<p>I realized that it's not because a given college is a top-20, or even top-10, department in a given field that an undergraduate education in the same field at the same college will actually be that great. Of course, there are departments that can deliver a great education at both levels, others that do neither, but I can see pretty readily why it might not be the case for some department:</p>
<ul>
<li>The professors that make a department top-notch at the graduate level may be horrible at teaching undergraduates (perhaps because some of these professors consider teaching undergrads a burden, or that tenure procedures give little to no weight to undergraduate teaching)</li>
<li>Undergraduate teaching labs do not stack up against research facilities</li>
</ul>
<p>That even if the library collections are, in principle, accessible to all students. But do you have any actual examples of significant discrepancy between graduate and undergraduate quality for a given field (provided a college has both an undergraduate and a graduate program in that field)? Surely some students that come on CC would benefit from that sort of information, especially those who shop a college with a set of possible majors in mind.</p>
<p>A trivial example would be where the school offers a major at the graduate level, but not the undergraduate level, even though the major is commonly offered at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>Student fit with respect to subareas of the major can be a factor at both the graduate and undergraduate level. If a student is interested in a specific subarea of the major, a school lacking that subarea may be a poor fit for the student at either the graduate or undergraduate level.</p>
<p>I would say that at most universities with very highly ranked graduate programs, it is normal not the exception to have a gap in quality between graduate and undergraduate programs. Graduate program rankings tend to reward high faculty publication and citation rates. It simply isn’t cost effective to have the most productive scholars leading discussion classes with 15-20 first year undergraduates. That’s not to say the undergraduate programs at these schools are bad. If you can place out of many intro/intermediate classes, you may find yourself in small classes with shared graduate/undergraduate enrollments even at some large research universities.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, at many large state universities that have some highly ranked graduate programs, the average undergraduate class sizes tend to be large, TAs lead many discussion sections, and 4 year graduation rates are relatively low (54% at one well-regarded state school, according to Kiplinger). In general, highly selective, well-endowed private universities are somewhat more likely to have relatively small undergraduate classes, high 4-year graduation rates, and good academic outcomes as reflected in PhD production rates or professional school admission rates. Even at these schools, it may be common practice for TAs to lead many discussion sections. At some of them, lecture classes with hundreds of students are not unheard of.</p>
<p>If you want consistently small classes and strong focus on undergraduates from year one, consider small liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>I think I am lucky to have attended a college in a field where there wasn’t such a discrepancy, or at least not as important as in other schools I could consider attending at the PhD level.</p>
<p>In general, I think tk21769 is correct. I think of the great researcher who’s also a great teacher of large classes of undergrads as the exception to the rule. You might find two in a department, maybe three. What you may also find is a lot of intro classes taught by grad students who are still learning whether or not they like teaching let alone how to teach. They, too, know they will graduate and be hired based on the quality and potential of their research not their teaching. However, some of the best undergrad instructors people have are grad students. If you find yourself at a mid-size on up research institution, search out what you can about the teaching skills of potential teachers. What LACs offer is a higher ratio of researchers invested in teaching. Try to avoid schools where the researchers are also teaching 4 courses per semester or even 3/4; those cats may be tired all the time. But even at the best LACs, you will find teachers carrying 3 courses per semester. Granted, the classes usually are not over 100.</p>
<p>Faculty strength drives graduate school strength which drives undergrad program strength. I challenge you to name a top undergraduate program (not at a LAC) that doesn’t have a distinguished faculty or graduate program. </p>
<p>In addition to Brown and Dartmouth, Georgetown. Maybe Johns Hopkins, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Northwestern and WUSTL as well. These are schools with arguably stronger undergraduate programs than some research universities that have more distinguished faculty and more tip-top graduate programs. </p>
<p>But why exclude LACs? Some of the best undergraduate instruction is at LACs that have no graduate programs at all. Conversely, some universities with very distinguished research programs really do not deliver all the same quality (relatively speaking) to undergraduates. Of course, a lot could depend how ready you are to take advantage of research opportunities at a school where top faculty ordinarily have less engagement with undergrads. </p>
<p>My point was when a school is known for a particular undergraduate academic major/program at a research university, it is derived from faculty strength and grad programs.</p>
<p>Dartmouth, et.al. aren’t known for having distinguished majors/programs. Instead they focus on an LAC-like broad based liberal arts education. The schools are strong in most subjects but don’t have a particular stand-out major. </p>
<p>My challenge was to name a particular stand-out (distinguished) undergraduate major/program at a research university that doesn’t have a corresponding graduate program.</p>
<p>
Based on average SAT scores and class size?</p>
<p>IMO, faculty strength is a key component. But there is no real good measure for faculty teaching strength like there is faculty research strength. </p>
<p>The most common class format in common introductory courses at research universities is to have a faculty led lecture with associated smaller discussions led by TAs, not the “large lectures taught by TAs” that seem to be implied by the “LACs are always better” posters.</p>
<p>The merits or demerits of such a class format can be debated, but it does seem odd that discussions about class format often give an inaccurate impression of what people believe the class format actually is.</p>
<p>I hope it is widely understood on this board that the most common class format in introductory courses at research universities is to have a faculty-led lecture with associated smaller discussions led by TAs. But then, what this means is that the most intimate, engaged part of teaching may be delegated to people who not only don’t have PhDs, but who also have minimal teaching (and life) experience.</p>
<p>However, you get two instructors, where different ways of explaining may help a student who does not understand one of them but may understand the other.</p>
<p>I would very much doubt this. Based on its size (18,000+ undergrads) and its student-faculty ratio (17:1 per its most recent Common Data Set), USC would appear to be virtually indistinguishable from leading public flagships. The major difference would be that USC has a less distinguished faculty than the leading public universities, with few disciplines ranking in the top 25 nationally. And also, of course, its undergraduate COA is much higher for in-state residents than a public flagship would be.</p>
<p>Tulane seems to focus more on its undergrads… while its graduate programs are not that renowned (other than in Latin American studies, public health and perhaps architecture) they seem to do quite well, at least as measured by pre-medical outcomes.</p>
<p>I would bet a large sum that Berkeley offers MANY more classes overall than Oberlin and thus many more small classes than Oberlin. You have to take any % data with that grain of salt. </p>
<p>^ Of course it is to be expected that Berkeley will offer many more classes than Oberlin does. Berkeley has nearly 9x as many undergraduates, so it better. According to Berkeley’s 2012-13 CDS, it had 2,457 class sections with less than 20 students that year. Oberlin had 663 in 2012. So Berkeley had almost 4x as many “small” classes as Oberlin. It also had nearly 27x as many large classes (>= 50 students) as Oberlin (561 at Berkeley v. 21 at Oberlin.) </p>
<p>What do these numbers mean for the typical classroom experience in the pre-med track or in popular majors? In Fall 2013, Berkeley’s General Biology 1A Lecture enrolled 626 students. The Organic Chemistry 112A lecture enrolled 165. The Introduction to Economics lecture enrolled 711. TA-led discussion classes associated with big lectures typically enroll less than 50 students (sometimes less than 20). </p>
<p>At Oberlin in Fall 2013, the lowest level biology class (Organismal Biology) had an enrollment limit of 40 students. Principles of Organic Chemistry had an enrollment limit of 24. For Principles of Economics, the largest section had an enrollment limit of 55. </p>
<p>About 15 LACs have an even smaller percentage of large classes than Oberlin does. Some have no classes with 50 or more students. Apparently only 1 public university (UNC-CH) has a smaller percentage of large classes than Berkeley does. </p>
<p>One way to look at this is that Berkeley does offer many more opportunities for small class experiences than a LAC like Oberlin does. If you can place out of many intro and intermediate courses, if you are in a less popular major, or if you are aggressive in the course registration process, then you might wind up with a LAC-like number of small classes at Berkeley. However, if you are a pre-med student or, say, an econ major, there probably is no way you can muscle your way past some very large lecture classes at most big state universities. The associated TA-led discussion sections may or may not make that unimportant to you.</p>