this professor really cares for students” anecdotes.