<p>Caltech didn’t seem like it was that exceptional of a place when I visited (not as a prospective student, stayed with a friend for a few days over my spring break), at least not for some of the reasons listed. It didn’t seem like that many people went to class very often, either because the professor/a student puts notes online, or the teacher was just unintelligible/unilluminating. It seemed like more of the learning was done by going through the problem sets, often working in groups with other people (where strength of the student body really pays off). So really, that minimizes the importance/impact of having small classes and “good” teachers. There’s also a few other problems with the school, like how the material is often overly-theoretical, to the point of sacrificing a sound understanding of the underlying concepts. It’s still a great school, and possible the best for research opportunities available to undergrads, but I don’t think I’d put it at the very top.</p>
<p>Not that it matters to any of you, but I tend to measure undergrad schools by their results, i.e., what do their BA/BS grads achieve later? Clearly CalTech students are highly self-selecting, but for HS students with the goal of research and/or academia in the sciences, CalTech’s undergrads’ being number one in the country for the percentage of earning future PhDs is indicative of the highest quality undergrad education they could seek, whatever other details may be involved. Indicative, not proof.</p>
<p>I don’t place too much emphasis on percentage of students earning PhDs. Lots of statistics like this in a sense make the implicit assumption that your experience will be that of an average student, which greatly skews against larger schools with more stratification in ability. If you’re able to get accepted to a smaller selective school, then you’d be in the upper strata at a larger school, surrounded by people of comparable ability. For example, my school has hundreds and hundreds of math majors, but I’ve really only taken classes/associated with roughly the top 10-15 undergrads in a given class (all of which go on PhD programs or jobs at top companies if they’re also doing engineering) and the graduate students.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the emphasis on PhD’s, either. Right after college, most engineers go work in industry, a lot of bio majors go to med school, and a lot of humanities majors either go to law school or find a job. The cost/benefit of getting a PhD makes it unattractive to many top students.</p>
<p>Most of my engineering friends either a) go work in industry, b) get a masters, c) work for a consulting/iBanking firm, or d) go to med/law school. I only know 2 students going for their PhDs.</p>
<p>yeah the majority of engineers enter the workplace with a bachelors or masters so undergraduate education is very important for many engineers</p>
<p>All true, but we’re not talking about average students, and CalTech is not an average school producing your average engineer. </p>
<p>Fully 36% of CalTech undergrads later earn a PhD, the highest percentage in the country. Mudd is second at 25%. From NSF and IPEDS databases.</p>
<p>well it also depends on what you’re looking for</p>
<p>Research-based: Caltech
Teaching-based: Harvey Mudd
PhD’s: Caltech
Respectable Job in the workplace: somewhere like Northeastern or Rose-Hulman</p>
<p>I really have nothing much to add about the list, but I would like to reiterate, for those of you who might not be familiar with Hawkette, that he/she gives a 50% weighting to a 1995 opinion survey of academics about good teaching. In my opinion, the heavy use of such an outdated survey, makes her numbers unreliable. However, no matter how many times people on the board mention this, Hawkette trots out the same old figures.</p>
<p>I have grown to be extremely suspicious of the comparability of the class size metrics. </p>
<p>I used to argue that most institutions did their level best to report things in a way that was not only accurate but consistent with how other institutions do it. I no longer believe that. Do differences in reported class sizes, among similar institutions, reflect real differences in the class sizes their undergraduates encounter? I have serious doubts. </p>
<p>And as others have said, no one should assume that big classes = poor learning environment. The biggest course on our campus is taught by a gentleman who was named the Carnegie Foundation’s 2008 Professor of the Year in the state. He’s won numerous teaching awards on campus, and was named as a “highlight of their undergraduate years” by more seniors than any other prof on campus. It would be a real disservice if Michigan cut that course enrollment down to this vaunted cap of 20, and told 300 students every term to join the waiting list and never hear the guy lecture. </p>
<p>I personally prefer the learning environment of an LAC, but I reject the idea that students who don’t value the small classes and UG focus above all other attributes are somehow on the wrong track.</p>
<p>vossron,
My apologies for not making clearer at the outset, but my study set was limited to national universities. Given their nature and much more consistent dedication to undergraduate teaching and education, I would concur that the LACs have a decided advantage over many national universities in terms of the undergraduate academic experience. I don’t believe that this is much in question although it would not be necessarily true across all fields of study, eg, technical fields. However, in judging the undergraduate academic environment at the national universities, there is much less uniformity and a comparison such as done above helps illuminate some differences and the scale of difference. </p>
<p>midatlmom,
I did not intend precision in the creation of these “rankings” but created the thread more to stimulate discussion about the undergraduate academic environments that students will encounter when they get to college. I think that there is some validity behind these as an indication of what the general environment is like at ABC College and how that compares to XYZ College. There are differences in this universe of colleges. </p>
<p>If you are so inclined and think you can create a better or more informative methodology or analysis, I and others look forward to your presentation.</p>
<p>“no one should assume that big classes = poor learning environment”</p>
<p>Correct, but all other things being equal,</p>
<p>smaller classes = better learning environment</p>
<p>While it’s not related to this thread, I think some might be happy to learn that each of the top three public universities in this ranking-William & Mary, University of North Carolina, and University of Virginia-are also ranked in the Top 5 of Kiplinger’s List for Best Public University Values. </p>
<p>There also is a remarkable amount of overlap in Kiplinger’s Ranking for Best Values for Private Universities and the ranking that I created earlier. 13 of Kiplinger’s Top 15 are also found in the Top 15 on my listing of colleges that provide the best combinations of great teaching, smart students and small classes (with the only exceptions being Wash U and U Chicago).</p>
<p>Hawketts list is much more reflective of reality for the majority of high schools students than is the USNWR. Tufts, Rice, Georgetown, William & Mary, Wake Forest are consistently shortchanged.</p>
<p>Hawkette, how did you get to the “Good teacher” and “good student” ratings?</p>