<p>barrons:</p>
<p>That sounds interesting. Too bad I can't read it online.</p>
<p>I am not letting the faculty off the hook for education. I am saying that, as one progresses through higher education, the classroom becomes progressively less important. The most important part of graduate school for a doctoral degree takes place after a student has finished all the courses they are going to take. For junior and senior undergrads, and some more advanced frosh and sophomores, the time they spend on independent projects is far more educationally valuable than anything that could happen in class. So what counts is the overall educational experience, of which the classroom is a small and progressively less important part.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that hoedown's point about different student goals, motivation, ability and ambition will explain large proportions of the differences in raw outcomes. That is why I suggested correcting for input factors. </p>
<p>Across all colleges, the difference in these student factors between, say Harvard and Brand X College with mean SAT of 1000, will overwhelm anything the faculty could do. It is like coaching a basketball team. Without ever setting foot on the court, I could coach the Florida team to beat Harvard. "Go out and play" The difference in talent is too great for any amount of teaching to overcome. </p>
<p>One could compare the outcomes from Harvard to those of Yale, or Williams to Amherst. These colleges enroll similar student bodies on the important characteristics. The differences in educational outcomes for such similar student bodies could be attributed to the work the college has done. </p>
<p>Given the similarity in outcomes between the two pairs I suggest, one might expect little difference in measured educational effectiveness. Note that an individual student might do very much better at one of the universities or one of the LAC's. This is an individual student characteristic, and not a basis for saying one or the other model of education is superior.</p>
<p>So the real question may not be "which college does a better job of educating its students on average, controlling for differences in student characteristics?" but instead "for a given student, with her ability, motivation, learning style, extracurricular and work obligations, which college would provide the best education?" For the large number of students entering college each year, there could be many different "best colleges". </p>
<p>Even for students whose primary goal is the best traditional academic education, and this describes a small minority of students, the "best college" question will have many different answers.</p>
<p>"Part of your response almost seems to place all of the onus on the student. Am I misinterpreting your comments?"</p>
<p>Hawkette, college isn't high school, where part of the onus is placed on the teacher. 100% of the learning process in college falls squarely on the shoulder of the student. Faculty should/must definitely help if the student takes the initiative, but professors have more important things to do than baby sit 20 year old adults.</p>
<p>"many faculty members at larger universities have research responsibilities that crowd out their efforts/interest in classroom instruction. For the larger public universities, this is especially true as compared to professors at a smaller university or LAC."</p>
<p>That has nothing to do with public vs private university . It has everything to do with research vs non-research university. Faculty at major research universities will alway have a conflict of interest between teaching and research.</p>
<p>"The problem with this is that those professors with high reputation value will often have a much smaller, or even no, role in classroom instruction and thus there is a mismatch of faculty reputation and what the student experiences in the classroom."</p>
<p>From my experience, most very famous professors who are at the cutting edge of the fields teach high level undergraduate courses to a small number of undergrads. That was certainly my experience at large research universities.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I believe there is a big difference between a famous professor giving a series of lectures about their fascinating research, and a famous professor teaching a lower level undergraduate course in which they are really not very much interested in. The latter is what happens most frequently and it's what we are referring to here.</p>
<p>One of the best genetics profs of this era liked to teach undergrad intro classes and did so for many years. So did a famous psychology prof (Harry Harlow) and many others. You are pulling conclusions out of your butt with no support.</p>
<p>James Crow is Professor Emeritus of Genetics at University of Wisconsin, where he has taught since 1948. During his years at Wisconsin, Crow has served as chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics and the Laboratory of Genetics. He also served as Acting Dean of the UW Medical School for 2 years. Additionally, he has been President of the Genetics Society of America and the American Society of Human Genetics. Crow received his Ph.D. from University of Texas, Austin in 1941 and has been studying the population genetics of Drosophila and humans ever since. His research has ranged from investigations of the genetics of DDT resistance to the effects of small mutations on the overall fitness of populations. Crow has made numerous contributions to genetics, including: playing a significant role in the development of the concept of genetic load; writing the popular "Genetics Notes" guide for beginning genetics students (which has gone through eight editions and has been translated into several languages); and co-authoring the classic population genetics textbook, An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory (1970), with Motoo Kimura.</p>
<p>Crow has also spent much of his career tackling profoundly difficult issues at the intersection of science and society. Indeed, from 1955-1983, he served on various National Academy of Science committees that focused on the biological effects of ionizing radiation. Recently, he turned his attention to the development of genetic identification technologies that are used to determine paternity and convict criminals. From 1994-1996, he chaired the NAS's Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science; and from 1998-2000, he chaired the Department of Justice's Working Group on the Future of DNA Technology. A truly interdisciplinary scholar, Crow has also made significant contributions to the literature on history of genetics. Since 1987, Crow has regularly contributed to, and served as co-editor of, the "Perspectives: Anecdotal, Historical, and Critical Commentaries on Genetics" section of Genetics (several essays written for this column were recently collected and published as an edited volume by University of Wisconsin Press). In addition, he has also published several articles in peer-reviewed historical journals. Crow is also an accomplished musician, and performed with the Madison Symphony Orchestra from 1949-1994. He served as President of the MSO from 1984-1986.</p>
<p>Alexandre,
I can't believe the insulting nature of your comment,</p>
<p>"professors have more important things to do than baby sit 20 year old adults"</p>
<p>Do you really believe this? Do you really support the idea that good classroom teaching with high student-professor interaction amounts to baby-sitting? I find this comment incredibly ...I don't know what to call it without you siccing the CC police on me again. </p>
<p>Alexandre, it's about teaching and many, many professors at many terrific colleges take this responsibility seriously and appreciate the opportunity to teach and develop the critical thinking skills of their students. Many professors actually like this! It sounds like the only thing you support faculty doing is research and that the faculty have no responsibility if the students don't get anything out of their classes. If ANY school has that attitude, then IMO students would be wise to avoid that school, undergraduate or graduate, at all costs.</p>
<p>I hear you moviebuff, and I agree. Professors generally don't get a kick out of teaching intro classes. Then again, the material is so plain and straight forward that students should be able to handle the material easily on their own. But there are plenty of high profile professors who teach intro and intermediate classes and enjoy it. One of my favorite professors was Sidney Fine, a leading US History academic (retired at this stage). That guy loved teaching intro level classes. His lectures had over 100 students in them and he still managed to make an effort to know students by name. When I took his class back in the fall of 1992, he must have been 70 years old, but he was still extremely effective. Raymond Tanter (now at Georgetown) and Kenneth Lieberthal generally teach upperclassmen, but they also teach intro classes and they also really get involved. John Holland also thought underclassmen and he definitely loved it. Hal Varian (now at Cal) also taught intermediate Microeconomics and although he always had an attitude, he took his class very seriously. I can go on with the list of professors who are leaders in their field who genuinely cared about the quality of undergraduate instruction...and that's just at one research university.</p>
<p>It's nice to know that we faculty aren't really needed. I think we should just have a large library and let the students hang out for four years, then give them a degree. ;-)</p>
<p>hawkette:</p>
<p>since you support student surveys, you might want to check out the current issue of PR. Cal Tech is rated a 73 on academics....guess their students ain't too happy. :)</p>
<p>hawkette,</p>
<p>When Alex said "babysitting", I believe he meant to emphasize the point that in college, it's the student's responsibility to make an education for himself, and not expect professors to hand an education to them on a gold platter. He did not mean an emphasis on teaching amounts to baby-sitting. </p>
<p>At least that's how I see it. But if he meant it the way you saw it, then I'm going to sigh and just say that just as it's the student's responsiblity to make an education, it is the institution's responsibility to provide the resources required. I think a responsibility to teach (like many of the great profs Alex pointed out) is an extremely vital quality to any educational institution and that's why I am for classroom teaching as an additional criteria. But it's incredibly difficult to measure at this point.</p>
<p>To no one in particular, but for those research uni supporters who love to bash LACs to no end about us being nothing but nurseries, I've said the same thing until I'm almost as blue in my anonymous internet face as the border of CC. I wanted an LAC because I DIDN'T want to run away from professors using large classes and lectures as cover. I wanted to push myself to prepare for each and every single class and then hold it up to the test via my peers and my prof. I wanted breadth of study to challenge myself to take up courses in fields that I previously avoided. That's why I chose an LAC - not because I want a prof who does a great job of spoon-feeding me with baby intro class food. If I wanted to be baby-sitted, in the freaking name of all that is good, a well written textbook will be more than sufficient for that purpose. Get that into your heads.</p>
<p>"I can't believe the insulting nature of your comment..."</p>
<p>Who did I insult?</p>
<p>"I don't know what to call it without you siccing the CC police on me again."</p>
<p>I am not sure I know what you are talking about Hawkette. Sounds like a pretty serious accusation.</p>
<p>"Do you really support the idea that good classroom teaching with high student-professor interaction amounts to baby-sitting?"</p>
<p>Not at all. I think good classroom teaching is very important. As my post #47 clearly states, some of the leading minds in the country take their teaching very seriously. I was referring to the fact that those professors have other responsibilities...like the development of mankind. If students want to interact with those professors, they had better make an effort and not expect those professors to hold their hands and tell them bedtime stories. Your picture af university education is scary Hawkette. 18 year olds are full blow adults. If they cannot take care of themselves, nobody can. I'd understand if we were talking about 8 or 12 year old children. But past the age of 16, it is every man (or woman) for him/herself. Professors aren't there to wipe our backside. They are there to help us help ourselves. If a serious student takes the initiative and is serious about education, there aren't many professors (whether it is a Nobel Prize calibre Harvard intellectual or a less reknowned CC insctructor) who would not reciprocate.</p>
<p>I have a suggestion. For those of you who haven't read Plato's "Republic," read a bit of it. Get a sense for what Socrates did in his classes. Then answer the following two questions:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Is what happened in Socrates' classes valuable? If your answer is "no," we have nothing more to discuss. We'll simply have to disagree.</p></li>
<li><p>Can what Socrates did be duplicated in a very large class?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The answers, if there are any, should be interesting.</p>
<p>"1. Is what happened in Socrates' classes valuable? If your answer is "no," we have nothing more to discuss. We'll simply have to disagree."</p>
<p>It is very valuable in the study of Philosophy, Law and other Humanities. It is not as useful in the case of intro level courses or in the case of the hard sciences, Mathematics and Engineering.</p>
<p>"2. Can what Socrates did be duplicated in a very large class?"</p>
<p>No. Once a class has more than 30 students, the Socratic Method isn't as effective. Ideally, a class should have no more than 20 or 25 students for the Socratic Method to truly work. </p>
<p>Now let me ask you a question Tarhunt. </p>
<p>What American university was the first to use the Seminar (Socratic method)approach?</p>
<p>Socrates would have been a lousy engineering or chemistry professor.</p>
<p>Alexandre:</p>
<p>No idea. And we disagree rather strongly, I'm afraid. You see, I see what went on in Socrates' class as building basic thinking skills, and it's "skills" that are the issue here, I believe. The process of rational inquiry and, more importantly I think, Socrates' questions that revealed to the students, themselves, where they had wandered into unproductive avenues so that they incorporated corrections on a deep level apply to all walks of life. </p>
<p>So, we disagree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Part of your response almost seems to place all of the onus on the student. Am I misinterpreting your comments?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, you are. You're missing where I said this:</p>
<p>"It doesn't make learning assessments invalid, but it does complicate their interpretation, especially in regard to how much they reflect faculty quality."</p>
<p>Let me give you an example of pseudo-Socratic teaching in mathematics.</p>
<p>My high school geometry teacher made us close our textbooks one day. He then drew a rectangle on the board, divided it into a grid, and asked us to determine the area. This was a fairly straightforward thing, of course, and we knew the answer, reducing it to a formula fairly quickly. He then drew a triangle and told us, based on what we know about the area of the rectangle, to determine the forumula for determining the area of the triangle.</p>
<p>We had a lot of questions and pushback. Naturally, we tried to divide the triangle into little squares but what we got were some squares and a bunch of triangles. We protested that it couldn't be done. We railed against him and begged him to give us the answer.</p>
<p>In the end, one of us figured out that, if you draw lines perpendicular to the triangle's base until they reach the apex of the triangle, and then draw a line parallel to the base, you get a rectangle. The additional areas withing that rectangle appeared to be equal to the area of the original triagle.</p>
<p>And the light went on. Any triangle's area is going to be half that of a rectangle drawn with the same base and height. 1/2 base x height = area.</p>
<p>I have NEVER forgotten the equation for a triangle's area. My wife, who was taught in the traditional way, always needs to look it up.</p>
<p>Anecdotal? Sure. But it's an illustration, I think, of the value of the Socratic method in teaching math well.</p>
<p>That's interesting in theory. But does anyone know of any national research univesities offering small classes (under 20) in Calculus I or General Chemistry, taught by real professors of course?</p>
<p>Sounds like a waste of valuable teaching resources to me.</p>
<p>Btw, I was taught in the tradition way and I have no problem remembering how to calculate the area of triangle.</p>
<p>Tarhunt:</p>
<p>You raise a valid point, but ignore that most large Unis also have small discussion/recitation sections. So, even with a lecture hall of ~800, the class is subdivided into sections of ~25. Taught by a TA? Most likely, but not necessarily bad, IMO, since many pre- and post-docs can teach as well.</p>
<p>We don't disagree Tarhunt. I admire your idealism. I wish college students could spend 2-3 years taking intro level classes. But unfortunately, today's academic pace does not allow for too much deliberation at the introductory level. Students are expected to learn the basics fast. Intermediate and advanced classes at all major LACs and universities are generally small (fewer than 30 students). It is in those intermediate and advanced level classes where students, who are expected to have learned the basics well at the intro levels, are supposed to contribute to the learning process.</p>
<p>There is no ideal learning environment. A huge research school like Harvard or Columbia, with its research-oriented faculties, will tend to sometimes ignore its underclassmen but will generally offer upperclassmen opportunities that smaller schools can only dream of. Smaller schools will offer very personalized and individualized settings for underclassmen but upperclassmen will probably have limited options.</p>