<p>Why not go for the best of both worlds: Dartmouth! </p>
<p>While students are trying to weigh which school they will attend, Dartmouth is more often in a mix with Williams, Amherst, Bowdoin and Middlebury, along with the other 7 Ivies. It is the rare student that is torn between Dartmouth and UCLA, or Dartmouth and UMich.</p>
<p>Or--with Barrons in the house--Dartmouth and Wisconsin.</p>
<p>Just remember this--Dartmouth's esteemed president bleeds red. And green.</p>
<p>many1,
Thanks, I'm afraid I can't take credit as I copied it off CC to my (giant) college file of interesting info that I started a couple of years ago. I absolutely agree, they each have benefits and limitations, and it just depends on the kid and what their personality and needs are. My D is the same in preferring a mid- to large sized college where she can explore, find enough like minded kids and sometimes even disappear into the crowd and do her own thing. Glad you enjoyed the analogy, it rang true for me too. Good luck on weening yourself off CC, I'll be trying to do the same in a few months. :)</p>
<p>Actually, both Oxford and Cambridge are small "college" based institutions. They just happen to have a lot of "liberal arts colleges" in one place with some shared resources.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This analysis crucially hinges on how you choose to define 'inferior' and 'best'. If you are defining these words in the context of research prominence, then clearly the research universities tend to win. But the truth is, just because somebody is a great researcher doesn't necessarily make him/her a good teacher, especially to undergrads.
[/quote]
I am not aware of any top university or LAC that grants tenure based primarily on ones ability to teach. I am not sure you can actually measure and compare a professor's ability to teach (even though we all know a good teacher and a bad one when we see him or her). There is no reason to believe the ability to teach (whatever that is) of professors is better or worst at a LAC or a research university. In other words, the ability to teach is irrelevant as a basis of comparison when evaluating professors at LACs and at research universities. </p>
<p>When colleges are recruiting new faculty, they have little information about a potential professor's ability to teach. They base their decisions to hire on the quality of the prospects PhD, interviews, etc. The "best" PhDs are sought by both LACs and universities. The "best" candidates usually chose to work at major universities rather than LACs. Why? Nearly all newely minted PhDs know they have maybe seven to ten years to make a name for themselves in their field. They can do that better with the assistance of graduate students so they go to universities with graduate programs and not LACs. Once all the top candidates chose their universities, the rest go to LACs. </p>
<p>Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. What I am talking about is the trend of faculty decision-making.</p>
<p>If you wish to go to an LAC, do so for reasons other than the quality of the teaching. Go because you love smaller schools and wish to make many friends. That's not a bad reason.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not aware of any top university or LAC that grants tenure based primarily on ones ability to teach.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Amherst College. Williams. Wellesley. In fact, all of the top LAC's do exactly this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not sure you can actually measure and compare a professor's ability to teach (even though we all know a good teacher and a bad one when we see him or her). There is no reason to believe the ability to teach (whatever that is) of professors is better or worst at a LAC or a research university. In other words, the ability to teach is irrelevant as a basis of comparison when evaluating professors at LACs and at research universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I completely disagree. The fact is, certain schools place a far stronger emphasis on teaching skills than others do. Even certain research universities place greater weighting on teaching than others do. </p>
<p>
[quote]
When colleges are recruiting new faculty, they have little information about a potential professor's ability to teach. They base their decisions to hire on the quality of the prospects PhD, interviews, etc. The "best" PhDs are sought by both LACs and universities. The "best" candidates usually chose to work at major universities rather than LACs. Why? Nearly all newely minted PhDs know they have maybe seven to ten years to make a name for themselves in their field. They can do that better with the assistance of graduate students so they go to universities with graduate programs and not LACs. Once all the top candidates chose their universities, the rest go to LACs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, this is false. Schools have plenty of information that determines somebody's teaching ability. For example, most PhD candidates serve as TA's at least some time during their Phd studies. Hence, teaching evals are available for them. If you consistently get bad evals as a TA, you are probably a bad teacher. Furthermore, some schools actually have prospective hirees actually teach a mock session, refereed by existing faculty, to determine one's teaching skills. This is considered part of the interview process. </p>
<p>I also fundamentally disagree on what you mean by 'best'. I agree that those particular newly minted Phd's who know that they really like research and want to do that forever will tend to want to go to the research universities. However, those who actually enjoy teaching and value it will tend to go to the LAC's. That's because all human beings prefer to join an organization whose values mesh with theirs. Not every new PhD wants to become the next great researcher and only the next great researcher. Some really do value teaching. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that research universities have plenty of profs who, simply put, do not care a whit about teaching. They know full well that that's not what they are going to be awarded tenure for. LAC's, on the other hand, do in fact grant tenure largely (often times primarily) on one's teaching evals'. If you're a bad teacher (hence, if you get consistently bad teaching evals), you are far more likely to survive the tenure process at a research university than at a LAC. I have seen plenty of extremely bad and indifferent teachers nonetheless win tenure at major research universities. This is far harder to do at an elite LAC. </p>
<p>I think perhaps you have a warped view of the way LAC's work. I encourage you to talk to people who have actually come from LAC's and see what they say.</p>
<p>My daughter's experience at an LAC:</p>
<p>The few new Profs she took/will take courses with already had teaching experience at their PhD institutions. She actually looked up their evaluations at the other university before deciding to take their classes.</p>
<p>They seem to give them temp "adjunct positions at first, to try them out.</p>
<p>I've posted this before, but prior to my daughter's enrollment I spoke with my friend who is a Prof. He told me essentially there is not time in the day to do it all. You can either decide to commit to teaching or commit to research, but the individual who can extend significant effort to both of these activities, in sufficient volume to excel at both, is very rare. One has to choose. His words.</p>
<p>I am not aware of top LACs hiring any professors straight out of PhD programs. The professors they hire have almost always done post-grad teaching. Most commonly, they are brought to the LAC as a visiting prof or some other similar position to see how they fit with the environment. Interaction with undergrad students is very much a part of the responsibilities.</p>
<p>The differences in tenure track criteria were highlighted to me -- strongly -- by my college professor brother. He strongly discourages R1 and P1 research universities for undergrad, for exactly this reason. As a young professor, you can be the most committed teacher in the world and you won't get tenure if you waste time on undergrads. They flat-out tell you.</p>
<p>A real-world example. Does the professor meet with each student and/or provide written comments on a draft or thesis outline of a paper before the final paper is turned in? Does the professor grade the papers and provide written feedback? If not, how is a student expected to improve his or her writing? Are there regular discussions in classes? Are these led by professors? If not, how is a student supposed to improve his or her critical reading and oral argument/discussion skills?</p>
<p>Obviously, the answers to these vary from university to university and from LAC to LAC. There's no universal best. But, pay attention to these things when evaluating undergrad teaching at any school.</p>
<p>At most major research schools the teaching load is adjusted to the research requirements. Most only teach 2 classes per semester--one ug and one grad. That's six hours per week in classes. Not exactly a major burden. Even with some prep time, office hours etc. you still have about 75% of your 50 hour week to do research.</p>
<p>Barrons:</p>
<p>Just so I'm sure I'm reading correctly. Did you just say that professors at research universities typically spend 12.5% of their time (approximately) teaching undergrad students, including prep time and office hours?</p>
<p>They teach one or two classes. You do the math. What I said was teaching time is not that big an impediment to doing both research and teaching/being around for extra help, etc.. LAC profs typically have double that teaching load. They still have quite a bit of time for research/consulting/whatever. Being a prof can be a pretty good gig if you can get it. Just try finding many around on a Friday afternoon be it LAC or Research school..</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Barrons:</p>
<p>Just so I'm sure I'm reading correctly. Did you just say that professors at research universities typically spend 12.5% of their time (approximately) teaching undergrad students, including prep time and office hours?
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>No. He said they spend about 12% of their time teaching (whats with the .5?), and about 25% includ. prep and office hours.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>No. He said they spend about 12% of their time teaching (whats with the .5?), and about 25% includ. prep and office hours.</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I believe that he said 25% teaching inc. prep total. For two courses, one grad and one undergrad.</p>
<p>I asked to confirm the 12.5% figure for undergrad teaching.</p>
<p>That would tend to support the premise that teaching undergrads at many research universities is a relatively low priority for professors.</p>
<p>No, what it says is they have lots of free time. Some will spend lots on research, some like to hang with students alot, some do lots of consulting. Once they have tenure they can do what they want pretty much.</p>
<p>And how do you conclude the statistic of one grad one undergrad at "most" research universities?</p>
<p>Experience. Go look for yourself. Most faculty at major research U's only have to teach 4 classes a year (excluding summers). Typically it is one and one but that can vary based on lots of things. The schools can't compete for top faculty without that sort of teaching load.</p>
<p>If you go to page 42 of the 2005 digest you will see the course load per faculty average is 2.06 per semester. It is slightly higher 2.44 for non-tenure track faculty listed as academic staff instructors on that page as they are not expected to do research etc.
As UW is not the richest of the big research schools I would bet their stats are close to the average.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bpa.wisc.edu/datadigest/%5B/url%5D">http://www.bpa.wisc.edu/datadigest/</a></p>
<p>national universities are better than lacs</p>
<p>W&M is a national u on the rankings, but the classes are all taught by professors, and undergrad body is around 5,000. I am sure there are probably other National U's like this; they mix LAC and big school traits together.</p>
<p>you couldnt pay me to go to a large uni.</p>