NYTimes: You Don't Go to Harvard For The Teaching

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
41

<p>
[quote]
DocT is right on the money. Indeed, most people here love doing something, and they do it with a passion, mostly due to self-motivation. I know some people who are absolutely miserable here: they don't quite know what they want to do if life.
It's often said that college is a time for exploration; Harvard's not the MOST ideal place for that...but, if you know what you want to do, there probably aren't many other places that are better.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This has the ring of truth, and confirms the impressions we got when my S was deciding whether to go to Harvard. Most 17 or 18 year olds, even the very smart ones, do not know what they want to do in life. He didn't, which is why he chose to go elsewhere. I don't think he would have been miserable at Harvard, but I do think he would not have been in a position to take advantage of its fabulous opportunities and resources. I don't know whether or not he would have gotten the excellent all-around education that he is getting from the university he chose, whose curriculum essentially enforces exploration. </p>

<p>As for the quality of teaching at Harvard or any research university, teaching is both a talent and a craft -- and a different talent and craft than research. It will only improve when teaching is made a real and important part of the tenure process. If it were (I don't have high hopes), then every PhD program in the country would start training future academics in teaching, not just in research.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
teaching is both a talent and a craft -- and a different talent and craft than research.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The skills have a significant overlap. Research doesn't sell itself, even to an audience of experts.</p>

43

<p>Interesting, but I don't think of teaching as "selling."</p>

44

<p>Except for a few outliers, you don't get tenure without some ability at exposition, verbal presentation, people skills, and similar factors that help when teaching. These are correlated with tenure outcomes by default.</p>

45

<p>Speaking and people skills may help with teaching, and certainly are essential for success at virtually any job. But they do not define a good or excellent teacher.</p>

46

<p>If you list the top 10-20 skills you consider necessary for good teaching, some of them will have no connection to tenure at research universities, but more of them will correlate with a researcher's career outcomes.</p>

47

<p>Harvard is wonderful for the stereotypical Harvard student: very smart (not necessarily brilliant, but a painful place to be if you are not quite bright), motivated, INDEPENDENT, goal-oriented, and confident. These characteristics are important for success at H, and lead to the mischaracterization of the students as arrogant. There are a lot of people who would fit in well, and many of them go to Harvard and find a highly rewarding experience. </p>

<p>It is not nearly so good for someone who is equally bright, but less focussed, less driven, or less confident. Harvard professors are accustomed to the best students in each course chasing them down for more insights, research projects, recommendations, etc. They assume that those who do not do this are more turned on by something else they are doing, including getting to know professors in their other courses. The professors are busy and they know the students are busy. So they do not bother kids who are presumed to be thriving, but not necessarily in the course a particular professor is teaching. </p>

<p>Choosing between the Harvard-type experience and the LAC experience is largely a matter of personal preference-what you want to do while in college. It has much less to do with what you can do later in life. Successful people come through both. If you want an assumption that each course should feature close personal interaction with tenured faculty, then definitely you will not find that at Harvard. If you want the ability to go as deeply as you want into virtually any field, and learn from some of the best in the world, whatever the area may be, then Harvard is great. Lots of opportunities, but you have to be aggressive to take advantage of them.</p>

<p>Overall, I think the people who are happiest fall into two groups: </p>

<ol>
<li><p>The academic happy people who want to pursue their field in depth. Perhaps they appreciate the out-of-concentration courses they take, perhaps not, but their real stimulation comes from their advanced courses and research. There are a lot of people like this. Many of them end up as academics themselves, or in other highly intellectual fields. </p></li>
<li><p>The EC happy people who like their courses well enough, including their concentration, but for whom their real home is the football team, the Crimson, politics, music, whatever. There are probably more Harvard students with this orientation than there are type 1's, but I suspect they are less likely to be happy. The problem is that they do not need to be at Harvard to do this, and the level of the courses (driven by the academic happy types) tends to take time and energy away from the EC's. These people tend to do best when they are either ridiculously smart, so that they can do well academically without diverting too much time from their real passion (there are plenty of people like this, remember, it is Harvard), or they carefully choose a concentration that, for them, is not too challenging. They get an excellent education, not with the rigor of the tye 1's, but excellent nonetheless, the Harvard credential, and a chance to learn to work with other highly intelligent, highly motivated, ambitious people. They end up in a wider variety of jobs where it is helpful to be smart and generally well-educated, but the intense focus on narrow intellectual questions pursued by type 1's is less important.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Not many politicians were type 1's and not many professors were type 2's.</p>

<p>The two happy groups have in common that they are really into what they are doing, fill up their time with it, and are pretty driven. The unhappy people may have tried to be type 1's and got blown away by their smarter classmates, or tried to be type 2's and could not compete for the editor slots, starting positions, or whatever.</p>

<p>Much of the teaching professors do is to their graduate students and post-graduate researchers. The style is different than teaching intro courses to undergrads, and some people who are great at one type of teaching are less gifted in the other. By the time an undergrad is ready to take more advanced courses, the grad student type teaching works for them. This pays off for people who tailor their courseload toward advanced courses. Those who do their concentration, and a wide selection of intro courses in other departments will not benefit from this system.</p>

<p>To a large extent, the intensity and drive work counter to an LAC-like broad experience with each course treated as equally important. You could go through Harvard trying to do that, but many professors, if they realized this is what you were doing, might see you as a dilettente.</p>

48

<p>


</p>

<p>That's an interesting perspective on a lot of the commonly made statements about undergraduate education at Harvard, pro and con.</p>

49

<p>wow, that was a surprisingly accurate (but totally new to me) description of my experience here. Not sure which group I fit into though...</p>

50

<p>I should mention that the other unhappy group are those who do not have something they are really turned on by. In the parlance of prior post, those who are neither aiming for type 1 or for type 2. If you enter and go through Harvard drifting from one thing to another, without a real commitment to any particular area, it can be isolating and unpleasant. The modal student is driven and those who are less engaged tend to get shoved aside. Not in a mean way, but there will always some students who are running hard, and those who are out for a jog will have trouble keeping up. You are welcome to dabble, but there should be something somewhere that you care deeply about, and find it to be your home in the University.</p>

51

<p>To an outsider, anyway, that sounds like a great analysis. But I think that it is especially pertinent to Harvard and not just a matter of research university vs LAC, because Harvard really looks for students who have the kind of deep commitment you're talking about to an area, as well as evidence of excellence in that area of course. And, because it is Harvard, it also attracts that kind of student.</p>

<p>What I wonder about are those who get there and discover that their high school passion is not what they want to continue to focus on. And, those you mention, who discover that the talent they showed to be at the top of the heap in high school -- either in an academic subject or in an ec -- is not enough when surrounded by others who were all top of the heap. Can you switch to something new and start over as a novice? I suppose it depends on the ec/or the academic area. </p>

<p>Sorry this is drifting from the issue of teaching. But you are also absolutely accurate in describing some of the different skills involved with different types of teaching. There are wonderful lecturers who couldn't lead a discussion to save their lives and professors who are excellent in seminars who cannot lecture. My earlier point was that some of these skills can be taught and learned, but most PhD programs just toss TAs into the classroom without any training in teaching. Some profs pick up these skills as they go along, and others do not.</p>

52

<p>"What I wonder about are those who get there and discover that their high school passion is not what they want to continue to focus on."</p>

<p>Many people find something new to do, especially academically. I mean, practically no one discovers during high school that they are passionate about Folklore & Mythology, or political philosophy, or Russian. Yet the obscure departments have very enthusiastic students.</p>

<p>"Can you switch to something new and start over as a novice?"</p>

<p>Yes, you can, although usually, you aren't going to be a superstar in it. And that's fine. You've touched on a big gift of Harvard: it forces you to come to terms with yourself when you aren't #1 at everything. For most of us, this is a priceless lesson in growing up, and we find other ways to be happy. The small number of kids who can't adjust will be miserable there. If you need to be admired by everyone around you, just don't go to Harvard.</p>

<p>There are plenty of amateurish publications, mediocre musical groups, crummy IM sports teams, etc. at Harvard. They are there for people who want to enjoy a new activity without having to devote their lives to it. As long as you don't hold yourself to unreasonable standards, you can have lots of fun in these groups. My senior year, the Leverett crew ran their shell aground and broke it...twice. But hey, they had a blast together and they got the quintessential Harvard experience of getting up at dawn to row on the Charles. Nobody in that boat cared that they weren't going to make it to Henley.</p>

<p>(There are also weird exceptions where people discover extraordinary gifts they'd never used -- I have one dear friend who spent his life preparing to be a concert pianist and then spent his college years singing -- but for the most part, if you've never done it before, you'll be doing it for fun.)</p>

53

<br>


<br>

<p>Practically no one does in college either. I heard that is the least subscribed concentration in all of Harvard College - undergrad concentrators number in the single digits.</p>

54

<p>Yes, certainly there is ample opportunity to get involved in other activities if you are not a professional. If you are good enough, you can be second string varsity, or 9th string in the case of the enormous football team. You can do lower level stuff purely for fun. As Hanna says, there are multiple levels of most activities, so, if your ego permits, you can leave the high visibility top level to the experts and do what you want for hobbies. </p>

<p>
[quote]
it forces you to come to terms with yourself when you aren't #1 at everything

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here I believe the students who come from the most competitive high schools have an advantage. They already know they are very good at some things, but not the best ever at everything. Those who come from regular high schools were too often "the best student we have ever had", and captain of the soccer team as well. Then at Harvard they turn out to be perfectly fine, average, scholastically, and by the way, failed to walk on to the soccer team. That can shake some people more than others. Some find it very difficult to deal with. For others it is a relief no longer to expect to be perfect.</p>

<p>Academically, most people are starting from scratch at the college level. Outside of a few scientists and mathematicians who have largely masted the undergraduate material before they get there, nearly all the humanists and social scientists, and most natural scientists, enter with simply a lot of smarts and strong high school preparation.</p>

<p>Not many academic doors are closed purely on the basis of limited prior experience. You can even major in math starting with introductory calculus. I have no idea how many people actually do this, but it is possible. You just have to deal with the knowledge that the higher level courses you take as a senior will have some IMO gold medalist freshman sleeping in the back of the room.</p>

<p>There are quite a few very small majors, some smaller than folklore and mythology. They can be extremely rigorous in a classic liberal arts way.</p>

55

<p>"You've touched on a big gift of Harvard: it forces you to come to terms with yourself when you aren't #1 at everything....If you need to be admired by everyone around you, just don't go to Harvard."</p>

<p>Very True. At the same time however, when you do occasionally get that remarkable compliment from a friend, your peers, or a professor etc. for something you've done, it makes it even more special and the more gratifying.</p>

56

<p>afan's postings capture it perfectly. Great summation.</p>

57

<p>"when you do occasionally get that remarkable compliment from a friend, your peers, or a professor etc. for something you've done, it makes it even more special and the more gratifying."</p>

<p>No doubt. I'll never forget running back onstage for the encore after singing a concert in Sanders Theater and seeing the audience on its feet. I don't think a standing ovation at the Met could have meant more to me.</p>

58

<p>do you do a cappella or something?</p>

59

<p>If there's something I don't appreciate...it's when folks start saying things to the tune of:</p>

<p>"Oh, well I'm sure the LACs are more focused on teaching, but Harvard has the Nobel Prize Winners and the research focus, you see, the professors don't want to waste time improving their powerpoint presentations when they can do research"</p>

<p>Well, blow me. Harvard is a great institution, but I'm pretty ****ed with the condescension that some of you subtly express with regards to the LACs. Powerpoint presentations? Teaching is not simple farcical enhancement of teaching mediums, which sure seems to be the point of the aforementioned.</p>

<p>Oh, and comments like "There is a difference between an environment where people want to teach and an environment where people want to learn" </p>

<p>So, now the LACs are just what? Hillary Swank in "Freedom Writers"? Think about your comments before you low-blow the LACs please. The best of the LACs fulfill the role of great undergraduate teaching, and inspire people to want to learn more and RESEARCH more. Harvard is the bomb. But the LACs do not pale in comparison. They are different.</p>

60

<p>Actually, liberal arts colleges are at the core of that which The Times of London refers to as "the two greatest Universities in the world" -- Harvard and Yale. "LAC" is just a marketing term: there's no black and white line dividing them from the great Universities. You can not have a great research university without a liberal arts college at its center, and all great universities do. There are also great small colleges that call themselves LACs or whatever, and their graduates do just as well finding research posts or great jobs as the graduates of any of the top universities do. The question becomes not "University vs LAC", but, has the pendulum at Harvard swung too far in one direction?</p>

<p>That's up to each of you to find out, by visiting each of your college choices, sitting in on several classes in different disciplines (English, history and chemistry are usually good options), eating a few meals in the dining halls, going to a couple of parties, and asking students and faculty what they think about the quality of undergraduate education. Yes, asking faculty, too. Research statistics, posts by Harvard partisans on this thread, or rankings aren't going to tell you. It's going to be something you have to find out for yourself, and that takes some work. But you owe it to yourself to do so, because the quality of your undergraduate education is going to stick with you for the rest of your life, regardless of what "name" is attached to it. If you don't, you're obviously being blinded by something.</p>