<p>Quote:</p>
<p>"The School of Arts and Sciences gets 18% of that, which is about $300 million. Given that SAS has some 8,500 undergraduates and grad students, their per-student expenditures appear lower than $200 million for 2,300 undergrads at Wellesley. In fairness, some percentage of the $700 million budget for university overhead should be allocated to SAS, but I still suspect Wellesley will come out ahead. "</p>
<p>You neglect the fact that faculty and staff at Wellesley GET PAID, too. As much as you think those at Wellesley are more generous than at Penn, they're not so altrusitic as to do it for free. $205 million is the enitre operating budget, and that includes overhead. Check your stats.</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<p>"Are they caring and generous enough to teach introductory sections to undergraduates -- like at Wellesley -- or do they leave that chore to their grad students?"</p>
<p>Yes, they are. If you look at the websites of the various academic departments, you'll see that a large number of the introductory and other undergraduate courses are taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty. In my own department, English, almost all of the tenure-track faculty teach two courses a semester, at least one of which is an undergraduate class. Sometimes both of them are. Most of the freshman seminars are also being offered by these faculty. And the faculty who aren't teaching two classes a semester are usually: (1) Working on a new project; (2) New and have been promised a reduced teaching load for their first semester; or (3) In charge of running some university program.</p>
<p>The benefit is clear. Undergraduates ARE being taught by faculty that are doing cutting-edge and important work, by the same faculty that teaches graduate students, something not available at a smaller college. My firends and I have all been taught by full professors in the scienes, the social sciences, and the humanities.</p>
<p>You seemes to assume that the answer to your question was a foregone conclusion. You were wrong.</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<p>"This is true, but part of their appeal is that universities like Penn allow faculty to spend less time on undergraduate teaching, and more time on graduate-level teaching and research."</p>
<p>Nope. Simply not true. While they may allow them to have a reduced teaching load initially, it is fully expected that they will actually teach. At other schools it might be different, but at Penn it is the case.</p>
<p>They can recruit top faculty because at a place like Penn, they can (1) Actually teach graduate students; (2) Get more money; (3) Have colleagues that are at the very top of their fields, colleagues who are also probably their professional friends and acqaintences.</p>
<p>You act like professors teaching graduate students is a bad thing. It is amazing to be taught by the same professors who are teaching advanced graduate classes, especially when they tell you in your own class what they are doing in their graduate classes, when you have excellentgraduate students to share ideas with.</p>
<p>And research? I think it's great that at a school like Penn, I can talk to my professors about the work they are currently doing, when they talk in class about the book they are writing, when they actively ask for your ideas about their work, and allow you to collaborate. I participate in a seminar run everyweek by one of my professors, in which some of the most famous scholars working in the field come to present their work. It is intimate, fun, intense, and open to everyone, and lots of people (professors, graduate students, undergradustes) attend.</p>
<p>The reason Penn can do this without having the teaching suffer is that the departments are LARGER than those at a small LAC, so there are plenty of tenure-track faculty to go around.</p>