Harvard or not Harvard

<p>Confessions</a> of a Harvardholic: Blame it on the TFs</p>

<p>Blame it on the TFs</p>

<p>It's the most wonderful time of the year- the season of holidays, winter vacations, and Harvard course evaluations!</p>

<p>As I reflect on the past few semesters of college, I can't help but think that my overall academic experience has been far from superb. Not that I haven't done well on my transcript (which I suppose is the typical yardstick), but I had such high intellectual expectations upon entering Harvard, that only a couple courses really came through for me substantively. And I don't think that I'm the only one who feels slightly disappointed. Maybe it's because junior tutorials have yet to kick in, or that many of my intellectual interests align with that of the student body majority (Social Studies, Government, Economics- the 3 largest concentrations), but I think that it's fair to say that teaching fellows can make or break one's class experience...and with the TFs at Harvard, it's hit or miss.</p>

<p>A friend of mine from a top tiered liberal arts college, recently teased me about Harvard's reliance on TFs. He joked, "That's what you get for choosing the top brand name university." And admittedly, there is legitimacy to his remark. I remember being warned back in the days of college visiting that Harvard undergrads were simply put, not the center of the university's attention. Unlike at smaller colleges where the college is all that really matters (and oftentimes, all that exists), many professors at Harvard are primarily graduate school teachers- the undergraduate courses which they teach are purely asked of them, not so much of a personal passion.</p>

<p>Even if the professor is genuinely passionate about educating undergrad students, more often than not he or she is entirely inaccessible; professors wield an army of TFs or tutorial leaders to do the real work- formulate essay prompts, organize exams, grade assignments, and lead discussions in smaller sections (translation: actually teach the class). As such, for many of our Core courses and concentration-required lectures, we have the lovely opportunity to work closely with TFs. Sadly, this frequently involves an adverse effect on the quality of our education.</p>

<p>Of course, TF selection is supposedly a competitive and rigorous process, especially in today's age when money is hard to come by. But how does that explain the TFs and tutorial leaders that can barely speak English, don't know how to promote dialogue, or seriously lack a firm grasp of the course material/curriculum? There's a critical distinction between one's understanding of course material and one's capacity to coherently articulate it. There's a difference between being able to lecture at students versus leading a discussion between students. And yet department administrators often dismiss these nuanced particularities.</p>

<p>Yes, there are certain TFs with the perfect balance of all of the above and thankfully, I've been lucky enough to have a couple of these teachers. But then again, there are grad students being hired as TFs despite limited to zero past teaching experience. Some TFs are teaching courses in fields that they have no previous knowledge in. Consequently, you have Gov. PhD candidates specializing in Latin America teaching about Africa, Ec. teachers with such thick accents that they're incomprehensible, and tutorial leaders who are too stubborn to listen to students' opinions (or are overly open that they don't correct/clarify contradictory interpretations).</p>

<p>I'm not so naive to think that we can all have fabulous, life-changing teachers. But as students, we have the responsibility to change the academic settings that make us unhappy. So if you grudgingly think that your TF is boring, incompetent, etc. then step in and push the discussion along yourself. And let's be honest, TFs aren't exactly facing the easiest of circumstances with us overcommitted, busy Harvard students. Consider some of the lecture courses for which half of us don't show up to class and most of the time, we're not doing the assigned readings. We do the minimal work possible to get an A.</p>

<p>I suppose then, with students only attending sections in order to get a passing grade, it shouldn't be surprising that class discussions aren't always enthralling and captivating; in other words, TFs are often confronted with frustrated, disinterested students that certainly don't make their lives of teaching any easier. My point is, although we may be stuck with incompetent and unqualified TFs here and there, we might as well make the most of it, i.e. immerse yourself into the aspects of the course that don't make you frustrated as hell! Hopefully, the course material...</p>

<p>geesh…I didn’t know that it was that bad as an undergraduate at Harvard…</p>

<p>This is one of the reasons why I’m not looking at many of the Ivies in my college search. If your goal is not solely the prestige, then you have to understand that their focus is definitely not on their undergrads (with the exception of Dartmouth, they’re relatively okay).</p>

<p>^ You’re living in “fairy dreams” if you think Dartmouth is significantly better for undergrad than Harvard…Dartmouth uses TAs, TFs, GSIs (whatever they’re called) in the exact same manner.</p>

<p>^ Indeed, all the Ivy League schools are horrible. ;)</p>

<p>yes, a little perspective, people. any outgoing ivy student (and they’re ALL outgoing, lol) can develop good - if not very good - relationships with their professors.</p>

<p>I completely disagree with UCB’s statement. Dartmouth is incredibly undergraduate focused, much more so than Harvard, and uses FAR LESS TA’s.</p>

<p>^It’s “far fewer TA’s”. Get it right.</p>

<p>Few of Dartmouth’s undergrad departments have graduate counterparts, so where would they be getting TA’s?</p>

<p>^ Exactly what I was about to say lol.</p>

<p>Dartmouth is a liberal arts college, unlike the other Ivies (though some, like Brown and Princeton, are also smaller and more undergrad focused). </p>

<p>But even NSM, a Harvard alum, will readily admit that the intellectual life at Harvard is lacking. It’s a great place, however, for driven individuals who can take advantage of H’s resources and forge their own path. For the purer intellects or discussion lovers, not so much. </p>

<p>But OP, thanks for the detailed post. This should be stickied at the top of the Harvard forum for kids to consider when making their college choices.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>blatantly false, lol</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Indeed.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Can anyone specifically elaborate on this?</p>

<p>^^ Didn’t even need to point that out lol, since when is any large generalization true :)</p>

<p>

Thanks for pointing that out, but I’m well aware (nor did I state) that Dartmouth was significantly better for undergrad. Nice twist on my username btw, how clever :rolleyes:</p>

<p>^ Thanks.</p>

<p>Straight from the horse’s mouth:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062255443-post12.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062255443-post12.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064614224-post1.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064614224-post1.html&lt;/a&gt;
It’s interesting how you didn’t understand the concept yesterday, but you have a strong opinion about it now. You must be a quick study. </p>

<p>People who go to LACs seem to claim, “oh, it’ll best prepare you for a prestigious grad school” and yet complain about grad students doing the teaching at prestigious grad programs…:rolleyes:</p>

<p>Yeah, I heard too that Dartmouth is really great for undergraduate education. But then again, this blog was written by one student who obviously had very high expectations for the school, so that’s also why she’s so disappointed.</p>