<p>A fascinating piece in today's New York Times discusses how Harvard is dissatisfied with the way it is educating undergraduates, and is now looking to liberal arts colleges as it develops a new model for teaching. Of course, this is no surprise to parents and students who pick top LACs over big research universities in the Ivy League or elsewhere. </p>
<p>Thanks for posting that. I sensed the lack of engagement between students and profs could be a problem at Harvard, but had no idea that teaching is (apparently) not consistently evaluated and (clearly) is not tied to rewards in the form of status or salary. Kudos to the faculty who are willing to fight that battle; it's likely to get ugly.</p>
<p>It's interesting that Harvard doesn't just look to Yale and Princeton which the article acknowledges as being committed to both teaching and research. I guess that would be too threatening to its self-image :)</p>
<p>The November 2005 Harvard Curricular</a> Review previously endorsed the LAC approach to undergraduate education. The concluding paragraph (on p. 38) highlighted the following quote:
[quote]
Why should all of the creative and liberating ideas for liberal education be left to the small residential liberal arts colleges?...With Harvard's resources and opportunities we could be both Harvard University and Williams College.
[/quote]
The reaction of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences was reportedly mixed.</p>
<p>I'm always amazed that these reports get any reaction at all. It's no secret that top R1 research universities and top undergrad LACs have very different, and mutually exclusive, institutional priorities when it comes to undergraduate teaching.</p>
<p>There is not a tenure-track professor in the country who could not spell out these different priorities in a ten minute conversation. Larry Summers spelled it out in one sentence during a recent speech when he noted that, of all of the Harvard professors who have been lured away by other universities over the years, he is not aware of a single instance where a professor was poached because of his or her extraordinary undergraduate teaching.</p>
<p>I don't see any particular need to change the nature of R1 research universities. They have a clearly defined mission. The market offers alternative models. Consumers are free to chose.</p>
<p>The article is interesting because it suggests that many big name professors don't teach any undergraduate level classes. Unfortunately, this atmosphere is fostered by some universities that use minimal teaching responsibilities to lure big name professors.</p>
<p>When I was at MIT, professors gave all the lectures. In fact, the fame of the professor was often inversely proportional to the course level they were teaching. For example, the introductory economics course (at that time) was taught by a nobel prize winner.</p>
<p>Research professors don't have the luxury of spending all their time teaching the way liberal arts professors do. However, universities should encourage them to do both.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, universities should encourage them to do both.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>The mission of an R1 research university is research. It seems nuts to have the best researchers in the world wasting their time teaching undergrads. That's why teaching undergrads isn't factored into tenure decisions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems nuts to have the best researchers in the world wasting their time teaching undergrads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nuts? Wasting their time? I'd rather have these gifted researchers mentoring, teaching and inspiring young minds than declaring that a waste of time. Not only can they teach the latest content and the latest discoveries in human knowledge, but they can also inspire undergraduates to follow in their footsteps. Not every brilliant researcher is also a brilliant teacher, true enough. But some are good at both, and I'm grateful that some institutions make sure they're interacting with undergraduates and using their schoalrship to inform undergraduate education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's no secret that top R1 research universities and top undergrad LACs have very different, and mutually exclusive, institutional priorities when it comes to undergraduate teaching.
[/quote]
I think it's accurate to say that research priorities can sometimes conflict with the best practices of undergraduate education, but to say they are mutually exclusive seems too strong to me.</p>
<p>hoedown,</p>
<p>as cryptic as ID's statement is, i think he's referring to the fact that you don't need a world class biologist who could be spending his time researching a way to cure cancer teaching orgo to a bunch of 19 year old 2nd years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it's accurate to say that research priorities can sometimes conflict with the best practices of undergraduate education, but to say they are mutually exclusive seems too strong to me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are tenure-track professors at R1 institutions advised about allocating their time to teaching undergrads relative to their research obligations? The tenure decision is where the rubber meets the road in higher education.</p>
<p>Are you aware of any instance where a tenure-track professor has been advised that a tenure decision will be made based primarily on the quality of his or her undergrad teaching or that investing heavy emphasis on undergrad teaching would generally be advisable for professor seeking tenure?</p>
<p>Of course research universities and liberal arts colleges have different social and institutional missions. But turning out undergrads with the right combination of critical thinking ability and raw knowledge ought to be the common goal. The most startling quote in the article referenced above, I thought, is the final one, from a Harvard physicist who is altering his teaching style after realizing the classic Harvard method wasn't working for his otherwise brilliant students: "When I asked them to apply their knowledge in a situation they had not seen before, they failed,” Professor Eric Mazur said. “You have to be able to tackle the new and unfamiliar, not just the familiar, in everything. We have to give the students the skills to solve such problems. That’s the goal of education.” Of course, that's the central stated goal of schools like Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan, and so on.</p>
<p>Please, don't waste keyboard strokes trying to convince me that LACs are primarily dedicated to undergraduate teaching, and are in many cases more dedicated to it than R1s. I already believe that. If you think that's the point I need to be lectured about, then you've misread my post--I'm not arguing that these two institutional types aren't different. I'm arguing that they are not as different as you have stated they are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What are tenure-track professors at R1 institutions advised about allocating their time to teaching undergrads relative to their research obligations? ...Are you aware of any instance where a tenure-track professor has been advised that a tenure decision will be made based primarily on the quality of his or her undergrad teaching or that investing heavy emphasis on undergrad teaching would generally be advisable for professor seeking tenure?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This feels a little slippery to me--you've gone from talking about "the best researchers in the world" to those junior faculty who are on the tenure track at R1 institutions. The latter are a mere subset of the former, so you've switched your argument up a bit.</p>
<p>Sure, it's not unheard of for an assistant professor up for tenure at a research university to seek (and get) a reduced teaching load for a term or two so they can up their publications. That certainly confirms that priorities lie strongly with research in the tenure process. FWIW, I've heard of this happening at a liberal arts college (although I am sure it less common).</p>
<p>All of this seems like a side point, though.</p>
<p>I disagreed with your assertion that R1 and LAC priorities for undergraduate education are mutually exclusive. I don't think they are. One can value research (and value it greatly for tenure) yet still share some of the same values espoused by LACs. I think froshdad has it right when he discusses common goals.</p>
<p>And I also disagree with your other belief about what's a waste of time. I believe that to foster the future's most brilliant discoveries, we should NOT simply shut professors away in their labs and libraries and free them from undergraduate teaching duties. I think they should be bringing along the next generation of scholars as well, including those at the undergraduate level who may be just dicovering their aptitudes and passions. I'm pleased that there are people at leading research universities who agree with this view.</p>
<p>All I have to say is, GOOOOO AMHERST.</p>
<p>: )</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagreed with your assertion that R1 and LAC priorities for undergraduate education are mutually exclusive. I don't think they are. One can value research (and value it greatly for tenure) yet still share some of the same values espoused by LACs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now, you've changed the topic. Perhaps I didn't word it carefully enough. My intent was to say that the institutional priorities of an R1 research institution and an undergrad baccalaureate college are different, and largely incompatible, i.e. mutually exclusive to the undergrad education made possible by the overall institutional priorities of a similarly funded LAC.</p>
<p>Of course, the R1 would like to think it has the same objective for undergrad education as a similarly funded LAC. I'm not suggesting that an R1 doesn't want to offer the same undergrad education. I'm saying that the overall institutional priorities make that largely impossible.</p>
<p>Note carefully that I'm not making a universal value assessment here. I could argue that what an R1 does offer to undergrads may be "better" for a given student.</p>
<p>That's the great thing about having so much choice in the marketplace. Instead of beating up Harvard for doing what Harvard does, consumers should simply decide whether or not what Harvard does is what they want in an undergrad education. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of consumers choose Harvard, although I suspect (only somewhat facetiously) that a number of those would still make the same choice even if the undergrad classes were taught by guard dogs at Gitmo -- in other words, the nature of the undergrad education is simply irrelevant to the consumers' choice. Why bash Harvard for figuring out that having brand-name researchers "sells"?</p>
<p>So what are the top LAC's?</p>
<p>The schools listed on this page would be a decent starting point.</p>
<p>My daughter, a Harvard freshman, had a freshman seminar last fall with 12 students in which the students engaged in long discussions, had informal interactions that overlapped the class times, and went to the professor's house for a cookout. The prof is a renowned authority on civil rights issues in Latin America, and is slated to make a report before a U.N. committee studying the impact of the logging industry on indigenous tribes in the Amazon basin. He's now got my D and three other students from the seminar researching with him for his report. </p>
<p>At the same time, she took an intro Economics course with 960 students which broke out into TA-led small gruops in between large lectures. She found it interesting, though not personalized. Her other courses have been typical class sizes, and she's had ample oppotunities for one-on-one engagement with faculty - more to be honest, than I did at Wake Forest when the undergrad enrollment there was under 3000.</p>
<p>From that limited experience of one student for less than a year, I'm of the opinion that engagement with faculty and close interaction are there at Harvard for students who take the initiative to seek it out. The difference is that at an LAC, the intimacy of the classroom environment is inescapable - a student doesn't need to seek it. But at Harvard, the opportunities are unique when students do connect with faculty. Your research doesn't go into a file cabinet - it goes to the U.N. A student in a small class asks a question about a work of fiction by a Chinese author they're studying in class and the prof pulls out a cell phone, calls up the author, and passes the phone around the room so the class can chat with him. Outside the classroom, you get asked to participate in a musical, come to find that because someone on campus knew someone in New York, its a revival that's going to be premiered with Harvard students before going to Broadway, and you wind up with a credit on the front page of Playbill.com. </p>
<p>These are all anecdotes from her freshman year that tend to occur at campuses with the kind of faculty involvements that you find at Harvard and similar schools. There's a trade-off there and it's not right for everyone. I needed more outreach from faculty than my D does, and I'd have done better at a LAC. But for my D and others who are more motivated to pursue opportunities when they present themselves, the trade-off at elite research universities like Harvard can provide life-altering experiences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, you've changed the topic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I assure you I did not mean to. I was merely following up on Post #5. I may have misunderstood you, but I was not attempting to change the subject. </p>
<p>Thanks for clarifying what you meant in that sentence.</p>
<p>I know. That's why I said I probably wasn't clear. It's quite simple really.</p>
<p>If you have a conglomerate that owns a widget factory, a doohickey factory, and a thingamajig factory, management priorities have to be allocated among the three factories. If the thingamajig factory is the biggest contributor to the P&L statements and the traditional core emphasis of the corporation, the thingamajig factory is likely to be the highest priority. It's not that the board of directors doesn't care about doohickeys. However, they aren't going to undermine their thingamajig business to beef up the doohickey business in an effort to compete with a high-end doohickey manufacturer...just like a well-managed automaker like Toyota is not going to divert resources in an effort to compete against brands like Porsche or Ferrari.</p>
<p>
[quote]
at Harvard, the opportunities are unique when students do connect with faculty...for my D and others who are more motivated to pursue opportunities when they present themselves, the trade-off at elite research universities like Harvard can provide life-altering experiences.
[/quote]
Opportunities like this do exist at top research universities, to a greater extent than at LACs. However, there is a good case that you can connect with faculty more readily, and therefore leverage these opportunities more effectively, as a graduate or professional student, rather than as an undergraduate. </p>
<p>Many (probably most) of the students who attend top undergraduate programs are going to also get advanced degrees. In this case, the LAC vs. research university issue is not an "either-or" proposition. You can go to a LAC as an undergraduate, and get the great teaching. Then you can go to a top university for an advanced degree (and LACs are generally very good at placing their students in such programs), and get the great connections and opportunities. </p>
<p>The Harvard Curricular Review cited above suggested that "we could be both Harvard University and Williams College." No one can deny that this is an admirable goal, combining the best of both worlds. But it's not some hypothetical, "pie-in-the-sky" ideal: it's already achieved routinely, simply by attending both Harvard University and Williams College. You can substitute the names of other top universities and top LACs if you like.</p>