<p>I sent it again.</p>
<p>thank you I'll check my email and hopefully I'll receive it. Thanks again.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ivy Leagues have some of the best professors in not only the country but the world, the teachers that are the top in their field and I'm not the only one that says that, it's a known fact. Their research and work in their field contributes to the textbooks that other colleges use, so you cant say that they're not some of the best teachers around. So I'm not just assuming it, because if they are teaching the top scholars around they will be the top teachers or pretty close. And yeah sometimes being insanely smart doesnt mean they'll know how to teach well, but the Ivy's have a repuation and they're not going to have mediocre teachers preparing their students. Ivy's are Ivy's for a reason.
[/quote]
It's not like top nonivies like Georgetown and Johns Hopkins have inferior level of education than ivies because they are not "ivies"... Those schools often have better courses and higher quality education than ivies. Heck, stanford is a much better school than cornell.</p>
<p>Even going lower than that bob--you're not getting some third rate education either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ivy Leagues have some of the best professors in not only the country but the world, the teachers that are the top in their field and I'm not the only one that says that, it's a known fact.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd like to think I'm an educated guy, and I have never heard of this "fact". </p>
<p>
[quote]
And yeah sometimes being insanely smart doesnt mean they'll know how to teach well, but the Ivy's have a repuation and they're not going to have mediocre teachers preparing their students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't mean to burst your bubble, actually, yeah, the some of the Ivy profs are in fact quite mediocre teachers. Heck, some of the teachers are not just mediocre, they're * downright terrible* as teachers. And it's not just the Ivies. MIT has plenty of mediocre teachers. Caltech has plenty of mediocre teachers. Stanford has plenty of mediocre teachers. </p>
<p>The truth of the matter is, getting a tenure-track job at any of the top research universities (including the Ivies) and then actually winning tenure at the school is heavily based on research, not teaching. For the purposes of academic career advancement, it's better to be a brilliant researcher but poor teacher than vice versa. Like it or not, that's how the academic game is played. Even as a PhD student, you're going to be spending years of your time learning how to do good research, but relatively little time improving your teaching skills. Heck, some PhD students * never * serve as TA's and consequently * never* learn how to teach. But if you publish some highly respected papers, you will get hired at a top school no matter how poorly you teach. </p>
<p>Furthermore, a lot of profs just don't WANT to spend time on teaching. Again, they realize that the professional respect they desire is derived from good research. Hence, they have every temptation to put in minimal effort in their teaching, so that they can have more time doing research. </p>
<p>I'll give you some choice quotes from Sowell:</p>
<p>*
"During my years as a tenured faculty member at UCLA, I never saw a junior faculty member whose contract was not renewed because he was not a good teacher. But I saw many who were terminated because their research was not of the quantity or quality that was expected -- regardless of how good they were at teaching. It was strictly publish or perish. </p>
<p>UCLA was not at all unique in this. It is common at both state and private universities for the "teacher of the year" award to be regarded by some as the kiss of death. That is because so many people who have received this award have also been terminated. </p>
<p>Good teaching takes up time -- in preparation for class and in student conferences -- which reduces the time available for research. A professor at the University of Michigan put it bluntly: "Every minute I spend in an undergraduate classroom is costing me money and prestige." *</p>
<p>The bottom line is this. Teaching and research are 2 entirely different skills. This is especially so if you're talking about teaching undergrads. Let's face it. Most undergrads have no intention of ever going becoming future experts in the topic. Most undergrads just want to get a baseline level of survey knowledge of the topic. Hence, all they want is somebody who can communicate the concepts clearly and at the appropriate knowledge level. Just like you don't try to teach calculus to people who don't even know basic arithmetic, similarly you don't talk in specialist jargon that is appropriate only for the most esoteric of journals to a bunch of undergrads. A good teacher will teach to the level that is appropriate to the audience at hand. </p>
<p>Sadly, many profs at the Ivies and other top schools either can't or don't want to do that. You can go to websites like ratemyprofs.com and notice that many such profs have terrible teaching ratings. We all agree that they are prominent researchers. That's not disputed. But being taught by a great researcher doesn't exactly do much for you if you're just an undergrad trying to get a basic grasp on the material. If he can't communicate concepts to the class clearly, then he's basically worthless to you.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example. I took math classes as an undergrad at a top university. And I would often wish that those classes were instead taught by my old high school math teacher than by these famous profs. Sure, my HS teacher wasn't a famous researcher like these profs were. But at least he knew how to communicate the topic in a way that was highly understandable and interesting in a way that these profs could not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Their research and work in their field contributes to the textbooks that other colleges use, so you cant say that they're not some of the best teachers around.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I fail to see the connection. As said above, just because you come up with some brilliant new research concepts that appears in books doesn't mean that you know how to teach well. Like I said, these are 2 entirely different skills. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Ivy's are Ivy's for a reason.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, Ivy's are indeed Ivy's for a reason. But the reason has nothing to do with teaching. If you want high quality teaching, go to a LAC. </p>
<p>Or, as stated by Joshua Billings of Harvard:</p>
<p>"Joshua Billings, 22, says he did not come to Harvard for the teaching. ''You'd be stupid if you came to Harvard for the teaching,'' "</p>
<p>Look, Ivies are Ivies for the prestige, the excellent contact network you can make, the selectivity, and the abundant resources available. But not so much for the teaching.</p>
<p>Look, Maria. Don't get me wrong. Given your academic record, I think you will get into some excellent schools, including probably at least one of the Ivies. But if you do get in and decide to go, just don't go expecting to find a whole lot of great teaching, as you will probably be disappointed with what you find. Please understand what the research university game is all about. Profs are selected and promoted primarily on their research ability, not their teaching ability. The result is, these schools inevitably end up with some profs who are quite terrible teachers (but strong researchers).</p>
<p>My D is at Havard and was accepted to 6 Ivies. My advice --
1) take an SAT practice test every week or so. Track your progress. Practice tests are available online.
2) work on vocabular. D carried here vocab flash cards everywhere for 3 years
3)continue your ECs with emphasis on leadership positions
4)consider adding Smith, Wellesley, and Mt Holyoke to your list of schools. Also Rice, Amherst, Williams.</p>
<p>ie base your high school life around getting into Harvard...if I had to take a practice SAT every week I would be very sad with the state of my life.</p>
<p>IMO, Harvard has a ton of incredibly smart people. It also has tons of people who work really hard but aren't smarter than tons of people at other top schools. Many kids at non-HYPSM top 15 schools are just as smart/talented as many HYPSM kids but just didn't work as hard in high school or care as much. In the long run, they'll all be even.</p>
<p>However, HYPSM does have some super-smart geniuses that you will find in much smaller numbers at most schools.</p>
<p>Sakky that was a great post, but I want to offer another perspective. The type of student who gets into an Ivy rarely needs a good teacher. For a brilliant, highly motivated person, access to mentors and inspirational role models is more valuable (those who do, versus those who teach, although having both is always most welcome). Getting to listen to other achievers is like oxygen to the most ambitious and talented students. It is what was missing from their high school preparation, even when sitting in the classrooms of excellent teachers.</p>
<p>There is also little material in any subject area which would be too esoteric for the typical student admitted to an Ivy League school.</p>
<p>My advice to Maria would be to go to HYPS if she has the opportunity. The moment when she affixes that sticker to her parents car will be a perfect snapshot of the American dream realized.</p>
<p>I like that spideygirl. Though, there are of course still courses which would benefit having a good teacher; nothing is more boring than an esoteric subject and a boring lecturer. I like being inspired by genius, but when the genius speaking in front of me doesn't sound like he or she is inspired, I'm hardly interested. </p>
<p>And with intro courses, I'd rather have a solid teacher than than someone famous. Fortunately, I'm done with intro courses:)</p>
<p>If part of the reason you wish to apply/attend a school is to put a sticker on your/your parents' car, you're applying to the wrong place.</p>
<p>PSAT is in no way a decent indicator of what you'll get on the SAT, especially if you don't study, you guys are being idiots... Maria you should just take down your PSAT scores, they're not relevant at all and it's just giving these people a reason to be *******s who want to blame your URM status even more for their rejection (or future rejection) from the Ivies</p>
<p>Has anyone ever considered that prestige can actually be a factor that can decide whether you would fit in at the school or not, or whether you would like one or not? </p>
<p>"Everyone is so down on the ivies either because they have no shot, missed their shot already, and/or are insanely jealous of people attending such schools. People apply to Ivies because they want to go to one of the best schools in the country. Fit isn't an exact science, because if you're truly interested in something you can pursue that passion anywhere in the country. Good Luck and whatever happens just work hard, work smart."</p>
<p>Amen to that.</p>
<p>The PSAT is defined as the Preliminary SAT. It is meant to act as a practice test giving freshmen and sophomores the opportunity to grasp how the SAT works. If you don't study for the PSAT, of course you probably won't get a good score. That doesn't mean that it's not a good indicator; if you don't study for the SAT, you'll probably score within the same range. They're perfectly relevant because they indicate how far the OP has already gone in preparing for the SAT and how much farther she will need to go in order to make her goals more easily attainable. We are not acting jealous or pinning her future to her minority status-it is obvious that she is an exceedingly bright young woman with a future ahead of her.</p>
<p>Prestige is definitely a factor. However, prestige does not necessarily make a school interesting or livable. She will spend around 4 years at the college she chooses. Prestige alone cannot make that experience enjoyable. There must be more than just the name.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky that was a great post, but I want to offer another perspective. The type of student who gets into an Ivy rarely needs a good teacher.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I agree that they don't strictly "need" a good teacher, it is always very nice to have one. </p>
<p>
[quote]
For a brilliant, highly motivated person, access to mentors and inspirational role models is more valuable (those who do, versus those who teach, although having both is always most welcome). Getting to listen to other achievers is like oxygen to the most ambitious and talented students. It is what was missing from their high school preparation, even when sitting in the classrooms of excellent teachers.</p>
<p>There is also little material in any subject area which would be too esoteric for the typical student admitted to an Ivy League school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm afraid I can't agree with that, especially that last sentence you wrote. I think I can illustrate what I mean by using an extreme example: engineering at MIT. Yes, I am well aware that MIT is not an Ivy, but I think we can all agree that MIT is certainly on the caliber of any Ivy school and the vast majority of students at MIT probably turned down one or more Ivies to attend MIT. </p>
<p>Believe me when I say that engineering/CS at any school, but especially at a school like MIT is esoteric to the extreme. There will be entire lectures where some students will literally have no idea what the prof is talking about. You can open an engineering/CS textbook and, within a few pages, have no idea what is going on. Heck, I distinctly remember once trying to read one and, by the second equation, I already had no idea what it was talking about. No idea whatsoever. </p>
<p>Hence, if there is any particular subject that really cries out for good teaching, it's engineering/CS. But sadly, a lot of engineering/CS profs even (or perhaps especially) at a school like MIT are bad teachers. Sure they're all highly accomplished researchers. You have to be to even get a tenure-track engineering faculty job at a school like MIT. But that fact doesn't do a whole lot to help the poor engineering/CS students who are just struggling to understand the material. </p>
<p>Nor do I mean to single out engineering/CS. I would argue that physics and math are, in some ways, even * harder * than engineering/CS is. Math in particular is arguably the epitome of esotericism. To major in math is to basically wade chest-high into a world of proofs, as that's what comprises the bulk of upper-division math courses. Hence, math is another one of those disciplines that cries out for good teaching, as you can be a brilliant student but just not be able to understand a particular proof and hence need somebody to explain it to you clearly. But again, there are a LOT of math and physics profs who are poor teachers. </p>
<p>It's not just MIT. Caltech is the same way. Caltech actually has the strongest (from a numbers standpoint) student body in the country - stronger than Harvard's. Yet even there, plenty of students struggle the learn the material, and plenty of profs are mediocre teachers who can't or don't want to communicate the material in a way that actually helps the students. You can read all about it in the Caltech section of CC - even a Caltech fan like Ben Golub freely admits that there are indeed some profs who don't teach well, and there are some Caltech students who do poorly. </p>
<p>And it's also not just the tech institutes. All of the Ivies teach engineering. They all offer physics, math, and CS. And all of them are completely obscure. For example, just walk into an upper division physics or math lecture at Harvard, and see how much you can understand. Heck, even the average Harvard (non-physics/math) student will almost certainly agree that he wouldn't be able to understand what is going on in those lectures. </p>
<p>Nor is it particularly inspiring to be listening to these profs. When you just don't understand what is going on in your classes, that experience is not inspiring. If anything, it's discouraging. The fact that your prof is a highly respected bigwig doesn't help you when you can't understand him, and he either can't or doesn't want to communicate the material that makes him understandable. If anything, it intimidates you. Particularly when that prof has the attitude that you "should" understand what he's talking about and if you don't, you're just not properly prepared. Heck, I distinctly remember one prof who embodied that attitude, when the truth was, even the course GSI's didn't completely understand what many of his lectures were talking about. </p>
<p>Speaking of inspiration, it is also true that many profs, including (or perhaps especially) the more famous ones, often times visibly demonstrate the attitude that they just don't want to be teaching the class. I said it before - the profs at research universities, including the Ivies are hired for their research acumen. A lot of them just don't care about teaching and never have. To many profs, teaching, and especially teaching undergrads, is just an annoying waste of time that takes them away from what they really want to be doing, which is more research. Like I said, being a poor teacher doesn't hurt your tenure chances that much. If you already have tenure, then you can be as terrible of a teacher as you want and nobody can do anything to you. Hence, some profs deliberately choose to spend as little time as possible in teaching - i.e. they don't bother to prepare lecture notes, they don't bother to practice their public speaking, they don't bother to do anything. It's quite clear that they just don't want to be there and are there only because they're being forced to (i.e. they drew the short straw in the faculty meeting). </p>
<p>I remember one prof whose lectures consisted of just reading the course textbook out loud, word-for-word, in every lecture. That's it. That's all he did. You could tell that he didn't want to be teaching the class. That clear lack of teaching enthusiasm from a prof is not inspiring in the least. If anything, it's highly demoralizing.</p>
<p>wow sakky.</p>
<p>Another excellent post, Sakky. I hope some engineering and math profs and administrators from top schools read CC! That post should be printed, copied, and distributed.</p>
<p>What you wrote is certainly compelling and seems valid, but for most subjects (thankfully) it just isn't true. Liberal arts subjects can be largely self-taught if necessary. Apparently that is not true for all subjects. </p>
<p>Is it possible that schools like MIT and CalTech have flawed admissions strategies? I mean, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison would have been rejected by those schools, yet these gentlemen would probably be the guys racing through the awful textbooks and connecting with the impossible professors (at least on a creative and intellectual level). I am just thinking out loud here, but is it possible that at MIT or CalTech it is no longer enough to pay attention in class and study? Perhaps at some point in engineering or math, intuition and creativity (or whatever makes up extreme raw talent) become necessary?</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong - I could never go to one of those schools! I am 100% liberal arts. Also, Maria is interested in business, so I think HYPS would be safe for her.</p>
<p>So Sakky, which Ivies have you attended?</p>
<p>Who cares if Sakky attended or not...They're not some ultimate educational oasis. You're not going to be living on the streets if you dont attend an Ivy.</p>
<p>And nobody said you would. The only reason this stupid debate about Ivies is going is because someone deided that someone deciding to attend an Ivy is the end of the world. The bottom line is that if you're looking for prestige to open the doors for you regardless of your desired major, Ivy League is the place for you. Everyone is so hellbent on someone wanting to attend an Ivy is because they're either jealous, rejected from an Ivy, or attend a school that is ranked lower than the Ivies. If someone wants to aim higher ranked than the school you attend, don't bash them for it.</p>
<p>Sure there may be some cases where you might want to attend a more specialized school like MIT or CalTech, but those are some pretty specific examples... </p>
<p>And the fact of the matter is various Ivys are ranked at the top worldwide, and a lot of people will know the name of the college you attended as opposed to attending a small LAC. And that sure as hell opens more doors for you than some state school, not that state schools are bad or anything.</p>
<p>As I've said, I'm not in the slightest jealous. I didnt apply, I didnt get rejected and I wouldn't attend. Rankings are a bunch of crap. Do I care that my school is ranked lower? Not really. Ivies dont open magical doors for everyone like people here seem to believe. No one discounts other factors simply because of the name on your degree. The reality is that Ivies are indeed great schools, but you have to bring something to the table as well. The name doesnt speak for itself. Simply applying to the Ivies because you think you're automatically one-upping everyone is moronic. Find a reason to apply to certain SCHOOLS--not athletic conferences. I highly doubt you find yourself fitting into each of the Ivies. They're vastly different.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ivies dont open magical doors for everyone like people here seem to believe. No one discounts other factors simply because of the name on your degree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh...you'd be surprised.</p>
<p>It's like name branding. Think of it this way. People will tend to buy that brand name Coca Cola product DESPITE the fact that some no name brand might actually taste better. Why? People don't care if it tastes worse than the no name bottle; they only care that it's Coca Cola.</p>
<p>It's like people on CC and in society levitating to the Ivy League brand name, DESPITE the fact that they might not have any tangible reason to do so. Let's face it, how many people actually have a GOOD reason to apply to an Ivy?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Find a reason to apply to certain SCHOOLS--not athletic conferences. I highly doubt you find yourself fitting into each of the Ivies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Nobel Prize Economics does not dictate that people tend to do that. That's why I find messages on CC from posters such as AdOfficer a little misleading. It's rarely about "fit." Most people just don't care about "fit."</p>