My son is torn between Michigan, UVA, and BC. We live in Chicago and have visited Michigan and UVA. We have not been to BC yet, but are going to admitted students day in 2 weeks. The schools will cost about the same (or hurt the same?!). All three are great schools, so I’m assuming this will come down to “personal fit.” My son thought Michigan and UVA were too big, so he may prefer BC’s smaller size. Who knows. We don’t know anyone who has gone to BC or UVA. We know tons of Michigan grads, and they all seem to really, really love their school. He thinks he’ll major in biology.
Just curious if anyone has any thoughts on these three schools and advice for making a decision. Thanks.
Furthermore, at many large research universities, the lower division courses are taught by poorly-compensated adjunct professors, and the “distinguished” research professors teach solely upper division, and in some cases only graduate classes. I am speaking from experience. I am a professor at a university, and I am friends with dozens and acquaintances with hundreds of professors at all different types of universities… from elite privates to public flagships to state colleges to community colleges to LACS.
^ LACs are a different animal. Profs teaching ability is more important in LAC tenure than it is for research universities. Also, the LACs you mention are very selective at the undergrad level and very wealthy. They have the resources and undergrad teaching is more of their primary focus.
In this case, we’re comparing three research universities, which have the same academic structure.
Your argument implies PhD programs and undergrad programs are completely isolated - which is flawed.
“By that logic, Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore must be garbage.”
Not necessarily. The absence of a strong graduate program does not necessarily signify weak undergraduate education. However, the presence of a strong graduate program often means strong undergraduate education. Along with strong graduate programs usually comes state of the art facilities, worldclass faculty and cutting edge research, all of which are open to driven and resourcefull undergraduate students.
“Distinguished research professors do NOT necessarily equate to better undergraduate teaching and curriculum.”
Like I said above, actually, it does, assuming the university has the resources and undergraduate students who actually care about learning. Michigan has the facilities (they purchased and now operate Pfizer’s global research headquarters in addition to several other labs and facilities) and resources (top 10 medical school and hospital, $10 billion endowment etc…) that few universities can match.
And why assume that a faculty that is at the cutting edge of research cannot teach?
To JJDad3, what sort of child is your son? Is he proactive and driven? Will he actively seek out the virtually unlimited opportunities available to undergraduate students at a university like Michigan? If so, then I do not think that BC or even UVa can match Michigan in the sciences. On the other hand, if your son is looking for a standard undergraduate education and is not overly concerned with research and getting published, then it really does notmatter which of those three universities he attends. They are all exceptional academically.
They are not “completely isolated”, but it is a lie that universities like to perpetuate that the strength of their PhD programs has a major impact on the undergraduate curriculum. For most undergraduate degrees, the curriculum is pretty standard at the vast majority of institutions, especially in the first 2 years.
In the past 2 decades, state support for public research universities has been steadily declining, at an accelerated pace in the past 5 years. Public research universities have responded by protecting their PhD programs and hiring armies of non-tenure, poorly-compensated adjunct professors to take on the bulk of teaching in the lower division.
Furthermore, even when you do have “distinguished” research professors teaching lower division undergrads, there is no guarantee that just because they are excellent researchers that they will be outstanding teachers.
I was an undergrad in physics at Harvard in the late 80’s, early 90’s. The professors had open disdain for the undergrads, and the quality of the teaching was dreadfully bad… I distinctly remember thinking to myself in my intro classes, “was I really willing to sell my soul to the devil to get here, and the teaching is worse than my high school??” To be fair, I have friends who are now professors there, and apparently there has been significant improvement in teaching in physics. And certainly, other departments always had far better teaching.
But back to the OP’s original question… an undergraduate student at UVA, UMichigan, and BC will receive an excellent education in biology. So the decision should be made on the individual preferences of the student… in which environment will the student thrive academically and socially? For some students, they will do great at a major research university… for other students, they will thrive more at a smaller university or a smaller college. For a fundamental subject like biology, for which every college and university worth its name will have a solid department, the overall fit is more important than national ranking of the PhD program.
I agree with all that you have to say H&B. Michigan has certainly not escaped the steady decline in state funding either. However, with an endowment of $9.6 billion and a large OOS student population paying full freight, I do not think finances are a problem for the University.
Sure, that’s why you can get college credit for lower-division courses at a community college.
But an undergraduate degree is much more than two years of lower-division coursework. That’s where resources, distinguished profs and TAs/GSIs start to make a distinction in the upper-division portion of the undergrad program.
^In theory, yes… in practice, less so… but highly variable depending on the university.
Also, smaller colleges and universities without PhD programs can also have high-quality upper division coursework and research experiences… again, highly variable though.
I’m not disputing that Michigan is an awesome institution… I am merely pointing out that the ranking of PhD programs should not be used as the sole basis to exclude other institutions based on the faulty notion that only at an institution with a strong PhD program will students have a challenging, inspiring upper division experience in their major.
Thanks for the comments. At this point, he thinks he wants to go to med school – although that easily could change. He is very, very driven but also pretty quiet, so I’m a little concerned he’d get “lost” at a large state school. I love the resources of a Michigan, but I also love the smaller classes at a school like BC. I think we’ll know a lot more after we do admitted students day. Finally, although cost may not be an issue, my understanding is schools treat AP tests differently. He has all 5s, so I think he could graduate from some schools in 3 or 3 1/2 years, right? I guess graduating a semester early does save some serious money, so that could be the tiebreaker.
You have to be careful with AP and pre-med. Many med schools will not accept AP for pre-med requirements (except calculus… I think many schools accept AP calculus for pre-med requirements). For example, if your son got a 5 on AP Biology, he cannot use that as his general biology pre-med… the 5 would allow him to take more advanced biology courses, which could then count for pre-med… but that doesn’t accelerate his degree.
Now, for non-pre-med requirements, yes, try to use as many as allowed.
Also, realize that while many students may have intentions of graduating early, very, very, very few students end up wanting to graduate early.
@JJDad3: You are absolutely correct: all three are EXCELLENT institutions. Further you’ve indicated their (un)affordability is near-equal. Therefore, I agree that your son’s “cultural fit” with the school – and the surrounding city – might likely be decisive. Since that is clearly individual, others’ opinions may not be particularly valuable, although (having spent considerable time at all three), Charlottesville/UVa would be my choice. Finally, he should be congratulated on acceptance to these fine undergraduate programs, each of which should provide a lifetime of advantages.
I recommend Michigan. It is the strongest in natural sciences of the three schools. It also has a world class medical school adjacent to the central campus.
For overall average undergraduate class sizes, BC << UVA < Michigan. However, it would take some effort to figure out how these differences play out in the biology courses. Some schools’ online course schedules provide detailed information about class enrollment sizes. Usually they also identify the instructor. You can then look up the instructor in the faculty or grad student listings. It would be tedious to do this for many biology courses at all three schools, but it may be possible.
At some large research universities, over 20% of all undergraduate classroom instruction is provided by grad students. Google for these numbers if they matter to you.The percentage may be much higher in lower division courses in a popular major such as biology. Typically in these courses, ~half of the course hours will be lectures by a professor (possibly to hundreds of students), the other ~half will be discussion sections of ~30 students under a TA.
tk, I do not think any of those three universities will have TAs engaged in instructional pursuits to a level worthy of concern. For example, at Michigan, only 3% of all undergraduate classes are taught by TAs. The vast majority of those will be introductory level writing, language and mathematics classes.
The Biology department does not usually use TA for teaching. Most of the work TAs do at Michigan, as their title would suggest, is assist faculty as lab or discussion leaders. I doubt UVa or BC use TAs more prominently than Michigan.
Also, I see nothing wrong with the concept of TAs teaching undergraduates. At most elite graduate schools, PhD students are as brilliant as faculty, and are probably more in touch with undergraduate students, making them more effective teachers.