<p>Hello, all. I'm looking for some insight into the state of undergrad teaching at Georgia Tech.</p>
<p>Here's my situation: I am a high school senior looking into engineering colleges. I know that Georgia Tech is one of the top schools in the nation for engineering, but I've been hearing some pretty negative things overall about the professors. I hear that a lot of them are too involved in their research to teach, they're smart but simply don't know how to teach, or they can't communicate or speak English very well. That coupled with really difficult classes makes for a hard four years.</p>
<p>Basically, I'm trying to decide whether all this is worth the prestige that Georgia Tech graduates get or whether I should go to a lesser-known college that has better teaching, like Harvey Mudd College or the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. I really can't decide, since I have no clue whether these statements about undergrad teaching are true. There are also cost considerations, as Rose and HMC are more expensive than GT.</p>
<p>I think in the end it is worth it. Tech is a difficult school, but the education you will get is top notch as far as I can tell. My brother goes there, but he is in International Relations and Affairs. He says the professors are excellent, but they are often occupied with their own research. I've personally worked with an Industrial Engineering teacher there and he seemed really into teaching. But without a doubt there are sure to be teachers there who are just as you say. </p>
<p>I still say it's worth it. Definitely apply</p>
<p>A. Georgia Tech is a research university. The priority of the faculty is research, not teaching.</p>
<p>B. However, this doesn't mean that professors in a teaching college (ie. liberal arts) can really teach you the material better. Georgia Tech professors really understand their subject area.</p>
<p>C. Very rarely will you ever find a professor whose English is almost completely incomprehensible.</p>
<p>D. If you want to graduate with a degree in engineering, do not turn down Georgia Tech for a liberal arts college just because the "teaching is better." The actual quality of academic education at Tech is far superior.</p>
<p>Oh, I'm definitely not looking at a liberal arts college vs. Georgia Tech. I'm looking at places like the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and Harvey Mudd College vs. Georgia Tech...that's the big decision right now.</p>
<p>And I'm leaning towards Rose and HMC, mainly because the teaching is EXCELLENT there, probably at least as good as at GaTech, and the teachers aren't bogged down by research.</p>
<p>neobez: you said that your brother is not in engineering but in international affairs...are the teachers in the liberal arts school just as inaccessible and bogged down by research as in the rest of the more math/science aspect of tech?</p>
<p>I read the criticism of professors too busy with research to adequately teach on many student review sites. Consider whether you may want to do research while an undergraduate. A research facility will provide that opportunity while a liberals arts school may not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Basically, I'm trying to decide whether all this is worth the prestige that Georgia Tech graduates get or whether I should go to a lesser-known college that has better teaching, like Harvey Mudd College or the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd has greater prestige with future employers and is only "lesser known" to those who aren't in the science and engineering fields. Harvey Mudd's Professors are also absolutely amazing and most likely superior to George Tech's professors in teaching ability. Professors at Mudd get their tenure based on teaching ability, not research. Also out of all the professors I have had, all of them speak perfect English.</p>