Focused on Teaching

College Search & Selection
21

<p>When I talk to college students today, I often hear complaints about the quality of classroom teaching. ABC college may have a high PA score, but what students actually encounter is frequently just so different from what this score is said to imply (at least by some of those who loudly support PA scores as meaningful). </p>

<p>While the 1995 data provided earlier by sybbie is too old to be really relevant and college specific for a student searching for a college today, perhaps the real question is whether the mismatch of PA score and classroom score continues today at many so-called "elite" schools. Have these schools that in 1995 had high PA scores, but lower classroom teaching scores, taken any actions to address this and how did the undergraduate experience change as a result of that? </p>

<p>On a different thread, sakky made some excellent points about the reaction at UC Berkeley when the school's ranking dipped to # 27 in 1997. The university clearly did not like this ranking, considered it unacceptable and took remedial actions to address the areas which caused this poor performance. One can criticize USNWR all they want, but oftentimes the rankings can serve a positive purpose by spurring college administrations to take actions to shore up different areas, often to the benefit of the undergraduate students. </p>

<p>If the classroom teaching measurements had been continued by USNWR and schools consistently underperformed relative to their PA scores, then a reputation would develop about the actual undergraduate experience. I consider that a good thing and believe that the student would benefit from knowing more about where a college is excellent (is it in the classroom or is it just in the research or "prestige" areas, or hopefully it is in both). </p>

<p>Using the data from the 1995 survey, imagine a ranking that combined the Top 25 based on overall USNWR score (including PA score) and the Top 25 based on classroom teaching. The result for national universities that had Top 25 results in BOTH overall and classroom instruction might look like this:</p>

<p>1 Princeton
2 Dartmouth
3 Stanford
4 Yale
5 Brown
5 Duke
7 Rice
8 Harvard
9 U Chicago
10 Caltech
10 Notre Dame
10 U Virginia
13 Emory
14 Northwestern
15 Vanderbilt
16 Wash U
17 Georgetown</p>

<p>Extending this to the Top 30 USNWR overall rank would have brought in U North Carolina, Tufts, and Wake Forest to Top 20 combined status. </p>

<p>Those heavily focused on prestige would argue strenuously with such a ranking, but is this really such a poor reflection of which colleges provide the best undergraduate college experience? These are all pretty outstanding colleges and IMO all can make legitimate arguments to Top 15 status for undergraduate colleges nationally. </p>

<p>For those who look at UNDERGRADUATE education, I would suggest that this might today still be a highly valid list. For those students who value BOTH classroom teaching and PA scores, then such a list could be a better ranking list to use in the college selection process. </p>

<p>And for those high PA schools which did not make this list of high combined performance, you can almost certainly bet that the college administrations would be doing their utmost to address their shortcomings. IMO, the ultimate beneficiaries of this balanced approach would be both the undergraduate students and the institutions.</p>

22

<p>It's interesting to see the result of combining the two different ranking systems and it's obvious why a survey "grading" teaching could not be incorporated into the overall ranking. I think the editors at USNWR are most likely an East Coast (if not NE coast) educated bunch and could not buy into a final list that left some big guns out of the top 20, much less the top 10. </p>

<p>I think what they should do is bring back the teaching survey, improve and refine it, and include it as a separate ranking within the special edition. And do the same for PA, improving the survey effort to make it more credible, but include it separately, as another ranking column or page in the edition. </p>

<p>Having these two additional rankings included but separate would help put the overall rankings into a better context for the public, the students and parents trying to make decisions about a college application list.</p>

23

<p>That would be a great idea and would actually result in helping students and their families. How many students are constantly lamenting on CC that they "love a school. it just feels right" but it isnt "prestigious" enough for mom and dad who are paying the bills.</p>

<p>It is a crime that someone should ever have to apologize for wanting to go to a LAC or a small U like Tufts, Rice or W&M instead of a bigger "name school". The only reason they are a bigger name is they have been on USNews list for 20 yrs that is somewhat more reflective of grad schools. A separate Teaching Ranking would lend some long overdue prestige to schools who choose teaching over research. And are d*mn good at it!</p>

24

<p>While publics might have larger classes on the whole they also offer many more majors and classes than most privates and far more than any LAC.</p>

<p>Wisconsin teaches over 60 foreign languages and has over 160 majors. You don't have that breadth at many schools other than some of the other top state schools and maybe a few privates.</p>

25

<p>I'm thinking the "peer" groups for a survey on teaching quality could be divided by size of enrollment or by public-private so that apples were compared to apples and oranges to oranges. I'd love to know how a survey would rate different UCs against each other for teaching (I'd still like to know how UCSC rated so highly in that 1995 survey) and how the UCs stack up against Wisconsin or Michigan. Perhaps USNWR could include a third separate but comprehensive ranking that would incorporate research-global considerations (much like the THES) ranking as another datapoint for potential students and parents to look at --- these tend to show the public universities to advantage.</p>

<p>The point is, the overall rankings usnwr puts out now create drama and sell magazines, but their helpfulness is severely limited by all that's not included as many threads have been devoted to discussing. Including more specific ranking-surveys along side or in the same edition would allow parents and prospective students to compare and contrast and peruse ratings based on their own individual preferences in a university or college. Some will value teaching most of all and go to that list and others will know they want the research-oriented big-U, with its dizzying array of opportunities. The rankings issue would still not be perfect, but it would be a lot more useful with those changes.</p>

26

<p>One cannot combine 12 year old information with anything, let alone current rankings, and come up with a stat that has any meaning at all. GEEZ.
Also, PA has NOTHING to do with teaching quality. The conversation is silly, already, and morphing into something that has no relevance. Cannot imagine why someone would be so "attached" to an ancient stat.</p>

27

<p>US News would get more credibility if it ran the classroom excellence ranking alongside the current one. That would give them a rebuttal to all the schools that are boycotting them now.</p>

28

<p>gabriellah,
As I mentioned earlier the 12-year old data for "Colleges with Best Classroom Teaching" is probably too old to be specifically relevant for a college search today, but could serve as a prompt to a student looking at various colleges and trying to evaluate what he/she will encounter at ABC college vs what he/she might see at XYZ college. Thus, putting quality of college instruction on the radar screen is important and valuable for a prospective student and family looking to get their money's worth over the four years of an undergraduate experience. </p>

<p>As has been pointed out elsewhere, there might even be an INVERSE correlation between high PA score and excellence in the classroom as the institutions reward different types of behaviour in their professorial staffs. I do not necessarily see these (great research profs and great teaching profs) as mutually exclusive, but for those students looking for excellence in the classroom, they need to better understand what the reputation of the faculty means and how this translates into the experience they will have in the classroom.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
there might even be an INVERSE correlation between high PA score and excellence in the classroom as the institutions reward different types of behaviour in their professorial staffs.

[/quote]

hawkette, that simply isn't true. All research universities hire faculty and determine salaries and rank on the basis of research, whether you are talking about supposedly undergrad-focused Princeton or large, famous as a research institution UC Berkeley. The exceptions, of course, are LACs, but they are rated (and assigned PA) separately anyway. And it's really silly to claim that having a poor peer reputation is due to devoting energy to teaching. Look at the UC system, for instance. All UC institutions are primarily research oriented, yet their PAs range from 4.8 (Berkeley) to 3.1 (Riverside). If you think that this is in any way due to Riverside focusing more on undergraduate education than research, you are completely mistaken. It simply is unable to hire faculty whose research is as good as those at Berkeley. That doesn't mean that it doesn't try to hire the best research faculty at can.</p>

30

<p>svalbardlutefisk,
I am referencing comments made elsewhere by tarhunt who is a university professor at a state flagship university and who has made this observation. I don't mean to put him on the spot by referencing his viewpoints, but I thought they were insightful and potentially helpful to helping students in their college searches. </p>

<p>I agree that there are plenty of exceptions to break the statement (like your UC example) which is why I chose the words, "might even be" rather than something more definitive. However, it does seem pretty clear that PA scores are not representative of great classroom teaching although I would agree that it does not automatically follow that you can't have both great PA and great classroom teaching. In fact, IMO that is the ideal combination and why those schools ranked in post # 21 that had both high PA ranks and high classroom teaching ranks are great places for students to look. </p>

<p>The point is more that, for students and families that care about what happens in the classroom, they should evaluate the commitment to classroom excellence at a college rather than swallowing the PA which some regularly promote as being indicative of this.</p>

31

<p>You know, I think that it is entirely likely that the USNWR Peer Assessment surveys include questions about the quality of classroom teaching. As USNWR states in its discussion of factors:</p>

<p>"The peer assessment survey allows the top academics we consult—presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions—to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching."</p>

<p>I think that the most likely thing that happened in 1995 was that these questions had not been included before and were then folded into the general survey. Hawkette, if you would somehow like these answers broken out, good luck in trying, but as I mentioned in another thread, since they are simply part of the PA analysis, which you think is biased and not very useful, I don't see why these figures would give you any information that you would consider relevant.</p>

32

<p>hawkette, claiming that PA is unrelated to classroom teaching is very different from claiming that it is negatively correlated with it. PA is essentially a measurement at how able universities are to hire top researchers. But the fact that schools with low PAs are generally unable to hire the most respected researchers across a wide array of fields does not mean that they respond to this by hiring based on teaching quality (with one big reason being that there is no reliable way to measure teaching quality). Faculty are hired by other faculty (the administration may make the final decision, but faculty search committees and department votes are almost solely responsible for hiring). Other faculty are going to primarily be interested in research quality (in fact, this is probably even true for hiring at LACs) since that is what they are familiar with, and what is most likely to improve the reputation of their department (since department and field rankings and reputation are almost entirely based on research, with perhaps a tiny bit dependent on preparation of grad students). Thus, even at low PA schools, departments are going to try to hire the best researchers they can. Tenure, salary increases, and other promotions all follow the same pattern.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think tarhunt has ever claimed that PA is inversely correlated with teaching quality. In fact, he has said
[quote]

We're pretty much stuck with the PA as an imperfect measure.

[/quote]
when discussing evaluations of teaching. What he has argued is that doing research interferes with one's ability to be a good teacher. Now, since all professors at research institutions do research (and as much of it as they can, since it has primary responsibility for their salaries), there is no reason that high PA research U's would be worse than low PA ones at teaching (even if tarhunt is right, and some posters would argue vehemently for the opposite). If you don't agree, take US News' PA numbers and rank them from lowest to highest. See if you think that you have produced a good ranking of teaching quality. In fact, if you compare the classroom teaching survey cited earlier to PA, the main thing I notice is the correlation between them. Sure there are some exceptions, but a lot of the top-25 were high PA schools. I would guess that if you ran some statistical tests, you would find a weak positive correlation between the two, and certainly not a negative one.</p>

33

<p>Quality of teaching is an important part of the college experience. I am pretty sure everybody would agree with that. The question on all our minds is; Who will come up with the rating of each university's teaching quality and how?</p>

34

<p>Alexandre has a great point. But right now nobody is even asking the question much less the methodology to arriving at the answer. I, like most people, would be happy right now to even ask the question.</p>

<p>The sad part is that 12 yrs ago, US News thought it was important enough to ask the question. Unfortunatley, I dont think they liked the answer, so now they are sticking their heads in the sand to the detriment of all students and their families.</p>

35

<p>doctorb--As I pointed out above, US NEWS is asking the question, by including questions about "faculty dedication to teaching" in the survey it sends out. I don't understand why you and Hawkette seem to think that this is all some sort of conspiracy to keep certain schools at the top and that if US News gets information to the contrary, it suppresses it. </p>

<p>While I think that some of the weightings in the US News rankings are wrong and definitely favor the older, more established schools, with larger endowments and more well-heeled alumni, I personally think that PA is a valuable, although imperfect, tool. I would enjoy seeing more transparency in the process. Maybe people who are interested could write to the company and ask if (i) the questions that are asked could be made available to the premium subscribers to US News and (ii) if there could be a breakdown of the answers as well.</p>

36

<p>At any rate, wasn't the "Faculty dedication to teaching" rank akin to the Peer Assessment Score in that it was derived from the opinions of the same people responsible for the PA? If so, why are those quickest to discredit the PA as being faulty and "subjective" so ready to embrace the "Faculty dedication to teaching" rank?</p>

37

<p>midatlmom,
The statement that accompanies the USNWR PA ballot that the academics complete is very broad and completely open to interpretation. There is no question about "faculty dedication to teaching." Teaching is one thing that a voter may take into consideration just as the voter may take any number of items into consideration. The PA is totally undefined and different voters are almost certainly applying different standards and different value sets as they complete their ballots. I don't think that there is any kind of conspiracy, but the results display several very clear biases, eg, public universities, schools with large graduate programs, schools with prominent engineering or sciences programs, etc. I think it is also clear that schools that are dedicated to classroom excellence are not valued in the PA measurements at anywhere near the level of prominence accorded to (likely graduate school) research prominence. For those of us who place a premium on classroom excellence (and certainly appreciate this more than the prestige factor among the academic cognoscenti).</p>

<p>alexandre,
I'd be VERY happy to get rid of BOTH the PA and any classroom teaching measurement. If anything, such measures should be ranked separately or not at all. But if they want to persist with PA, then why not a classroom measurement as well? Despite the fact that many traditional PA powers may not do as well with such a measurement, it might provide more information (not to mention how it might boost magazine sales!).</p>

38

<p>Hawkette, the PA is pretty specific. It is asking voters to rate universities according to overall undergraduate quality. Your (and many others) objection to the PA wasn't its vagueness but rather, that voters aren't qualified to rate universities because they are either biased or ignorant. If that's the case, how is the "Faculty dedication to teaching" any more reliable than the PA?</p>

39

<p>My objections to PA definitely include its vagueness. I have often pointed out the lack of standardization as grades are given and the differences in value sets being applied. PA has many, many flaws. </p>

<p>And your comments incorrectly state my position on academics having a say in the evaluation of faculty. I believe that they should play a role and have posted so many times, but I believe that this evaluation should be shared with other stakeholders in order to provide a more complete assessment of the job that faculty are performing at XYZ college.</p>

40

<p>If PA is meant to rate according to "overall undergraduate quality" then explain </p>

<p>Penn State 3.8 SAT 1080-1280 Top 10% Freshman 37%</p>

<p>W&M 3.7 SAT 1240-1440 10% Freshman 80%
Tufts 3.6 SAT 1340-1480 83%
Wake Forest 3.5 SAT 1240-1400 63%</p>

<p>Would anyone even dare put these schools in the same universe? Yet according to PA (undergraduate quality) Penn State is better. It is a joke that is being played out on high school seniors that US News in 1995 tried to correct. Alas they stopped. Why? That is the question.</p>