<p>hypher, I see exactly where you are coming from. UIUC would be a great school to attend. I just don’t know if that’s what would be the best for me. I like the small schools that are not smashed in the middle of a town or city, that is what is leaning me towards RHIT. Also, I don’t think I could go wrong with any of the schools. Another thing is that I don’t think UIUC will be the cheapest. With room and board+tuition it comes out to around 26,000 I think. They tend to give no scholarships and therefore besides what is given for financial aid, that is the price that I’m going to have to pay. The private schools I’m looking at tend to give more scholarship money and financial aid. So I really don’t know what will be better in the end.</p>
<p>Salve!, I’m glad to see that you are keeping an open mind and really thinking about what is best for YOU. I do hope that you get some significant aid from R-H to bring the costs down to – and hopefully even less than – the cost of UIUC to take money out of your decision, so that you can truly be free to pick the school that fits your needs. Good luck!</p>
<p>Thank you worried_mom! I really appreciate the support!</p>
<p>Okay, G.P. Burdell, so I have done some thinking, and I think that the main contentions I have with you can be summarized in one point you have made that I overall disagree with: Generally speaking, strong graduate students go to R1 schools, and overall the professors that go to teach schools are lower quality, “losers” in graduate school, if you will. Not a lot of students would prefer a teaching position to a research position so most of the professors at undergraduate only schools go there because they can’t get a “real” job.</p>
<p>Let’s look at this point. I will start with the realm in which I am most familiar, HMC Physics. Let’s take Chih-Yung Chen, MIT PhD '90 in experimental condensed matter physics who went to teach at Harvey Mudd immediately after her PhD. Just for fun, let’s also look at Nai-Chang Yeh, who is also MIT PhD '88 in experimental condensed matter physics and is now a world renowned experimentalist at Caltech. She was the first female physicist in the department, has won Sloan and Packard fellowships (both extremely prestigious and competitive research fellowships for young faculty early in their career), is an American Physical Society and Institute of Physics Fellow, blah blah blah. Basically she’s a really big shot researcher, even for an R1 professor. </p>
<p>How about we compare the publication outputs and citation records for Chen and Yeh from early in their careers, say, up to 2 years after each received their PhD (so up to '92 for Chen and up to '90 for Yeh)? This would most likely have been a very indicative overall measure of their research success and overall ‘quality’ in graduate school. </p>
<p>I looked up the records of Yeh’s papers from her Caltech website, and that of Chen’s papers from the website of her thesis advisor Marc Kastner at MIT. Let’s take a look at their output.</p>
<p>N.C. Yeh
6 first author papers (all in Phys. Rev. B)
6 second author papers (4 in Phys. Rev. B, 1 in Physica, in Materials Research)
2 third author papers (1 in Physica, 1 in Phys. Rev. B)
1 fourth author paper in Phys Rev B</p>
<p>C.Y. Chen
5 first author papers (3 in Phys. Rev. B, 1 in Phys. Rev. Lett., 1 in Physica)
2 second author papers (1 in Phys. Rev. B, 1 in Phys Rev. Lett.)
5 third author papers (3 in Phys. Rev. B, 1 in Physica)
1 fourth author paper in Physica
1 fifth author paper in Phys. Rev. B
1 eighth author paper in Phys. Rev. B</p>
<p>I also went to the APS PROLA website and checked the citation number for all of these articles that are either Phys. Rev. B or Phys. Rev. Lett. (the other journals are not APS published so they don’t have information on citation counts). Here’s what I found of those articles (I have mentioned any papers with more than 25 citations).</p>
<p>Yeh’s first author papers: 132 citations, 22 citations/paper, one with 78
Yeh’s second author papers: 98 citations, 24.5 citations/paper, one with 68
Yeh’s third author paper: 4 citations
Yeh’s fourth author paper: 6 citations</p>
<p>Chen’s first author papers: 99 citations, 24.75 citations/paper, two papers with 42 and 55
Chen’s second author papers: 167 citations, 83.5 citations/paper, two papers with 103 and 67
Chen’s third author papers: 148 citations, 49.3 citations/paper, three papers with 82, 47, 29
Chen’s fifth author paper: 247 citations
Chen’s eight author paper: 235 citations</p>
<p>Clearly Chen and Yeh are about equal in terms of raw publication output, and Chen compares very favorably with Yeh when looking at impact of papers in terms of citations. If we were to use your logic, since Chen went to a teach school, her graduate record would frankly not hold a candle to someone who is such a research big shot as Yeh, a point clearly refuted by the above numbers. And we should also note that if Chen compares favorably with someone as successful as Yeh, who is to say how many other R1 professors she also compares favorably with when looking at graduate careers?</p>
<p>You may say, that’s one example. Let’s look at a few of the other physicists in HMC’s department. Greg Lyzenga was a Hertz Fellow, one of the most competitive graduate research fellowships awarded in the country. Theresa Lynn as a graduate student at Caltech won a prize for the most outstanding research qualifier examination defense (something of the like). Peter Saeta got a postdoctoral fellowship (not just an assistantship, but a substantially more prestigious fellowship) in experimental condensed matter / optical physics at Bell Labs - and this was in the early '90s, when Bell Labs was one of the best places in the world for basic physics research and all the physicists wanted to work there - not just any mediocre graduate student would have been able to get a postdoctoral fellowship at that place, you would really have had to have been high class. Note that I have covered by now roughly a third of HMC’s physics faculty almost randomly!</p>
<p>But let us go beyond HMC to other small liberal arts colleges. I randomly looked at two of Swarthmore’s engineering professors, bioengineer Erik Cheever and electrical engineer Tali Moreshet ([Swarthmore</a> College - Department of Engineering](<a href=“http://engin.swarthmore.edu/?page_id=33]Swarthmore”>http://engin.swarthmore.edu/?page_id=33)). I compared Cheever’s publication record prior to becoming a faculty member with that of MIT bioengineer Peter So ([MIT</a> | Department of Biological Engineering](<a href=“http://web.mit.edu/be/people/so.htm]MIT”>http://web.mit.edu/be/people/so.htm)) and they have roughly the same number in the same journals. Same thing when I compared Moreshet’s record to that of Berkeley electrical engineer Pieter Abbeel ([Faculty</a> Publications | EECS at UC Berkeley](<a href=“http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/Faculty/abbeel.html]Faculty”>Faculty Publications | EECS at UC Berkeley)). Note that this was just my random looking!</p>
<p>One of Bates College’s assistant professors of physics, Lily Childress, was not just a Hertz Fellow in graduate school – she won the award for most outstanding thesis by a Hertz Fellow in the year she graduated! As another example, Doug Natelson, a top condensed matter experimentalist at Rice (winner of a Packard Fellowship), keeps a blog (nanoscale.blogspot.com) and he has mentioned on it repeatedly that he seriously considered becoming a professor at a liberal arts college before deciding on Rice. It was not a no-brainer for him to go to R1 academia.</p>
<p>So what does all this go to show? Without even really trying too hard, I was able to find substantial evidence suggesting that R1 professors and liberal arts college professors had competitive/comparable research records in graduate school. I was also able to find evidence that truly exceptional top of their league students went to or seriously considered going to a liberal arts college over R1 academia. Since this was a small, essentially random study, it would not be unreasonable to assume that it is indicative of a general trend in undergraduate vs. R1 academia. </p>
<p>While by no means a publishable social science experiment, my analysis does raise serious questions and doubts about your claim that overall R1 faculty are far and away superior students to undergraduate faculty. As others have mentioned, a lot more people than I think you realize simply get tired of the amount of research that is done at R1 schools. It does not make them lesser or inferior students. You seem to have it in your mind that all or most graduate students believe the best and only truly worthy thing to do is go to R1 academia, but that is definitely not true. People simply have different priorities in life and there is absolutely nothing wrong with going to undergraduate schools, or for that matter leaving academia entirely.</p>
<p>“Having experienced both environments, I can say with complete confidence that indeed professors at undergraduate only colleges (including Rose Hulman) are overall much better teachers and care a lot more.”</p>
<p>Let’s please try to stay away from unfounded generalizations based off one person’s experiences.</p>
<p>I am currently in Stanford’s structural engineering MS program and I must say I am very impressed (possibly surprised) with how much my professors care about the students and how much effort they put into our classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I second this, based on my experiences at UIUC and TAMU.</p>
<p>My apologies, grdschoolhopeful, I stand corrected (and I really mean it). I shouldn’t have said it so forcefully, although I do expect that overall, more attention is paid to teaching at undergraduate colleges than at research universities. But I cannot say that with such conviction that I presented in my earlier post. I was just being very defensive and that caused me to exaggerate.</p>
<p>Well, let’s not try get too deep into how much professors care about students, because you can’t measure that. What we do know is that at a research school in general, no matter how motherly the professors are, they are inevitably mandated to supervise plenty of grad students, let alone carrying out other researches. There’s a reason why TA’s are needed at many big research schools (especially public).</p>
<p>Nevertheless, many private research schools tend to have more facilities and funding overall per student, so it’s not surprising to see that say, Cornell, Stanford, Caltech for instance, may have smaller classes and more interactions between undergrads and profs than say, at Purdue, Gatech, and UIUC. I mean, honestly, would you really choose Purdue, GaTech, or UIUC over Cornell for undergrad engineering even though they might rank higher school wise?</p>
<p>Honestly??? Yes I would. I would choose all three of those schools over Cornell for undergrad engineering. In fact, I DID choose UIUC over Cornell and Purdue for undergrad engineering. Thanks for playing.</p>
<p>Well… can we please go back to the 3 schools at hand? I realize all of this discussion does have influence in the opinion of the schools, but I think it does also digress from the main point. I feel that the most appropriate school for anyone is the one they feel most comfortable with regardless of rank or if it’s a teaching or research school. It is personal preference most of the time. </p>
<p>Also, I would choose UIUC over Cornell, just to throw that in.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’m asking opinions of:
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (aka RHIT)
Illinois Institute of Technology (aka IIT)
University of Illinois @ Urbana Champaign (aka UIUC)</p>
<p>So what is your opinion of those particular schools. And no, Purdue is not on my list and yes, there is a reason for that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I full-heartedly agree with you on this comment, though I would say that when choosing between teaching and research schools, there are other things to consider than fit. For instance, if you have a strong feeling that you would want to do undergrad research, I would personally choose the research school over the teaching school.</p>
<p>yeah, but that’s you… lol</p>
<p>Really, there’s no point debating this. None out of these 4 (Purdue, UIUC, GaTech, or Cornell) comes out to be much superior to others.
What a high schooler should really think about then, is the kind of environment (small or big), atmosphere, and the kind of (academic) opportunities available, at a place where he would stick with for 4 years. One might consider Cornell because it’s a stronger school in academics overall; for instance, you are an engineer with strong interest in mathematics, and surely Cornell becomes a better candidate.</p>
<p>I do plan to go to a graduate school upon graduation. So a research school may be a good idea, but for an undergraduate degree I would prefer a teaching school because research is more for graduate students. I do indeed realize that undergrads can do research too, but I feel that undergrad should be more focused on getting the foundation of what is needed for research. Also, I think that many teaching schools will also have research available, but it’s just not as plentiful as a “research” school. </p>
<p>As a sidenote, I do plan on going to UIUC for my graduate degree (my sister is actually a grad student there).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a high schooler, I agree with this. That’s why I think that I wouldn’t go wrong with any of the colleges I’m choosing from.</p>
<p>Salve!, have you visited both UIUC and RHIT?</p>
<p>From your previous posts, it seems you already know about the kind of environment and atmosphere at both schools:</p>
<p>UIUC - big research oriented institute where every undergrad more or less appears like a number but nonetheless you might find more established opportunities</p>
<p>RHIT - small teaching oriented school where faculties mingle with the undergrads most of the time, a close family like community with smooth administration. There’s not much competition here among peers. Students are always happy to help each others in the labs.</p>
<p>As for undergrad research, I know Rose-Hulman also carries out research during the summer for the chemE, Math, and Bio students, and these positions can be obtained if you just ask informally. I think there’s a page on this in the News section on RHIT’s website. While at UIUC, there are many researches going on known publicly which are funded by the NSF, but you can still apply even if you are not a UIUC student. </p>
<p>Any way, I would strongly recommend you attend a lecture or two at both schools and see which setting you like.</p>
<p>Maybe for your interest, Salve!</p>
<p>UIUC knows Rose-Hulman very well. In fact, quite a handful of RHIT graduates go to UIUC for grad schools every year.</p>
<p>ccpsux, I’ve visited both schools. So far, I like the atmosphere at RHIT a lot more than UIUC. I do plan on another visit to both where I will hopefully be able to sit in on classes and possibly stay the night. </p>
<p>RHIT though is currently my top pick for a school.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the input also!</p>
<p>cool</p>
<p>btw, are you not considering other schools at all? Just UIUC and RHIT?</p>
<p>Salve, are you applying to these schools this Fall?</p>
<p>Perhaps you should focus on getting in to all these schools before spending so much time wondering what your ultimate-best-fit school is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It also occurs to me that I disagree with the entire premise of this logic, which is that those who know ex-ante that they want to take predominantly academic teaching roles (as opposed to research roles) should not go to schools such as MIT. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that academia, including predominantly teaching schools, is highly elitist, arguably the most elitist industry in the world. All schools, whether teaching or research oriented, weigh the prestige of your PhD-granting institution heavily, and poignantly, teaching-oriented schools highly value PhD’s granted from top research schools. </p>
<p>Since RHIT seems to be the institution of interest, let’s use RHIT as an example. Poking around the faculty bios of the chemical engineering department, I notice that the bulk of them obtained their PhD’s from top-ranked schools. In fact, the most heavily represented PhD-granting institution among the department faculty was…none other than MIT. </p>
<p>[Rose-Hulman</a> Institute of Technology - Chemical Engineering Faculty](<a href=“http://www.rose-hulman.edu/che/faculty.htm]Rose-Hulman”>http://www.rose-hulman.edu/che/faculty.htm)</p>
<p>I’m feeling too lazy to check the other departments, but I think you’d find a similar outcome: most of the RHIT faculty will have obtained their PhD’s from top-ranked research schools. </p>
<p>What that then implies is that, even if you already know you want to work at a teaching college ex-ante, and you’re admitted to both MIT and some 2nd tier program, the dominant strategy seems to be to choose MIT. After all, what if you choose that 2nd tier program to complete a supposedly faster and less stressful PhD… and then you don’t get placed in a teaching position?</p>