<p>Yale is one of the schools that requires ALL arts & science faculty to teach undergraduate courses. ALL must teach at least two undergraduate courses a year. It is true that SOME <em>star</em> faculty choose to teach only seminars and/or cap their classes at some number, but there is NO one on the arts & science faculty at Yale who "hasn't taught an undergraduate course in years." (BTW, there are many such faculty at UChicago, including the dinosaur guy, at least two Nobel prize winners in econ, and, back in his day, Saul Bellow.)</p>
<p>Moreover, Yale, unlike Harvard, has a rule as to how many sessions of a class faculty can miss. Miss too many classes, even if you are a <em>star</em> and you are out the door for breach of contract. </p>
<p>These rules are NOT unique to Yale--I just know because back in the Iron Age when we went looking at colleges, we asked. Brown has rules very similar to Yale. UChicago most definitely does NOT. </p>
<p>And, as others have pointed out, adjunct can mean different things. Toni Morrison has been an adjunct professor at Princeton teaching creative writing; David Dinkins, former NYC mayor, is an adjunct professor at Columbia teaching urban politics; Steven Brill teaches a non-fiction writing class at Yale; David Brookes has taught at several different universities. Somehow, I don't think kids in their classes were upset because they didn't get a regular prof as a teacher.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On the subject of faculty/student contacts, as a parent who has to nag my S to go talk to his profs, I can see both sides of the culture of mutual avoidance, mutual being the operative word.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ditto here with my S. But this brings up another argument for why you can't equate the number of classes taught by profs with the value of the educational experience. My sophomore S, who was reluctant to go see profs, had no qualms about e-mailing and getting together for coffee with the grad student who taught his core class last year. She did a great job in the classroom but also took it upon herself to serve as a guide to the college experience in a way I don't imagine most professors would. Sometimes a TA or TF who is close in age, who remembers what it is like to be a student, and who is a talented teacher may provide the kind of experience a full professor cannot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Moreover, Yale, unlike Harvard, has a rule as to how many sessions of a class faculty can miss. Miss too many classes, even if you are a <em>star</em> and you are out the door for breach of contract.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know where this idea comes from. A Harvard prof who wishes to be absent for one week needs permission from the chair; more than that and the dean's permission must be sought. I believe it is by no means automatic. </p>
<p>Sac:
I agree about students finding TFs more congenial than the Nobel prize laureates and other star profs! S called the new Ph.D. by his first name; One of his current profs is also young and new and encourages students to call her by her first name.</p>
<p>My S has a had great experiences with both profs and TA's (most classes have them to assist the prof). The fun of going "back stage" to see the profs research, and discuss things not brought up in class have been wonderful. So far, after only two quarters, he has been invited on an archeological dig in Turkey, had the opportunity to meet and spend considerable time with a range of classical scholars (his new found intellectual love), who just drop by his classes, he has had numerous conversations and made laboratory visits to his physics profs' research group who are doing some really crazy stuff, he has had the opportunity to join in on many discussions concerning the nuances of teaching and learning an asian language, and my favorite, a behind the scenes tour of the Oriental Institute by its director. His head is swirling, and during the recent break he was absolutely giddy. (And, for what its worth, he reports his social life has been great as well.)</p>
<p>Perhaps this would all have happened if he were taught primarily by adjuncts and TA's, but perhaps not.</p>
<p>How much a student gets out of interactions with TAs and profs obviously depends on the individual student. Except for one TF, my S has liked all of his. But he is a reticent kid, unlike yours, apparently. :(</p>
<p>Jonri is right that at Brown, professors are required to teach undergraduates. I constantly read on CC people putting down universities as if they don't care about undergraduate teaching and that these kids don't get professors, yadda yadda. It is so NOT the case in my D's experience at Brown. As well, she has TA's if the class has a section (lecture broken into discussion groups, or language section or lab) and really enjoys these folks too. They are helpful and willing to meet frequently on a one to one basis. She can toss an idea around about a paper or have them look over a draft. She is taking a course at RISD with a professor but the TA met with her for 90 min. the other night for one on one teaching. The TAs ENHANCE the education. She still has professors for all her classes and has met many of these one on one as well. Some classes are small and so there are no TA sections, of course.</p>
<p>"Here is a partial list of readings that my S and all his classmates studied in some of their required freshman and sophomore Core classes.
This is why he chose this school."</p>
<p>I'm glad I wasn't forced to read those books as a freshman or sophomore - I read most of them in high school. As for my Ivy league education - it was a mixed bag - but thanks to being able to sit in on a courses two weeks before committing to actually signing up - I took very few courses that weren't excellent. Thanks to my major I took a lot of graduate level courses (in architectural history) starting as a sophomore.</p>
<p>Mathmom, the idea that a high school student has "read most of" Shakespeare, Plato, Dante, Augustine, the Bible, Descartes, Hegel, Homer, etc. already and shouldn't bother with them again in college is really rather amusing. Literature isn't something we get out of the way like laundry. As we mature and have different life experiences, we respond to it in new ways. This is something I learned as an Ivy undergrad, and it's something my kids have discovered as Ivy undergrads. But I would hope one would come to recognize it at any fine school.</p>
<p>The Ivies aren't a fraud. They are a mixed group of schools. Students who are assertive enough to seek them out will discover many advantages, including close contact with world-class/household name faculty; loads of funding for internships, travel, and research; extremely accomplished extracurricular groups in the arts; very bright, outgoing classmates; and a phenomenal alumni network.</p>
<p>This semester alone at Brown I have two independent studies which are one-on-one with faculty and represent topics which I am interested in. Brown also has a quite tolerant indepdent concentration program with majors as varied as Western Esoteric Studies to the History of Science. These are not statistics, but they are not invaluable experiences either.</p>
<p>agree about students finding TFs more congenial than the Nobel prize laureates and other star profs! S called the new Ph.D. by his first name; One of his current profs is also young and new and encourages students to call her by her first name.
D1 has never attended a school where teachers/profs used a title- so we really didn't notice that they go by first names at her college.( often anyway)</p>
<p>Mathmom, the idea that a high school student has "read most of" Shakespeare, Plato, Dante, Augustine, the Bible, Descartes, Hegel, Homer, etc. already and shouldn't bother with them again in college is really rather amusing. Literature isn't something we get out of the way like laundry. As we mature and have different life experiences, we respond to it in new ways. This is something I learned as an Ivy undergrad, and it's something my kids have discovered as Ivy undergrads. But I would hope one would come to recognize it at any fine school.
;)
I agree aparent-take the Odyssey for example, D read it in middle school in Latin, in high school in lit and again in college hum class-
I wouldn't say that if she had her druthers she would have chosen all the same reading materials, but we chose her school knowing they had a fairly structured curriculum and firm on required core subjects, as opposed to letting the student decide what was important or not.</p>
<p>I have a son who is a junior at Yale. He has had an extremely good experience there, and with the exception of a few courses where sections were taught by TAs, he has had exclusively professors since his freshman year. He was invited into Yale's Directed Studies program, a core curriculum program where first-year students take three courses each semester of the first year studying literature, history and philosophy. Even the small sections were taught by tenured, or tenure-track, faculty. He is now majoring in "Ethics, Politics and Economics," a selective major (meaning you have to apply to be accepted into the major), where every class is a seminar taught by full faculty. </p>
<p>He has loved his academic experience, as well as the residential college system. Yale also provides so many opportunities for involvement in the community -- he volunteers in the New Haven school system through a program; plays in a chamber orchestra through his residential college; and has received numerous grants through Yale both to study abroad and to work in New Haven itself.</p>
<p>Yale has been worth every penny where he is concerned. I don't believe in making generalizations about any school, or anything, for that fact. But he has certainly made the most of his time there, and I do not regret one penny spent on his education.</p>
<p>"Mathmom, the idea that a high school student has "read most of" Shakespeare, Plato, Dante, Augustine, the Bible, Descartes, Hegel, Homer, etc. already and shouldn't bother with them again in college is really rather amusing."</p>
<p>I wasn't arguing that I shouldn't bother with them again in college, but more that I am glad that I had a choice about which one to revisit or not. I am not a fan of rigid core curriculi. I ended up taking a course on Shakespeare, and one on Greek literature both of which covered both old and new material for me. The former happens to be one of the worst courses I took, the latter one of the best. </p>
<p>BTW I got a lot out of my Harvard education and especially my fellow students. But honestly the courses I enjoyed most in college were ones that covered things I'd never seen before - Chinese landscape painting of the Sung Dynasty, architectural history, urban planning, linguistics...</p>
<p>Manuelo, I very much agree with what you wrote about generalizations which is what I had pointed out in the beginning part of this entire thread. I'd much rather hear personal real accounts such as yours and so thank you for sharing. </p>
<p>Mathmom, your post points out that what each person is looking for in an education differs. Each of those educations is of value. My D1 wanted liberal arts and not a professional degree program as an undergraduate (she is in architecture at Brown) and preferred either open curriculum or distribution type curriculum over core curriculum. My D2 entered a professional degree program as an undergraduate as she knew exactly what she wanted to study and her career choice but also wanted a professional degree/conservatory in a university that also required significant liberal arts (she's at NYU/Tisch for musical theater). I don't say one education or institution is better than another but simply these were just what my kids really wanted. Both are more than satisfied with the education they are getting. It may not be right for the next kid, and even not right for the next parent who studies statistics of this and that about a colege. My kids cared about the match up and that's what they got. I have no complaints.</p>
<p>aparent,
I noticed that immediately, earlier, but was at the time more interested in discussing the theoretical "fraud" notion. I was appalled that anyone would think they had "read it all" (or most) in high school. Really? End to end? Closely? With the greater intellectual maturity of a college student vs. high school? With different expectations of a college prof vs. a high school teacher? With different purposes, connections to the readings? with greater opportunity for complex analysis & insightful papers? With 6 or 7 other demanding courses simultaneously, including AP's? With 4, 5 heavy-duty high school e.c.'s competing for attention? Sorry. That is just not believable.</p>
<p>And as we all know, many Universities & colleges offer these opportunities for close reading, for primary-source work, etc. St. John's comes to mind. There are divisions within colleges, & academic colleges within universities, that have a Great Books strand. Certainly Ivies have no monopoly on this (nor was garland suggesting that). Students at large public universities can do this, too. I think some of the women's colleges are strong in this.</p>
<p>Yale's Directed Studies, Princeton's Humanities seminars, are programs in that category.</p>
<p>Overseas they would actually say that US students don't have enough of "that stuff." By the time British students are ready for University, they've "read that stuff" closely in their secondary schools. Then, LOL, they go to University and "read that stuff" again -- much differently -- especially if they're doing Brit Lit or Classics at Cambridge or Oxford.</p>
<p>mathmom--I'm glad to hear that 1) you read all that in hs. Very impressive. We don't have a high school like that in our town, but somehow S has survived, and 2) you didn't want a Core Curriculum. Isn't it wonderful that there are different types of schools for different types of needs?</p>
<p>I included that list way,way back on this thread, in response to the anti-intellectual Ivy student swipe in a previous post. My point was that some kids would be looking for this very rigorous kind of multi-disciplinary education, and are hardly signing on to it for prestige or "the name." Another student might go to Brown's open curriculum to put together a different kind of rigorous experience. Others choose schools for different reasons. </p>
<p>mathmom & I were posting at about the same time, so I didn't see her recent reply.</p>
<p>Well I think that's a different issue. (Core vs. non-core -- & what's in the core)</p>
<p>The whole problem with this thread is that there was no genuine attempt to define terms & to stay within a premise. I think garland provided the list, which happens to be part of the Columbia core, because of the grand statement/title of the thread. Like her, I interpret the thread title to imply that Ivy students are not getting a genuine education. (That their education is a "fraud," not unlike a phantom mail-order diploma) Had the title been -- "Teaching Professors" a fraud at Ivies? -- it might have gone in a diff. direction.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, there were 3 hot-button issues being merged & overlapped from the beginning: (1) profs (& statured profs) vs. TA's as teachers, & disclosures about that; (2) motivations of Ivy applicants & Ivy students; (3) the content & quality of Ivy education (as if the latter is one coherent category).</p>
<p>I think it's valid to ask/debate whether, how much Professors-as-Teachers impacts the quality of a college education. I also think it's valid to debate whether colleges should (or even can) provide disclosure about teaching expectations to its applicants. But groundwork was never laid for the argumentation that was imbedded in the opening.</p>
<p>My D happened to prefer the choice, & it was a choice, to do even closer reading of some classics & foundational literature. By no means forced on her. And I agree with mathmom that many students prefer branching out, experimenting. And certainly it's possible to do both. The breadth AND the depth is valuable.</p>
<p>I agree with epiphany that too many issues got lumped into a single discussion because of the misleading thread title (not to mention that Ivy has to do with sports, not academics, and that the Ivies differ hugely among one another: take Brown vs. Columbia, for instance).</p>
<p>I personally would have liked my S to have a Chicago or Columbia-type of core precisely because he is a math/science kid. He had read some of the titles on Garland's list but only some. However, he was concerned that having the core would make scheduling his more advanced math/science class more difficult. So in the end, he decided not to apply to Columbia or Chicago. Yet, he also realized the value of not surrounding himself with people too much like him; so MIT, which had been an early favorite on the basis of comfort, dropped lower down his list, and in the end, he did not apply there, either. He is currently taking a class whose reading list includes quite a few of the titles on Garland's list. There are different ways to get to the same end point.
To get back to the issue of TAs vs. tenure-track profs, that class is taught by the chair of a department.</p>
<p>Epiphany and Marite, you guys summarized exactly the various different topics that came up on this thread and lots of that is due to how the thread began, title and initial posts.</p>
<p>I think this topic was introduced several months ago, and it clearly still inspires much controversy!</p>
<p>I have a DD who IS a TA at Penn, teaches a section each term in a language; her courses are the most basic. She had eleven students in her section last term and has 18 (which is considered HUGE) this term. She is teaching under the direct supervision of a professor. From what I gather, Penn takes very seriously the training of TAs; on top of all her other coursework last term she had a very labor-intensive course on teaching. Supervision comes regularly and will continue throughout her time as a TA. I think she is a born teacher (as an aside, she has been telling her brother what to do and how to think for his entire life, among other things.)</p>
<p>I recall two things of interest. When she was interviewing at Penn a couple of years ago, the grad students were staging lots of protests about being underpaid and overworked. I do not think she agrees with either point now she is deep into it, but she is a hard worker by nature.
The other point I recall is that when her brother was trying to choose between an LAC and Brown, she warned him against Brown or any other big school BECAUSE, as she said, "you'll get someone like ME teaching your classes."</p>
<p>S1 did decide to go to Brown, and has had two TAs, both in entry level language classes. They have been among the best teachers he has had! The full profs have also been exceptional, but his first term language teacher was a dream come true (she was beautiful, too, which didn't hurt!)</p>
<p>What I find interesting is not that TA's can be good, or that full professors can be distant (as well as good), but that it is somehow assumed that the TA's and profs are better at teaching at "top privates" than at the state universities. That is where value proposition in terms of education received becomes less clear. Yes, name recognition if one is at Harvard or Yale may be worth something, but in terms of the direct educational experience, I'm not as sure. With the growth of the state honors colleges, the benefit of being with intellectual peers and small class size is not the driving issue either. The faculty at the State U's are often more accomplished than those ar that at the privates. From a now slightly dated, but I'm guessing still pretty accurate, 2001 Atlantic article:</p>
<p>"The perception of what constitutes an "elite" school often has little to do with academic excellence. After all, one important measure of a university's quality is how many of its faculty members belong to the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The ultra-selective Brown counts among its faculty sixteen who are members. Duke, the object of many a prep school student's swoon, has thirty-five. But the University of Washington has seventy-one, Wisconsin sixty-four, Michigan fifty eight, Texas fifty-four, and Illinois fifty-three."</p>
<p>Further, many of the gifted young Ph.D.s are more likely to be at state universities than at the privates. Implied in what the original poster was asking is does it matter if the TA is at a state or private university, or that the gifted young faculty member is at a state university, or that the renown professor, often more likely to be found at some of the publics than some of the more selective privates, is teaching our kids? If the answer is no, then one must question if the professed value is really there, or is it a marketing illusion maintained, in part, by those of us who send our kids to one of these privates? I have no regrets that my kid is at Chicago, it has been great for him, but would Washington have been any less fulfilling? Are we buying what we think we are?</p>