<p>Some of these last few comments need to be challenged.</p>
<p>The gilded faculty at top schools, Nobel winners, Fields medalists, etc., obviously do not, with very, very, very rare exception, teach introductory undergraduate courses. Fortunately. It’s the last place you’d want to find most of them.</p>
<p>These are men and women that PhD candidates rightfully dream of working with, but their communication skills often sharply contrast with their research skills. Brilliant minds do not necessarily brilliant educators make.</p>
<p>From the NY Times article I quoted, apparently with a disconnected link:</p>
<p>Youd be stupid if you came to Harvard for the teaching, said Mr. Billings, who will graduate this spring and then go to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. You go to a liberal arts college for the teaching. You come to Harvard to be around some of the greatest minds on earth.</p>
<p>“And that is pretty much how the thinking has gone here at Harvard for several decades. As one of the worlds most renowned research universities, Harvard is where academic superstars are continually expected to revolutionize their fields of knowledge. Cutting-edge research is emphasized, and recognized with tangible rewards: tenure, money, prestige, prizes, fame.” </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/education/10harvard.html?scp=2&sq=harvard&st=nyt[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/education/10harvard.html?scp=2&sq=harvard&st=nyt</a></p>
<p>It’s highly misleading to suggest to college applicants that Harvard’s or Berkeley’s or any school’s Nobel parking spots are in any way relevent to their experience as undergraduates. Whether considering Organic Chem, Intro Physics, or Life Sciences 1A, the best any undergrad can hope for getting started in the sciences are dedicated teachers who can communicate and who are there in front of a classroom because they want to be there. Hopefully they don’t find themselves elbow to elbow with 589 other anxious freshmen in a cavernous lecture hall. Sakky’s argument suggesting that Harvard doesn’t need to get better because it has no incentive to improve misjudges the impact an article like this in the NY Times has on Harvard’s major “shareholders,” its Alumni and students (AKA future alumni). Negative publicity carries a major sting (let’s not forget a former Harvard president’s politically incorrect published statements and ultimate departure from Cambridge). I’d even argue being the naive idealist I am that maybe, just maybe, Harvard’s administration does really care about the quality of the education it provides its undergrads and will act to fix this fixable problem.</p>