<p>There is all this debate about LACs vs. Universities. I am intrigued by the reasoning that the most LACs have to offer is close interaction w/ faculty, but that this can also be attained at a university if you are assertive enough. I am curious especially at how this compares for Anthropology, Biology, and PoliSci at UChicago and Swarthmore. Swarthmore has very good resources for an LAC, but Chicago definitely has more. Chicago also claims to have good faculty-student interaction. Possibly, Swarthmore requires a little more writing in classes and therefore gives more direct feedback. What do you guys think? Where is the better education?</p>
<p>Also, I am intrigued by this idea of whether or not students at Swarthmore would be smarter because it is more selective?</p>
<p>The goal of every college professor is to earn tenure (life time employment). Thus, if you really want to understand the priorities expected by the college or university, you need to look at the criteria used for tenure decisions. </p>
<p>Because liberal arts colleges only have one division (undergrad education), their tenure requirements place heavy emphasis on undergrad teaching.</p>
<p>At most research universities, the criteria will more heavily emphasize research revenues (i.e. grants) and teaching graduate students. Undergrad teaching will be just one component in the tenure criteria.</p>
<p>If you have any college professors in your family or circle of friends, have a discussion about tenure and priorites.</p>
<p>Well, in Timothy Burke's blog he writes about the tenure debate. It seems to me that many professors would only try to earn tenure at a small college if they were sure research was not their main thing. While I think teaching is great, I do wonder whether people who plan to spend their entire career teaching undergraduates would be less likely to hold undergraduates to the standards of the "real world," than people who enjoy both teaching and researching with colleagues.</p>
<p>And no, no profs at all in my circle of family or friends. Which is why I'm sort of confused. Are you a Phd?</p>
<p>ninapendamaishi--the top LACs have professors who participate in cutting edge research. The difference between LACs and Universities isn't that unis are all research or that LACs are all teaching. The difference lies in where the emphasis is placed. LAC professors tend to be teachers first and researchers second. University professors tend to be researchers first and teachers second. </p>
<p>Because of this, university professors overall tend to be a little better published (because they're expending more effort on publishing and less on teaching). This is a difference that will be most pronounced at the less selective unis and LACs--the most selective LACs are able to attract field-leading researchers that are accomplished publishers and professors.</p>
<p>I just don't know... when I visited UChicago, the profs I talked to went strong for telling me I'd have better resources and things at UChicago than at Swat, for instance. And looking at ratemyprofessors.com, it's hard to tell how Swat profs compare to UChicago profs. Sometimes it sounds like UChicago profs do a better job with class discussion than many Swat profs, so I'm not sure how to compare.</p>
<p>Also, I've noticed that a lot of the more popular Swat profs are less published ones: I.e. Burke, the intro economics dude. I wonder what that means?</p>
<p>You mentioned it yourself: At UChicago, the close interaction can be created "if you are assertive enough". Only you can decide if you are assertive enough. Do you want an environment that fosters that interaction, or one in which you have to create it yourself?</p>
<p>Also, in the classroom itself, do you want discussions or lectures? Can you learn in a class with 300 or 400 other kids? Do you mind if your smaller sections are taught by a graduate student and not the professor (at least for the first couple of years)? </p>
<p>These are very different environments, and very different "feels" to the schools. So you need to decide what works best for you.</p>
<p>(And the fact that the more popular Swat professors may be less published ones goes right to the heart of haon was saying: The emphasis for professors at UChicago is to publish; at Swat, it's to teach.)</p>
<p>I think that what muddies the waters tremendously is that certain schools that are classified as "research universities" are very LAC-ish. For example, let's face it, Dartmouth and Brown are basically LAC's that just happen to have some graduate programs. But in terms of culture and the emphasis on undergraduate teaching, they are basically LAC's. The same thing could be said of Princeton. Yes, Princeton produces a lot of research, but Princeton also prides itself on the strength of its undergraduate curriculum, and that's very LAC-ish. One could even say that Caltech is something of a LAC, especially when it comes to the size of the student body, small student-prof ratios, and close interaction with the faculty. Heck, the undergraduate student body at Caltech is smaller than that of many other LAC's.</p>
<p>Another thing to note is that LAC profs generally tend to be better teachers than university profs, because they want to teach and so they put more effort into doing a better of job of being clear and easy to understand. Caltech is especially notorious because its profs are known to be very abstract and impersonal, even though the student-faculty ratio isn't that high.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And no, no profs at all in my circle of family or friends. Which is why I'm sort of confused. Are you a Phd?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. But my brother is a PhD college professor who has taught (tenure track) in two of the largest university systems. Back when my D first began thinking about colleges, he had some long discussions about the reality of the teaching profession and the tenure priorities. </p>
<p>His opinion is that the institutional priorities at R1 and P1 research universities are almost never focused on undergraduate teaching. Spending too much time on undergrad teaching will hurt your career because it comes at the expense of things that are weighted more heavily in the tenure decisions. He audibly gasped at a couple of universities my D mentioned because they are known in academic circles to be heavily research oriented. (U Chicago was not one of them.)</p>
<p>I think you will find that many college professors would recommend an LAC for undergrad followed by grad school at a top research university. And, in fact, you find a LOT of college professor's kids at places like Swarthmore. College professors understand the importance of direct one-on-one prof/student mentoring in the educational process.</p>
<p>None of this means that a research university isn't a better choice for many students. I think it's important to consider all three types of schools (small LAC, mid-size university, and large university). Each has its own strengths and weaknesses and academics are just one part of the overall college experience. It is important to consider the undergrad experience and not get distracted by irrelevant stuff (like the quality of the PhD Physics program or the Law School).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I've noticed that a lot of the more popular Swat profs are less published ones: I.e. Burke, the intro economics dude. I wonder what that means?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Bernie Saffran was one of the Swarthmore's most loved teachers and one of the most published economists in the country. Conversely, I"m by no means suggesting that there aren't terrific teachers at every research university. There most certainly are. We are talking only about percentages and the big picture.</p>
<p>The other thing that happens at LACs is that many undergrad students are co-authors of papers with their professors. The undergrad students get the research opportunites (often paid positions) that go to grad students at large universities. For example, virtually all Physics majors at Swarthmore have the opportunity for a paid summer research position with a faculty member by the time they are rising juniors and seniors. This is true at most of the top LACs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And looking at ratemyprofessors.com, it's hard to tell how Swat profs compare to UChicago profs. Sometimes it sounds like UChicago profs do a better job with class discussion than many Swat profs, so I'm not sure how to compare.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That website is not useful for making comparisons between two schools because there is no standard frame of reference. For example, look up a regional state university campus and see how much they rave about the professors.</p>
<p>Conversely, classroom discussion is such an integral part of the educational style at Swarthmore, students will go out of their way to note when a professor isn't terribly good at it. If you were rating a professor who only teaches lecture classes with 50+ students, you wouldn't even think to mention classroom discussion because there wouldn't be any! That info would be found at <a href="http://www.ratemyTA.com%5B/url%5D">www.ratemyTA.com</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.ratemyTA.com%5B/url%5D">www.ratemyTA.com</a></p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>The Univ of Chicago is one of the few schools that can hold its own academically against Swat. Chicago's student/faculty ratio is better than any major LAC. Just go where you want. You will get a great and personal education at both schools.</p>
<p>Dstark:</p>
<p>I agree about UChicago.</p>
<p>However, I would also note that the student/faculty ratios published based on the Common Data Set are not directly comparable between universities and LACs. </p>
<p>According to the Common Data Set instructions, grad school faculty and students are counted in those numbers unless the grad school is a standalone institution (such as a Med School or a Law School).</p>
<p>Thus, a university's numbers include faculty and grad students in the arts and sciences, neither of which may have any contact with undergrad courses. The numbers are skewed by the very small student/faculty ratios in PhD programs. This is particularly difficult to sort out at a school like Chicago where the grad students (9000) dwarf the undergrad enrollment (4400).</p>
<p>This can be confirmed by looking at the detailed breakdown of class sizes in the actual Common Data Set filings: the percentage of undergrad class sections with 2-9 students, 10-19 students, 20-29 students, etc.</p>
<p>What do you think is the real ratio for Chicago?</p>
<p>OK Nevermind. I see you explained it.</p>
<p>I have no idea. What I would like to look at is the exact breakdown of class sizes. That is really a great snapshot that cuts through a lot of BS about student/faculty ratios.</p>
<p>For example, at Swarthmore:</p>
<p>36.6% of the classes have 2-9 students
36.8% of the classes have 10-19 students
19.3% of the classes have 20-29 students
3.9% of the classes have 30-39 students
1.1% of the classes have 40-49 students
1.9% of the classes have 50-99 students
0.3% of the classes have 100+ students</p>
<p>BTW, I think that one class with 100 students is Intro Psych. It is broken down into discussion sections that are all conducted by professors in the department. Of the 80 subsections and labs, only 8 have 20-29 students. The other 72 subsections are equally divided between 2-9 and 10-19 students.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I have been unable to find UChicago's Common Data Set form, so I can't make any comparisons. In their published data, USNEWS uses a very coarse measure (% of classes below 29 students or something) that masks real-world differences in class sizes.</p>
<p>I think this is a case where the statistics only get you so far, and that you are better off talking to students about the details of their interactions and the campus culture. We were very impressed with what the students at Chicago had to say about the attention they got from faculty. But this attention comes with the culture that is particular to Chicago, which attracts students who are prepared to be treated like grad students rather than undergrads. They get the attention that grad students get other places, if they are willing to be as serious about their learning as grad students.</p>
<p>On the question of class size, this statistic also doesn't necessarily tell about the nature of the faculty/student interaction. My son goes to a research university, while his friend goes to an excellent LAC, and they both took economics first year. Son's class was more than 300 students, but the prof consistently sought student questions and discussion (much to son's dismay, actually, since he was more interested in what this excellent prof had to say than in listening to some argumentative but not necessarily well-informed freshmen.) Friend's class was around 30 students, but taught as a lecture. Additionally, friend said that the profs at his LAC require attendance and that in that particular class there were students who came but never contributed, and just looked out the window or even slept. Son's response: at least at my school nobody cares whether you go to the lecture classes or not, so there's no one there who doesn't want to be there.</p>
<p>That's why I think students should visit schools in each category if possible, to try to get a sense of the culture inside as well as outside the classroom.</p>