<p>The reason that I am asking this question is because when I visited Harvard this summer I got the impression that they really didn’t focus on undergrads and they got away with it because of their name. I don’t know if I should even apply there.</p>
<p>A cut and paste from the Parents' Board:</p>
<p>Another College-Related Article in Today's Globe </p>
<hr>
<p>In addition to the article marite cited, here's Alex Beam's column from the Globe that describes a book written about Harvard's prez, Larry Summers. Alex Beam writes, "Here is my favorite (indirect) quote, reported to Bradley by a student who met with Summers during office hours. The student told Summers 'he was disappointed by how little contact he'd had with most of his professors.' In reply, Summers 'basically said that at Harvard, we choose to go only for the best scholars, and that if you wanted somewhere that focused on undergraduate teaching, you should go to a place like Amherst or Swarthmore.'"</p>
<p>I feel very focused on. And I seriously doubt President Summers actually would've said that to anyone.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that Summers said that -- he's a very straightforward guy, and actually its a subtle swipe at LACs from one angle. He's saying that Harvard wants to recruit the scholars whose research is groundbreaking -- ability to teach is not their highest priority, and if that's what you're interested in, go to an LAC where the research is not as high profile. He is (rightfully) proud of what Harvard's faculty achieves outside of their teaching duties, and thinks he shouldn't be ashamed to say so. And frankly he is exactly right; its not true that Harvard faculty care less about their students or are poor teachers, but LACs focus more on teaching ability overall in their faculty recruitment and promotion.</p>
<p>What an embarassment, if he did say that. I wish he just wouldn't talk sometimes ... I'm no fan of his, obviously.</p>
<p>Both, as always, it's a little of both.</p>
<p>If you're looking for true intellectual substance, I would check out the university of chicago if i were you.</p>
<p>Yeah. Uni Chi is indeed a great school. Too bad I don't live in the midwest so no nothing about it and am confied to my UCs.</p>
<p>Jeez, caramelkisses06, maybe I misinterpreted you. But it seems to me that you're less interested in whether what he said is true or not, and more interested in the fact that he actually said it. </p>
<p>Look, the reality of much of higher education in not just the US but in the world, is that research and graduate-school teaching tend to take precedence and undergrads often times get the short end of the stick. At Harvard and at most other highly prominent research universities, the profs are there primarily to do research. That is what will get them tenure. That is what will get them recognition amongst their peers. Teaching, especially undergraduate teaching, tends to be a very low priority. For an excellent read on this subject, I recommend "Inside American Education" by Sowell. It documents, for example, the notion that undergraduate Teaching Awards are often times considered the Kiss of Death at many schools, because it signifies that the prof is perhaps spending too much time teaching undergrads, and not enough time producing research, and culminating in many assistant profs (who untenured) not having their contracts renewed (in other words, basically being fired) right after they win a Teaching Award. </p>
<p>Like it or not, this is the reality of undergraduate education at many if not most research universities. In my opinion, Larry Summers gained significant credibility with me because he showed that he is willing to acknowledge harsh truths. He could have given some meaningless boilerplate. He chose not to. Kudos to him.</p>
<p>A lot of these critics with an axe to grind would have you believe that there is some inverse correlation between the eminence of the faculty and the quality of the teaching. This is the kind of self-deceptive rationalization common at most small LACs, and peddled to applicants - justifying their (increasingly precarious) existance.</p>
<p>Simply because a school is small, because it offers no graduate programs, and its relatively underpaid faculty does little research and publishes few books or influential papers does NOT mean - by definition, that they are all simply MARVELLOUS teachers in small, cozy classes where love is in the air.</p>
<p>hmmm. good question....i think it has substance</p>
<p>Byerly, you're right, there is no absolute causal connection. </p>
<p>On the other hand, we have President Lawrence Summers himself saying that Harvard doesn't necessarily have the best undergraduate teachers, and that Amherst and Swarthmore probably have better ones. So are you saying that he's wrong?</p>
<p>It seems to me, and maybe this is my autodidact tendency coming through, that a school that doesn't necessarily have the greatest teachers is NOT NECESSARILY the school where students will do the least learning. An independent learner can learn a lot from smart classmates, from a superb university library system, from amazing on-campus museums, and from course syllabi that aim higher than the syllabi of other schools. I have been to Harvard (on several business trips, years after I completed my higher education) and noted that Harvard appears to provide many of those favorable conditions for independent learning. I can well believe that smart, thoughtful people might prefer a different kind of college, but I certainly think there is substance to be found at Harvard for the person who goes looking for it. </p>
<p>P.S. What do any of you who have accepted an offer of admission to Harvard think about this? Is your focus on how you are taught, or on what resources you have to help yourself learn?</p>
<p>isn't it a question of priority?</p>
<p>faculty at swarthmore and amherst are there to teach, not for research opportunities. that self-selecting factor alone should make the faculty at those schools better teachers in the sense that they focus more on effective pedagogy. harvard professors may be motivated by a number of other factors, such as the ability to write harvard professor underneath their name when publishing an article. that is not to say that we should make generalizations about each and every professor. it should nonetheless stand that harvard professors have much more on their minds than their undergraduates, and naturally that would have an effect on how well they teach them</p>
<p>True. And if you're one that thrives on competition like myself, Harvard will be perfect competition. All I have to do now is finish my applications. Ah, how depressing...</p>
<p>As a future biochem major, I find Harvard's institutions to be world class and way beyond any academic expectation. Research facilities and professors in areas of potential research revolution, such as RNAi and Ribozyme technology, Harvard is miles ahead of the other Ivies.</p>