<p>
</p>
<p>Not as knowledgeable as university professors, who:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and therefore, who know from first hand experience that:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and, therefore:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only posts I write with “certainty” are those where I back the certainty up with evidence, and when I state an opinion, I clearly mark it as such. (Or most of the time; I’m sure you can find some places in 2500 posts where I’ve slipped up.) And I don’t demean those holding opposite positions, only the positions themselves when they are stated as fact and have no evidence to back them up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do you define “qualified,” specifically as it relates to teaching undergraduates?</p>
<p>“And which makes me wonder - why would anyone want to send their kids to such places for undergraduate education?”</p>
<p>Because they’re “ranked higher”.</p>
<p>This thread has devolved into a debate over research versus LACs. I’m in the high quality research camp with opportunites to benefit from the top grad school level opportunities available to top undergrads. Fortunately not on the east coast with its myriads of LACs and inattention paid to public U’s. Glad to be away from the name dropping of schools that don’t matter away from nor compare to many schools west of that region. Especially since typical liberal arts degrees don’t matter except as proof of learning how to think, unlike STEM degrees which add (not substitute) concrete knowledge.</p>
<p>Back to the original point. I like the comment about transferring teams. Times and economics have changed since this seemingly average associate professor was hired. It sounds like he isn’t as valuable to the school as when he was hired. They need more teaching for their dollars spent- if he quits there are plenty of people willing to take the job as it now is offered. It will be interesting to see what becomes of his grievance. I don’t think verbal promises should carry the same weight as written contracts, especially since written contracts usually come with time limits and then are renegotiable unlike this verbal arrangerment. The university may have to pull some nasty tricks regarding his performance and their expectations which could hurt him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly …</p>
<p>annasdad: the best college depends on the kid</p>
<p>If a student at a major university isn’t challenged by the basic premed curriculum, they are probably not going to be happier at most LACs. I emphasize “most.”</p>
<p>Even if you believe Deresiewicz’s criticisms of Yale, if your kid wants to study X and Yale has the very best program in the country for X, what are you going to do? The best program based on peer assessments and opportunities post grad? </p>
<p>Are you going to tell your kid to go to an LAC and take a general curriculum and wait for grad school to study X? Because probably that kid can get into Yale for grad school coming from certain LACs.</p>
<p>Or maybe you will look for an LAC where there is a famous professor of X, who will teach independent studies to your kid most terms and send your kid to study with someone famous-in-the-field abroad junior year.</p>
<p>Or maybe your kid doesn’t know what he or she wants to study. Then an LAC may be the very best option.</p>
<p>I think it is valid to criticize elite universities but so far I don’t understand the point of your criticisms. Different people need different educational options. I think there are real problems with elite schools but the education they provide is not really debatable imho.</p>
<p>obviously your mileage varies but I can’t understand why</p>
<p>annasdad, no idea if you’re choosing not to respond to my post above or if you’ve put me on your “ignore” list, but your thesis that professors overwhelmingly choose LACs for their kids is (to be blunt) wrong. The actual research paper data (the facts, if you will) shows that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re going to accept that thesis, consider this quote from the Siegfried and Getz article. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve made it clear before that you don’t feel that highly prestigious schools offer the best education. You’ve also stated that university professors are highly knowledgeable about the “best” institutions to which to send their children for an education, as represented by the Siegfried and Getz results. Those two opinions don’t logically jibe. Pick your poison.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On that, we are in complete agreement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think academic challenge is the variable. I’m sure that you can find schools of all types at which some programs are not going to challenge the exceptionally well-prepared undergraduate. The Andrew Roberts book excerpt I linked upthread makes this point, which I think is spot on:</p>
<p>
[quote]
consider the conclusion of two researchers who reviewed hundreds of studies on the effects of universities: “on just about any outcome, and after taking account of the characteristics of the students enrolled, the dimensions along which American colleges are typically categorized, ranked, and studied, such as type of control, size, and selectivity, are simply not linked with important differences in student learning, change, or development.” … the difference is not between colleges, it is between students who suck the juice out of them and those who don’t. Universities are more or less the same. What is different is what students take away from them.<a href=“emphasis%20added”>/quote</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But what is debatable, based on the just-quoted citation, is whether an “elite school” provides a better education than a less-elite school, and the evidence cited in the quotation would lead one to conclude that it does not.</p>
<p>Sorry, SlitheyTove, didn’t mean to offend you by not responding to your post. No, you’re not on my ignore list.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My “thesis” is that professors at universities choose LACs in greater numbers than does the population at large, after controlling for the cited factors; and that those professors are intimately knowledgeable about the state of undergraduate education at (at the very least) their own institutions; and that perhaps they know something that the prestige-hungry public at large does not. My evidence is the cited study. What is “wrong” about that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s logically inconsistent? University professors choose LACs in a higher proportion than does the general public; prestige has little or nothing to do with the quality of education. Those are not mutually exclusive positions.</p>
<p>students can only suck out what juice is available
some elite schools just have more juice</p>
<p>but we could argue some people are autodidacts and don’t need college at all</p>
<p>some people are really snobby about LACs even if you haven’t run into them</p>
<p>I hope you respond to SlitheyTove. I don’t have time right now to try and see if the book you linked to is a serious study.</p>
<p>And, once again, what could have been an interesting conversation about the changing nature of education in a challenging economy degenerates into typical CC polarization and name calling…</p>
<p>As in post 8?</p>
<p>“Teaching takes a LOT of time. Even if you don’t have to prep a class (meaning you’ve taught it before), you still have to revamp and edit your lectures, show up to the class, hold office hours, and grade whatever work you give.”</p>
<p>Whaaaa! . . . and if your team goes 6-6, you will get fired!</p>
<p>@strad- I think you helped set it off by suggesting that professors at large universities could care less about teaching. </p>
<p>On the contrary, I’ve had very few professors that weren’t absolutely passionate about being there. I’m sure there’s some, I just haven’t had them at my VERY large state U.</p>
<p>So 23% of university professors “send” their kids to LACs, vs. 14% for other people earning over 100K, and this is supposed to show that these insiders know that LACs are better? A larger percentage of them send their kids to research universities. Even the LAC profs send their kids to universities 31% of the time. The figures don’t bear out the headline.</p>
<p>@ annasdad and romanigypsieyes…yep… :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>annasdad, here are some quotes of yours from upthread:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look again at the numbers that I posted directly from the cited study. The offspring of professors at universities tend/choose/opt/ to go to universities, not LACs. The offspring of professors at LACs tend/choose/opt to go to LACs, not universities. There is no evidence here that either population thinks that LACs have more advantages over research universities. </p>
<p>In addition, those quotes from above are not the same as saying that “My “thesis” is that professors at universities choose LACs in greater numbers than does the population at large, after controlling for the cited factors”." Aside from a quibble with you about who “chooses” (unlikely that professors are dictatorially specificying exactly where their progeny should attend), this more nuanced statement is true. </p>
<p>Finally, you originally cited the CBS news report on a book. The CBS news reporter (or possibly the book’s author) asserted that the reason why professors “steer” their kids to LACs is because “these insiders understand that liberal arts college focus exclusively on educating undergraduates and offer a boutique education with small classes and personal attention from professors.” But the original paper’s conclusions aren’t as definitive. The emphasis on undergrad education at LACs is mentioned as one possibility among many for why professors’ children attend LACs in greater numbers than the general population. Note that the author of the CBS article has two children who are attending…LACs. </p>
<p>I’m being ridiculously detailed and pedantic here, but it’s because I think it’s incredibly important to look at original studies, NOT breathless news articles that make mountains out of molehills. CC parents tend to be sophisticated and educated, with the resources and training to go to the original source. It’s what we want our kids to do–we should be doing it, too. </p>
<p>As to the logical inconsistency, I’m going to lay it out in a bit more detail by putting words in your mouth–sorry about that, but it’s easier for me. 
“Professors steer their children to LACs in higher percentages than the general population. Those professors are insiders, and they’d know best what’s what in higher education. They care about education, not prestige. Therefore, LACs are endorsed by this cadre of knowledgeable experts as being the best option for higher education. I can tell that because that’s where they send their kids. I also think that the entire prestige thing is ridiculous, and that the schools with the highest level of prestige are not necessarily the best, educationally speaking. But the cited paper says that professors–those very insiders whose opinions I value–tend to send their children to higher prestige schools. If I accept that the professors’ knowledge is correct, then I must accept that prestigious schools are, in fact, of higher educational caliber. But I don’t accept that, because I’ve read another article where another professor said that those high-prestige schools aren’t all that.”</p>
<p>
I’m not sure these positions are inconsistent if your primary goal is to convince yourself that the Ivies aren’t worth the money.</p>
<p>Except that the original study says (as I quoted before) that "Better-informed consumers choose more selective, prestigious colleges and universities, primarily private research universities and selective liberal arts colleges. " Ivies are part of that, though of course not the alpha and omega.</p>