<p>It sounds to me that the best combination ia a top LAC and if desireable then go to the best graduate you are qualififed for(accepted at) at a large research university.</p>
<p>So mini's experience was different from my experience. That doesn't go very far in demonstrating to me why TA's are categorically bad.</p>
<p>What I don't understand is the one-size-fits-all attitude on this thread...the assumption that one style of education is best for undergraduates by some objective standard. I was bored to death at an LAC. I learned a great deal more at a big research university. But I'm not claiming that the LAC system is inferior; it just wasn't right for me. Am I such a bizarre aberration that we can conclude that there's no similar population of kids out there who are better off at a big university?</p>
<br>
<p>At Harvard, a lot of them do -- I was in a number of majority-freshman sections where the 18-year-olds left me eating their dust. It did me a world of good. That just didn't happen with the freshmen at Bryn Mawr. And it's legitimate to take that into account when you're judging which school is offering the best academic experience.</p>
<br> [QUOTE=""]
<p>4 years later I bet that most of them can hold their own in an intellectual discussion. Isn't that what education is all about: growth?</p>
<br>
<p>That's what their education was about, not mine. To be blunt, I'm not paying $40,000 a year for their growth. <em>I</em> want to grow, and I wasn't going to grow by sitting frustrated for two years while they slowly crawled out of their shells and figured out that no boogeyman would eat them if they spoke up in class. If I was going to grow, I needed people to duke it out with me, and they either couldn't or wouldn't.</p>
<br>
<p>Certainly in the business world, being able to communicate effectively around a conference table or in a written report is key.</p>
<br>
<p>Yes, but you can do plenty of that at a big research university if you want to. And if you pick the right one, you may be able to do it from day one instead of waiting for a senior seminar when your classmates are at long last able to "hold their own," which was my only alternative if I'd stayed at my allegedly superior LAC.</p>
<p>"So mini's experience was different from my experience. That doesn't go very far in demonstrating to me why TA's are categorically bad."</p>
<p>On average, how can a TA be as good as a professor specificially hired for teaching ability (which is the norm at LACs)? Maybe a TA is good enough, if good enough is all that's required.</p>
<br>
<p>which is the norm at LACs</p>
<br>
<p>This is open to debate, but even assuming that it is true:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The TA's at HYPS supplement professors, they do not replace them. So they don't need to do everything a professor does (like be an entertaining lecturer, for example).</p></li>
<li><p>Yes, I think that for the most part, in a good seminar class you learn from one another far more than you learn from the leader, so assuming that the leaders are all at least pretty good, I'd pick the school where I have the best classmates (whatever "best" means to me as an individual).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In Massachusetts, there's an old story that contrasts the traditional commencement rituals of Harvard and Williams (the oldest and second-oldest schools in the state). It's supposed to symbolize faculty attitudes towards undergraduate instruction.</p>
<p>At Harvard, some of the faculty show up for commencement. They line up and march down a pathway. The graduating seniors surround the path, and politely applaud the faculty as they pass by. </p>
<p>At Williams, the entire faculty shows up for commencement. The graduating seniors line up and march down a pathway. The faculty members surround the path, and enthusiastically applaud the new graduates as they pass by.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure the Williams part is true. Not sure about the accuracy of the Harvard part, but it sounds plausible.</p>
<p>"The TA's at HYPS supplement professors"</p>
<p>At LACs, professors supplement professors for this purpose.</p>
<p>"so assuming that the leaders are all at least pretty good"</p>
<p>That's the "good enough" part.</p>
<p>"I'd pick the school where I have the best classmates"</p>
<p>I'd pick the school that maximizes my chances of future happiness and success.</p>
<p>What about current happiness?</p>
<p>
[quote]
At Harvard, a lot of them do -- I was in a number of majority-freshman sections where the 18-year-olds left me eating their dust. It did me a world of good. That just didn't happen with the freshmen at Bryn Mawr. And it's legitimate to take that into account when you're judging which school is offering the best academic experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that, if you check, the admissions selectivity at Harvard is quite a bit different than at Bryn Mawr. Just using median SATs as a rough guide, the apples to apples comparision would be Bryn Mawr to Lehigh, NYU, UNC-CH, or Wake Forest -- not Havard.</p>
<p>Also, you were not at Harvard for your freshman year so it would be difficult to compare your freshman year experience at Bryn Mawr to a freshman year at a larger research university. Harvard presents its own set of obstacles and disappointments for first year students. Specifically, there are frequent complaints about a lack of undergraduate community that can make it difficult for first year students to get their feet on the ground and feel like they are a part of something.</p>
<p>BTW, I have nowhere in this thread said that small undergrad colleges are "better" than larger "research" universities. My recommendation has always been to start the college search with a visit to a small college, a mid-size private university, and a large state university to get a first hand sense of scale. There are pluses and minuses to all three types.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To be blunt, I'm not paying $40,000 a year for their growth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's the way I feel about graduate student Teaching Assistants. I should get a discount if I'm not going to get a real professor.</p>
<p>"So mini's experience was different from my experience. That doesn't go very far in demonstrating to me why TA's are categorically bad."</p>
<p>The difference is that my experience was as a TEACHER and TA, not as a student. If I tell you that my teaching got better with more experience, I shouldn't be tellling you anything particularly surprising. If the argument is that this is generally speaking not the case, then one should prefer an environment where there are more rather than fewer TAs (and where they are paid better, relative to faculty). </p>
<p>The big difference is in ability to mentor. TAs for the most part are seeking mentors themselves, and are not in good position to do it themselves. The truth is that, at the age of 23, I could lecture as well (or better) than lots of the profs (including, if not especially, the famous ones), but I could not mentor or guide small group discussions nearly as capably (or offer useful feedback on papers), precisely what I was being paid to do.</p>
<p>My experience at Chicago was that the best place to be as an undergrad was in a very small department (like Egyptology, or even South Asian studies) where there were profs of the kind unavailable at an LAC, and the department - profs, grad students, and undergrads - were much more likely to be convivial.</p>
<p>Again, I was a better teacher (a MUCH better teacher) at the Community College of Philadelphia than I was at the University of Chicago, and I'd be very surprised if the vast majority of TAs at H. or anywhere else wouldn't say the same.</p>
<p>
[quote]
or offer useful feedback on papers
[/quote]
</p>
<p>An oft-overlooked component of the "TAs just help teach" argument is the issue of grading papers.</p>
<p>I know my daughter has has multiple opportunities to sit down with a professor, one on one, and review a draft of a paper (or summer grant proposal in one case). It's labor-intensive, but that kind of specific review and guidance from professors is worth its weight in gold. I can't think of any other approach that would better help a college student to become a more effective writer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The TA's at HYPS supplement professors, they do not replace them. So they don't need to do everything a professor does (like be an entertaining lecturer, for example).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, there are plenty of profs at research universities, including HYPS who are the complete opposite of 'entertaining' as lecturers. The complete opposite would probably be true. Some of them would be great antidotes to insomnia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It could be because Bryn Mawr only has 1273 undergrads. Actually, Bryn Mawr technically falls under the University category in the Carnegie Classification system that USNEWS uses. But, they are given a special exemption.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, so what? Caltech has less than 900 undergrads, yet USNews still classifies it as a 'research university'.</p>
<p>My point is, there is no well-defined line between a LAC and a research university. Some universities are very LAC-ish.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Having small seminar classes FORCES students to be more prepared."</p>
<p>No, it doesn't. It is rare that class participation is a 50% or more of a student's grade, and in those instances, you'll still get kids who either don't care about their grade or tried and failed to prepare adequately. Even if seminars forced students to do their college homework well -- which they do not -- that does not make up for inadequate pre-college preparation, which is the kind of preparation I was referring to in post #48. Not every freshman has something interesting to say about Jane Eyre, or is willing to share it, and this can be true even at colleges with excellent reputations. I could describe my freshman seminar in greater detail, but suffice it to say that even in a class of 15 where participation counted, the professor spent most of the class time pulling teeth trying to get the other kids to speak. It was torture.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, there are no complete 100% correlations on anything. I know a guy who smoked 3 packs a day and still lived to be over 90 - in fact, outliving plenty of people who took care of themselves. But that doesn't prove that smoking is healthy for you.</p>
<p>My point is that having smaller classes IN GENERAL forces you to prepare yourself more properly. Does it ALWAYS do that? Of course not, just like smoking won't ALWAYS hurt you. But the correlation is clear.</p>
<p>It is far far easier to hide and do nothing in a class full of hundreds of students than in a tiny class. And plenty of people in those large classes are doing just that - hiding. Or let me put it to you this way. IF you think you found unprepared students in your small seminars, let me show you some huge lecture classes where there are REALLY a bunch of unprepared students, including plenty who never even bother to go to class.</p>
<p>"the admissions selectivity at Harvard is quite a bit different than at Bryn Mawr."</p>
<p>Of course. But those on this thread who've made sweeping statements about how LACs are preferable have not added "unless, of course, you get into one of the ultraselective research universities."</p>
<p>"Also, you were not at Harvard for your freshman year so it would be difficult to compare your freshman year experience at Bryn Mawr to a freshman year at a larger research university."</p>
<p>I disagree. The freshman academic exeriences I missed out on were Expository Writing (a 12-person seminar) and Freshman Seminar (12-person seminars, with those magical beings, professors). I took plenty of big classes that were mostly freshmen. If anything, my look at the Harvard freshman experience was biased toward big lectures with TA's, as it excluded the two semesters of intense seminars virtually all of them take.</p>
<p>"I have nowhere in this thread said that small undergrad colleges are "better" than larger "research" universities."</p>
<p>I wasn't responding only to you, but to the general tenor of the thread (and CC in general). Other posters have made those generalizations. See, e.g., posts 53 and 61.</p>
<p>"It is far far easier to hide and do nothing in a class full of hundreds of students than in a tiny class."</p>
<p>The question is, why does this matter? It matters if you're a less motivated student who needs a kick in the pants in order to work hard. If you're the kind of kid who would work hard whether someone forced you or didn't force you, then this factor really isn't an issue. Whether this matters is based on personality, which has been my point from day one. As others on the thread have noted, LACs are often a great choice for shyer or less self-motivated kids. I don't think research universities are categorically better, but I don't think they have a lot of down sides for loudmouthed students like me. Different strokes for different folks.</p>
<p>"let me show you some huge lecture classes where there are REALLY a bunch of unprepared students, including plenty who never even bother to go to class."</p>
<p>If it's a lecture class that doesn't meet in section (which doesn't really happen at HYP, but we'll put that aside), then who cares? Kids who don't show up for lecture are no skin off my nose. I need them for discussion in small groups; I don't need them to help me take notes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If it's a lecture class that doesn't meet in section (which doesn't really happen at HYP, but we'll put that aside), then who cares? Kids who don't show up for lecture are no skin off my nose. I need them for discussion in small groups; I don't need them to help me take notes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>YOU don't need them around. But, you said it yourself, THOSE STUDENTS need that kick in the pants, and they're not getting that at those large research universities. You really can slack off at those schools, and have nobody notice. </p>
<p>Look, the truth is, a lot of kids out there, even the smart ones, are simply lazy and immature. If they can get away with lounging around and doing nothing, then that's exactly what they will do. So think about the situation as a parent. If you as a parent suspect that your kid is probably going to be lazy if left by himself, then you should probably prefer that your kid go to a LAC. Heck, even my brother, who graduated with honors from Caltech, has admitted that he is inherently pretty lazy, and if allowed to do nothing, he will do nothing, and so it was good that he went to a school like Caltech that wouldn't allow him to slack off. </p>
<p>Hence, I agree with you that you have different strokes for different folks. Like I said, small classes generally force you to do more prep work and keep up with the reading more so than large classes do. Whether that's important to you depends on your psychological makeup.</p>
<p>How about a bit of objective outcome data. This is just <em>one</em> measure; does anyone have others, like medical school, MBA, etc? This is the future PhD percentage data. For these 16 disciplines (if you have data for other disciplines, please share):</p>
<p>Anthropology
Area and Ethnic Studies
Biological Sciences
Chemistry
English Literature
Foreign Languages
History
Humanities
Linguistics
Math & Computer Sciences
Medical Sciences
Physical Sciences
Physics
Political Science
Sciences & Engineering
Social Sciences</p>
<p>These schools are in the top ten of all schools (LACs and RUs) for future PhD production percentage in the above disciplines the given number of times:</p>
<p>16 Reed
10 U Chicago
8 Carleton
8 Swarthmore
7 Grinnell
7 St John's
6 CalTech
6 Harvey Mudd
5 Amherst
5 Bryn Mawr
5 MIT
5 Oberlin
5 Pomona
5 Princeton
5 Yale
4 Haverford
4 Rice
3 Kalamazoo
3 Wellesley
2 Bennington
2 Goddard
2 Hampshire
2 Marlboro
2 NM Institute of Mining
2 U Sciences Philadelphia
2 Wabash
2 Williams
1 Albany College of Pharmacy
1 Beloit
1 Bowdoin
1 Carnegie Mellon
1 College of the Atlantic
1 College of Wooster
1 Earlham
1 Goucher
1 Grace
1 Great Lakes Christian
1 Harris-Stowe State
1 Lawrence
1 Mount Holyoke
1 Ohio Northern
1 San Francisco Conservatory of Music
1 Sarah Lawrence
1 Shimer
1 Simon's Rock
1 Stanford
1 Texas Lutheran
1 Tougaloo
1 UC San Francisco
1 US Coast Guard Acaddemy
1 U Hawaii Hilo
1 U Texas Health Science Center
1 U of the South
1 Wilson</p>
<p>160 (16 * 10) sum of above</p>
<p>Source: Weighted Baccalaureate Origins Study, Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium.</p>
<p>Vossron:</p>
<p>I have the raw and per capita PhD data for the most recent ten year period. Any field or any combination of fields available from the NSF database. Same methodology: ten years of PhDs completions divided by ten years of baccalaureate degrees (offset five years earlier).</p>
<p>Did you get your list of 16 fields from the Reed website? They've hand selected their list a little bit. Hey, if I were publishing a website, I'd pick my top 16, too! But, it's a little misleading. CalTech and Harvey Mudd are the two highest per capita producers of future PhDs in the country (CalTech by a country mile), followed by Swarthmore, Reed, and MIT. Reed's list kind of masks that.</p>
<p>Nobody collects the data for MDs or Law degrees, at least publicly. The percentages for MD acceptances published by colleges are so non-standard as to be essentially useless for comparison. MBAs are virtually impossible to track because so many of them are later career degrees.</p>
<p>BTW, one thing I would point out. Inherent in Hanna's analysis is a total dismissal of collaborative learning. Her apparent viewpoint is very much "what's in it for me". Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would suggest that students who totally dismiss collaborative learning and view college as an individual endeavor would probably be more tempermentally suited to a large research university. Rejecting the collaborative side of learning would certainly cause a student to miss out on much of what a place like Swarthmore offers.</p>
<p>dad, yes, I got the data from Reed's website. Can you present the full, non-cherry-picked data in a more meaningful way? Is there any other available outcome data to help people decide if they want an LAC or a research university?</p>
<p>It was more my presentation than Reed's list which masked the fact that CalTech and Harvey Mudd have indeed been overall #1 and #2 for about 30 years. Reed and Swarthmore have been swapping the #3 and #4 spots over this period. Reed is #1 only for biological sciences, and ranges from #2 to #9 in the other 15 disciplines. I see how my presentation elevated Reed in a misleading way. I'll run the spreadsheet again, this time properly considering the actual ranking within the top 10, and not just the fact of being in the top 10 (but it still won't properly account for the raw data). Thanks for pointing out this shortcoming.</p>