<p>
[quote]
For intro level econ the class size is not that important.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a matter of opinion. It could be argued that small classes are most important first semester freshman year in order to maximize the opportunity for new college students to become actively engaged in learning from day one. In many ways, brand new college students need the close interaction with faculty and active participation in the classroom even more than veteran college students.</p>
<p>I believe that the research in the field is quite clear that passive learning is not terribly effective. Remember, the whole point of a liberal arts education is not to fill the student with facts, but to develop the ability for critical thinking, logical analysis, and effective communication.</p>
<p>The logical extension of the "class size is not important" argument would be, "why bother with professors and classes?". Just read the book and, perhaps study a Power Point presentation on the internet.</p>
<p>If you believe that class size is not important, then you must also believe that getting written comments on papers and exam from professors or even discussiong papers one-on-one with the professors is not important either. But, how else is an 18 year old freshman supposed to learn? Isn't interaction with professors the reason customers pay $40,000 per year? Or is it the 100,000 seat football stadium?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Interestingly, the larger schools don't seem to pass along the cost savings to the consumer. For example, the very large UPenn does not price its product lower than the boutique store with much smaller classes ten miles away.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is unfair. The cost savings that the larger school realize on such efficiencies isn't just "profit" that could or should be returned to the students. Penn and its peers have some other costs, and the "savings" on teaching big lecture courses help make this kind of work possible. These schools are expected to be this nations' repositor of human knowledge, and to have the resources that allow its faculty and students to generate new research that advances knowledge. Penn and its peers have a far greater obligation than Haverford et al to maintain large and extensive library and museum collections, for just one example.</p>
<p>I'm not saying this is necessarily a more noble endeavor than focusing primarily on undergraduate education (and I recognize that some smaller colleges have fabulous specialized collections), but I think we do higher education a disservice when we don't recognize that different institutions play different roles.</p>
<p>I agree with hoedown. For example, many smaller schools spare themselves the cost of buying more books by simply paying for their faculty to use the library of larger universities and becoming part of a consortium with the larger libraries. In the Boston area, it's cheaper for a local university or college to pay several hundred dollars in membership fees for each prof who requests it to Harvard instead of buying more books. Not only has the cost of books increased, but so has the cost of associated services while space for books has shrunk.</p>
<p>From the point of view of the undergrad student and the tuition-paying parents, many of those very worthwhile and noble goals seem irrelevent. Why should the undergrad pay for research, repositories of human knowledge, large and specialized libraries, big semi-professional sports, or other major expenditures not related to undergrad education?</p>
<p>because "research, repositories of human knowledge, large and specialized libraries, big semi-professional sports, or other major expenditures not related to undergrad education" are what give schools their name in the outside world.</p>
<p>don't get me wrong, the best LACs have great names, but what do you think more people are familiar with, the no. 1 LAC Williams, or the no. 60ish university Purdue? You can associate that with athletics as well, but the facts are I as a lay person who knows next to nothing about Purdue can tell you that it has a pretty well known and well regarded engineering department
all i can tell you about williams is that its supposed to be good because its the no. 1 LAC. I couldn't name a good or well known department at the school.</p>
<p>now, i'm not saying that williams isn't as good or better as these schools with these big budgets and research expenditures, of course it is, but the facts are I couldn't tell you a thing about williams other than that its supposed to be really pretty and its known as a jock school. Not exactly something thats commendable for a school which is no. 1.</p>
<p>on a side note, the only LACs which i can tell you i've <em>heard</em> have excellent departments would be Middlebury's language program, and Bucknells engineering/business programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
From the point of view of the undergrad student and the tuition-paying parents, many of those very worthwhile and noble goals seem irrelevent. Why should the undergrad pay for research, repositories of human knowledge, large and specialized libraries, big semi-professional sports, or other major expenditures not related to undergrad education?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, not all of these things are unrelated to undergrad education.</p>
<p>But I get your point, and I wouldn't argue with you. Indeed, many students make a clear and specific choice to go to a place that doesn't invest in those other things. I did myself--it's a valid decision, IMHO. </p>
<p>I was simply pointing out that I didn't think it was right to expect a larger school to "pass on the savings" to undergrads if Econ 101 is cheaper to teach to 250 students at a sitting.</p>
<p>Edad, for many students the non- instructional portion of the college experience is in fact, what makes the experience "worth" the huge tuition payments. At some colleges, the typical final paper for a Renaissance Art class involves a trip to the Metropolitan museum or the Smithsonian.. where you get to gawk at a famous painting for a few hours along with hordes of other museum visitors. At other colleges, it involves hanging out for a week in the university's own library and working with both the professor and curators examining various works in the universities collection. Or a non-science major, even in one of those large intro classes at a major research university we all like to hate, gets to spend time working at a world-class observatory in an "intro to astro-physics" class. Not reading about it, not hearing a lecture about it, but living it.</p>
<p>You can choose a small teaching oriented college; you can choose a large research U- in both cases, you don't get an opinion when the provost or board is making decisions about how to spend finite resources. For my money, I am very satisfied with the depth and breadth of the opportunities, even for undergrads, that come about from the research U's investment in creating and preserving knowledge of all kinds, even if my own kid can't take advantage of every museum, every lab, and every library during four years.</p>
<p>And I must disagree with the overall assumption that big lecture is bad, small seminar is good. My most profound experiences in college were in courses of the "professor is so famous you have to take the class even if you aren't interested in the subject" ilk. Guess what.... thousands of undergrads over the years can't be wrong. I would rather share a lecture hall with 999 other people and hear Sears Jayne lecture on Hamlet, than sit in a small room with 19 other no-nothing post-adolescents and hear them blather about the same subject. </p>
<p>Not every big class is a passive experience, not every small class yields great intellectual nuggets.</p>
<p>When I was at Wisconsin the largest class every semester was Harvey Goldberg's history class. EVERY class session ended with a round of applause. There were no questions--that was for discussion but you got to hear one man's passionate interpretation of history straight from his lips to your ears. </p>
<p>
[quote]
think we do higher education a disservice when we don't recognize that different institutions play different roles.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely. That's why I often use the retail analogy -- the large department store versus the boutique store with a limited selection but more personalized service. Although, in many ways, the corporate conglomerate probably best describes the direction of the modern university over the last few decades. </p>
<p>BTW, I was being facetious about giving price reductions (maybe they could call them Red Tag Rebates or Blue Light Specials or something) for large, inexpensive lecture classes. I think it's been pretty well established that college pricing has nothing to do with the cost of production and everything to do with what the market will bear.</p>
<p>Interesteddad- do you have 1 shread of evidence that high diversity or lower S/F ratios improve the quality of education fr the student body as a whole? Did it ever occur to you that some people develop the skill of surviving and thriving in the large school atmosphere and learn intensly in an environment without being babied. Maybe for the large majority of college students and people alike, this is an excellent skill to hone.</p>
<p>i am sick and tired of people touting "diversity" this and "more teachers" that. Other than making people feel good or anecdotal stories, there is no evidence that students learn more english, math, science or philosophy becaues 25% of their class is international. In fat a strong case can be made that non english speaking faculty and classmates actually impede learning.</p>
<p>The issue is not one of "babying." The evidence on learning is clear and has been for some decades. When people are actively engaged in learning (talking, hands on exercises, etc.) they learn more and retain more than if they are passive (simply listening). This appears to be true for almost all people regardless of prior background, though there is evidence that those who have been mostly trained in a lecture environment will resist alternate methods at first. That's very predictable.</p>
<p>Early returns from neurological research using brain imaging are supporting this issue. Maybe there will be some conflicting results down the road. That's always possible. But for right now, it appears a virtual certainty that pure lecture classes yield inferior results to classes in which there is lecture, discussion, exercises, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i am sick and tired of people touting "diversity" this and "more teachers" that. Other than making people feel good or anecdotal stories, there is no evidence that students learn Ci am sick and tired of people touting "diversity" this and "more teachers" that. Other than making people feel good or anecdotal stories, there is no evidence that students learn more english, math, science or philosophy becaues 25% of their class is international. In fat a strong case can be made that non english speaking faculty and classmates actually impede learning.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Tarhunt answered your question about active versus passive learning.</p>
<p>As to your diversity question, you have posed the question in a way that I can't address. IMO, the value of a college education has nothing to do with learning "more english, math, science or philosophy." Instead, the value of college primarily centers around developing the ability for critical thinking (which by definition involves examining any issue from multiple viewpoints) and written/verbal communication skills.</p>
<p>I think anyone looking at the nature of the world economy over the next fifty years will immediately understand that, in order to be effective leaders, today's college students must be able to operate in a global environment and successfully interact with people from countries and cultures different than their own. So, yes, I would argue that a college without diversity is providing a substandard educational experience for tomorrow's leaders.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Did it ever occur to you that some people develop the skill of surviving and thriving in the large school atmosphere and learn intensly in an environment without being babied. Maybe for the large majority of college students and people alike, this is an excellent skill to hone.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are basically arguing that overcoming a bad learning environment is beneficial to the student. While there is certainly some truth that a student successfully overcoming the environment will be stronger, it seems like an odd argument to make for a service that costs $40,000 per year.</p>
<p>It would be like a review of an expensive restaurant that points out the unsanitary conditions as a benefit because, if you survive the bacteria, your system will be stronger.</p>
<p>There is a BIG difference between a lack of handholding and a bad learning environment. The big schools have tremendous resources but nobody will come looking for you to use them. You have to do some legwork and seek it out. Kind of like real life.</p>
<p>You and I agree about the inherent nature of the large university. Fabulous resources for a few highly motivated students at the expense of large numbers of students who are lost in the shuffle to one degree or another. </p>
<p>The losers in the model are 18 year old kids who find themselves anonymous, adrift, and without community their first year and, therefore, never really find the "good stuff". I think this plays a role in the relatively lower graduation rates at large universities.</p>
<p>Remember, college is first and foremost a transition period from childhood to adulthood. Not every child automatically learns to swim by being thrown into the deep end. Some would drown without some personal instruction.</p>
<p>The scary part is that nobody really knows, in advance, how prepared they will be for the sink or swim routine until they get to college.</p>
<p>It's not a life sentence. That's why they have transfers both ways. I met lots of transfers at UW and outside of the instate ones from other state campuses, many were from place like Bucknell, Union, Smith, the midwest LAC's etc looking for a more exciting adult style environment. </p>
<p>What plays a larger role in lower grad rates in WAY more kids are working their own way through school. I hardly knew anyone who did not have a job.
Here's a nice little story on one of them.</p>
<p>By Doug Moe
I MAY as well warn you right now that this story is about black fishnet stockings. There's a red feather in it, too.</p>
<p>What can I say? Readers contact John Nichols about presidential elections. They contact me about cocktail waitress attire.</p>
<p>In this instance, a reader called my attention to a story about female executives in the business section of Sunday's New York Times.</p>
<p>Featured prominently was Carol Bartz, one of the first female CEOs in the country. Now retired, Bartz in the 1990s (and until last year) ran a hugely successful Silicon Valley high-tech company called Autodesk.</p>
<p>What caught the eye of my correspondent was this sentence: "After working her way through college at the University of Wisconsin in Madison as a cocktail waitress (required uniform: red miniskirt, black fishnets and red feather in hair), Ms. Bartz graduated with a computer science degree in 1971."</p>
<p>Here we go again!!!! Point-Counterpoint about public vs private or LAC vs Research Univ. The only thing I miss is, "Jane, you ignorant slut".</p>
<p>I believe that any particular student can receive a wonderful education in either environment. The essential ingredients are an inspiring and talented instructor and an enthusiastic and dedicated student. This mentor/student combination will be found on every college campus.</p>
<p>If the quality of education can, in some measure, be evaluated based on career "success" using salary as one metric, then it matters little if a particular student attends a public, private, LAC or research univeristy. Cal-Berkeley, UNC-CH, Hamilton, Wesleyan and 100's of others are wonderful colleges offering their students a quality education allbeit it different learning environments.</p>
<p>You y'all can argue back and forth futily trying to change each others mind. But I say both sides are right and both sides are wrong.</p>