<p>I have long maintained that most colleges feed from the same Ph.D. programs. The quality of the profs (and the TAs) is not really an issue. However, if we are going to discuss the deployment of adjuncts, they are more likely to be found at state unis than at well-endowed private colleges.
The factors that make a difference are size; size of classes and availability of classes; peer group, access to resources. </p>
<p>My S just would not consider some excellent state unis because of their size (though I hope he will consider them for grad school because they do have what he wants). At the same time, he did not want a LAC because of the limited offerings, especially at the advanced level, in his fields of interest. So mid-sized research universities are the best fit; and this is the niche that most of the Ivies plus a few other excellent unis such as Chicago are occupying.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the issue of adjunct instructors is in part related to location of a school near an urban area where qualified potential instructors may live and work. At least some small colleges are not above availing themselves of this extra help too, when it is available. I recall that when my daughter was considering an LAC located in a large midwest metro area, I noticed in their catalog what seemed to be an unusualy high number of part-time instructors of this sort.</p>
<p>So my point is in reponse to post #2 in this thread, that small colleges are not necessarily immune from this issue.</p>
<p>Regarding "Ivy Education", I don't think it exists really. There are eight individual colleges that are different from each other. IMO these schools are no more like each other than they are like Duke,Georgetown, and several other schools with comparable size and student body quality that don't happen to play sports in the Ivy League. The education actually provided at each school must be evaluated on its own merits, IMO.</p>
<p>When my daughter was considering colleges I reflected on what I experienced at my own college. And several unflattering images came very quickly to mind. Lecture courses with 1,000 students. Famous researchers who quite evidently weren't there due to their teaching prowess, or interest. An advisor who was indifferent to undergraduates. Having to get a grad school recommendation from a Prof. who didn't know who I was- though I got A's in two of his classes! Studying 24/7 to keep up with the intense academics.</p>
<p>There were great aspects too, though. Having an outstanding course selection. and sharing classroom and living space with an outstandingly bright and motivated peer group.</p>
<p>I do sometimes wonder though whether a good state university might have been pretty similar to what I experienced, in most material respects.</p>
<p>I've no basis to know whether my experience at one school a long time ago is currently applicable to any institution in the present.</p>
<p>FWIW, my daughter chose an LAC. THe profs and teacher attention are great, reportedly, but now she complains that they don't offer advanced courses in some particular area she's become interested in. So maybe the grass is always greener.</p>
<p>You've really hit on some of the key issues. My son decided against LACs for the reasons your D has uncovered. He has one class over 100+ students and will perhaps have more along the way. However, he chooses those over some others that are not so crowded. As I suggested, mid-sized research universities are a (more or less) happy medium between large state universities and LACs. This category includes more than the "Ivies."</p>
<p>I tend to agree about large classes etc., but with the advent of honors colleges, this seems not to be as much of an issue. They typically have as small a class size as the small research univ. or even the LAC's, outstanding faculty & TA's, and access to world class research facilities. I think for the top students, the educational differences at these school may be narrowing, or nonexistent.</p>
<p>For both Ss, the issue was not the class size per se, but the size of the campus and the student body. There are indeed many institutons of higher learning where stellar students can have access to an excellent education; some are LACs, some are mid-sized research universities (a category that includes many institutions besides the "Ivies") and some are large universities. I just think that mid-sized universities fit students who want more offerings than a small LAC can offer but a smaller campus and smaller student body than some of the top public universities typically have. </p>
<p>The thread really should be about mid-sized research universities rather than Ivies. I would never want to suggest that Chicago is inferior to Harvard because it's not an Ivy. There are good reasons to choose one over the other, but educational excellence is not one of them.</p>
<p>My own impression of "mid-sized universities" is they are not that similar to LACs in terms of class size and actual professor contact. My thought is that the classroom experience might tend towards the large school experience rather than the LAC experience.</p>
<p>As opposed to "best of both worlds", another observer might consider them "worst of both worlds": lacking the robustness of a large school, but also lacking the intimate environment of an LAC. Optimal at nothing.</p>
<p>However each school should be evaluated based on what it actually offers; I'm sure there are significant differences even among schools of simlar size.</p>
<p>Here are the stats I posted for my S's freshman year.</p>
<p>Fall:
Class#1, 11 students, 1 prof (2hrs) 1 TF (1hr)
Class #2, 21 students, 1 prof (3 hrs) 1 CA (1hr)
Class #3, 29 students, 1 prof (3 hrs) 1 TF(1 hr), plus 1 lab assistant (3hrs, every other week).
Class #4, 26 students, 1 prof (2 hrs), 1TF (1hr).</p>
<p>Spring:
Class #1: 15 students 1 prof (3hrs), no TF
Class #2: 19 students, 1 prof (3hrs), 1 CA (1hr)
Class #3, 120 students, 1 prof (2 hrs) 1 TF (1 hr)
Class #4, 26 students, 1 prof (3hrs) 1 TF (1 hr) 1 lab assistant (3hrs every other week).</p>
<p>Except for the class with 120 students, they are comparable with the sizes of the classes S1 had at his LAC. Infact, S1 had several classes that were over 40 and had no TF. At Harvard, there would have been 3 TFs leading sections (capped at 18).</p>
<p>I think there are differences obviously between LACs and research Us
My D is at an LAC, smaller than her sisters high school, although considering that she went to a high school with 18 in the graduating class it seems plenty big for her.
also- even though the largest dept at an LAC is going to be a nth of the size at a research U, she has had few problems getting the classes she needs- sometimes some of the students have had problems because classes they wanted to take had too few students ( less than 8) and had to be postponed,but she has had opportunities to work a great deal with profs and in fact is headed to a conference with her dept head in a couple weeks.
At a few points, along the way to her senior year, I suspect she would have liked to have taken classes that were more limited in focus, but after speaking with those in the field, we have both decided that for her interests, a broader based education is desirable .</p>
<p>My freshman son was in the size quandry last year. He did really like a particular small LAC, but the course offerings were very limited. He also liked some things about our flagship state U, but he felt that it might be too big for him. He is comfortably settled in a medium sized U. Lots of course selections and groups, but not so big as to get lost. Although he had a couple of larger lectures as a freshman, his sophomore classes should all have between 12 and 30 students...pretty decent size in my opinion. He has had excellent and easy contact with his profs this year. To each his own, I guess.</p>
<p>I don't think that students really understand the difference between tenure track and non-tenure track faculty. And if they do, they might not even care either way. </p>
<p>From my experience, students care about the following:
- Prof understanding of the material
- Prof ability to communicate the material (teach)
- Prof ability to engage and interest me in the material
- Prof's passion for the material</p>
<p>Would a tenure-track faculty be better at doing these 4 things? I don't know if that is always true. From my own experience at Penn, passion for teaching was what made the course better, regardless of whether or not someone was tenure track or not. </p>
<p>I doubt most students can tell you whether or not their professors are tenure track or not, as I don't know if they even realize what that means.</p>
<p>whartonalum just made me think of something with the passion and communication issues. Passion would be important for humanities classes based on discussion. Passion would help any kind of class. But from what I can tell, ability to communicate is paramount for math and science classes. I know lots of engineering students who would gladly trade passion and engagement for understanding and communication, no matter who teaches the material!</p>
<p>"Here are the stats I posted for my S's freshman year."</p>
<p>Personally I doubt this is typical across the whole swatch of these schools. Even some Lacs we visited had several freshman classes of over 50+. It's great that you've got a "good one" from your perspective but in any event one should actually look at what a particular school offers and not presume. Whether large, small or mid-size.</p>
<p>I agree totally, especially since we fell for the LACs' image of smaller classes. Personally, I think that, past a certain size, it does not really matter if the class has 70 or 210 students. The size dictates a certain pedagogy--usually lectures-- and the instructor cannot see past the first row or so of students. It matters, however, if a fairly large class has TAs who can help students review the materials, lead discussions, help choose paper topics and provide bibliographic leads, and so on.</p>
<p>There are certain advantages to going to well-endowed schools (either LACs and mid-sized research universities; seldom large state unis): the resources that get thrown at students. For example, at Harvard, classes that are advertised must be held even if only a couple of students register. I used to know someone who taught at a state uni and was in yearly anxiety over whether his class would attract the minimum of 15 students or not. If not, the class would not be held and he would not get paid.
Members of freshman seminar (capped at 12) are currently spending spring break in Tokyo, which is the subject of the seminar. All expenses paid by the uni. I wish my S had known about it!</p>
<p>Another thought spurred by whartonalums comments:</p>
<p>Undergrad teaching emphasis/focus may not be a dominant consideration in tenure decisions at some research-oriented universities, including some of those being discussed.</p>
<p>It obviously wasn't a dominant factor at the university I attended. Some of the best world-class researchers couldn't teach a lick.</p>
<p>I've a prof. friend, who's told me that, at the end of the day, one simply can't do it all; one has to choose whether they prefer a life emphasizing research or emphasizing teaching. It would not surprise me that, at the large research shops including some of those under discussion, tenure is disproportionally granted to those who elect to focus on the former. Which of necessity slights the latter to an extent, relatively speaking, if my friend is to be believed. And I believe him.</p>
<p>I think the publish or perish mentality was far more prevalent a few decades ago. Teaching has become more of a consideration in appointments. Grad students going on the job market now have to demonstrate teaching experience. As well, taking teaching into consideration has been made easier by the prevalence of teaching evaluations. I don't believe I ever heard of evaluating my profs when I was an undergrad. Now, it is common, and student evaluations are even available online in many cases. Of course, once a prof has tenure, much of the pressure to improve teaching disappears (which would argue in favor of non-tenure track faculty, no?)</p>
<p>Perhaps. I certainly have no real insight on how these evaluations are done. The conversaton I had with my friend was approximately two years ago.</p>
<p>I would not dispute that research is more important than teaching still. But teaching does come into consideration to a degree that was not known a few decades ago. Conversely, I know someone who was denied tenure at a top LAC because she had not produced a book by the time she came up for tenure. Another assistant professor at another LAC worried about getting her manuscript published by a university press--the only publishing venue her LAC would recognize as legitimate--at a time when university presses were retrenching and were less receptive to publishing first manuscripts. LACs that compete with research universities for prestige and students do put pressure on their faculty to publish. And some of the most prolific authors teach at LACs: Joseph Ellis at Mt. Holyoke; David Blight (before he got snapped up by Yale, he was at Amherst). The list goes on. It is not an either/or situation here, either.</p>
<p>I too doubt that it's generally an either/ or situation. </p>
<p>I can easily envision that there are different degrees of emphasis, however. Different weightings, if you will. And if so, I can readily envision how this might tend to afffect the quality of the undergraduate classroom experience, as a whole, at institutions with different emphases on faculty evaluation. Hypothetically.</p>
<p>Responding to the remark by Marite above about the math/science orientation, I agree. </p>
<p>Most of my professional peers in IT are either engineers or computer scientists, and it is rare to find a well-rounded intellect in that bunch. I don't mean to over-generalize unjustly, but over 25 years in the field have provided me with hundreds of examples of this narrowness of mind. There is an oft-repeated view that the humanities are "not practical" which I interpret as embracing a rather pedestrian view of life as a human being. If all that was meaningful could be stipulated as either developing a technological innovation or building a bridge, they would be correct. But those more broadly educated may secretly be thinking "Oh, so you're another one who's consented to use only half of your brain."</p>
<p>
[quote]
it is rare to find a well-rounded intellect in that bunch.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Heck, you can say this about ANY group, depending on how you define "well-rounded".</p>
<p>I would argue that "well rounded" requires a basic understanding of science and how stuff works. Care to show me a group of "english majors" that pass that test?</p>
<p>Show me some I-bankers, rich though they may be, that can discuss anything other than finance?</p>
<p>Methinks a lot of career fields have cornered "narrowness of mind", just in differing ways.</p>