Good teachers, smart students, small classes = GREAT UNDERGRAD

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Earlier today I was reading an article on IHE about the benefits of peer instruction ([Proving</a> the Benefits of Peer Instruction :: Inside Higher Ed :: Higher Education’s Source for News, Views and Jobs](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/05/peer]Proving”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/05/peer)) and the article reignited thoughts about the elements that IMO are absolutely essential to a great undergraduate academic experience. If you’re looking for prestige measurements or institutional research accomplishments, then this study (and my argument) is not for you. And I think you are looking in the wrong place as you evaluate various options for UNDERGRADUATE study. </p>

<p>I have long thought that there are several keys for creating a great undergraduate academic environment:</p>

<li> Get great teachers.</li>
<li> Go to class with other smart students</li>
<li> Learn in a classroom size that allows for interaction with the professor and among the students</li>
</ol>

<p>Couple these with a deep-pocketed institution that will spend money on undergraduate academics and services and you have a premier environment for learning. </p>

<p>My next step was to quantify the keys in the following weights:
50% Weight given to great teachers as measured in the USNWR Classroom Teaching Excellence survey
25% Weight given to a measurement comparing each school’s mid-point SAT score
25% Weight given to two measures of class sizes: % of classes with under 20 students and % with under 50 students</p>

<p>There is nothing magical about my methodology and undoubtedly many others would weight some of these elements differently and do different calculations. Still, when I review the rankings that this methodology produces, the rankings comport with most of my prior impressions about these schools and how they deliver an UNDERGRADUATE academic education. For the most part, I think that they are pretty accurate in reflecting the environment that an average student will experience academically on these campuses. </p>

<p>What do you think?</p>

<p>Rank , Percentile , College</p>

<p>1 , 100% , Caltech
2 , 95% , Harvard
2 , 95% , Yale
2 , 95% , Princeton
5 , 90% , Wash U
6 , 86% , U Chicago
6 , 86% , Northwestern
6 , 86% , Stanford
6 , 86% , Duke
10 , 85% , Brown
10 , 85% , Dartmouth
12 , 81% , Tufts
12 , 81% , Rice
14 , 80% , Notre Dame
15 , 76% , Emory
15 , 76% , Vanderbilt
17 , 75% , Georgetown
18 , 71% , Columbia
19 , 70% , MIT
19 , 70% , W&M
21 , 66% , U Penn
22 , 65% , Boston Coll
22 , 65% , Wake Forest
24 , 60% , U Virginia
25 , 59% , U North Carolina
26 , 56% , Carnegie Mellon
26 , 56% , Johns Hopkins
28 , 55% , Cornell
29 , 51% , Brandeis
29 , 51% , USC
31 , 46% , U Rochester
31 , 46% , UC Berkeley
31 , 46% , NYU
34 , 45% , Rensselaer
35 , 44% , Georgia Tech
36 , 41% , Case Western
37 , 40% , UCLA
37 , 40% , Lehigh
37 , 40% , U Michigan
40 , 36% , Tulane
41 , 35% , U Wisconsin
41 , 35% , U Illinois
43 , 30% , U Florida
44 , 27% , Yeshiva
45 , 25% , UCSD
46 , 24% , U Texas
47 , 20% , U Washington
48 , 16% , UC Irvine
48 , 16% , UC Santa Barbara
50 , 15% , Penn State
50 , 15% , UC Davis</p>

2

<p>Hmmm…but I thought you didn’t like Caltech, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Washington U, and U Chicago because they don’t provide your ideal “undergraduate experience” with a “nationally relevant” athletic scene.</p>

<p>And how many times are you going to trot out that stale 1995 survey of “teaching excellence”, that happened to poll the same people you despise so much for getting the peer assessment wrong?</p>

3

<p>That is of little importance to hawkette. She just likes to see lists where Berkeley and Michigan are rated low.</p>

4

<p>

I would agree with this, although the methodology could be altered (e.g. Midwestern colleges prefer the ACT).</li>
</ol>

<p>

Even by this list Berkeley and Michigan are in the top 1% of all colleges. That’s hardly low.</p>

5

<p>How do you classify and measure “great teachers” objectively?
“Smart students” are measured by SAT scores?</p>

6

<p>I totally agree that these are the key elements for a great education at any level.</p>

<p>The issue I see in the above list, however, is that it doesn’t recognize the strong presence of TAs at some of these schools. If the schools publish info that would allow a TA measure, then we’d have a valid list.</p>

7

<p>rjko,
If you actually look at these rankings and compare to the USNWR undergraduate rankings, many of the publics actually improve their position. W&M, hailed by many as an undergraduate paradise, jumps into the Top 20. U Virginia and U North Carolina, two larger publics that are known for their commitment to undergraduate education, finish in the Top 25. For students considering public universities for their UNDERGRADUATE educations, these colleges are probably the premier places in the USA. </p>

<p>You’re right that a few public colleges with high repute among those in academia don’t do as well in these rankings, but my argument is that most students would and should care more about their personal experience than what ABC College’s reputation might be on Upper West Side of New York or in Uzbekistan. How good is the teaching? How talented are their peers? How large are the classrooms? These will all have a far greater impact on one’s undergraduate academic experience than if some professor got published in some obscure magazine or won some award that has little to no bearing on the student’s academic experience. </p>

<p>I should also note that exalted places like HYPSC maintain their lofty status, but otherwise, the highest ranks are more widely distributed in geographic terms than is the case with the USNWR rankings (and even more so the controversial PA rankings). There are a lot of terrific colleges all around the USA and hopefully that message is getting out to Americans and internationals alike.</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>The list seems to contradict the premise; huge schools with research-oriented professors and TAs. The premise favors LACs, without a one on the list.</p>

<p>Why would a student who wants a great undergrad education automatically eliminate all LACs?</p>

9

<p>

Sure they are…if I want to study history.</p>

10

<p>Caltech is terrible for undergrads, just because it’s a small school and well known dosen’t mean that it should be #1 for undergrads, in my opinion, Caltech is more of a grad school</p>

<p>and where are the LAC’s? lol</p>

11

<p>“Caltech is terrible for undergrads”</p>

<p>Caltech is the number one undergrad school in the country for producing the overall highest percentage of future PhDs in all fields combined. They’re number one in math, computer science, engineering, physics, number two in biology, three in chemistry.</p>

<p>That’s terrible?</p>

12

<p>Pierre0913 – why do you say Caltech is terrible fur undergrads? They are smallish classes in a beautiful campus with the highest testing students on earth… what’s not to like? other than the 18 hour long problem sets? :)</p>

<p>P.S. Mudders give them a run for their money, but curiously it isn’t listed at all … that’s like listing the Celtics but not the Lakers as great basketball teams. … I think the teacher quality ranking must be the culprit in this and other LACs being not found in this list.</p>

13

<p>no I mean teaching quality at Caltech. Teachers there are rated poorly at Caltech</p>

14

<p>I’m sure that the research opportunities at Caltech are amazing though</p>

15

<p>Terrible quality of life, yes. Terrible undergraduate experience, debatable.</p>

<p>It’s ridiculous to determine how great of an undergraduate experience one will have just by looking at the strength of teachers/students and the size of a class. I, for one, am having the best time of my life in my 300 student engineering and biology classes. It doesn’t all boil down to academics.</p>

16

<p>This is so cute.
“Let’s rank the national universities as if they were LACs, since all those things that make LACs superior for undergrad are also desirable to be found in national universities.”</p>

<p>Well, I’m satisfied: Notre Dame and Georgetown thrash Columbia and UPenn.</p>

17

<p>I think this totally depends on the student and their selected major. Engineering and science often benefits from labs and facilities that LACs simply do not have. Also, LACs typically don’t have the resources to field things like Formula SAE and DARPA Challenge teams which can be extremely valuable educationally. </p>

<p>So, as is typical, generalizations do not apply to specific needs and circumstances.</p>

18

<p>“no I mean teaching quality at Caltech”</p>

<p>All those future PhDs are a result of poor undergrad teaching?</p>

<p>I can hear it in the CalTech halls: “We will improve teaching quality when you students slip to number two.”</p>

19

<p>I’m sorry, I think I’m too bias to talk about this any longer. Personally, I’d rather go to a school like Harvey Mudd where they pride themselves on having the best engineering teachers, after all learning the concepts from somebody who knows how to teach them well is important… and then Caltech as a graduate to do research</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ve heard the same, although I can’t ascertain its validity. However, Caltech probably has the most independent students in the nation, so this may not be as big of a problem as it seems. Also, I think out-of-class professor availability is much more important than lecture ability. It makes sense that Caltech profs wouldn’t be very eager to teach since it seems like a boring duty, but if approached by ambitious students outside of class, I’d think these same profs would be more excited and better suited to work with students than other universities.</p>