<p>Over the last 20 years, USC has been focused on improving its undergraduate offerings, while kinda’ ignoring its graduate schools and research.</p>
<p>On the USC forum, people are sometimes puzzled as to why it’s a top-25 university in the US News rankings, but doesn’t do as well in most of the other rankings. The accepted explanation is that US News is more weighted toward undergraduate programs, while the others are weighted toward research, graduate and professional programs. </p>
<p>That’s why I said USC is a university where undergraduate studies outshines its graduate studies. It’s only recently started putting a lot of effort into improving its graduate offerings.</p>
They mean the student will be in large lecture classes and smaller discussion sections. What you cannot extrapolate from those numbers is how rigorous these larger classes are. I’ve watched many Berkeley lectures and done some of the problem sets to supplement my own classes, both at my previous school and current one. As best I can tell, the huge lecture courses at these schools are extremely rigorous and demand a great deal from students. Btw, MIT, Harvard, and Stanford all employ the large lecture class model for some of their intro classes, but I don’t hear people complaining that these students lack a solid foundation in their fields of study. </p>
<p>Another accepted explanation is that U.S. News overrates private universities and underrates publics. All USC being in the top 25 means that it does well enough according to U.S. News’ criteria to be placed there. </p>
<p>And USC’s graduate programs are nothing to scoff at. Doesn’t its Chemistry department have two Nobel laureates on its faculty? While that doesn’t seem like much in comparison to other schools (e.g. Cal) you have to realize that most schools in the U.S. and the world have no Nobel faculty on staff or even Nobel affiliations. So for USC to have two Nobel laureate faculty at the same time in one department is pretty impressive.</p>
<p>On the other hand I don’t think you’re justified in concluding that USC’s ignoring its graduate programs while embracing its undergraduate ones. For USC to be the elite national university that it seeks to be, it has to improve it’s graduate programs. There’s simply no way around it, and that’s what their huge fundraiser is likely, in part, to fund. While I wouldn’t doubt that USC’s improved its offerings over the last 20 years, I also wouldn’t doubt that they’ve actively dabbled in the U.S News game either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This doesn’t exactly answer your question, but I think it’s important to discuss exactly what ‘quality’ is supposed to be.</p>
<p>‘quality’ is a vague and subjective word, and is likely to mean different things to different people. When people generally say a college or university has ‘undergraduate quality,’ they’re generally talking about indicators of such supposed quality. These are indicators that may have little to any impact on the student’s success during college and after graduation. Whether those undergraduate quality indicators are important depend on a student’s individual needs and goals. There’s no university that’s great for everyone, and certainly no university, or college, that offers the ‘best undergraduate education in America.’</p>
<p>Undergraduate quality indicators are generally associated with liberal arts colleges as they have things that are supposed to conduce a nurturing undergraduate environment. These factors include things like small-classes, small student-to-faculty ratios, and intimate relationships with professors, among other factors. However, I’ve long thought that liberal arts colleges are particularly weak outside of the liberal arts. If you want to do heavy and rigorous study, in the sciences or mathematics for example, you’d generally be better served at a university than a LAC; If you want to develop you’re writing level heavily, you’d generally be served better at a LAC than a university; if you want to nurture yourself with some of the world’s leading faculty, that’s generally easier to do at a university than at a LAC. So again, whether a LAC or a univeristy would be quality or not for an undergraduate would depend on the student’s individual needs.</p>
<p>No doubt this instructional model (big lectures with TA-led sections) can deliver challenging problem sets and multiple choice exams. On the other hand, how likely is a student in one of these classes to write 5-, 10-, or 20-page papers that are graded by the professor and returned with thoughtful comments (perhaps with a “see me” instruction at the top)? A good liberal education is not only about learning to come up with the one correct answer from several possibilities. It’s also about learning to express and criticize perspectives on hard problems that may not have one correct answer. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but compare the percentages of large classes. At Harvard, less than 7% of classes have 50 or more students. At Chicago, less than 6% do. At Columbia, less than 5% have 50 or more. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Texas? More than 18%, more than 19%, and more than 26%, respectively. “50 or more” often means hundreds, and those huge classes will tend to be concentrated in popular majors or in required prerequisites. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There may be some element of truth to this, but note also that some LACs have a pretty good track record for educating scientists. From 2007-2011, according to NSF data, more Carleton College alumni earned PhDs in earth sciences than the alumni of any other college or university. That’s in absolute numbers, not percentages. Tiny Colorado College produced more PhDs in earth sciences (again, in absolute numbers) than Harvard, Cornell, or Penn State, and as many as Michigan. In percentages, Reed College, with ~1400 students, has probably been more productive of science PhDs than any other institution, with the possible exceptions of MIT, Caltech, and Harvey Mudd (another LAC). </p>
How likely in the largest economics and pre-med lectures are students writing 5-, 10-, or 20-page papers? How likely are students writing 5-, 10-, or 20-page papers in LAC economics and biology classes? Courses are taught in a manner suitable for the material being delivered. Fact based courses are taught in larger lectures. Courses that require more one-on-one interaction, interpretation and discussion are taught in much smaller settings. It’s called economies of scale!
Liberal arts classes that are mostly a “chat with the professor” are small.
Watch the documentary “At Berkeley” to see these small classes.</p>
<p>
Chemistry 112A/B is a 5 unit organic chemistry series for chemistry and chemical engineering majors. It covers far beyond “Principles”.<br>
Chemistry 3A/B is the organic chemistry series for biological science/pre-med majors.</p>
<p>Actually, I didn’t know writing 10 or 20 page papers wasn’t the norm until I saw what was done at my flagship, but I guess it makes sense when you have 40 or even more students in a class. The undergrads used to complain when we gave them an in-class one-page essay on top of a multiple choice test.
Still, to answer your “how likely” question, I’d say very likely.</p>
<p>Which is why I qualified my statement with “generally.” a science student would be better served at Harvey-Mudd than at, lets say, the University of Tennessee. But that’s an isolated case. In general, universities are better than LACs for sciences and math while LACs are generally better for the humanities.</p>
<p>The fail-safe response of those who don’t like the results of any particular university ranking is to criticize the methodology and criteria involved. It’s so overused that it’s meaningless. The US News ranking is as legitimate or illegitimate as any other serious ranking. That it focuses on undergraduate programs offers a useful alternative to the typical school rankings that focus on research, graduate and professional programs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t that what I said - that USC need to improve its graduate programs?</p>